Jeremy Corbyn
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 The White Horse  08 Jan 16 2.58pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 08 Jan 2016 10.11am
Quote The White Horse at 08 Jan 2016 2.29am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Dec 2015 12.23pm
Are you talking about public perception or what the press say? There's a difference. Of course the press are trying to discredit him, the media barons are the ones with most to lose if Corbyn gains even more popularity. The press aren't just trying to discredit Corbyn, they're succeeding. As a Labour party supporter, I'd suggest there are two options available: 1) Eliminate right-wing bias in the media. I'd struggle to do the first option effectively. I think I could find at least 200 MPs who open up options on the second. I read this morning that over 85% of labour mp's want to go with an anti austerity agenda. Who in the leadership contest, other than Corbyn, campaigned on this agenda? Ignoring the fact that "anti austerity" means different things to different people, why did more than 85% of the MPs in question support the other 3 candidates in the contest?
"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 08 Jan 16 3.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote The White Horse at 08 Jan 2016 2.56pm
Quote nickgusset at 08 Jan 2016 10.06am
Quote npn at 08 Jan 2016 9.42am
Quote nickgusset at 08 Jan 2016 9.30am
Quote The White Horse at 08 Jan 2016 2.29am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Dec 2015 12.23pm
Are you talking about public perception or what the press say? There's a difference. Of course the press are trying to discredit him, the media barons are the ones with most to lose if Corbyn gains even more popularity. The press aren't just trying to discredit Corbyn, they're succeeding. As a Labour party supporter, I'd suggest there are two options available: 1) Eliminate right-wing bias in the media. I'd struggle to do the first option effectively. I think I could find at least 200 MPs who open up options on the second.
More members = more people canvassing and arguing the toss on the doorsteps of the nation. Must have some impact? My "mate Dave" works for the Labour Party and nationally and locally the number of people canvassing for the party has absolutely plummeted since the last election despite the membership doubling. Has it anything to do with the fact that there are no elections on the horizon?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| The White Horse 08 Jan 16 3.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 08 Jan 2016 9.30am
Get rid of a leader who has seen membership of the labour party bigger than it's been for a long long time? A mistake I feel. The inherent absurdity of this line of argument for me is that it implies that Ed Miliband was "Tory lite" (and so were all other options besides Corbyn). There's a world of difference between full blown Blairites and centre left politicians like Brown, Miliband, Cooper, Burnham and so on. The whole reason Labour politicians divided into Blairite/Brownite camps was this political difference. As has been pointed out, these people (a couple of hundred thousand members) also aren't representative of the public. If what Labour members voted for correlated with what the general public (or even just voters sympathetic to Labour wanted), there would be some sort of boost in the polls. Yet after two of the most unpopular leaders in decades (Brown & Miliband), Corbyn still hasn't attracted additional/returning support.
"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| The White Horse 08 Jan 16 3.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 08 Jan 2016 3.04pm
Has it anything to do with the fact that there are no elections on the horizon? There are Mayoral elections (including London), council elections in England and devolved elections in Wales and Scotland. If you compare the level of activity to the last similar time in the electoral cycle (Jan 2012), it's worse. Even in London where there is the highest membership in the country.
"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 08 Jan 16 3.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote The White Horse at 08 Jan 2016 3.13pm
Quote nickgusset at 08 Jan 2016 3.04pm
Has it anything to do with the fact that there are no elections on the horizon? There are Mayoral elections (including London), council elections in England and devolved elections in Wales and Scotland. If you compare the level of activity to the last similar time in the electoral cycle (Jan 2012), it's worse. Even in London where there is the highest membership in the country.
There's nothing else relevant about the number, or increase, in Labour memberships.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| We are goin up! Coulsdon 08 Jan 16 3.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote The White Horse at 08 Jan 2016 3.10pm
Quote nickgusset at 08 Jan 2016 9.30am
Get rid of a leader who has seen membership of the labour party bigger than it's been for a long long time? A mistake I feel. The inherent absurdity of this line of argument for me is that it implies that Ed Miliband was "Tory lite" (and so were all other options besides Corbyn). There's a world of difference between full blown Blairites and centre left politicians like Brown, Miliband, Cooper, Burnham and so on. The whole reason Labour politicians divided into Blairite/Brownite camps was this political difference. As has been pointed out, these people (a couple of hundred thousand members) also aren't representative of the public. If what Labour members voted for correlated with what the general public (or even just voters sympathetic to Labour wanted), there would be some sort of boost in the polls. Yet after two of the most unpopular leaders in decades (Brown & Miliband), Corbyn still hasn't attracted additional/returning support.
What the idiots who voted/wanted Corbyn fail to grasp is that the further left the Labour agenda goes, the less chance it has of winning. Why would anyone who voted Conservative this time round ever vote for Corbyn. It is absolute lunacy. You end up with a Tory government. I really don't think it's that difficult a concept to get your head round but many fail. Surely if you're a Labour supporter, Tory-lite is better than full-fat Tory???
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| We are goin up! Coulsdon 08 Jan 16 3.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
From the outside looking in, why Liz Kendall didn't get more votes I really don't know, I thought she was great.
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 08 Jan 16 4.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote The White Horse at 08 Jan 2016 3.10pm
Quote nickgusset at 08 Jan 2016 9.30am
Get rid of a leader who has seen membership of the labour party bigger than it's been for a long long time? A mistake I feel. The inherent absurdity of this line of argument for me is that it implies that Ed Miliband was "Tory lite" (and so were all other options besides Corbyn). There's a world of difference between full blown Blairites and centre left politicians like Brown, Miliband, Cooper, Burnham and so on. The whole reason Labour politicians divided into Blairite/Brownite camps was this political difference. As has been pointed out, these people (a couple of hundred thousand members) also aren't representative of the public. If what Labour members voted for correlated with what the general public (or even just voters sympathetic to Labour wanted), there would be some sort of boost in the polls. Yet after two of the most unpopular leaders in decades (Brown & Miliband), Corbyn still hasn't attracted additional/returning support. Those who are part of 'Progress' need to stop throwing their toys out of the pram!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| The White Horse 08 Jan 16 4.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote We are goin up! at 08 Jan 2016 3.46pm
A lot of these new members are barely even members. They paid the princely sum of £3 to get a vote in the leadership election. There's a massive difference between paying £3 to feel like you're involved and being an activist. The registered supporters don't count as members. The membership has pretty much doubled ignoring union members and £3 supporters. Quote We are goin up! at 08 Jan 2016 3.46pm
What the idiots who voted/wanted Corbyn fail to grasp is that the further left the Labour agenda goes, the less chance it has of winning. Why would anyone who voted Conservative this time round ever vote for Corbyn. It is absolute lunacy. You end up with a Tory government. I really don't think it's that difficult a concept to get your head round but many fail. Surely if you're a Labour supporter, Tory-lite is better than full-fat Tory??? It's just straightforward denial surely? I grew up in a Catholic, Conservative environment. I repeatedly got the feeling of "surely you don't actually believe everything's going to be ok?". You don't go to heaven, you rot in the ground. Capitalism doesn't solve poverty and inequality. I wish I could believe that a "real left alternative" would make Labour electable again. But I get the same feeling as when I hope that a benevolent God exists, or when I hope economic growth might benefit the poor. It just won't.
"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 08 Jan 16 4.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
If Corbyn is so unelectable, why has Cameron refused a yearly leaders debate? Why would Cameron not relish the idea, winning argument after argument against such a feeble opponent? If Corbyn is so unelectable, why do the media keep bandying about emotive phrases such as 'trotskyite'? If the election in 2020 is going to be such an easy landslide victory for the Tories, why are they hell-bent on changing electoral rules to benefit themselves? Is there really any need to go to so much trouble to reduce the number of non-Tory supporters eligible to vote, by rushing through individual electoral registration? What are the Tories frightened of? Indeed, there can be no need to change constituency boundaries in their favour when they face no real opposition, or to cut short money going to opposition parties. No need for precautions like these when they’re only up against an “unelectable” Labour Party.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| The White Horse 08 Jan 16 4.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 08 Jan 2016 4.13pm
Those who are part of 'Progress' need to stop throwing their toys out of the pram! Again, we come back to my dilemma earlier. Pick one of the following. I'd say the first option is very unlikely, since Corbyn is so far from them politically: 1) Stop centrists in the Labour Party from complaining. Did you see Diane Abbott on Newsnight on Wednesday Nick? The presenter asked her whether she thought the Blairites and Corbynites could find some way to work together without slagging one another off. She then said that all of those who had been sacked were special advisers resisting a change in political culture. The presenter pointed out that her answer suggested the answer was probably no.
"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Y Ddraig Goch  In The Crowd 08 Jan 16 4.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 08 Jan 2016 4.25pm
If Corbyn is so unelectable, why has Cameron refused a yearly leaders debate? Why would Cameron not relish the idea, winning argument after argument against such a feeble opponent? If Corbyn is so unelectable, why do the media keep bandying about emotive phrases such as 'trotskyite'? If the election in 2020 is going to be such an easy landslide victory for the Tories, why are they hell-bent on changing electoral rules to benefit themselves? Is there really any need to go to so much trouble to reduce the number of non-Tory supporters eligible to vote, by rushing through individual electoral registration? What are the Tories frightened of? Indeed, there can be no need to change constituency boundaries in their favour when they face no real opposition, or to cut short money going to opposition parties. No need for precautions like these when they’re only up against an “unelectable” Labour Party. i) A leader can rarely win those sorts of debates. ii)The left seem to think he is [Link] iii)Five years is a long time in politics
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.