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

[dAVe80]

3 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

I've thought about it and I think they should all call a by election, if that's what can happen. They might be denying it, but they've formed a new party and ran last time on a Labour ticket. They've little legitimacy in my opinion anyway, but they need to re-establish their mandate to represent their constituents. 

They won't, because they'd probably all lose, but I think they should.

But meh, to them to be honest. They've had their day in the sunshine today, tomorrow they'll be fish and chip wrapping. 

If they honestly believe the electorate wants more of the same, and a continuation of neo liberal ideas, put it to the vote. If they think they didn't get votes on the back of the manifesto, and the leadership, put it to the vote. Call by-elections, and let's see what the appetite is for a new centrist party. 

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

Call by-elections

After brexit date is past, sure. Before - no. If they did it would just hand May and the tories a massive 14 vote swing boost for her insanity.

[magnkarl]

7 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

I know it's cool to hate Corbyn right now but how is he and his policies anywhere near as abominable as the Tories?

You don't have to love him as a person.  Do people just want someone more statesmanlike but with 95% of the exact same policies?

Don't worry mate, most of us have hated Corbyn since we realised he's the most two-faced, hypocritical "anti-racist" politician Labour have ever had. 

If only we had a festival someplace where we could send him where people would worship his catweazel antics so that he'd feel like his heroes of old - you know the ones that killed 19 million people in famines in Eastern Europe, and double that in China.

Oh wait..

If anyone has any sort of insight into this old man's behaviour they'd see that he's a populist at heart that got stuck in the 1970's thought that radical socialism is somehow good. It isn't. Ask anyone. It's failed more times over and killed more people than any other system. It used to be cool to be radical in uni, it's not cool when you're 70, got grey hair, live in a flat worth a million quid in one of the richest places in the country and claim to fight for the poor man.

[PompeyVillan]

Catweazle. 

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

If only we had a festival someplace where we could send him where people would worship his catweazel antics

That lot aren't voting for him any more, he's losing the under 35 votes at a rapid rate of knots. It's reckoned that the current policy re:Brexit is more toxic than the LibDem's in coalition putting the student fees up instead of scrapping them

[peterms]

12 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

If only we had a festival someplace where we could send him where people would worship his catweazel antics so that he'd feel like his heroes of old - you know the ones that killed 19 million people in famines in Eastern Europe, and double that in China. 

Crash team to the locked ward!  Urgent!

[bickster]

2 hours ago, Chindie said:

Apparently not.

There was potentially a larger group, but they all bottled it when questions about the format, positions, image and direction of the group arised. There's another faction lead by former Blair advisors that are engaging with celebs and 'cool' figures, like Rowling.

BuzzFeed

There's more on the link, but it's effectively all a shitshow.

Hmmm, so far it's played out as the rumour mill suggested, in fact 1 more splitter, the rumour mill was suggesting 6 not 7. It's hard to believe any of that, it's also hard to believe anything tbh

Apparently, when their leaving was announced at the PLP meeting today, the splitters got a heavy unexpected round of applause and not in a sarcastic or glad they are leaving way. It supposedly shocked the leadership

[peterms]

34 minutes ago, Risso said:

The bit about them being a Ltd Co. rather than a party is odd. Donations to anything other than a political party attract IHT, as Banks found out to his cost when he donated to Vote Leave.

Surely they can have both?  Register a party at some point for donations (and also to get hold of Short money, which as random independents they don't get), and also a company for payment for speeches to paying audiences, things like payments that Chucky already receives for his lucid contributions to a "think tank", and other little backhanders?

[dAVe80]

I'm more into Socialism than I am Corbybism. I want a Socialist government, and Corbyn has turned a new generation of young people on to that idea. From my experiences of meeting him, and talking to comrades who know him well, and have worked with and for him, I just don't get the hate (I'm not asking for people to tell me why, I've read it here before a million times). Take away Corbyn, and I don't see what's so radical about what the current Labour leadership want to implement. The fact that it's described as far left, shows just how far the political landscape was dragged to the right. So thanks to the Insignificant 7 for making getting rid of this heinous Tory government just that little bit harder. 

Edited February 18, 2019 by dAVe80

[magnkarl]

Just now, dAVe80 said:

I'm more into Socialism than I am Corbybism. I want a Socialist government, and Corbyn has turned a new generation of young people on to that idea. From my experiences of meeting him, and talking to comrades who know him well, and have worked with and for him, I just don't get the hate (I'm not asking for people to tell me why, I've read it here before a million times). Take away Corbyn, and I don't see what's so radical about what the current Labour leadership want to implement. The fact that it's described as far left, shows just how far the political landscape was dragged to the right. So thanks to the Insignificant 7 for getting rid of this heinous Tory government just that little bit harder. 

Jeremy Corbyn has done way more than these 7 will ever do in aiding the Tory case/support. Worst opposition to the weakest government ever. 

[snowychap]

23 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

I've thought about it and I think they should all call a by election, if that's what can happen. They might be denying it, but they've formed a new party and ran last time on a Labour ticket. They've little legitimacy in my opinion anyway, but they need to re-establish their mandate to represent their constituents.

Did you think about it when Frank Field resigned the Labour whip, or when John Woodcock left the Labour Party, or when Sean Woodward joined the Labour Party?

I'm sorry but people vote for an individual as their representative for a constituency. Those individuals are then the MP for that constituency.

[dAVe80]

Just now, magnkarl said:

Jeremy Corbyn has done way more than these 7 will ever do in aiding the Tory case/support. Worst opposition to the weakest government ever. 

Yeah boss, but you got a massive agenda ennit, so don't really care for your opinion. Soz. 

[colhint]

I don't think I've seen a socialist government in over 40 years. And one that has not been kicked out of power after 1 term ever. Just don't think it's ever going to happen

[HanoiVillan]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

I genuinely have no idea what would have happened if he had opposed the tories, instead of supported them. I suspect that some of what you suggest might have happened, but also that the 48% might have rather applauded a more intelligent approach and it might have boosted the Labour vote if Labour had some sort of credible psition.

 I do know that triggering it without a **** clue as to what "we" wanted was absolute lunacy. And that's not just hindsight. ANd him actually whipping his party to support the tories was mental

Triggering article 50 is pretty badly glossed as 'supporting the Tories'; it could equally well be said to be 'honouring the referendum result', and you can believe it would have been portrayed as the opposite by every single newspaper and talking head in the country if they had done the opposite. 

And I don't agree that these are some great unknowables about the election either. We know - we can see, from exit polls and from the differences from 2015 - that the Conservatives consolidated the leave vote, and that Labour consolidated the remain vote. That's how Labour won constituencies like Plymouth and Canterbury, and lost constituencies like Walsall North and Stoke-on-Trent South. There were many more leave-voting constituencies with vulnerable-seeming Labour incumbents than there were remain-voting Tory seats in which Labour were in second place, so it's obvious that Labour were near their ceiling in remain support and had much more downside risk in pissing off leavers. This isn't really controversial; nearly every post-election analysis remarked on how Labour had dodged a bullet by making the election about anything-but-Brexit. So no, I don't think it's an imponderable; had they opposed triggering article 50, they would have been wiped out in 2017. 

[snowychap]

26 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

If only we had a festival someplace where we could send him where people would worship his catweazel antics so that he'd feel like his heroes of old - you know the ones that killed 19 million people in famines in Eastern Europe, and double that in China.

Ooo, is this the one that had the SWP responsible for all of the killings of Stalin, Mao, &c.?

How's your colleague's chair?

[Wainy316]

If Corbyn has managed to shift the Overton Window far enough that in the near future we can have something resembling a social democratic government then he'll have been a good leader.

Just needs someone more statemenslike and silver tongued to carry on his legacy.

[PompeyVillan]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Did you think about it when Frank Field resigned the Labour whip, or when John Woodcock left the Labour Party, or when Sean Woodward joined the Labour Party?

I'm sorry but people vote for an individual as their representative for a constituency. Those individuals are then the MP for that constituency.

I don't think they do so with that intention though to be honest snowy. I think a vast majority believe they are voting for a party. 

[Chindie]

Officially of course you vote for an individual but the practical reality will be for the vast majority of voters that they vote for the party. I would think the number of voters that support (or even frankly have experience of) their MP personally is going to be vanishingly small.

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Triggering article 50 is pretty badly glossed as 'supporting the Tories'; it could equally well be said to be 'honouring the referendum result', and you can believe it would have been portrayed as the opposite by every single newspaper and talking head in the country if they had done the opposite. 

And I don't agree that these are some great unknowables about the election either. We know - we can see, from exit polls and from the differences from 2015 - that the Conservatives consolidated the leave vote, and that Labour consolidated the remain vote. That's how Labour won constituencies like Plymouth and Canterbury, and lost constituencies like Walsall North and Stoke-on-Trent South. There were many more leave-voting constituencies with vulnerable-seeming Labour incumbents than there were remain-voting Tory seats in which Labour were in second place, so it's obvious that Labour were near their ceiling in remain support and had much more downside risk in pissing off leavers. This isn't really controversial; nearly every post-election analysis remarked on how Labour had dodged a bullet by making the election about anything-but-Brexit. So no, I don't think it's an imponderable; had they opposed triggering article 50, they would have been wiped out in 2017. 

But that election was played out in the circumstances that were relevant at the time, i.e. that both parties had the same view about article 50 and leaving the EU.

What if there had been an actual campaign against the invocation of A50?

Sure, it may have played out as you've suggested but an actual campaign may well have changed things dramatically.

Add in to that the idea that the 'leave constituency' thing now is being seriously questioned, i.e. it isn't necessary for a labour MP in a constituency that may have voted leave to advocate 'leave' in order to win that seat.

[snowychap]

16 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

I don't think they do so with that intention though to be honest snowy. I think a vast majority believe they are voting for a party. 

I agree. As I said in a previous post, that's their problem if they don't understand it, though. If they want to change the electoral process, that is, to a degree, in their hands.