if there was an election tomorow

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I would probably vote Green. They're the party I hate the least, although Labour is a close second. It's a shame that so many of Corbyn's MP's were backstabbing traitors who, like many extreme remainers, wanted a redo of the vote just because they "didn't like" the result first time round.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Had no idea Europe was so important to you. Any particular reason?
    I think we had an absolutely fantastic deal, half in half out. No Schengen, no euro, rebate, but full access to the single market with banking passport and votes in the EU institutions, we even got all the Schengen perks like Europol despite not being in it. Demographically (and even I believe with white people not immigrants) I believe we were on track to dominate the union by the 2030s which I found quite an exciting idea - this is why Merkel invited in the immigrants. Now all thrown away.

    I trust the EU on workers' and human rights with the Social Chapter - of course this is the point where the right started hating the EU and the left liking it. I emphatically do not trust the UK on this, with its Tory government, right-wing political culture and tabloid press.

    Similarly, the EU is austerian, neoliberal, and obsessed with privatisation (and I don't like the euro), but the UK is more so. One shudders to imagine how easily British politicians would submit to TTIP, ISDS and everything.

    I would accept an EEA exit (and I think would prefer it to full membership with euro etc), but it would result in us losing our seat at the table (this would cause some flight from the City, but as long as it's relatively small amount I think it's a good thing if finance gets spread around Europe a bit more). Hopefully EEA exit would also free us up to do some trade deals on top of our single market access which might make up for loss of influence.

    Plus we would be exempt from the costly CAP. (I'm sure the Tories would match CAP payments, but who knows, with luck and a fair wind we could even get a land tax going once people realise how their money is being handed over to large landowners regardless of whether they put it to use or not.) And exempt from fisheries so the people of Grimsby can start overfishing the North Sea again and will shut up.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    The Falklands is a non-issue anyway. The Argies can barely afford fuel and spare parts for their navy.
    Yes, that's why they make such a song and dance about it, to distract from economic problems at home with tub-thumping nationalism.

    I suppose when we declare the People's Republic of Great Britain less Northern Ireland and purge Tory politicians they will have somewhere they can feel at home.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    How do you justify him being paid to appear on Iranian TV after they were banned from the UK by Ofcom for airing forced confessions?

    Or writing to the CofE defending people who publicly blame the Jews for 9/11?

    Or describing Raed Salah as an "honoured citizen"?

    The Guardian article also says his excuses don't stand up. As I said in my other post, anyone anti-Israeli will do.
    I personally haven't seen his appearances on Iranian TV so I could not possibly comment on that considering I don't know why he was there or who he appeared with. I take what I read about Corbyn with a pinch of salt, no conspiracy here, there is good hard evidence to support my choice, so I cant take the word of a paper on this issue. I need to see it with my own eyes.

    I haven't seen the letter he wrote so I'm not sure of the context. Saying he defended them makes it sound like Jeremy himself, believes Jews are responsible for 9/11 which if that were the case, like I have said previously, would be mainstream knowledge by now.

    Jeremy has on occasions used the wrong words when describing some questionable people. Even he has admitted that. It is more his way of trying to keep the peace and keep an open dialogue though rather than some sort of praise for their actions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by New- Emperor)
    if there was an election tomorrow who would you vote for? I think I would vet for
    Lib Dem as they want to take us back in to the EU.

    The Tories seem to have got worse after Cameron (pig fancier) left office and
    now seem quite elitist.
    Labour are in disarray.

    I can't see/want UKIP in power so it seems to me that Lib Dem is my only option
    Nope there is another option
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slaw92)
    I personally haven't seen his appearances on Iranian TV so I could not possibly comment on that considering I don't know why he was there or who he appeared with. I take what I read about Corbyn with a pinch of salt, no conspiracy here, there is good hard evidence to support my choice, so I cant take the word of a paper on this issue. I need to see it with my own eyes.

    I haven't seen the letter he wrote so I'm not sure of the context. Saying he defended them makes it sound like Jeremy himself, believes Jews are responsible for 9/11 which if that were the case, like I have said previously, would be mainstream knowledge by now.

    Jeremy has on occasions used the wrong words when describing some questionable people. Even he has admitted that. It is more his way of trying to keep the peace and keep an open dialogue though rather than some sort of praise for their actions.
    Nice ducking of the questions I asked. Like I said this is all from before he was leader and his ongoing battle with the PLP.

    In other words it can't be justified.

    I used to think he was just a well meaning idiot until I discovered his history. At best he's very naive to associate with these people and clearly not fit to lead the country.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    That is mythology. In both elections Corbyn won convincingly with all categories of Labour members. Corbyn's victories have not been due to entryism.

    .
    So it's pure coincidence that hundreds of thousands joined the party who intended to vote for him at the same time that they were capable of doing so?

    I guess it's also pure coincidence that somebody I really dislike is right in front of me when I just happen to be swinging my fist through the air, definitely didn't swing with the intention of hitting them.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Slaw92;67761706]
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If you want to believe that will happen you can, but when the inherent socialism is so much lower than is needed for Corbyn to do well I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, further if there really is the unity you propose then it will almost certainly be with a split of the moderates, at which point Corbyn's Labour starts having to fend off the splinter group in terms of the popular vote, and all the meaningful media that traditionally supports Labour will be backing the splinter groups

    I do want to believe and I will, Corbyn is offering an alternative to the unfair austerity measures that have been placed on us, I believe when it is clearly stated what his alternative is you might be surprised how many will get behind it. It is a real struggle out there for millions of people, if there is hope clearly offered by a man pretty much everyone agrees, whether they like him or not, is the most honest politician in the country, I can see him gathering quite alot of support. I'm hoping for the best case scenario regarding the PLP, which is here is no split and they show support for the leader. They don't have to come out praising him, or agree with everything he says but the least they can do is to top running to the media every five minutes to stick the boot in.
    When your ideas are ones that have already been resigned to the footnote of the history book the last thing you want to do is going around shouting about it, it makes you far too easy to defeat.

    We live in a capitalist country that is pro monarchy and doesn't tend to like terrorists, who exactly are they going to elect a socialist who is anti monarchy and calls terrorists friends who only appears a week leader, weak on defence, and week on the economy? He fails at three of the main things people want in a PM.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So it's pure coincidence that hundreds of thousands joined the party who intended to vote for him at the same time that they were capable of doing so?

    I guess it's also pure coincidence that somebody I really dislike is right in front of me when I just happen to be swinging my fist through the air, definitely didn't swing with the intention of hitting them.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Oh no, they joined so they could vote. I was one of them! But normal people making an individual decision to join a party and vote for its leader isn't entryism. That's just normal people engaging with the democratic process because they've finally got a politician who represents them. Entryism is when a different, fringe party organises for its members to sign up for a larger party in order to influence that party.

    In any case, as I said, Corbyn won convincingly with all categories of Labour voter. He won with the registered supporters, as you say, and he also won with full members and with the trade union voters ("affiliated supporters").

    It seems Tories can't comprehend that some people just are left-wing, and haven't been brainwashed or blackmailed into voting for Corbyn by some shadowy SWP, Militant figure.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Oh no, they joined so they could vote. I was one of them! But normal people making an individual decision to join a party and vote for its leader isn't entryism. That's just normal people engaging with the democratic process because they've finally got a politician who represents them. Entryism is when a different, fringe party organises for its members to sign up for a larger party in order to influence that party.

    In any case, as I said, Corbyn won convincingly with all categories of Labour voter. He won with the registered supporters, as you say, and he also won with full members and with the trade union voters ("affiliated supporters").

    It seems Tories can't comprehend that some people just are left-wing, and haven't been brainwashed or blackmailed into voting for Corbyn by some shadowy SWP, Militant figure.
    It also seems the more you sit listening to them Corbynites can't comprehend that without the Labour brand he is nothing, so many of you are convinced that he will revolutionise a country where his ideas are seen as grossly incompetent and negligent, and where if his party were to split he would be fighting hard just to stay in second and get out of the teens while the Tories continue their march towards the 50pc

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slaw92)
    Yeah I agree with you, based on that polling, if the election was held tomorrow it would be highly unlikely Jeremy would be elected. There is still plenty of time for that to change, if the PLP get on board with him this time around I do think that there will be a drastic change to those figures in as little as six months.
    Why would the PLP get on board, when his private army have been essentially declaring war on them for months? They're so far apart ideologically, that there is no middle ground that would be acceptable to either of them.

    Momentum have already said all there is to about having no real desire to win an election. That's not on their agenda. What they're about is ideological purity. They want the Labour Party to change from a party of government, to a radical Marxist protest group - one with at least some representation. Winning the election and actually effecting change of any kind isn't part of any plan.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It also seems the more you sit listening to them Corbynites can't comprehend that without the Labour brand he is nothing, so many of you are convinced that he will revolutionise a country where his ideas are seen as grossly incompetent and negligent, and where if his party were to split he would be fighting hard just to stay in second and get out of the teens while the Tories continue their march towards the 50pc

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I am under no illusions: Corbyn has no chance of winning a majority or otherwise forming a government, although no way will the Tories poll 50%, even if Labour split. You always tend towards overstatement. Plus, as before, I suspect it would be the right-wingers splitting off and forming a new SDP, which goes nowhere. The Labour brand and infrastructure would remain with the socialists. And we would have let's say 150 socialist MPs in Parliament rather than 20.

    I am further under no illusions: Corbyn is not a charismatic leader, and would as you say be nowhere without the Labour brand. Unfortunately, we socialists are stuck with Corbyn, because if he stepped down there's no way the PLP would make the mistake of extending sympathy nominations to a socialist again. They are simply too disdainful of the constituency Labour parties and members, almost all socialists, whom they purport to represent.

    Corbyn, however, is not ineffective: he is giving voice to ideas which have been verboten in the political landscape for the past forty years. His presence has already dragged the Tories away from their commitment to impoverishing ordinary people through unending austerity, as well as on a number of other issues

    As I said up-thread, only this week Theresa May has stolen Corbyn's policy of rapprochement with Argentina over the Falklands. You may remember the hysterical screeching in the tabloid press about this when Corbyn suggested it, as well as Cameron's lie in the Commons that Corbyn wanted to give the Falklands away to Argentina. Can you explain why this has been entirely absent when it's May proposing the exact same thing?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I am under no illusions: Corbyn has no chance of winning a majority or otherwise forming a government, although no way will the Tories poll 50%, even if Labour split. You always tend towards overstatement. Plus, as before, I suspect it would be the right-wingers splitting off and forming a new SDP, which goes nowhere. The Labour brand and infrastructure would remain with the socialists. And we would have let's say 150 socialist MPs in Parliament rather than 20.

    I am further under no illusions: Corbyn is not a charismatic leader, and would as you say be nowhere without the Labour brand. Unfortunately, we socialists are stuck with Corbyn, because if he stepped down there's no way the PLP would make the mistake of extending sympathy nominations to a socialist again. They are simply too disdainful of the constituency Labour parties and members, almost all socialists, whom they purport to represent.

    Corbyn, however, is not ineffective: he is giving voice to ideas which have been verboten in the political landscape for the past forty years. His presence has already dragged the Tories away from their commitment to impoverishing ordinary people through unending austerity, as well as on a number of other issues

    As I said up-thread, only this week Theresa May has stolen Corbyn's policy of rapprochement with Argentina over the Falklands. You may remember the hysterical screeching in the tabloid press about this when Corbyn suggested it, as well as Cameron's lie in the Commons that Corbyn wanted to give the Falklands away to Argentina. Can you explain why this has been entirely absent when it's May proposing the exact same thing?
    Herein lies the problem. 150 Socialist MPs shouting from the sidelines aren't any use to anyone. You can only make any kind of meaningful changes in govt, which means claiming the centre ground and the swing voters associated with it(the kind of people who don't go to rallies and don't join political parties).

    This piece from David Miliband sums up the situation perfectly.

    [QUOTE]The “Tory lite” allegation starts with a fact: government involves compromise. It then fashions an explanation: that the compromise is based on bad motives. It then develops a theory: that the trajectory of our country has been unchanged by Labour government since the Thatcher years. It then creates a new version of history: there is no difference between Labour and Tory governments. This is the sectarianism that leads to the dead end of permanent opposition.
    [\QUOTE]

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...rward-not-back
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    Herein lies the problem. 150 Socialist MPs shouting from the sidelines aren't any use to anyone. You can only make any kind of meaningful changes in govt, which means claiming the centre ground and the swing voters associated with it(the kind of people who don't go to rallies and don't join political parties).
    Absolutely not. 150 socialist MPs are a hell of a lot more use than 250 centrists and 20 socialists, even, I think, if the latter grouping is in a majority (which it wouldn't be; anything New Labour is hated from both the left and right). Maybe if we didn't have a 90% right wing tabloid media there wouldn't be such a desperate need to pull the debate to the left and one could afford to have some centrists.

    I am to the right of Corbyn by the way, Ed Miliband would have been my dream PM. I will say I would never entertain the idea of going to a rally, or a protest, or even my local CLP meeting. I joined purely to vote for the leader.

    [QUOTE]This piece from David Miliband sums up the situation perfectly.

    The “Tory lite” allegation starts with a fact: government involves compromise. It then fashions an explanation: that the compromise is based on bad motives. It then develops a theory: that the trajectory of our country has been unchanged by Labour government since the Thatcher years. It then creates a new version of history: there is no difference between Labour and Tory governments. This is the sectarianism that leads to the dead end of permanent opposition.
    [\QUOTE]

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...rward-not-back
    I would be a bit more willing to believe the Blairites were not Tory lite if they hadn't trebled the price of houses, quintupled the price of land, built zero social housing, and introduced various stringent benefit conditionality, Atos etc.

    They did some very good things in the first term like minimum wage, devolution, NHS/schools investment, EU integration, and Brown managed the public finances excellently, for which much credit is due; but as soon as 2001 happened and Blair realised his majority was solid, well, after that his attitude certainly was Tory lite. Really Labour should have lost in 2005 if Ken Clarke had pretended to be a bit more Eurosceptic and been Tory leader he would have won the election.

    (And no, I don't really care about the Iraq war)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Tory, although I would have much preferred Cameron to May.

    With Corbyn at the helm, Labour haven't got a hope in hell of getting my vote. I would only really consider them a viable option with a Blairite at the helm. I do, however, agree with the sentiment that Labour has effectively become two parties now. The Blue Labour MPs may be better off clubbing together with the Lib Dems, and maybe they'd even attract some left-wing Tories to join them. That could potentially be a party I would vote for, depending on their specific policies of course.

    I agree with Greens about needing more environmental protection, but some of their other policies are a joke. I will never vote for any party that wants to scrap Trident. UKIP are too right-wing for me, and considering I'm hoping for a soft-Brexit they probably wouldn't be the best party for me to vote for anyway. I sympathise with some Lib Dem policies but not others. Whilst I do favour remaining in the EU, it would be a bit of an affront to democracy to completely overturn the result. I do, however, think it wouldn't be a bad idea to give the public a say over the final deal, just in case we didn't get what we thought we would pre-referendum. There definitely are some benefits to Brexit - better worldwide trade links and the repeal of certain foolish pieces of EU legislation mainly - but if we get poor access to the single market then this could be concerning. I do agree that there needs to be immigration curbs though, because our public services simply cannot cope.

    So yes, to summarise, I'd vote Conservative in the hope of a soft-Brexit, economically free society.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=scrotgrot;67764400]Absolutely not. 150 socialist MPs are a hell of a lot more use than 250 centrists and 20 socialists, even, I think, if the latter grouping is in a majority (which it wouldn't be; anything New Labour is hated from both the left and right). Maybe if we didn't have a 90% right wing tabloid media there wouldn't be such a desperate need to pull the debate to the left and one could afford to have some centrists.

    I am to the right of Corbyn by the way, Ed Miliband would have been my dream PM. I will say I would never entertain the idea of going to a rally, or a protest, or even my local CLP meeting. I joined purely to vote for the leader.

    This piece from David Miliband sums up the situation perfectly.



    I would be a bit more willing to believe the Blairites were not Tory lite if they hadn't trebled the price of houses, quintupled the price of land, built zero social housing, and introduced various stringent benefit conditionality, Atos etc.

    They did some very good things in the first term like minimum wage, devolution, NHS/schools investment, EU integration, and Brown managed the public finances excellently, for which much credit is due; but as soon as 2001 happened and Blair realised his majority was solid, well, after that his attitude certainly was Tory lite. Really Labour should have lost in 2005 if Ken Clarke had pretended to be a bit more Eurosceptic and been Tory leader he would have won the election.

    (And no, I don't really care about the Iraq war)
    To be happy with 150 MPs mean there's no point in Labour even participating in the election.

    That leaves 500 seats up for grabs, minus 50 odd for the SNP, 18 in NI(some of whom are allied to the Tories anyway), The Lib Dems Plaid, Greens, UKIP and the rest it still leaves the Tories with c400 seats and license to do whatever the hell they like(close to 350 if taking the new boundaries into account but still a massive majority).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Tory.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    because the Greens seem to me not to have much idea what they're talking about except on environmental issues which aren't my most major priority.
    I've seen enough Green candidates get totally pulled-apart by farmers, environmental workers and so on at elections hustings to be pretty sure they don't even know what they're talking about on that subject.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I am under no illusions: Corbyn has no chance of winning a majority or otherwise forming a government, although no way will the Tories poll 50%, even if Labour split. You always tend towards overstatement. Plus, as before, I suspect it would be the right-wingers splitting off and forming a new SDP, which goes nowhere. The Labour brand and infrastructure would remain with the socialists. And we would have let's say 150 socialist MPs in Parliament rather than 20.

    I am further under no illusions: Corbyn is not a charismatic leader, and would as you say be nowhere without the Labour brand. Unfortunately, we socialists are stuck with Corbyn, because if he stepped down there's no way the PLP would make the mistake of extending sympathy nominations to a socialist again. They are simply too disdainful of the constituency Labour parties and members, almost all socialists, whom they purport to represent.

    Corbyn, however, is not ineffective: he is giving voice to ideas which have been verboten in the political landscape for the past forty years. His presence has already dragged the Tories away from their commitment to impoverishing ordinary people through unending austerity, as well as on a number of other issues

    As I said up-thread, only this week Theresa May has stolen Corbyn's policy of rapprochement with Argentina over the Falklands. You may remember the hysterical screeching in the tabloid press about this when Corbyn suggested it, as well as Cameron's lie in the Commons that Corbyn wanted to give the Falklands away to Argentina. Can you explain why this has been entirely absent when it's May proposing the exact same thing?
    Pray tell what good 150 socialists are against 350-400 Tory MPs with a parliamentary majority of 100-200? In other words, what good are these socialists MPs when getting elected effectively creates a one party state. There are three things the Tories are good at: Getting into government, staying in government, and utilising their political capital well.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    Nice ducking of the questions I asked. Like I said this is all from before he was leader and his ongoing battle with the PLP.

    In other words it can't be justified.

    I used to think he was just a well meaning idiot until I discovered his history. At best he's very naive to associate with these people and clearly not fit to lead the country.
    If there was anything of significant weight, to discredit Corbyn, like I've said, it would be mainstream knowledge by now. I think questioning the intelligence of the man is unfair, to do so implies that those who follow him are either in some way "brainwashed" or "idiots" themselves. I don't understand why you feel this obligation to try and convince me I am wrong in my political choice, I respect yours and think you have enough upstairs to come to a decision that appeals to you. I haven't jumped on a bandwagon, I will vote for him because until he came along, I had almost giving up on politics.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 6, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Which is the best season?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.