Corbyn voted new labour leader.

I don't think theylle recover more than 1 or two MPs in Scotland - its nationalism that drove the SNP' to power not socialism (polls of SNP voters have shown their political beliefs to be further right than labour voters). Scotland is no further left than the rest of the country when it comes down to it.

He won't draw any voters from outside the industrial inner city areas which labour already hold. I know this, I campaigned in nuneaton and dudley last election.

The real telling factor will be whether he chooses Angela eagle as shadow chancellor. If its Jim McDonell the party's (even more) ****ed.

If you don't oppose them what is the point?


Posted from TSR Mobile

As a voter in Scotland I can tell you that shifting to the right to win Middle England has sunk the party here. Voting Labour offers something voting SNP does not, which is a party that can win power at Westminster.


Posted from TSR Mobile

If Corbryn ever became Prime minister I hope He introduces an act into parliament, whereby an employee can not be discriminated against for their appearance, e.g facial hair, tattoos, hair styles, by employees. I mean it is about time, we do live in the 21st century, Corbryn seems like the type of guy who would be for this.

As a non Scot you are disregarding the nationalist pull.

As a midlander you should understand this tactic won't bring any extra seats in the Midlands.

Hahaha what a joke. How old are you?

Tabling amendments is not the same as not opposing.

You don't want to end up like the greens in Brighton - forcing pickles to come and set your budget for you. It's about damage limitation.

I see people saying 'I didn't leave Labour, it left me', calling Labour candidates 'red Tories' and the SNP thriving off every time Labour sides with the Tories on a given issue. I am not Scottish but have lived here long enough to see why the Labour vote has evaporated. As for the Midlands argument I see the vast majority of urban constituencies voting Labour regardless of how awful the leader is but the less certain ones in my mind could be won round by a leader who engages with them in the manner Corbyn has done for months. Putting across his view, allowing people to question him directly.

David Cameron's 'Northern Powerhouse', ignoring the Midlands entirely, cannot count in his favour.


Posted from TSR Mobile

The fact is that if every Labour MP had voted against it would not have gone through and the Tories would have had to go back to the drawing board. They abstained because they were too afraid of standing out on something that might displease right wingers.

When you are in opposition you must hold the government to the highest scrutiny you can. So far we have seen passive acceptance.




Posted from TSR Mobile

Substituting actual policies that benefit the working class vs. Getting in to power for the sake of it. Hmm... I think Corbyn is the right choice compared to the Blairite ceonies.

You realise you're just reasserting your original position here? Why bother replying to me if you're not going to address a single thing I said?

The point is that your 'policies' mean nothing if you can't put them into effect. Nothing. The labour party is now pretty much the equivalent of an angry, scraggly old man in a pub ranting about how we should get rid of the monarchy. Principled, maybe, but completely irrelevant and also completely out of tune with the general population.

To be fair, I don't really see Burnham winning in 2020 either, absent some monumental cock-up on the Tory side. The point remains that a political party that has given up on trying to make itself marketable to the electorate in favour of saying whatever it wants is a genuine waste of bench space that could be occupied by people who actually want to do something.

Margaret Thatcher was allowed to shift the political debate firmly to the right, even saying Tony Blair and New Labour was her greatest achievement, the population haven't had a chance to be subject to a left wing debate in a long time, oh - apart from in Scotland (and we all know what happened there)

Can we stop obsessing with electability arguments? If Jeremy communicates a coherent vision for the future, the public will buy in to him.

Anyone who was not already a member could pay £3 to vote in it basically.

Who would you have voted for?

Yeah but winning already Labour seats in the midlands is irrelevant to the election outcome. Clearly Labour aren't about to lose Birmingham, especially after finally ridding it of Respect and the Lib Dems (although keep an eye on Yardley).

Places like Dudley though, I could never see them voting Corbyn. Met so many UKIPperss on the doorstep, and not 'labour doesn't have working people at heart' kippers, full blow I hate muslims kippers. Then there's all the suburbs, no way in hell they'lle vote conservative. They'lle think he's 'anti-aspiration' and will hate any extra tax.

You realise you're just reasserting your original position here? Why bother replying to me if you're not going to address a single thing I said?

The point is that your 'policies' mean nothing if you can't put them into effect. Nothing. The labour party is now pretty much the equivalent of an angry, scraggly old man in a pub ranting about how we should get rid of the monarchy. Principled, maybe, but completely irrelevant and also completely out of tune with the general population.

To be fair, I don't really see Burnham winning in 2020 either, absent some monumental cock-up on the Tory side. The point remains that a political party that has given up on trying to make itself marketable to the electorate in favour of saying whatever it wants is a genuine waste of bench space that could be occupied by people who actually want to do something.

I see. I would have voted if I'd known about it and had done some research into it but I've been so busy with work that I barely know whats happening in the news. I had no clue it was going on and I've got no opinion of Corbyn since I haven't a clue who he is or what his opinions are .

I hope i'm wrong.