The Student Room Group

Time for Labour to get a new leadership

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Original post by Alt Tankie
A) As a Tory, do you care what labour members think of your leader? Because we really hate Boris.

B) More Labour members voted for Corbyn than Tories for Boris.

C) For someone destroying the Labour Party how did he just win a by election and increase seats and vote share at the last GE?


A) No, Do you not think I hate Corbyn? I can't stand him.
B) Doesn't mean anything
C) How did he not win the GE then? He still lost against the weakest prime minister that's ever been in charge. Anyone with credibility could've have stormed that election given the opposition.
Original post by xDron3
A) No, Do you not think I hate Corbyn? I can't stand him.
B) Doesn't mean anything
C) How did he not win the GE then? He still lost against the weakest prime minister that's ever been in charge. Anyone with credibility could've have stormed that election given the opposition.


A) yes and this is s good thing. It should worry us when party leaders are in agreement with each other. Eg Cameron et al loved Blair and wanted to emulate him. Would you like it if Tory leaders wanted to emulate Corbyn? Of course not. Opposition parties should have a good space of disagreement between them.

B: You said he has divided the membership despite the membership overwhelmingly backing Corbyn. If I said Boris had divided the membership I’d be lying wouldn’t i? A lot of the people complaining aren’t even labour members.

C: May started off very strong with public approval at about 45% or more IIRC. There is also Brexit to contend with.
Reply 42
Original post by Alt Tankie
B: You said he has divided the membership despite the membership overwhelmingly backing Corbyn. If I said Boris had divided the membership I’d be lying wouldn’t i? A lot of the people complaining aren’t even labour members.

C: May started off very strong with public approval at about 45% or more IIRC. There is also Brexit to contend with.

I'm more on about the amount of voters who have fled to alternate parties, mainly Lib Dem + Green. My point is if Corbyn as a Labour Leader wasn't so controversial I'm sure he would be in charge by now. And in regards to May, I think the term 'started off with' is a strong indicator of how it turned out.
Original post by Alt Tankie
I wish this was the case and that most of the leftist were against Corbyn because of bad PR but the truth is a lot of them view left wing politics as a fad or a disposable consumer item like an iPad or a Netflix Account.

They’re kinda like a reverse Lumpenprole- bourgeoisie posers who do to socialism what X Factor does to music. Commercialises and sanitise itvto make it bland enough to a mass market so that it’s nothing like it’s original form. Funny how shows like that came about under the Blair era


Oh sure, most people are deluded and support leftist politics because they have no common sense, it might be bland and mass marketable (that is what socialism/ communism is meant to be) but that does not make it any less dangerous or sickening.

A deluded and idiotic communist is as dangerous as a smart and cruel communist, you only need one smart one to rule over millions of idiotic and feverent communists/socialists.
(edited 4 years ago)
It’s unlikely Corbyn will ever win an election so he needs to stand down and gets a winnable leader instead for Labour
I agree. Either Keir Starmer or Barry Gardiner.
Original post by AperfectBalance
Oh sure, most people are deluded and support leftist politics because they have no common sense, it might be bland and mass marketable (that is what socialism/ communism is meant to be) but that does not make it any less dangerous or sickening.

A deluded and idiotic communist is as dangerous as a smart and cruel communist, you only need one smart one to rule over millions of idiotic and feverent communists/socialists.


I can say the exact same thing about capitalists.

Socialism is meant to appeal to the masses to a degree but in a different way to capitalism. Eg we appeal to what people need : affordable housing, good public services etc- Capitalists, through advertising appeal to what people think they want but don’t actually need- eg Coca Cola and Cigarettes.
People keep talking about winning.

What’s the point in winning if we just get another Blair?
Original post by Alt Tankie
I can say the exact same thing about capitalists.

Socialism is meant to appeal to the masses to a degree but in a different way to capitalism. Eg we appeal to what people need : affordable housing, good public services etc- Capitalists, through advertising appeal to what people think they want but don’t actually need- eg Coca Cola and Cigarettes.


you appeal to what people need, but actually never manage to deliver as your economic policy is heavily flawed, Capitalism doesnt exactly go "look people we will increase coke production by 20% this year, vote conservative!" they do the exact same thing as socialists and communists yet we actually more often than not manage some success. But anyway, Capitalism and Communism are both not highly flawed systems that must be taken down.
Original post by AperfectBalance
you appeal to what people need, but actually never manage to deliver as your economic policy is heavily flawed, Capitalism doesnt exactly go "look people we will increase coke production by 20% this year, vote conservative!" they do the exact same thing as socialists and communists yet we actually more often than not manage some success. But anyway, Capitalism and Communism are both not highly flawed systems that must be taken down.

Wait so what economic system are you advocating for?
Original post by Alt Tankie
I can say the exact same thing about capitalists.

Socialism is meant to appeal to the masses to a degree but in a different way to capitalism. Eg we appeal to what people need : affordable housing, good public services etc- Capitalists, through advertising appeal to what people think they want but don’t actually need- eg Coca Cola and Cigarettes.


you appeal to what people need, but actually never manage to deliver as your economic policy is heavily flawed, Capitalism doesnt exactly go "look people we will increase coke production by 20% this year, vote conservative!" they do the exact same thing as socialists and communists yet we actually more often than not manage some success. But anyway, Capitalism and Communism are both not highly flawed systems that must be taken down.
Original post by Alt Tankie
Wait so what economic system are you advocating for?

Some third way alternative. move government control over certain industries.
Original post by AperfectBalance

Some third way alternative. move government control over certain industries.


Do you mean like blairism or something like China? Im in favour of the latter.

I’m in favour if capitalism on the small scale - small businesses with clear limits on how big they can develop etc but where essential services inc transport, finance, are under state control.

You can never really manage capitalism
Original post by Alt Tankie
Do you mean like blairism or something like China? Im in favour of the latter.

I’m in favour if capitalism on the small scale - small businesses with clear limits on how big they can develop etc but where essential services inc transport, finance, are under state control.

You can never really manage capitalism


Something closer to china yet with far less corruption and far more government scrutiny for non state controlled entities
Original post by Alt Tankie
People keep talking about winning.

What’s the point in winning if we just get another Blair?


Blair as in the only person ever to lead Labour to three consecutive general election victories?
Blair who was able to broaden the Labour Party's appeal to the extent that in 1997 he secured the votes of: floating voters, traditional Labour voters, traditional Lib Dem voters, disenchanted Conservative voters, revolutionary socialists, marxists and the politically homeless?
Blair who was able to restore peace and stability to much of northern ireland; after decades of endemic criminality bringing chaos to the streets practically on a daily basis?
Blair who was Labour's longest serving PM?

Blair was something of a political meteorite, as was Thatcher.
I say that as somebody who was too young to vote for either and will probably never vote Labour.
The observation of Roisin Conaty that it is like giving a heckler the microphone is very true in the case of Jeremy Corbyn.
corbyn is precious leave him alone
Original post by londonmyst
Blair as in the only person ever to lead Labour to three consecutive general election victories?
Blair who was able to broaden the Labour Party's appeal to the extent that in 1997 he secured the votes of: floating voters, traditional Labour voters, traditional Lib Dem voters, disenchanted Conservative voters, revolutionary socialists, marxists and the politically homeless?
Blair who was able to restore peace and stability to much of northern ireland; after decades of endemic criminality bringing chaos to the streets practically on a daily basis?
Blair who was Labour's longest serving PM?

Blair was something of a political meteorite, as was Thatcher.
I say that as somebody who was too young to vote for either and will probably never vote Labour.

Blair who helped privatise the nhs. Bring about tuition fees, presided over the financial crisis along with the Tories, killed hundreds of thousands in costly and pointless wars and left our vets to die on the streets, Blair who had since profited from dory lobbying companies etc et al.

I don’t care about pursuing power for its own sake. If I did i’d be a Tory.
Reply 57
Basically Boris ain't gonna get majority government even if Conservatives win, he then ends up with the same problem that May faced because he can't get no deal through parliament.

So then he ends up with exactly the same problem Theresa May faced, not enough support for his no deal/hard brexit scenario, EU not succumbing to his terms to create a good deal.

Honestly it really doesn't take a genius to find out what will happen.
Original post by AperfectBalance
Something closer to china yet with far less corruption and far more government scrutiny for non state controlled entities


Then you’re basically a commie too buddy 👍🏻

Corruption is inevitable to some degree in any system. In the West we often call it lobbying
Original post by Alt Tankie
Then you’re basically a commie too buddy 👍🏻

Corruption is inevitable to some degree in any system. In the West we often call it lobbying


Firstly china is not communist and I would only be nationalising Rail, Energy and other very vital things, the rest would be private and have some scrutiny from the government, Unions would also be fully banned.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending