The labour Leader thread...

The_Abyss said:
“Those people who don’t support the aims and values of the Labour party are not entitled to vote. We will continue the process of verification right up until the last minute,” acting leader Harriet Harman told BBC News.


There's a sign post to the future, right there.
Click to expand...

To be fair you can see the problem they've got themselves into.

It should be for the Labour party to decide its new leader, not a bunch of people who are not in the Labour party. It's hard to have too much sympathy as they got themselves into this mess by changing the voting rules but having done so you can perhaps understand why there are a huge bunch of people they don't want voting - not because they are 'undemocratic', in the same way as it wouldn't be 'undemocratic' if Chelsea didn't want Man United supporters voting for the next manager...
 
LeeUK said:
Most trade unions are a joke anyway only after their own hidden agenda. Always rallying and campaigning etc etc, but when you are facing a disciplinary at work and ask your union for support and representation, they are just not interested.
Click to expand...

What did you do to face a disciplinary at work?
 
So we have an economy not in the greatest shape, immigration issues and a raft of other problems... So Corbyn is talking about introducing female only carriages :rolleyes: disregarding his general idiocy I love the hypocrisy of feminism and its drive for "equal" rights. We are all equal! But we need special treatment, either you are equal or you are not.

Him winning would be the singular best thing for the conservatives ever, he would bury the Labour Party for at least one more election if not more.
 
Probably the best comment i've seen on this is that the part is basically saying what teenage girls say on their facebook pages - if you can't handle me at my best, you don't deserve me at my worst. Which is fine for an individual, but not for a constantly shifting coalition of interests. The whole concept of party loyalty seems to be dying in this country, but even so, eliminating 3000 "radicals" could be defensible if you can prove them as such, but as we've already seen there are many loyal supporters who are being excluded either by mistake of for petty reasons, and there are still people who are obviously abusing the system who are allowed in. So to take this clearly flawed system they're using to assess members' loyalty and to say you're going to use it to eliminate a further 100,000+ is incredibly damaging to the party's already tenuous reputation, especially when you accept that no matter what the past actions of a lot of these members they are still clearly willing to help the party and potentially take part in important debates the party needs to have leading up to 2020. They're still people we need to win the votes of.
 
It's a big pile of mess as it is anyway, Corbyn purge happens and Labour loses the bit of credibility it had left. He wins and he's undermined by those whose allegiance lies towards the Blairites.
 
No1newts said:
Him winning would be the singular best thing for the conservatives ever, he would bury the Labour Party for at least one more election if not more.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be too cocky. This year's election is about as easy as it can get. The leader of the opposition was deeply unpopular, totally unwilling to challenge the status quo and mired by the myth that Labour caused the financial crash. The leader of the Lib Dems was similarly unwilling, choosing instead to be as benign as possible just in case the opportunity for a second coalition arose. Both parties fought poor campaigns with the Conservative Party setting the tone for the whole election (in England).

Conservative ideology in England went largely unchallenged. That won't be the case in 2020. I'm not sure Jeremy Corbyn can win a majority, but I do expect the Tory Party will have to fight a lot harder if they want to keep theirs. They'll be under attack by Labour, under attack by the Lib Dems and the SNP. It will be a lot more difficult to set the tone of the election and they are likely to need to defend their own record.

I don't expect Jeremy Corbyn to win an election, but to expect that it will be an easy win for the Tories is foolish. It will be much harder than this year.
 
satchef1 said:
I'm confused by your claims. It only takes a moment to look through a bunch of election polls to see that the majority here do support the Tory Party.

There definitely are some numpties on the left. Thankfully we don't have them here - can't really abide authoritarianism. It's bad enough being stuck with a few right-wing authoritarians.
Click to expand...

It shows the majority of the people that voted in the polls supported the conservatives.

It also showed an extremely small % of the user base participated in those polls.

So it doesn't show anything.
 
atpbx said:
It shows the majority of the people that voted in the polls supported the conservatives.

It also showed an extremely small % of the user base participated in those polls.

So it doesn't show anything.
Click to expand...

An eighth of the active user base voted in the exit poll. That's not statistically insignificant even before taking in to consideration the number of users who don't venture in to GD. It would also seem likely that the majority of users who are active in politics discussion will have voted.

You'd have to be blind not to see that something like 60% of people posting in politics threads are Tory voters. It's pretty evident within minutes of a thread starting (that's not a complaint - I appreciate the opportunity for decent discussion).
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;28488801 said:
To be fair you can see the problem they've got themselves into.

It should be for the Labour party to decide its new leader, not a bunch of people who are not in the Labour party. It's hard to have too much sympathy as they got themselves into this mess by changing the voting rules but having done so you can perhaps understand why there are a huge bunch of people they don't want voting - not because they are 'undemocratic'
Click to expand...

The problem is huge. I can understand why they don't want it to happen, but the problem is that it is now very democratic. In other words, the leaders no longer represent the majority view of the voting rights of the party.

[TW]Fox;28488801 said:
in the same way as it wouldn't be 'undemocratic' if Chelsea didn't want Man United supporters voting for the next manager...
Click to expand...

Maybe pick another analogy, as that one's nonsense! :) But I get your original point. When one day you wake up and the majority of your organisation believes you should do something different to what you want to do, they're not wrong - YOU are. In that instance the leadership is no longer representative.
 
The_Abyss said:
When one day you wake up and the majority of your organisation believes you should do something different to what you want to do, they're not wrong - YOU are. In that instance the leadership is no longer representative.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they are career politicians, power is everything to them (and a nice fat expense account...)
The last thing they want is someone with principles who might upset the gravy train.
 
No1newts said:
So we have an economy not in the greatest shape, immigration issues and a raft of other problems... So Corbyn is talking about introducing female only carriages :rolleyes: disregarding his general idiocy I love the hypocrisy of feminism and its drive for "equal" rights. We are all equal! But we need special treatment, either you are equal or you are not.

Him winning would be the singular best thing for the conservatives ever, he would bury the Labour Party for at least one more election if not more.
Click to expand...

Oh yes hilarious when the left starts arguing for segregation.
 
spudbynight said:
Jeremy Corbyn's Falklands plan tantamount to surrender to Argentina, warns wounded veteran Simon Weston

I'm in agreement on this. Jeremy Corbyn just strikes me as a natural enemy of this country. During wartime he would be described as a traitor and liable to arrest.
Click to expand...

Me too. Although I've praised Corbyn for his economic policies he really does let himself down with the rest of his policies. What a shame that we never get the chance to vote for a party led by someone who actually understands economics and isn't a complete push-over in foreign and domestic policy.
 
I'm torn on that one. Argentina are never going to drop their claim to the islands, so we effectively have two choices; ensure that we always have a sufficient military presence in the area to see off any attack, or make some concessions (maybe regarding the oil?) to allow a more secure peace to take place. As long as any agreement doesn't affect the lives of the islanders, I wouldn't be against seeing it happen.
 
amigafan2003 said:
Yeah, I've never represented staff in disciplinary hearings.......................
Click to expand...

You have to remember that most posters on this forum are still young and wet behind the ears although some like Dolph are pathologically opposed to anything on the left. The reality for most workers is that unions have never been more needed to help oppose wholesale exploitation via zero hours contracts, agency scams etc, etc, etc.
 
do_ron_ron said:
You have to remember that most posters on this forum are still young and wet behind the ears although some like Dolph are pathologically opposed to anything on the left. The reality for most workers is that unions have never been more needed to help oppose wholesale exploitation via zero hours contracts, agency scams etc, etc, etc.
Click to expand...


Do you actually believe the **** that you just typed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom