Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...e=news_central

    That adds about 100k support to Corbyn and puts the contest beyond any reasonable doubt (it was already mission extremely hard).

    He will win by a bigger margin.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skeptical_john)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...e=news_central

    That adds about 100k support to Corbyn and puts the contest beyond any reasonable doubt (it was already mission extremely hard).

    He will win by a bigger margin.
    Before we left EU, he had no chance of winning general election.
    Now we left, he got a chance and its only going to grow.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Owen Smith sucks as a challenge. He wants a second referendum- the fool clearly thinks that will play well with the old Labour vote, or for his career.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skeptical_john)
    X
    We'll see; it's being appealed and going up to the Court of Appeal. A number of QCs have questioned the legal reasoning in the judgment, and HHJ Hickinbottom has form for crackpot decisions (see: Shambo the Cow. This judge was reversed almost immediately by the Court of Appeal, as he may well be on this case)

    That adds about 100k support to Corbyn and puts the contest beyond any reasonable doubt
    How on earth can you justify that figure? There's no way anyone can have any serious clue about who those members support.

    I find your triumphalism also quite interesting. Last year (and for decades before) Corbyn called for annual leadership elections. But now apparently he thinks he is above that now that he is in high office.

    In fact, when John Smith was elected Labour leader with 91% of the vote in 1992, Corbyn almost immediately afterwards called for a leadership challenge. But now he claims that such challenges are a "distraction" from the laughably crap job he is doing. In fact, if it's distracting him from the awful job he's doing, maybe Labour will go up in the polls?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Owen Smith sucks as a challenge. He wants a second referendum- the fool clearly thinks that will play well with the old Labour vote, or for his career.
    Smith clearly trounced Corbyn in the debate they had last week. Corbyn came across like a doddering fool; rambling aimlessly from one topic to the next. In fact, Smith went easy on him by not bringing up the up the £20,000 he took from a regime that murders gay people and the nice little bung he accepted from that oil lobbyist Ardeshir Naghshineh.

    It's not surprising that a majority of Labour voters and union members want Corbyn to step down. They know from conversations with their friends and family what the polls are telling us too; Corbyn is electoral poison. Labour is 16 points behind the Tories when they should be ahead given how bloody awful this government has been

    He's the most unpopular opposition leader since polling began. And the worst two numbers; May leads him 43% to 37% in the 18-24 demographic (pretty much unprecedented for a Labour leader to come second to the Tories in that demo, and from a leader who claims that he has rock star status among the young). The other number is that one third of voters who cast their ballot for Labour in 2015 prefer May to Corbyn.

    Of course it's futile for me to even be quoting such figures at any Corbynites. At this point it's no longer about making real and lasting changes to society, it's no longer about policy and how to get it enacted, no longer about giving Labour the best shot at winning the election so they can protect the vulnerable and start to mend the damage wrought by the Tories. It's no longer about any of that for the Corbynista; it's now about pure emotion and tribalism. Corbyn becomes a fetish symbol for all that is pure and good; anyone who believes Labour would be better with another leader is a disgusting Red Tory traitor. And at this point they won't pay any head to questions of policy or electability during this leadership election; they perceive it in base psychological terms that they and their group are under attack, and they rally to protect the group and attack the enemy. Primitive emotions, but powerful. That is why such a cult atmosphere has developed among Corbyn devotees
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Last year (and for decades before) Corbyn called for annual leadership elections
    Wow, I didn't know that. Is that seriously true? If so, what a shameless hypocrite*
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    This is a bit politically geeky but v. v. important.

    Pro-Corbyn have won all 6 NEC seats which gives hem a decent majority and that as they say is that as far as any chance to remove Corbyn goes.

    It really is game over now.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    How on earth can you justify that figure? There's no way anyone can have any serious clue about who those members support.

    I find your triumphalism also quite interesting. Last year (and for decades before) Corbyn called for annual leadership elections. But now apparently he thinks he is above that now that he is in high office.
    I have no jubilation just reporting the news.

    And yes every bit of data (NEC / CLP elections / polling) is all pointing towards a crushing defeat.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Hey I'm looking forward to the tax cuts
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Wow, I didn't know that. Is that seriously true? If so, what a shameless hypocrite*
    That man really is a massive c***. It's been a remarkably successful PR operation to portray him as this mild-mannered, teetotal, vegetarian saint when in reality he is vicious, hypocritical and not very bright.

    In fact, I'd prefer McDonnell to Corbyn because although McDonnell might even be slightly more evil than Corbyn in his hard left ideology, he's also pretty intelligent and isn't obsessed with this image of himself as a saintly, man who has been so unfairly victimised. Corbyn thrives on self-pity, and that tendency has now transformed into something extremely ugly now that he has power

    Anyway, where's the schedule of his total hypocrisy on disloyalty to Labour leaders and calling for annual ledership elections

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnwYUNuXYAAXEea.jpg

    Note how in September 1992 Corbyn calls for a leadership challenge. In July 1992 John Smith won the leadership with 91% of the vote. Corbyn is just a nasty, feeble-minded ********
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Smith clearly trounced Corbyn in the debate they had last week. Corbyn came across like a doddering fool; rambling aimlessly from one topic to the next. In fact, Smith went easy on him by not bringing up the up the £20,000 he took from a regime that murders gay people and the nice little bung he accepted from that oil lobbyist Ardeshir Naghshineh.

    It's not surprising that a majority of Labour voters and union members want Corbyn to step down. They know from conversations with their friends and family what the polls are telling us too; Corbyn is electoral poison. Labour is 16 points behind the Tories when they should be ahead given how bloody awful this government has been
    Oh come on, you're not seriously going to bring up the old dodgy friends argument are you? There is a rather inconvenient relationship our entire nation has with Saudi Arabia, who are bombing civilians in Yemen, behead people left and right. We sell them arms and train them. They fund Wahabbism, the most extreme sect in Islam, which is preaching in mosques in the UK.
    And what about the funding of all mainstream parties? We could play that game all day, why not just argue against his policies with some integrity, I'm sick of this smear mongering BS. All sides have less than perfect associations.

    The Labour voters? That is not a fixed demographic, this shows what is wrong with so many in Labour's thought process. Which Labour voters? The job of a party is to win votes every election at that election from as many people as possible, simple as.
    Are you talking about the Labour voters lost under Blair/Brown in Scotland? The ones who defied the entire PLP over voting to leave, all over the north of England?
    The polls, as we have seen are clearly not that accurate and maybe even some are politically influenced. How does polling know the remain vote was so huge in the young without it being registered who voted what? Why were polls so wrong about Brexit?
    I hate to tell you this, but, as an example, Angela Eagle would do worse or no better in an election than Corbyn. What you are not factoring in is how so many old Labour voters wanted Brexit above all else, do you think voting for a Blairite remain('ignore the vote'/'vote again') government is going to appeal? Owen Smith wants another referendum for god's sake.
    Those people will vote Theresa May above ANY Labour candidate, or UKIP , if it's about making sure we get out of the EU. And not to be rude, but you sound like you are closely associated to Labour, and exhibiting some features of the 'echo chamber' problem. Still not really in touch with what the problem is, and retreating into the wisdom of more of '97. The tragedy is, that as with the EU in my view, they are like disciples, blindly in love with a cause, and lacking the objectivity to see how disastrous it's legacy was.
    It's that that has lost votes, and the dominance of remainers who ask to ignore the vote or for a second referendum, the devolution settlement is what may lose Scotland, so to blame Corbyn entirely is absurd. People were voting against the last twenty years of Blairism and globalization in many potential Labour voting areas, and certain about Brexit.
    To keep living in denial like Campbell and all the rest of the metropolitan London NuLabourites are, is madness. They can't just tell the proles what they need to think, they need to get how elitist they are, and how they are not doing their job as a Labour party in being attuned to what is going on with large swathes of their former vote.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Oh come on, you're not seriously going to bring up the old dodgy friends argument are you?
    Not so old, though, is it? We're talking about something that occurred as recently as 2012. And not exactly friends; he was Press TV's employee. He accepted four payments totalling up to £20,000 to appear as a television host on a network which itself (the TV network) has been complicit in the torture of a journalist, and which is the propaganda arm of a regime that murders gay people, stones women and imprisons leftists and trade unionists.

    There is a rather inconvenient relationship our entire nation has with Saudi Arabia
    It is entire unclear how the UK's unhealthy relationship with a regime that murders gay people and stones women (Saudi Arabia) makes it okay for Corbyn to accept up to £20,000 from a regime that murders gay people and stones women (Iran).

    Your argument is, essentially, that it's okay because Corbyn is only as corrupt as the UK government, right? It's so convenient that out of one side of their mouths Corbynites claim their leader is a living saint, an exemplar of simple decency, a vegetarian teetotal ascetic whose honesty and goodness puts modern politicians to shame. Out the other side of their mouth they say that it's okay for Corbyn to behave corruptly and disgracefully "because everyone else does it" or "because Saudi Arabia". Do I really have to point out that those two positions are not only contradictory, but flagrantly hypocritical?

    We could play that game all day, why not just argue against his policies
    What policies? Two first-rate economists he convinced to sit on his council of economic advisors resigned because he did nothing for 9 months. It's only after he was actually challenged for the leadership that he came up with his flimsy 10 point plan.

    And it isn't really so much a plan as a list of aspirations. A plan sets out how you get from A to B. "Full employment and a fairer economy for all" is just a platitude. Fine words butter no parsnips.

    And I'm sorry but as much as you deny it, integrity and morality do matter. It does matter that you are saying we should go into the next election led by a man who accepted £20,000 to be the television shill for one of the worst regimes on earth, a man who praised the IRA and opposed the peace process on the basis that it wouldn't lead to a united Ireland, a man who accepts gifts from oil industry lobbyists and praises as "dedicated to peace and social justice" an organisation that called for all Jews worldwide to be killed.

    And even if you personally don't possess a shred of decency to apply standard of morality to your cult leader, surely you should care about the fact that he will be destroyed during a general election by the Tories for these things. Over and over again, day after day, he will be hammered as the friend of Hamas, the man who took money from our enemies, the supporter of the IRA. A man who not only supports violent extremists, but sickeningly cashes in on those connections while claiming to be a victimised saint. He will be depicted (successfully, because he is these things) as a hypocrite, an incompetent boob, a man out of touch with the modern world, a man who says "Do as I say not as I do", a man who proposes not a vision for the 21st century but a vision to take us back to the 1970s.

    In such an electoral match-up, Labour risks collapsing as an electoral force.

    I'm sick of this smear mongering
    Referring to a factual incident is, by definition, not a smear. Which of these disgusting acts are you claiming Corbyn didn't do?

    The Labour voters? That is not a fixed demographic
    You're right, it's not a fixed demographic, and that's precisely why Labour should be so worried. One third of the people who voted Labour in 2015 now say it's highly likely they will vote for the Tories. May leads Corbyn in every demographic, including the 18-24 demographic which is unprecedented in living memory for a Tory PM to lead in young people. Corbyn comes third in "most preferred Prime Minister" after May and "Don't know"

    The evidence tells us Corbyn is the least popular opposition leader since polling began, that he is appealing to a smaller and smaller, ever more fanatical core of deranged supporters who can see no wrong in the Great Helmsman.

    Labour is speeding towards the cliff, and you people are cackling maniacally and shrieking "Faster! Faster". If you don't realise how unpopular Corbyn is, that tells you how insular your circle of friends are. Presumably you think that because 1000 screeching devotees turn up to a demo for Corbyn, and all your mates are retweeting your Momentum talking points, Corbyn must be the most popular man in the country.

    I realise at this point I can't reason you out of a position you weren't reasoned into. It's now about emotion for you; the sense of group solidarity you have with your fellow Corbynites, the sense of joint endeavor you feel when you perceive you are under attack, the thrill you get from the little victories of taking controlling of the Labour Party. At the same time, you are completely blind to the fact you are alienating the entire country.

    That's all I have to say on the matter.

    KimKallstrom KingBradly Betelgeuse- Good bloke
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Not so old, though, is it? We're talking about something that occurred as recently as 2012. And not exactly friends; he was Press TV's employee. He accepted four payments totalling up to £20,000 to appear as a television host on a network which itself (the TV network) has been complicit in the torture of a journalist, and which is the propaganda arm of a regime that murders gay people, stones women and imprisons leftists and trade unionists.



    It is entire unclear how the UK's unhealthy relationship with a regime that murders gay people and stones women (Saudi Arabia) makes it okay for Corbyn to accept up to £20,000 from a regime that murders gay people and stones women (Iran).

    Your argument is, essentially, that it's okay because Corbyn is only as corrupt as the UK government, right? It's so convenient that out of one side of their mouths Corbynites claim their leader is a living saint, an exemplar of simple decency, a vegetarian teetotal ascetic whose honesty and goodness puts modern politicians to shame. Out the other side of their mouth they say that it's okay for Corbyn to behave corruptly and disgracefully "because everyone else does it" or "because Saudi Arabia". Do I really have to point out that those two positions are not only contradictory, but flagrantly hypocritical?



    What policies? Two first-rate economists he convinced to sit on his council of economic advisors resigned because he did nothing for 9 months. It's only after he was actually challenged for the leadership that he came up with his flimsy 10 point plan.

    And it isn't really so much a plan as a list of aspirations. A plan sets out how you get from A to B. "Full employment and a fairer economy for all" is just a platitude. Fine words butter no parsnips.

    And I'm sorry but as much as you deny it, integrity and morality do matter. It does matter that you are saying we should go into the next election led by a man who accepted £20,000 to be the television shill for one of the worst regimes on earth, a man who praised the IRA and opposed the peace process on the basis that it wouldn't lead to a united Ireland, a man who accepts gifts from oil industry lobbyists and praises as "dedicated to peace and social justice" an organisation that called for all Jews worldwide to be killed.

    And even if you personally don't possess a shred of decency to apply standard of morality to your cult leader, surely you should care about the fact that he will be destroyed during a general election by the Tories for these things. Over and over again, day after day, he will be hammered as the friend of Hamas, the man who took money from our enemies, the supporter of the IRA. A man who not only supports violent extremists, but sickeningly cashes in on those connections while claiming to be a victimised saint. He will be depicted (successfully, because he is these things) as a hypocrite, an incompetent boob, a man out of touch with the modern world, a man who says "Do as I say not as I do", a man who proposes not a vision for the 21st century but a vision to take us back to the 1970s.

    In such an electoral match-up, Labour risks collapsing as an electoral force.



    Referring to a factual incident is, by definition, not a smear. Which of these disgusting acts are you claiming Corbyn didn't do?



    You're right, it's not a fixed demographic, and that's precisely why Labour should be so worried. One third of the people who voted Labour in 2015 now say it's highly likely they will vote for the Tories. May leads Corbyn in every demographic, including the 18-24 demographic which is unprecedented in living memory for a Tory PM to lead in young people. Corbyn comes third in "most preferred Prime Minister" after May and "Don't know"

    The evidence tells us Corbyn is the least popular opposition leader since polling began, that he is appealing to a smaller and smaller, ever more fanatical core of deranged supporters who can see no wrong in the Great Helmsman.

    Labour is speeding towards the cliff, and you people are cackling maniacally and shrieking "Faster! Faster". If you don't realise how unpopular Corbyn is, that tells you how insular your circle of friends are. Presumably you think that because 1000 screeching devotees turn up to a demo for Corbyn, and all your mates are retweeting your Momentum talking points, Corbyn must be the most popular man in the country.

    I realise at this point I can't reason you out of a position you weren't reasoned into. It's now about emotion for you; the sense of group solidarity you have with your fellow Corbynites, the sense of joint endeavor you feel when you perceive you are under attack, the thrill you get from the little victories of taking controlling of the Labour Party. At the same time, you are completely blind to the fact you are alienating the entire country.

    That's all I have to say on the matter.

    KimKallstrom KingBradly Betelgeuse- Good bloke
    I'm not a Labour member, nor supporter. I prefer much genuine conservatism to Blairism by a mile. I'm pro-Brexit, libertarian. Interested in the dire state of civil liberties, social mobility, inequality(Thanks to Blair-oh and Faith Schools and the union, and the ME and the terror threat-see what I mean about NuLab legacy?). Non PC and against the Islamification of Europe. Relatively Isolationist in foreign policy. That's about where my poltiics end, besides a hatred of being told what to think, media and political class consensus, and the anti-democratic joke of the last 20 yrs of neo-liberal, open borders Blairism where every election has offered zero choice. I am not an ideologue, I simply support proper democratic choice and politics from people who genuinely have totally opposing views(how politics used to be in this country-would welcome it back) with a contempt for propaganda, being told what to think, and the too cosy relations between media, politics and corporations. So I think it's important to go against establishment on many things, on the basis of freedom and democracy. I'll do it over PC, do it over immigration and Farage, and I'll do it over media coverage of Corbyn.

    I'm not even a fan of him remaining to tell you the truth. It's the nature of the coverage, the media and the attempts to stifle free thought that irritate me. I don't think people even understand opposing anything on wider principle anymore, so blinded as they are by meaningless defunct tribal political identities, which have been used as a smokescreen for the lack of genuine democracy so long.
    The reason I want him to go is very different though. I think a Blairite, pro open borders, cultural marxist remainer would be utterly trounced in the next election, maybe even worse than Corbyn. I don't think you can underestimate how much of a disconnect there is between the narrative of establishment, and what is really going on with belief cascade and how people vote privately. I support this because I'm not emotionally attached to the party like you. Who cares about tribal identities that are defunct, what matters is the democracy we get, the policies we get. A break up for parties or a complete re-ordering of the paradigm can be very healthy- we don't do it here enough because we are so conservative as a country.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    I'm pro-Brexit, libertarian. Interested in the dire state of civil liberties
    What liberties in particular? The UK is one of the freest countries on earth. Freedom House, a non-governmental think tank that reports on how free different countries are, rated the UK in the following categories;

    Electoral process: 12/12
    Political pluralism and participation: 16/16
    Functioning of government: 12/12
    Freedom of expression and belief: 15/16
    Association and organisational rights: 12/12
    Rule of law: 15/16
    Personal autonomy and individual rights: 15/16

    https://freedomhouse.org/report/free...united-kingdom

    You will not be arrested for speaking out against the government, you will not be arrested for supporting an opposition party. You are free to organise trade unions and civil sector organisations. Religions do not face state interference. We have a court system that is widely recognised to be one of the least corrupt, least politicised in the world. Our police force is widely perceived in the world to be a model of consensual policing.

    Precisely what fundamental rights are you claiming have been abridged?

    social mobility, inequality(Thanks to Blair-oh and Faith Schools and the union, and the ME and the terror threat-see what I mean about NuLab legacy?)
    You are conflating completely disparate issues and somehow pinning them on Blair. You claim to be a libertarian; surely social mobility and inequality should be left to the free market?

    As for faith schools, they existed long before 1997. It's also unclear how you can claim to be concerned about civil liberties while also denying the rights of religious groups and minority beliefs to educate their own children.

    As for the terror threat; the threat of terrorism has been with the UK substantially since the early 1970s. The major increase in the risk of terrorist incidents accompanied the 9/11 attacks, which can hardly be blamed on Blair. Blair was also extremely vehement in supporting the fight against Islamic extremism

    Non PC and against the Islamification of Europe
    And yet here you are praising a man (Corbyn) some of whose closest friends are those planning and orchestrating the Islamification of Europe, the spreading of extremist ideologies, the stoking of grievances and the indoctrination of young people with anti-Western and extreme Islamic ideologies. Some of these people and organisations, like Ibrahim Hewitt, Raed Salah, Ismail Patel, the Interpal Group, Press TV among many others, are extremist Islamic groups who Corbyn has associated with, befriended and on occasion intervened as a member of parliament to protect them (Raed Salah, the extremist Palestinian cleric and raving anti-semite, was to be deported and Corbyn lobbied to prevent that, and called Salah "an honourable man" who "represents his people well" )

    For someone who claims to be against Islamification, you sure have a funny way of showing it in your strong support for a man associated with its strongest proponents in England.

    Relatively Isolationist in foreign policy
    Which is a huge mistake. The US in the 1990s withdrew from most of its Cold War commitments, closed down overseas bases, reduced funding to allied regimes in the Middle East and was generally disengaging from the region. That trend was interrupted by Al-Qaeda's decision to fly four planes into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, declaring war on America and precipitating a conflict. Islamists hate the West and they will strike us whenever they can. Even peaceful Denmark couldn't escape their wrath when it refused to censor cartoons of Mohammed in its newspapers; its embassies were burned, boycotts were proposed.

    The world benefits when like-minded, free nations work together. We have a strong interest in upholding a multilateral world order particularly with those touchstone states Japan and Germany, states which were formerly fascist dictatorships and which we subjugated and then transformed into liberal, enlightened, peaceful contributors to global stability and trade.

    The UK has a particular interest in maintaining the Five Eyes relationship with the other English-speaking democracies (UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), countries who are the closest thing you will find in international relations to family; countries we know will always have our back and who we can trust implicitly. It would be a grave mistake to walk away from that.

    and the anti-democratic joke of the last 20 yrs of neo-liberal, open borders Blairism where every election has offered zero choice
    In every election there has been a clear alternative between the two major parties. As for "neo-liberalism", if you mean the free market reforms that occurred in all major Western countries in the 1980s, surely as a libertarian you would support this? There's little question that the result has been a far more stable economy, lower unemployment, much lower interest rates and widening prosperity.

    I am not an ideologue, I simply support proper democratic choice and politics from people who genuinely have totally opposing views
    So you would prefer the two parties were basically ideological opposites, with no consideration given to mutual adoption of policies which are known to be positive, just so you can have "choice"? There are some basic policies both parties support, like the idea we should have a domestic Security Service (MI5) to counter foreign espionage and terrorism. That is a sensible, long-standing policy. It seems to me it's better that both parties agree on that, rather than having one party that calls for its abolition, a lunatic policy in itself, simply so you can have "choice".

    So I think it's important to go against establishment on many things
    Ah yes, the amorphous "establishment" upon whom can be ascribed every evil, and who are behind every bad thing that happens in this country. Everything is a stitch-up, it's all controlled from behind closed-doors. This kind of paranoid thinking bears no relation to how the world actually works.

    The reason I want him to go is very different though. I think a Blairite, pro open borders, cultural marxist remainer
    There's no such thing as "cultural marxism", it's a buzz-word used by right-wingers who don't possess even the faintest clue about left of centre ideologies. To claim that Blair, a solid centrist, is a marxist is utterly preposterous. As for "open borders", who is proposing that? I believe Corbyn has at times, but I don't think anyone on the moderate wing of the Labour Party has.

    I don't think you can underestimate how much of a disconnect there is between the narrative of establishment, and what is really going on with belief cascade and how people vote privately.
    Kippers, Corbynites, Trumpites and all the other demogagic movements that thrive on paranoia, on pushing a narrative that they are fighting "the establishment" (and naturally anyone who disagrees with them is part of it), tend to overestimate their actual level of support in the country. For all Corbyn's claims to represent the wishes of some unengaged silent majority, the fact is that his poll numbers are plummeting. Labour's support is collapsing in the country, while the "continuity" Prime Minister May is preferred as Prime Minister by 65% of the country. It would appear that the country broadly supports the status quo in that respect.

    I support this because I'm not emotionally attached to the party like you.
    I have no tribal attachment to the Labour Party. I'm not a member because "me Pa voted Labour all hi' life". I'm a member because I perceived it to be the best vehicle for enacting the sort of policies I believed would be of benefit to the countries. In those areas where I disagreed with party policy, I engaged in the internal party debate and had my say to try to convince fellow members of my position and pull party policy towards my position. That is what pragmatic people who genuinely want to make changes in society do; they look at the existing parties, join the one that most closely fits with their views and then does their best to influence the party from within to more closely resemble ones own views.

    By contrast, most Corbynites/Trumpites etc have little interest in such things. What they are interested in is "revolution", in signalling how "anti-establishment" they are, in clicktivism. This is why despite 300 people joining my branch after Corbyn became leader, it's still the same people doorknocking and leafletting week after week. The committed activists who have been in the party for years. All the Corbynista seem to want to do is sign up, vote for Jeremy and expect the rest to be done for them. It's a particularly ugly form of political quasi-participation

    A break up for parties or a complete re-ordering of the paradigm can be very healthy- we don't do it here enough because we are so conservative as a country.
    I'm a Burkean socialist. I believe the country should be governed in the interests of all its people, and that the government has an underlying right to take ownership of core industries and utilities. I believe the government should, in most cases, forbear to exercise that right as in many areas the free market is demonstrably more efficient.

    As a Burkean, a value those institutions which have made this country what it is today; a wealthy, free, influential country and an overall nice place to live, where talent is rewarded but also where we take care of those who need a helping hand. If you were to show a person from the 1850s, 1650s or 1450s the living standards of ordinary British people today, they would be shocked; it would seem like a paradise to them.

    We clearly have got a lot right, contrary to what the demagogue Corbynites and Kippers claim, that everything is **** and the country is awful and the whole think is corrupt. As a Burkean, I believe we should always be cautious in making changes to our institutions because what we have now is so precious, and so rare in human history.

    There are changes that I would like to make to the country, particularly around taxation, pensions, redistribution and so on, to make it more equal. But I'm not going to advocate burning the whole thing to the ground simply because some passing political fad that claims to have all the answers caught my eye and told me they have all the solutions and that "the establishment" and the "experts" have betrayed them . History tells us that when such movements gain power, nothing good tends to come of it.

    Your position seems to be that as long as someone poses as "anti-establishment", as long as they have populist rhetoric, as long as they want to overturn the existing order, they should be credited no matter how terrible their ideas and their politics. Your politics couldn't be further away from Corbyn's, and yet you lend him a form of support simply because his brand of politics has the same kind of "burn it to the ground" mentality as yours. That to me seems incoherent
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:


    UKIP :yy:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Naveed-7)

    UKIP :yy:
    I'm a Labour member. I voted for Brexit. I will never support UKIP, not in a million years.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I'm a Labour member. I voted for Brexit. I will never support UKIP, not in a million years.
    What are your reasons?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Naveed-7)
    What are your reasons?
    The first is that when it comes to national security I am a single-issue voter. UKIP's policy is to dismantle the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent; any party that adopts that position is immediately out of consideration for my vote (including the Labour Party, if it goes to the next election proposing to ditch Trident).

    Second, all their instincts economically are to the right; to cut taxes for the wealthy, to strip away workers' rights, to repeal business regulation. As a left-winger that is fundamentally opposed to what I believe in.

    Finally, I don't like demagogues. I'm a Burkean socialist; on economic matters, I am on the left but also pragmatic in terms of allowing the free market to manage those sectors of the economy to which it is particularly suited. I also believe strongly in protecting the City of London as a financial centre, which is a unique asset to the country. As a Burkean, I have a deep respect and attachment to this country's traditional institutions; the House of Lords, the bar and judiciary, the armed forces, public schools, the universities (both of them), the BBC, the civil service, and so on. I believe the society Britain has constructed over the last 900 years is a precious, exquisite jewel and we should be incredibly cautious about changing these things.

    By contrast, UKIP is a populist, demagogic party. It thrives on paranoia and assigning blame to "the establishment". It attacks traditional institutions and appeals to the basest emotions by positing that all politicians are corrupt, that everything is a stitch-up and conspiracy, that everything in this country is **** or falling apart and we need to overturn the whole thing. That kind of thinking is completely contrary to all my instincts. It's why I emphatically oppose the Corbynista, for the same reasons
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)

    As for the terror threat; the threat of terrorism has been with the UK substantially since the early 1970s. The major increase in the risk of terrorist incidents accompanied the 9/11 attacks, which can hardly be blamed on Blair. Blair was also extremely vehement in supporting the fight against Islamic extremism



    The UK has a particular interest in maintaining the Five Eyes relationship with the other English-speaking democracies (UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), countries who are the closest thing you will find in international relations to family; countries we know will always have our back and who we can trust implicitly. It would be a grave mistake to walk away from that.



    In every election there has been a clear alternative between the two major parties. As for "neo-liberalism", if you mean the free market reforms that occurred in all major Western countries in the 1980s, surely as a libertarian you would support this? There's little question that the result has been a far more stable economy, lower unemployment, much lower interest rates and widening prosperity.


    There's no such thing as "cultural marxism", it's a buzz-word used by right-wingers who don't possess even the faintest clue about left of centre ideologies. To claim that Blair, a solid centrist, is a marxist is utterly preposterous. As for "open borders", who is proposing that? I believe Corbyn has at times, but I don't think anyone on the moderate wing of the Labour Party has.



    Kippers, Corbynites, Trumpites and all the other demogagic movements that thrive on paranoia, on pushing a narrative that they are fighting "the establishment" (and naturally anyone who disagrees with them is part of it), tend to overestimate their actual level of support in the country. For all Corbyn's claims to represent the wishes of some unengaged silent majority, the fact is that his poll numbers are plummeting. Labour's support is collapsing in the country, while the "continuity" Prime Minister May is preferred as Prime Minister by 65% of the country. It would appear that the country broadly supports the status quo in that respect.


    That is what pragmatic people who genuinely want to make changes in society do; they look at the existing parties, join the one that most closely fits with their views and then does their best to influence the party from within to more closely resemble ones own views.


    Your position seems to be that as long as someone poses as "anti-establishment", as long as they have populist rhetoric, as long as they want to overturn the existing order, they should be credited no matter how terrible their ideas and their politics. Your politics couldn't be further away from Corbyn's, and yet you lend him a form of support simply because his brand of politics has the same kind of "burn it to the ground" mentality as yours. That to me seems incoherent
    Of course I don't think everyone, such as Blair, whos politics I oppose ,wanted 'islamic extremism'. I just think their idea of the 'liberal interventionism', Orwellian endless war, mad rhetoric about how many muslims are all 'moderate' and want to live western lives, and open borders, plus destruction of liberty and privacy, via all=pervasive mass surveillance, is civilizational suicide. I simply will not vote for it, no matter how much I am told it is the position of the enlightened, Farage is evil, as is Trump, Blair and Hillary are the greatest things since sliced bread etc....It's like they have an entitlement, and a default right to the moral and intellectual high ground, even though they espouse madness anyhow- this is what angers people. That's what people feel about the last twenty years. the electorate was never called mad or stupid before, and now they are for rejecting this because they are exasperated. If the political class in the like of NuLab had any humility or introspection, they might conclude some of their policies were stupid. But they don't, they just talk about 're-educating' people in a condescending fashion about their mad policies. This is the talk of the entitled and the unaccountable drunk on their own conceit. If the electorate broadly had decent judgement before, for example when Reagan and Thatcher came in, why do they not have decent judgement now to reject the orthodoxy of the last twenty years? It's healthy and intuitively democratic, not to validate the same politcal paradigm. I was more than happy to break the EU, and I'd be more than happy if new political parties were formed.

    No problem with this whatsoever.

    Of course there is- no culture is better than another, we can have multiculturalism with mass immigration, it is indispensible to our economy(and with Blair we will' rub the rights nose in diversity'). Again, I reject this view in regards to Islam, and think it utter insanity. I simply will not vote for it and the attendant foreign policy.

    Regarding the bold, I regard economnc leftists who reject notions like the unquestioned virtue of the 'trickle down', bankster and corporate domination that is legislated for, with a close relationship to political power- and corporate monopoly instead of healthy competition, as anti-establishment, as are people who have a problem with the like of gated communities and food banks- apparently enough to make you a crazed economic hard leftist. On the cultural, social front, it's the opposite, the most moderate belief is regarded as hard right- namely wanting to seal your borders and prevent the expansion of muslim demographics and political influence in Europe. This is what I mean-social and economic liberal orthodoxy. I don't support 'anyone' anti-establishment, but I do regard it as madness that you haven't been able to discuss any limits on immigration for 20yrs, since very recently, without being the 'extreme right', and mad that you can't look at our dire social mobility and inequality(both of which got much worse under Blair than Thatcher, despite what champagne socialists who want to feel good about themselves and 'toffs' think) and want to reverse it without being 'hard left'.
    So I do not support anything, but I recognise the value of Corbyn and Farage because with mainstream media and the political class, these very reasonable positions of any sane democracy would have been totally ignored and marginalized, even though they represent vastly higher numbers of people than 'the bubble' like to admit. they still can't see what is so abhorrent and stifling about this predicament or why anyone 'rebelled'. they have struggle long just to get them talked about, to get a candodate like Owen smith who'll consider it, and to get a refernendum. Otherwise we would have been stuck with ideological dictatorship from the supremely entitled, myopic and arrogant echo chamber who think they have won every argument and history is over.

    I am pragmatic, and do want changes in society, hence why I welcome the ability to broaden democratic debate, which has been so desparately needed so long.
    Of course I don't want to vote for everything I welcome, I'm amazed by how so many people can't distinguish the tow issues either- this is most evidenced by the amount of Tories who are determined to have a Labour leader with policies as clsoe to them as possible, and a love-in.....this is a bizarre predicament, and if you get some historical perspective, you'll find it's an extremely recent line of thought, one that in my view coincides with what could prove to me one of our worse govermnents in history. Jack Straw, arch NuLab remainer, even talked about the 'post democratic era' (As a good thing clearly), NuLab rejoiced in the fact that they were killing off any social conservatives in the Tories. This is not an imaginary paradigm or phenomenon. And it just doesn't hold water to dismiss the electorate as having gone barmy, when they have more real experience of the policies. I'm amazed by how much some people are just vehemently opposed to any dissent, or debate, it's like they are totalitarian or in some sense rigidly conservative about a particular form of non-conservatism.

    re Libertarianism, Blair speaks of 'Libertarian nonsense', so you can see, plus the track record on civil liberties, enthusiasm fro mass surveillance, the European arrest warrant, ID cards and all, where he stood on that. We are now the most surveilled country in the west and the UN pirvacy chefi says we are 'worse than Orwell' amd 'oversight is a joke'


    See, I'd rather stop people dying in terrorism by not going into mad wars and sealing our borders....but there is a theme here-
    The securocrats are an industry, the military industrial complex...is an industry
    So what happens.....this is what I mean with neoliberalism, more of the corporate dictatorship- the peoples lives arranged around corporate needs, them dictating policy. Not a competitive capitalist economy compatible with freedom responding to our real needs.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.