Jump to content

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


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

Not if you read it, no

I've read it several times, and my conclusion is that you think lying to say he would have detonated the bomb would have been better leadership. If you mean something else, please feel free to explain it more clearly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't use nukes to bluff. The point of having them is to not use them.

If one is used against you, you've lost already.

The debate about them with respect to Corbyn is stupid. As it would with any leader.

But it's Corbyn so it's worse than child murder.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, hippo said:

Problem is - you can join labour for £3 now - and vote for the next leader early next year.

That's open to so much abuse its incredible - that's the reason for the delay - to recruit a load of young angrys - who back Rayner/RBL 

The people who have the final say on the leader - needn't even be labour supporters - and even if they are they are likely to be the enthused militants. (Corbyn didn't just win the labour leadership - he cake walked it )

Unfortunately moderates are less enthused to join a polictal party - so voting members are far removed from the working class people they wish to represent.

I really believe we will see some sort of split and new party formed. How successful who knows ..

Surely if centre left moderates don’t want momentum types taking over the party they should also pay the £3 and vote Labour back towards the centre?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

Surely if centre left moderates don’t want momentum types taking over the party they should also pay the £3 and vote Labour back towards the centre?

Nothing to stop Tories / Brex Ltd paying the £3 and voting for the angry brigade either, they did it last time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bickster said:

its not really though is it but its Labour's dilema

Either way it suits momentum ! - they aren't interested in winning election s - only winning the labour leadership election. If the votes come from Tory's in disguise they aren't bothered it suits them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Surely if centre left moderates don’t want momentum types taking over the party they should also pay the £3 and vote Labour back towards the centre?

Because the extreme left have more enthusiasm - it's an easier sell .....

Moderate politics is a bit more mundane. People who would vote for a moderate labour government are ordinary people not polictal enthusiasts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bickster said:

Nothing to stop Tories / Brex Ltd paying the £3 and voting for the angry brigade either, they did it last time.

Corbyn would have still won without those £3 voters at it turned out , I believe ?

bit didn’t   they subsequently scrap voting for leader rights  on the £3 membership ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they cap it so that you can only vote if you are a member from a certain date, usually after the leadership election is announced though.

I shouldn't have thought that there would be that many people who will be bothered enough to pay £4 I think it is a month in order to try to sabotage a leadership vote. 

It is worth saying that Labour have a large membership, I might be wrong but I think just over half a million. If you add in the union member votes then you'd have to have quite a few people bothered enough to try to sabotage the vote to make much of a difference. 

I can't understand why the other side would do that anyway tbh.

The candidates being touted at the moment are frighteningly uninspiring. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Corbyn would have still won without those £3 voters at it turned out , I believe ?

bit didn’t   they subsequently scrap voting for leader rights  on the £3 membership ? 

No.

They put a window on it. So you couldn't join as a £3 member towards the end of the leadership election.........

But you could pay a one off £25 - and get a vote at anytime. !!!!!

(Sort of decisions you get when everyone has a vote on everything !) 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chindie said:

The debate about them with respect to Corbyn is stupid. As it would with any leader.

Not really. What Corbyn wanted to say is that he'd unilaterally disarm our nuclear arsenal but he couldn't say that as it would have been absolutely pounced on. Instead he came up with some fudge answer which made him look stupid.

His actual answer was in itself dishonest (to himself) and it came across as exactly that because everyone knows what he really wanted.

He's not above being dishonest, he's walked back that many policy pronouncements in days (repaying student finance springs to mind straight away), that it became part of his persona.

Policy decisions seemed to be made up on the spot and then it would be pointed out that his idea was imprctical / impossible / idiotic or whatever and a clarification would come a day or so later or they'd never seem to mention it again. People saw right through that

He just really wasn't that good at being the Labour leader

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

The candidates being touted at the moment are frighteningly uninspiring. 

 

Tbf you could have said the same about the Tory one .. and Lib Dem’s for that matter ...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Chindie said:

You don't use nukes to bluff. The point of having them is to not use them.

If one is used against you, you've lost already.

The debate about them with respect to Corbyn is stupid. As it would with any leader.

But it's Corbyn so it's worse than child murder.

It is all a bit silly, yes. The thing I struggle with, with his answer is not that as a human he wouldn't press the button and retaliation and kill 100s of thousands, millions maybe. I mean I wouldn't either. As you say by then you've lost already, the world has.

I guess he's thought about Nukes and decided, no, never. But because he wants (wanted) votes from people, Labour has a policy of retaining trident. Trying to ride 2 horses at the same time is not a good look. "No I'd never ever use it, and I will get rid of Trident" is principled and honest. "No I'd never ever use it, but I'm gonna keep on paying for it" is unprincipled and open to ridicule. It's signalling untrustworthiness to voters and is an open goal for opponents.

So, the difficulty he had, anyone as PM has, is that the job of the PM who has at his/her disposal a nuclear deterrent is to (while we have it) ensure it is effective as a deterrent. As such answering the question "would you be prepared to use it" means that you have to rule out the answer "No, never". And there are ways to answer the question without betraying your personal beliefs, yet still performing your role as leader of the country (or candidate for that position).

@Risso provided the source for one answer.  "As PM, I would be as prepared to perform my duty to protect the Country as have all previous Prime Ministers. A deterrent is not a deterrent if your enemy know you'll never use it and from that the answer to your question is self-evident. But I would never use it first..." He could then go on to point out the ludicrous nature of the question, how it leaves out all context or whatever. He could further point to Labour's policy to retain a nuclear deterrent and so on. I mean that's just a quickly dashed off line from me, I'm sure smarter people than I in his team could have thought about a better version. There are many alternatives. He's just a bit dim.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â