The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Jon]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

He is not a compromiser, a pragmatist, a "do what needs to be done to get the best outcome" kind of man. It's "this is my view take it or leave it, no I won't change my mind, I've decided, new evidence or changed circumstances are not welcome."

Sounds like Thatcher! She did pretty well at the ballot box....

[Mantis]

34 minutes ago, Jon said:

Sounds like Thatcher! She did pretty well at the ballot box....

It's pretty clear that he won't though. I don't agree with his politics at all but even I can see that half the problem isn't his policies but rather that he's just not a very competent leader. He's like a League 2 player that's been plucked from obscurity and thrust into the first team of a Premier League side and it shows.

[blandy]

9 hours ago, Jon said:

Sounds like Thatcher! She did pretty well at the ballot box....

Christ! He's not that bad. But seriously, she was massively flawed, too. She was another one who was a "conviction" politician, you're right. And she also had a devoted following, for whom she could do no wrong.  Where there is a big difference is that general public opinion of her was far far less unfavourable than is the case for Corbyn.

[blandy]

10 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

In fancy words, he suffers from 'epistemic closure'. 

I looked up the explanation on my iPad, and it took me to Wikipedia and Stanford university's explanation of it. I'm none the wiser. Does it mean sanctimonious beardie git syndrome?

[OutByEaster?]

I think he needs a friend in the media, or maybe half a dozen. That "general public opinion of her was far far less unfavourable than is the case for Corbyn." thing is almost entirely a creation of media - and the media was entirely behind Thatcher and her plans for unregulated and controlled businesses because it made sense to them and money for their owners.

At the moment we're in a position where not only do most of the national newspapers hate Corbyn, but where there are independent media organisations looking to take the BBC to court over their coverage of him as it demonstrably breaks their commitment to impartiality. 

If he wins, the party has no choice but to get behind him, if he's got that and he's got social media and he can get a larger mainstream media outlet that focuses on the reality rather than attacking him constantly, then the larger public agreement with his policies means he could do a lot better in a general election than people think.

Of course, that's relying on one of the media turkeys to vote for christmas - so it's unlikely.

[jon_c]

I watched a Corbyn supporter on the news arguing with some young people that young people will vote Corbyn. 

The young people said: no they won't., most young people won't bother voting at all.

He said they were wrong, young people love Jeremy.

It was like watching a political satire. 

 

[MakemineVanilla]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I looked up the explanation on my iPad, and it took me to Wikipedia and Stanford university's explanation of it. I'm none the wiser. Does it mean sanctimonious beardie git syndrome?

You didn't read far enough.

Scroll down to the bottom of the article and you'll find how the term is used in politics. 

Edited September 24, 2016 by MakemineVanilla

[OutByEaster?]

So, that's done - do we now get a party united behind a leader - or will the purples keep grumbling?

 

[Mantis]

Or do they get deselection for "Blairite scum" who dare have the audacity to think that Labour should reach out to Conservative voters?

[Davkaus]

61% even with the PLP trying to rig it, not bad at all.

[OutByEaster?]

9 minutes ago, Mantis said:

Or do they get deselection for "Blairite scum" who dare have the audacity to think that Labour should reach out to Conservative voters?

Ignoring the language you're using there - if you have a membership and a leader who believe in values and policies that are broadly in line with your party's historical perspective, and you have a commitment to deliver on those values and policies to an electorate, a commitment hard earned in two separate leadership battles - but your personal beliefs are more aligned to those with the party on the other side of the house, shouldn't you to some extent consider what it is you want to do with your political career?

Blair was essentially a Thatcherite politician - there's a party for that - and hopefully as of this afternoon, there's a party for those who believe in something else.

You can reach out to the electorate, and you can have a positive influence on your party and your constituency, but if you're in opposition to it's values, the values of its leadership and the values of its members then you're going to need to have a bit of a think on what on earth you're doing here.

 

 

 

[jon_c]

Out of interest are there any figures on the geography of the new Labour party members, and momentum members?

Particularly in Scotland, and marginal seats?

[HanoiVillan]

13 hours ago, Jon said:

Sounds like Thatcher! She did pretty well at the ballot box....

But Thatcher was able to combine being an idealogue with pragmatism when necessary. She never dreamed of privatising bits of the police - her successors haven't been so cautious - and famously was politically aware enough to know that the NHS was untouchable. But the most pragmatic decision of all was to relabel hundreds of thousands of basically fit unemployed workers as 'disabled' in order to quell dissent. 

The other point is that she came to power amidst an economic and political crisis. A crisis of a similar magnitude could benefit Corbyn, but it's a big ask. 

3 hours ago, blandy said:

I looked up the explanation on my iPad, and it took me to Wikipedia and Stanford university's explanation of it. I'm none the wiser. Does it mean sanctimonious beardie git syndrome?

Basically, it's what you said before. His thinking is a closed loop which cannot be affected by new empirical evidence or different arguments. Whatever he encounters simply leads him to the same conclusions, which are essentially eternal truths. It's a fundamentally religious outlook on politics, and is therefore most frequently observed among US Republicans. 

[Mantis]

18 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Ignoring the language you're using there - if you have a membership and a leader who believe in values and policies that are broadly in line with your party's historical perspective, and you have a commitment to deliver on those values and policies to an electorate, a commitment hard earned in two separate leadership battles - but your personal beliefs are more aligned to those with the party on the other side of the house, shouldn't you to some extent consider what it is you want to do with your political career?

Blair was essentially a Thatcherite politician - there's a party for that - and hopefully as of this afternoon, there's a party for those who believe in something else.

You can reach out to the electorate, and you can have a positive influence on your party and your constituency, but if you're in opposition to it's values, the values of its leadership and the values of its members then you're going to need to have a bit of a think on what on earth you're doing here.

The language is merely what a lot of Corbyn supporters have been using to refer to their own MPs, many of whom were never close to being Blairites ironically.

The main issue is that there are now many Labour MPs (and indeed Labour voters) whose values are not represented either by the Conservatives or by Corbyn's Labour. Under Corbyn Labour have ceased trying to win people over and are instead preaching to the converted.

[jon_c]

If it wasn't for the money they'd lose from the Unions, I wouldn't be surprised at the PLP leaving Labour on mass and forming the political version of the 'No Homers' club'.

[HanoiVillan]

They've been looking into doing so, but the only serious plan thus far - take over the Cooperative Party, then have the speaker designate them as the 'official opposition' - has proved to be a non-starter, rejected by the membership, so they have nowhere left to turn. Unless they get designated as the official opposition, they will disappear at the next election. 

[Awol]

Clearly the people who chose Corbyn we're "low information voters" who didn't really understand what they were voting for.

While I respect this decision they should either be forced to vote again or be ignored completely. 

[Mantis]

49 minutes ago, jon_c said:

If it wasn't for the money they'd lose from the Unions, I wouldn't be surprised at the PLP leaving Labour on mass and forming the political version of the 'No Homers' club'.

Nah. Most of the moderates are falling in line now. I think the plan is to give him enough rope to hang himself.

[dAVe80]

9 minutes ago, Mantis said:

Nah. Most of the moderates are falling in line now. I think the plan is to give him enough rope to hang himself.

Genuine question, which of the things Corbyn has said he want to do, are you against? I assume you're a Labour supporter (or at least have voted Labour in the past), so what is it exactly about his politics you don't like? To clarify I'm not talking about Corbyn, but rather what he and his supporters to stand for. 

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, dAVe80 said:

Genuine question, which of the things Corbyn has said he want to do, are you against? I assume you're a Labour supporter (or at least have voted Labour in the past), so what is it exactly about his politics you don't like? To clarify I'm not talking about Corbyn, but rather what he and his supporters to stand for.