Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Hypocrisy of Eagle Labour bid

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 11:20:58 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Today, Angela Eagle announced she would challenge Jeremy Corbyn for leadership of the Labour Party. She differs with him on many issues, including foreign policy.

And that's why she will be royally fvcked in the leadership vote.

After the Chilcot Report, some Labour MPs gave up on replacing Corbyn. With Blair a now universally hated figure, the Labour membership isn't about to elect a Blairite who supported the war in Iraq and has been outspoken in favor of aggressive foreign polciies that might have just been illegal.

On the heels of said report, if the Labour Party was really in touch with their base - they would have picked someone who is far closer to Corbyn in policy and did not back the Iraq War.

Don't get me wrong - I don't dislike Eagle. But someone who says she doesn't want to pick at single issues is a damned hypocrite when considering the main reason of challenging Corbyn.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 1:25:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Indeed, this isn't about making the party 'electable' at all; especially since its membership has doubled and in fact taken over that of the Conservative party--thus suggesting more popularity. The problem is that Corbyn's viewpoints are just too liberal for the likes of Eagle...and they're using electability and (alleged) failure to lead properly as an excuse...I hope she fails.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 8:02:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 11:20:58 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Today, Angela Eagle announced she would challenge Jeremy Corbyn for leadership of the Labour Party. She differs with him on many issues, including foreign policy.

And that's why she will be royally fvcked in the leadership vote.

After the Chilcot Report, some Labour MPs gave up on replacing Corbyn. With Blair a now universally hated figure, the Labour membership isn't about to elect a Blairite who supported the war in Iraq and has been outspoken in favor of aggressive foreign polciies that might have just been illegal.

On the heels of said report, if the Labour Party was really in touch with their base - they would have picked someone who is far closer to Corbyn in policy and did not back the Iraq War.

Don't get me wrong - I don't dislike Eagle. But someone who says she doesn't want to pick at single issues is a damned hypocrite when considering the main reason of challenging Corbyn.

As long as the Labour party decides as leader Corbyn does not need the backing of 51 MPs to stand in the leadership contest I think his chances of winning are extremely high. The only chance the rebellious MPs have is to stop him getting on the ballot paper which would obviously be undemocratic and unfair on both Corbyn and Labour party members.

Having said that it's hard to see how someone can carry on as leader with 170 MPs calling for you to resign and only 40 supporting you. In my opinion it would be the honourable thing to do to resign. Corbyn is too far to the left to get elected. The Labour party members are much further to the left than the majority of it's MPs and the key voters in the Centre ground it needs to attract to win elections. The question is if Labour wants to remain in opposition standing up for socialism or embrace capitalism and get in power. Tony Blair showed Labour what it needs to do to get in power, move to the right.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 8:12:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 1:25:43 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Indeed, this isn't about making the party 'electable' at all; especially since its membership has doubled and in fact taken over that of the Conservative party--thus suggesting more popularity. The problem is that Corbyn's viewpoints are just too liberal for the likes of Eagle...and they're using electability and (alleged) failure to lead properly as an excuse...I hope she fails.

I think the leadership displayed by Corbyn during the EU referendum campaign was extremely weak. The case he made for remain seemed reluctant and negative. He failed to get across the benefits of EU membership such as EU funding for disadvantaged areas, protections for workers rights and short term economic stability to the many working class areas in the Midlands and the north of England. In my opinion he is not electable to the UK electorate even against an opponent significantly to the right such as Theresa May. However it's true that some of the motivation amongst Labour MPs to get rid of him is based on political differences.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 10:06:00 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 8:12:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 1:25:43 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Indeed, this isn't about making the party 'electable' at all; especially since its membership has doubled and in fact taken over that of the Conservative party--thus suggesting more popularity. The problem is that Corbyn's viewpoints are just too liberal for the likes of Eagle...and they're using electability and (alleged) failure to lead properly as an excuse...I hope she fails.

I think the leadership displayed by Corbyn during the EU referendum campaign was extremely weak. The case he made for remain seemed reluctant and negative. He failed to get across the benefits of EU membership such as EU funding for disadvantaged areas, protections for workers rights and short term economic stability to the many working class areas in the Midlands and the north of England. In my opinion he is not electable to the UK electorate even against an opponent significantly to the right such as Theresa May.

I actually think the way Corbyn approached his campaign was admirable; he didn't resort to any propaganda or hyperbole to get his point across--which, is pretty unusual these days in politics. He did in fact reference all of those things (in particular workers' rights.) but did so in a sensible manner. If his leadership wasn't affective, then I don't believe that Labour would have anywhere near the amount of support from members that they now presently have.

One also has to consider how much more 'electable' Angela Eagle actually is, and from what I can see, it's not a lot--if at all. She voted for the Iraq war and invasion into Syria, so already has a questionable record on foreign policy--one that is bound to discourage a lot of Labour voters. In addition to that, she supported cuts that the Tory government made; again, not something that will attract most Labour people...and definitely not something that corresponds with the general party message or the direction that Jeremy Corbyn is trying to take it in. The whole point is to provide an 'opposition', and as I can see, she has the tendency to agree with much of what is proposed by the current U.K government--that is far from what opposition technically constitutes.

However it's true that some of the motivation amongst Labour MPs to get rid of him is based on political differences.

It's entirely due to political differences. The fact is that he was democratically elected with a mandate of 60%--the only thing that these MP's are doing is (further) dividing their party and undermining the vote that was made only 10 months ago.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 10:23:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 10:06:00 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 7/11/2016 8:12:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 1:25:43 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Indeed, this isn't about making the party 'electable' at all; especially since its membership has doubled and in fact taken over that of the Conservative party--thus suggesting more popularity. The problem is that Corbyn's viewpoints are just too liberal for the likes of Eagle...and they're using electability and (alleged) failure to lead properly as an excuse...I hope she fails.

I think the leadership displayed by Corbyn during the EU referendum campaign was extremely weak. The case he made for remain seemed reluctant and negative. He failed to get across the benefits of EU membership such as EU funding for disadvantaged areas, protections for workers rights and short term economic stability to the many working class areas in the Midlands and the north of England. In my opinion he is not electable to the UK electorate even against an opponent significantly to the right such as Theresa May.

I actually think the way Corbyn approached his campaign was admirable; he didn't resort to any propaganda or hyperbole to get his point across--which, is pretty unusual these days in politics. He did in fact reference all of those things (in particular workers' rights.) but did so in a sensible manner. If his leadership wasn't affective, then I don't believe that Labour would have anywhere near the amount of support from members that they now presently have.

One also has to consider how much more 'electable' Angela Eagle actually is, and from what I can see, it's not a lot--if at all. She voted for the Iraq war and invasion into Syria, so already has a questionable record on foreign policy--one that is bound to discourage a lot of Labour voters. In addition to that, she supported cuts that the Tory government made; again, not something that will attract most Labour people...and definitely not something that corresponds with the general party message or the direction that Jeremy Corbyn is trying to take it in. The whole point is to provide an 'opposition', and as I can see, she has the tendency to agree with much of what is proposed by the current U.K government--that is far from what opposition technically constitutes.

However it's true that some of the motivation amongst Labour MPs to get rid of him is based on political differences.

It's entirely due to political differences. The fact is that he was democratically elected with a mandate of 60%--the only thing that these MP's are doing is (further) dividing their party and undermining the vote that was made only 10 months ago.

I agree Angela Eagle is a weak candidate who would not fare that much better than Corbyn in a general election. A strong candidate such as Hillary Benn needs to step up and challenge Corbyn. I assume you are a Labour supporter. Would you prefer a Hillary Benn led Labour government or a Theresa May led conservative government? I acknowledge it's frustrating you cannot have an ideal candidate but you have to respect the electorate is to the right of your position so it's unlikely a left wing candidate will be elected barring scandal, turmoil or the appointment of a Farage like far right Conservative leader. What needs to be considered by those on the left is to people in the centre like me Corbyn is just an unelectable as people like Farage. To win elections you win the battle for the centre. It's extremely simple.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 10:39:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 10:23:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:06:00 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 7/11/2016 8:12:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 1:25:43 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Indeed, this isn't about making the party 'electable' at all; especially since its membership has doubled and in fact taken over that of the Conservative party--thus suggesting more popularity. The problem is that Corbyn's viewpoints are just too liberal for the likes of Eagle...and they're using electability and (alleged) failure to lead properly as an excuse...I hope she fails.

I think the leadership displayed by Corbyn during the EU referendum campaign was extremely weak. The case he made for remain seemed reluctant and negative. He failed to get across the benefits of EU membership such as EU funding for disadvantaged areas, protections for workers rights and short term economic stability to the many working class areas in the Midlands and the north of England. In my opinion he is not electable to the UK electorate even against an opponent significantly to the right such as Theresa May.

I actually think the way Corbyn approached his campaign was admirable; he didn't resort to any propaganda or hyperbole to get his point across--which, is pretty unusual these days in politics. He did in fact reference all of those things (in particular workers' rights.) but did so in a sensible manner. If his leadership wasn't affective, then I don't believe that Labour would have anywhere near the amount of support from members that they now presently have.

One also has to consider how much more 'electable' Angela Eagle actually is, and from what I can see, it's not a lot--if at all. She voted for the Iraq war and invasion into Syria, so already has a questionable record on foreign policy--one that is bound to discourage a lot of Labour voters. In addition to that, she supported cuts that the Tory government made; again, not something that will attract most Labour people...and definitely not something that corresponds with the general party message or the direction that Jeremy Corbyn is trying to take it in. The whole point is to provide an 'opposition', and as I can see, she has the tendency to agree with much of what is proposed by the current U.K government--that is far from what opposition technically constitutes.

However it's true that some of the motivation amongst Labour MPs to get rid of him is based on political differences.

It's entirely due to political differences. The fact is that he was democratically elected with a mandate of 60%--the only thing that these MP's are doing is (further) dividing their party and undermining the vote that was made only 10 months ago.

I agree Angela Eagle is a weak candidate who would not fare that much better than Corbyn in a general election. A strong candidate such as Hillary Benn needs to step up and challenge Corbyn. I assume you are a Labour supporter. Would you prefer a Hillary Benn led Labour government or a Theresa May led conservative government? I acknowledge it's frustrating you cannot have an ideal candidate but you have to respect the electorate is to the right of your position so it's unlikely a left wing candidate will be elected barring scandal, turmoil or the appointment of a Farage like far right
Conservative leader. What needs to be considered by those on the left is to people in the centre like me Corbyn is just an unelectable as people like Farage. To win elections you win the battle for the centre. It's extremely simple.

Well, Hilarly Benn has been sacked so that's slightly out of the question--and again, I disagree. To me Hilarly Benn (unlike his father) isn't exactly dissimilar to Conservative politicians and thus wouldn't really make a distinguishable or 'strong' opposition. I wouldn't say he would be that electable either, as a large number of people want a clear alternative.

I do agree that being centrist is perhaps the most affective way to guarantee electability from *all* groups of people; but that shouldn't be what politics is about--especially given that it often leads to more disaffection among voters, if they don't see any specific kind of viewpoint or indeed one that is in adherence with what they want.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 11:31:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 10:39:49 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:23:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I agree Angela Eagle is a weak candidate who would not fare that much better than Corbyn in a general election. A strong candidate such as Hillary Benn needs to step up and challenge Corbyn. I assume you are a Labour supporter. Would you prefer a Hillary Benn led Labour government or a Theresa May led conservative government? I acknowledge it's frustrating you cannot have an ideal candidate but you have to respect the electorate is to the right of your position so it's unlikely a left wing candidate will be elected barring scandal, turmoil or the appointment of a Farage like far right
Conservative leader. What needs to be considered by those on the left is to people in the centre like me Corbyn is just an unelectable as people like Farage. To win elections you win the battle for the centre. It's extremely simple.

Well, Hilarly Benn has been sacked so that's slightly out of the question--and again, I disagree. To me Hilarly Benn (unlike his father)

That isn't the only way he's unlike Tony...

https://pbs.twimg.com...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 11:35:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 1:25:43 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Indeed, this isn't about making the party 'electable' at all; especially since its membership has doubled and in fact taken over that of the Conservative party--thus suggesting more popularity. The problem is that Corbyn's viewpoints are just too liberal for the likes of Eagle...and they're using electability and (alleged) failure to lead properly as an excuse...I hope she fails.

Without commenting on the issue of Eagle herself, or what I want to see happen, I would say that party membership in the UK is a poor barometer of electability. The vast majority of UK voters are not affiliated with a party. Only the most enthusiastic, ideological, and dedicated voters tend to join parties. The Labour Party's boosted membership shows that Corbyn has enthused a certain ideological group, but that does not mean he is more popular or electable.

It would be like saying that Trump is really popular in MD because he draws thousands of people to his rallies, whereas Hillary only draws a few hundred. But, I guarantee that Hillary will beat Trump here. Just because people flock to someone because they were galvanized by a particular ideological message does not mean that this person is more popular overall.

You cannot infer from membership numbers Corbyn's popularity with the electorate as a whole, you can only infer in regards to the demographic that he's mobilized.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 11:39:38 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 10:39:49 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:23:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:06:00 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 7/11/2016 8:12:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 1:25:43 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Indeed, this isn't about making the party 'electable' at all; especially since its membership has doubled and in fact taken over that of the Conservative party--thus suggesting more popularity. The problem is that Corbyn's viewpoints are just too liberal for the likes of Eagle...and they're using electability and (alleged) failure to lead properly as an excuse...I hope she fails.

I think the leadership displayed by Corbyn during the EU referendum campaign was extremely weak. The case he made for remain seemed reluctant and negative. He failed to get across the benefits of EU membership such as EU funding for disadvantaged areas, protections for workers rights and short term economic stability to the many working class areas in the Midlands and the north of England. In my opinion he is not electable to the UK electorate even against an opponent significantly to the right such as Theresa May.

I actually think the way Corbyn approached his campaign was admirable; he didn't resort to any propaganda or hyperbole to get his point across--which, is pretty unusual these days in politics. He did in fact reference all of those things (in particular workers' rights.) but did so in a sensible manner. If his leadership wasn't affective, then I don't believe that Labour would have anywhere near the amount of support from members that they now presently have.

One also has to consider how much more 'electable' Angela Eagle actually is, and from what I can see, it's not a lot--if at all. She voted for the Iraq war and invasion into Syria, so already has a questionable record on foreign policy--one that is bound to discourage a lot of Labour voters. In addition to that, she supported cuts that the Tory government made; again, not something that will attract most Labour people...and definitely not something that corresponds with the general party message or the direction that Jeremy Corbyn is trying to take it in. The whole point is to provide an 'opposition', and as I can see, she has the tendency to agree with much of what is proposed by the current U.K government--that is far from what opposition technically constitutes.

However it's true that some of the motivation amongst Labour MPs to get rid of him is based on political differences.

It's entirely due to political differences. The fact is that he was democratically elected with a mandate of 60%--the only thing that these MP's are doing is (further) dividing their party and undermining the vote that was made only 10 months ago.

I agree Angela Eagle is a weak candidate who would not fare that much better than Corbyn in a general election. A strong candidate such as Hillary Benn needs to step up and challenge Corbyn. I assume you are a Labour supporter. Would you prefer a Hillary Benn led Labour government or a Theresa May led conservative government? I acknowledge it's frustrating you cannot have an ideal candidate but you have to respect the electorate is to the right of your position so it's unlikely a left wing candidate will be elected barring scandal, turmoil or the appointment of a Farage like far right
Conservative leader. What needs to be considered by those on the left is to people in the centre like me Corbyn is just an unelectable as people like Farage. To win elections you win the battle for the centre. It's extremely simple.

Well, Hilarly Benn has been sacked so that's slightly out of the question--and again, I disagree. To me Hilarly Benn (unlike his father) isn't exactly dissimilar to Conservative politicians and thus wouldn't really make a distinguishable or 'strong' opposition. I wouldn't say he would be that electable either, as a large number of people want a clear alternative.

Hillary Benn was sacked as foreign secretary but is still an MP so could stand in this leadership contest provided he got sufficient backing from MPs which in my view is possible although I don't think it's likely to happen as Benn has previously ruled out a leadership challenge. I think he would win a landslide majority in a general election. He would maintain the vast majority of current seats in traditional Labour areas while picking up huge numbers of seats in Labour Conservative marginal areas as he is a centrist politician and would attract many people who previously voted conservative.

I do agree that being centrist is perhaps the most affective way to guarantee electability from *all* groups of people; but that shouldn't be what politics is about--especially given that it often leads to more disaffection among voters, if they don't see any specific kind of viewpoint or indeed one that is in adherence with what they want.

So you think it's better to be in opposition with an unelectable leader and just complain about an opposing ideology then to select an electable moderate, get elected and seek to implement policies more in line with your beliefs?

Is Tony Blair not the obvious example? A centrist who led Labour to three consecutive majority governments after many years of socialist candidates failing to get elected despite being up against an extremely right wing candidate, Thatcher.

The question for Labour supporters is, did you prefer the leadership of Thatcher or Blair? The reality with politics is getting exactly what you want is often unlikely so it's best to choose an option that is likely to bring things closer towards your ideology than merely be an extremist opposition that never gains power or influence as you are too far from the centre ground to be elected.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 12:34:19 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 11:35:16 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 1:25:43 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Indeed, this isn't about making the party 'electable' at all; especially since its membership has doubled and in fact taken over that of the Conservative party--thus suggesting more popularity. The problem is that Corbyn's viewpoints are just too liberal for the likes of Eagle...and they're using electability and (alleged) failure to lead properly as an excuse...I hope she fails.

Without commenting on the issue of Eagle herself, or what I want to see happen, I would say that party membership in the UK is a poor barometer of electability. The vast majority of UK voters are not affiliated with a party. Only the most enthusiastic, ideological, and dedicated voters tend to join parties. The Labour Party's boosted membership shows that Corbyn has enthused a certain ideological group, but that does not mean he is more popular or electable.

It does indeed show that he's been able garner potential voters to the party, however. That Labour has hit the half a million membership mark, is not to be underestimated. There's a rather prominent issue regarding poor youth turnout and political disaffection among young people; but a large number have joined the party and are thus becoming more actively interested and involved in politics. In terms of feasible electability, you can only really begin to penetrate that when actual elections come around--which will be another four years for the U.K. As he was the candidate Labour supporters chose to vote for, it's only right that he remain as leader--especially if he still has the support of those voters, which he clearly does.


It would be like saying that Trump is really popular in MD because he draws thousands of people to his rallies, whereas Hillary only draws a few hundred. But, I guarantee that Hillary will beat Trump here. Just because people flock to someone because they were galvanized by a particular ideological message does not mean that this person is more popular overall.

It's not exactly the same as that--there's notable differences between Corbyn and Trump, for starters. And prior to Corbyn, the Labour Party failed twice to not only *win* but actually do remotely well in general elections--in fact, huge amounts of voter base were lost under 'New Labour'. I doubt the likes of Hilary Benn would alter that.

You cannot infer from membership numbers Corbyn's popularity with the electorate as a whole, you can only infer in regards to the demographic that he's mobilized.

That he's able to mobilize anyway would suggest an attraction among many people, including those that feel there's no viable left-wing alternative to the Conservative government.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 12:36:01 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 11:31:11 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:39:49 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:23:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I agree Angela Eagle is a weak candidate who would not fare that much better than Corbyn in a general election. A strong candidate such as Hillary Benn needs to step up and challenge Corbyn. I assume you are a Labour supporter. Would you prefer a Hillary Benn led Labour government or a Theresa May led conservative government? I acknowledge it's frustrating you cannot have an ideal candidate but you have to respect the electorate is to the right of your position so it's unlikely a left wing candidate will be elected barring scandal, turmoil or the appointment of a Farage like far right
Conservative leader. What needs to be considered by those on the left is to people in the centre like me Corbyn is just an unelectable as people like Farage. To win elections you win the battle for the centre. It's extremely simple.

Well, Hilarly Benn has been sacked so that's slightly out of the question--and again, I disagree. To me Hilarly Benn (unlike his father)

That isn't the only way he's unlike Tony...

https://pbs.twimg.com...

Yep...the apple fell pretty far there. )
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 12:56:43 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 11:39:38 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:39:49 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:23:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:06:00 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 7/11/2016 8:12:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 1:25:43 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Indeed, this isn't about making the party 'electable' at all; especially since its membership has doubled and in fact taken over that of the Conservative party--thus suggesting more popularity. The problem is that Corbyn's viewpoints are just too liberal for the likes of Eagle...and they're using electability and (alleged) failure to lead properly as an excuse...I hope she fails.

I think the leadership displayed by Corbyn during the EU referendum campaign was extremely weak. The case he made for remain seemed reluctant and negative. He failed to get across the benefits of EU membership such as EU funding for disadvantaged areas, protections for workers rights and short term economic stability to the many working class areas in the Midlands and the north of England. In my opinion he is not electable to the UK electorate even against an opponent significantly to the right such as Theresa May.

I actually think the way Corbyn approached his campaign was admirable; he didn't resort to any propaganda or hyperbole to get his point across--which, is pretty unusual these days in politics. He did in fact reference all of those things (in particular workers' rights.) but did so in a sensible manner. If his leadership wasn't affective, then I don't believe that Labour would have anywhere near the amount of support from members that they now presently have.

One also has to consider how much more 'electable' Angela Eagle actually is, and from what I can see, it's not a lot--if at all. She voted for the Iraq war and invasion into Syria, so already has a questionable record on foreign policy--one that is bound to discourage a lot of Labour voters. In addition to that, she supported cuts that the Tory government made; again, not something that will attract most Labour people...and definitely not something that corresponds with the general party message or the direction that Jeremy Corbyn is trying to take it in. The whole point is to provide an 'opposition', and as I can see, she has the tendency to agree with much of what is proposed by the current U.K government--that is far from what opposition technically constitutes.

However it's true that some of the motivation amongst Labour MPs to get rid of him is based on political differences.

It's entirely due to political differences. The fact is that he was democratically elected with a mandate of 60%--the only thing that these MP's are doing is (further) dividing their party and undermining the vote that was made only 10 months ago.

I agree Angela Eagle is a weak candidate who would not fare that much better than Corbyn in a general election. A strong candidate such as Hillary Benn needs to step up and challenge Corbyn. I assume you are a Labour supporter. Would you prefer a Hillary Benn led Labour government or a Theresa May led conservative government? I acknowledge it's frustrating you cannot have an ideal candidate but you have to respect the electorate is to the right of your position so it's unlikely a left wing candidate will be elected barring scandal, turmoil or the appointment of a Farage like far right
Conservative leader. What needs to be considered by those on the left is to people in the centre like me Corbyn is just an unelectable as people like Farage. To win elections you win the battle for the centre. It's extremely simple.

Well, Hilarly Benn has been sacked so that's slightly out of the question--and again, I disagree. To me Hilarly Benn (unlike his father) isn't exactly dissimilar to Conservative politicians and thus wouldn't really make a distinguishable or 'strong' opposition. I wouldn't say he would be that electable either, as a large number of people want a clear alternative.

Hillary Benn was sacked as foreign secretary but is still an MP so could stand in this leadership contest provided he got sufficient backing from MPs which in my view is possible although I don't think it's likely to happen as Benn has previously ruled out a leadership challenge. I think he would win a landslide majority in a general election. He would maintain the vast majority of current seats in traditional Labour areas while picking up huge numbers of seats in Labour Conservative marginal areas as he is a centrist politician and would attract many people who previously voted conservative.

I do agree that being centrist is perhaps the most affective way to guarantee electability from *all* groups of people; but that shouldn't be what politics is about--especially given that it often leads to more disaffection among voters, if they don't see any specific kind of viewpoint or indeed one that is in adherence with what they want.

So you think it's better to be in opposition with an unelectable leader and just complain about an opposing ideology then to select an electable moderate, get elected and seek to implement policies more in line with your beliefs?

No, I think it's better to be in opposition with views that actually do oppose the opposition.

Is Tony Blair not the obvious example? A centrist who led Labour to three consecutive majority governments after many years of socialist candidates failing to get elected despite being up against an extremely right wing candidate, Thatcher.

Tony Blair isn't a great example; especially in light of recent events surrounding him. In fact he almost unilaterally destroyed the Labour Party and removed much of its core voter base in his decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan--something he did without a mandate from the British public.

The question for Labour supporters is, did you prefer the leadership of Thatcher or Blair? The reality with politics is getting exactly what you want is often unlikely so it's best to choose an option that is likely to bring things closer towards your ideology than merely be an extremist opposition that never gains power or influence as you are too far from the centre ground to be elected.

For many Labour voters there isn't any difference between Thatcher or Blair, and I do think you're over-simplifying it a bit. It's not necessarily about ideology but having a leader with some integrity and principle means something to a lot of people--and one who quite clearly and adamantly *does* provide an opposition in the strictest sense of the word.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 4:26:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 11:20:58 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Today, Angela Eagle announced she would challenge Jeremy Corbyn for leadership of the Labour Party. She differs with him on many issues, including foreign policy.

And that's why she will be royally fvcked in the leadership vote.

After the Chilcot Report, some Labour MPs gave up on replacing Corbyn. With Blair a now universally hated figure, the Labour membership isn't about to elect a Blairite who supported the war in Iraq and has been outspoken in favor of aggressive foreign polciies that might have just been illegal.

On the heels of said report, if the Labour Party was really in touch with their base - they would have picked someone who is far closer to Corbyn in policy and did not back the Iraq War.

Don't get me wrong - I don't dislike Eagle. But someone who says she doesn't want to pick at single issues is a damned hypocrite when considering the main reason of challenging Corbyn.

Did you see her facebook post announcing her run? All the comments say #KeepCorbyn or Jez We Can
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:19:59 PM
Posted: 5 months ago

However it's true that some of the motivation amongst Labour MPs to get rid of him is based on political differences.

It's entirely due to political differences. The fact is that he was democratically elected with a mandate of 60%--the only thing that these MP's are doing is (further) dividing their party and undermining the vote that was made only 10 months ago.

I agree Angela Eagle is a weak candidate who would not fare that much better than Corbyn in a general election. A strong candidate such as Hillary Benn needs to step up and challenge Corbyn. I assume you are a Labour supporter. Would you prefer a Hillary Benn led Labour government or a Theresa May led conservative government? I acknowledge it's frustrating you cannot have an ideal candidate but you have to respect the electorate is to the right of your position so it's unlikely a left wing candidate will be elected barring scandal, turmoil or the appointment of a Farage like far right
Conservative leader. What needs to be considered by those on the left is to people in the centre like me Corbyn is just an unelectable as people like Farage. To win elections you win the battle for the centre. It's extremely simple.

Well, Hilarly Benn has been sacked so that's slightly out of the question--and again, I disagree. To me Hilarly Benn (unlike his father) isn't exactly dissimilar to Conservative politicians and thus wouldn't really make a distinguishable or 'strong' opposition. I wouldn't say he would be that electable either, as a large number of people want a clear alternative.

Hillary Benn was sacked as foreign secretary but is still an MP so could stand in this leadership contest provided he got sufficient backing from MPs which in my view is possible although I don't think it's likely to happen as Benn has previously ruled out a leadership challenge. I think he would win a landslide majority in a general election. He would maintain the vast majority of current seats in traditional Labour areas while picking up huge numbers of seats in Labour Conservative marginal areas as he is a centrist politician and would attract many people who previously voted conservative.

I do agree that being centrist is perhaps the most affective way to guarantee electability from *all* groups of people; but that shouldn't be what politics is about--especially given that it often leads to more disaffection among voters, if they don't see any specific kind of viewpoint or indeed one that is in adherence with what they want.

So you think it's better to be in opposition with an unelectable leader and just complain about an opposing ideology then to select an electable moderate, get elected and seek to implement policies more in line with your beliefs?

No, I think it's better to be in opposition with views that actually do oppose the opposition.

That's fair enough your entitled to your opinion. I would personally prefer a government that reflects my views as much as possible rather than just sticking rigidly to my own views and ending up with something that is completely opposed to my views. I think it's about listening to the views of the majority of people and shaping your party to fit what people want. If you are a smaller party it's fair enough to take different views but the main opposition party has to make itself electable. If it chooses not to do so it weakens the opposition to the governing party leading to what is virtually a one party state where the government operates without significant opposition or pressure from its opponents due to their extremist and therefore weak position. Would it be a good thing for the Conservative party if Farage became leader? Maybe those on the right think so but the reality is that he would scare away the moderates and damage the electoral prospects of the conservative party.

Is Tony Blair not the obvious example? A centrist who led Labour to three consecutive majority governments after many years of socialist candidates failing to get elected despite being up against an extremely right wing candidate, Thatcher.

Tony Blair isn't a great example; especially in light of recent events surrounding him. In fact he almost unilaterally destroyed the Labour Party and removed much of its core voter base in his decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan--something he did without a mandate from the British public.

It's true Tony Blair made a huge mistake when he decided to invade Iraq. It's right he is heavily criticized and if neccessary prosecuted for the grave error of judgment. Having Said that I personally regard his as a good prime minister when you take out the Iraq war. It's wrong to say that a moderate Labour candidate is a bad idea because a previous one made a mistake about the Iraq war. The Conservative party was stagnating after years of being in power due to the weak opposition provided by unappealing left wing policies and leadership from Labour. Blair created a wave of excitement as he embraced the centre ground, secured three election victories and delivered on many of the things Labour supporters wanted including the NHS, education, welfare and social justice. People not liking Blair does not negate the fact he was a successful Labour party leader who delivered many things Labour supporters wanted.

The question for Labour supporters is, did you prefer the leadership of Thatcher or Blair? The reality with politics is getting exactly what you want is often unlikely so it's best to choose an option that is likely to bring things closer towards your ideology than merely be an extremist opposition that never gains power or influence as you are too far from the centre ground to be elected.

For many Labour voters there isn't any difference between Thatcher or Blair, and I do think you're over-simplifying it a bit. It's not necessarily about ideology but having a leader with some integrity and principle means something to a lot of people--and one who quite clearly and adamantly *does* provide an opposition in the strictest sense of the word.

Unfortunately Jeremy Corbyn does not provide meaningful opposition. Those in the conservative party were delighted by his appointment and have been very happy to see how poorly Corbyn has conducted himself as leader. He looks lost, confused, out of his depth and woefully out of touch with British people. In my opinion a political party should try and represent everyone, not just a few hundred thousand members.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:43:23 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 12:34:19 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:35:16 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 1:25:43 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Indeed, this isn't about making the party 'electable' at all; especially since its membership has doubled and in fact taken over that of the Conservative party--thus suggesting more popularity. The problem is that Corbyn's viewpoints are just too liberal for the likes of Eagle...and they're using electability and (alleged) failure to lead properly as an excuse...I hope she fails.

Without commenting on the issue of Eagle herself, or what I want to see happen, I would say that party membership in the UK is a poor barometer of electability. The vast majority of UK voters are not affiliated with a party. Only the most enthusiastic, ideological, and dedicated voters tend to join parties. The Labour Party's boosted membership shows that Corbyn has enthused a certain ideological group, but that does not mean he is more popular or electable.

It does indeed show that he's been able garner potential voters to the party, however.

I am not even convinced that this is a big deal. If you're liberal enough to vote for Corbyn, you're probably already voting Labour (or, to a lesser extent, Green, Plaid Cymru, or SNP) or your not voting at all. Corbyn may be attracting some new people to the party, but I think a large chunk of those new members usually voted Labour anyway, without actually being Labour Party members. This reality mitigates whatever bump Corbyn is supposedly gaining the party.

That Labour has hit the half a million membership mark, is not to be underestimated. 200+150

There were about 150,000 members before Corbyn's race. We cannot conclude that all the added members were Corbyn supports, even if the vast majority probably were. Couple that with the fact the many others would naturally have voted for Labour or potential coalition partners for a Labour government, and it doesn't seem like Corbyn is adding lots of new support to the party. In a nation with over 60 million people, we're talking, realistically, of him adding between 150-225,000 voters to the party. That, I think, is a far smaller figure than people seem to credit him with, and a more realistic one.

And that may be a substantial increase in Labour membership, but that does not mean it is indicative in a broader change in the British electorate. The polls would seem to argue the opposite: Corbyn is not well-liked or trusted among large sectors of the total electorate.

What I fear Corbynites are doing is taking demographic A, seeing an increase in support for Corbyn in demographic A, and assuming that this change will also apply in demographics B, C, and D. That is, obviously, fallacious reasoning.

Increases in youth support (A) are unlikely to sway an election if Corbyn is actively turning away voters in other demographics (B, C, and D), which the polls suggest that he is. This results in a net change away from Corbyn. Sure, it's cool and exciting that he's galvanizing young people, but so what? They're less likely to vote anyway, and bumping their turnout is not going to make up the difference between Labour and the Tories. It's just not.

As he was the candidate Labour supporters chose to vote for, it's only right that he remain as leader--especially if he still has the support of those voters, which he clearly does.

Again, I am *not* comment on whether he should be leader, or whether I think he should stay on in that capacity.

It would be like saying that Trump is really popular in MD because he draws thousands of people to his rallies, whereas Hillary only draws a few hundred. But, I guarantee that Hillary will beat Trump here. Just because people flock to someone because they were galvanized by a particular ideological message does not mean that this person is more popular overall.

It's not exactly the same as that--there's notable differences between Corbyn and Trump, for starters. And prior to Corbyn, the Labour Party failed twice to not only *win* but actually do remotely well in general elections--in fact, huge amounts of voter base were lost under 'New Labour'. I doubt the likes of Hilary Benn would alter that.

This misinterprets the point of the analogy. The point was not to say that Corbyn and Trump are similar, or to compare the US with the UK. The point was simply to demonstrate that "visible" support is not a measure of "true" support.

Just because more people appear to like someone, does not mean that this person is more popular overall. That is a true statement irrespective of what country or person you are talking about.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 9:52:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Hillary Benn was sacked as foreign secretary but is still an MP so could stand in this leadership contest provided he got sufficient backing from MPs which in my view is possible although I don't think it's likely to happen as Benn has previously ruled out a leadership challenge. I think he would win a landslide majority in a general election. He would maintain the vast majority of current seats in traditional Labour areas while picking up huge numbers of seats in Labour Conservative marginal areas as he is a centrist politician and would attract many people who previously voted conservative.

I do agree that being centrist is perhaps the most affective way to guarantee electability from *all* groups of people; but that shouldn't be what politics is about--especially given that it often leads to more disaffection among voters, if they don't see any specific kind of viewpoint or indeed one that is in adherence with what they want.

So you think it's better to be in opposition with an unelectable leader and just complain about an opposing ideology then to select an electable moderate, get elected and seek to implement policies more in line with your beliefs?

No, I think it's better to be in opposition with views that actually do oppose the opposition.

That's fair enough your entitled to your opinion. I would personally prefer a government that reflects my views as much as possible rather than just sticking rigidly to my own views and ending up with something that is completely opposed to my views.

Largely speaking, it seems pretty apparent to me that Corbyn reflects the views of many people in society; when it comes to foreign policy, education, health, etc. Angela Eagle (and Hilary Benn) are arguably less representative.

I think it's about listening to the views of the majority of people and shaping your party to fit what people want.

The key word there is the 'majority'--it's really only Labour politicians that are creating this issue; he has the support of unions, Labour supporters, and other members of the public. That certain MP's are attempting to remove him is attributed to basic party politics and difference in political viewpoints.

If you are a smaller party it's fair enough to take different views but the main opposition party has to make itself electable.

Again, I see no evidence that the Labour Party isn't electable--having more support than the Conservative party, suggests otherwise. The 'electability' thing just appears to be something that his MP's and (some) media outlets just keep restating without fully considering what being electable is--and if there's any other politicians within the Labour Party that actually are more electable than Corbyn.

it chooses not to do so it weakens the opposition to the governing party leading to what is virtually a one party state where the government operates without significant opposition or pressure from its opponents due to their extremist and therefore weak position. Would it be a good thing for the Conservative party if Farage became leader? Maybe those on the right think so but the reality is that he would scare away the moderates and damage the electoral prospects of the conservative party.

Once more I don't think Farage is the best comparison. Corbyn has been active Labour politician for over 30 years and has made important contributions towards it; including repeatedly voting against cuts on public services, voting for equal pay and other workers' rights, voting for more transparency within government, voting against (unneeded) foreign invasions and an entire array of other issues that directly impact people.

Is Tony Blair not the obvious example? A centrist who led Labour to three consecutive majority governments after many years of socialist candidates failing to get elected despite being up against an extremely right wing candidate, Thatcher.

Tony Blair isn't a great example; especially in light of recent events surrounding him. In fact he almost unilaterally destroyed the Labour Party and removed much of its core voter base in his decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan--something he did without a mandate from the British public.

It's true Tony Blair made a huge mistake when he decided to invade Iraq. It's right he is heavily criticized and if neccessary prosecuted for the grave error of judgment. Having Said that I personally regard his as a good prime minister when you take out the Iraq war. It's wrong to say that a moderate Labour candidate is a bad idea because a previous one made a mistake about the Iraq war. The Conservative party was stagnating after years of being in power due to the weak opposition provided by unappealing left wing policies and leadership from Labour. Blair created a wave of excitement as he embraced the centre ground, secured three election victories and delivered on many of the things Labour supporters wanted including the NHS, education, welfare and social justice. People not liking Blair does not negate the fact he was a successful Labour party leader who delivered many things Labour supporters wanted.

I agree that mostly did well as regards public services and that he has a good record on them. But sadly, the Iraq war (for most people) has overshadowed all of that--and is why many Labour voters deflected from the party. It's since then that Labour has had serious issues with electability and has suffered significant losses in two general elections; as of yet I don't see any MP within their ranks to viably change that bar Corbyn as he offers an alternative to what they've previously been disaffected with. There is no more of a chance of Angela Eagle (or any other potential leadership candidates) being more electable than he is--again, there's less of a one in my opinion.

The question for Labour supporters is, did you prefer the leadership of Thatcher or Blair? The reality with politics is getting exactly what you want is often unlikely so it's best to choose an option that is likely to bring things closer towards your ideology than merely be an extremist opposition that never gains power or influence as you are too far from the centre ground to be elected.

For many Labour voters there isn't any difference between Thatcher or Blair, and I do think you're over-simplifying it a bit. It's not necessarily about ideology but having a leader with some integrity and principle means something to a lot of people--and one who quite clearly and adamantly *does* provide an opposition in the strictest sense of the word.

Unfortunately Jeremy Corbyn does not provide meaningful opposition.

Well, a lot of people would argue that.

Those in the conservative party were delighted by his appointment and have been very happy to see how poorly Corbyn has conducted himself as leader.

I don't see what grounds this is based on. When a leader conducts themselves 'poorly'; they show a bad attitude, have little respect or consideration for their members, go against the wishes of their (party) members, etc. The Conservative party primarily ridicule him for having socialist views--once more, it's attributed to ideology.

He looks lost, confused, out of his depth and woefully out of touch with British people.

If anyone is in touch of with the British public, I would argue that it's him. His policies and voting record (personally what I base my views on) almost entirely confirm that.

In my opinion a political party should try and represent everyone, not just a few hundred thousand members.

I think he is...again, judgements should be made on what that individuals policies are--what their voting record is--and how active their role has actually been. Only then can you determine if they try to 'represent everyone' and what their level of dedication is.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 12:40:24 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Largely speaking, it seems pretty apparent to me that Corbyn reflects the views of many people in society; when it comes to foreign policy, education, health, etc. Angela Eagle (and Hilary Benn) are arguably less representative.

Jeremy Corbyn plans to nationalize the railways and nationalize energy companies as well as getting rid of our nuclear deterrent. These are popular policies among his supporters but are not supported by many centrists. Hillary Benn would have much more appeal in these policy areas.

I think it's about listening to the views of the majority of people and shaping your party to fit what people want.

The key word there is the 'majority'--it's really only Labour politicians that are creating this issue; he has the support of unions, Labour supporters, and other members of the public. That certain MP's are attempting to remove him is attributed to basic party politics and difference in political viewpoints.

It's true he has support amongst Labour members. It's among the general electorate where he does not really have sufficient support to be elected.

https://yougov.co.uk...

http://www.standard.co.uk...

https://www.politicshome.com...

If you are a smaller party it's fair enough to take different views but the main opposition party has to make itself electable.

Again, I see no evidence that the Labour Party isn't electable--having more support than the Conservative party, suggests otherwise. The 'electability' thing just appears to be something that his MP's and (some) media outlets just keep restating without fully considering what being electable is--and if there's any other politicians within the Labour Party that actually are more electable than Corbyn.

The links I provided do show that under Corbyn Labour is less electable under his leadership and less electable than the conservative party. Elections are decided by how many votes you get not how many members are in your party.

it chooses not to do so it weakens the opposition to the governing party leading to what is virtually a one party state where the government operates without significant opposition or pressure from its opponents due to their extremist and therefore weak position. Would it be a good thing for the Conservative party if Farage became leader? Maybe those on the right think so but the reality is that he would scare away the moderates and damage the electoral prospects of the conservative party.

Once more I don't think Farage is the best comparison. Corbyn has been active Labour politician for over 30 years and has made important contributions towards it; including repeatedly voting against cuts on public services, voting for equal pay and other workers' rights, voting for more transparency within government, voting against (unneeded) foreign invasions and an entire array of other issues that directly impact people.

Maybe Jeremy Corbyn has voted in a way you agree with. That's fair enough. However he has often voted against his parliamentary party and was known for his rebellious nature. That's not neccessarily a bad thing but it demonstrates he is significantly to the left of his party.

The comparison with farage is based on both how far both men are ideologically from the centre and their tendency to both alienate and scare moderates with what they often see as extremist policies.

I agree that mostly did well as regards public services and that he has a good record on them. But sadly, the Iraq war (for most people) has overshadowed all of that--and is why many Labour voters deflected from the party. It's since then that Labour has had serious issues with electability and has suffered significant losses in two general elections; as of yet I don't see any MP within their ranks to viably change that bar Corbyn as he offers an alternative to what they've previously been disaffected with. There is no more of a chance of Angela Eagle (or any other potential leadership candidates) being more electable than he is--again, there's less of a one in my opinion.

Labour suffered consecutive election defeats due to economic circumstances, the incompetence of both Miliband and Brown as leaders, the effective electoral strategies employed by the Conservative party and the surge in support for the SNP. If David Miliband was chosen as labour leader we would have a Labour government right now and would still be in the EU. He would have succeeded where Ed failed in attracting moderates. There was little threat on the left from the greens so Labour would have had a comfortable majority when you consider they were favoured by constitutional boundaries in 2015.

Well, a lot of people would argue that.

Those in the conservative party were delighted by his appointment and have been very happy to see how poorly Corbyn has conducted himself as leader.

I don't see what grounds this is based on. When a leader conducts themselves 'poorly'; they show a bad attitude, have little respect or consideration for their members, go against the wishes of their (party) members, etc. The Conservative party primarily ridicule him for having socialist views--once more, it's attributed to ideology.

He looks lost, confused, out of his depth and woefully out of touch with British people.

If anyone is in touch of with the British public, I would argue that it's him. His policies and voting record (personally what I base my views on) almost entirely confirm that.

It's strange though that if he is so in touch with voters he polls poorly. There are many people on the right and in the centre in the UK who vehemently disagree with Corbyn on Many issues of policy.

In my opinion a political party should try and represent everyone, not just a few hundred thousand members.

I think he is...again, judgements should be made on what that individuals policies are--what their voting record is--and how active their role has actually been. Only then can you determine if they try to 'represent everyo

I think Corbyn genuinely tries to represent everyone. It's just they don't want what he thinks is best for them.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 1:20:26 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/11/2016 8:12:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 1:25:43 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Indeed, this isn't about making the party 'electable' at all; especially since its membership has doubled and in fact taken over that of the Conservative party--thus suggesting more popularity. The problem is that Corbyn's viewpoints are just too liberal for the likes of Eagle...and they're using electability and (alleged) failure to lead properly as an excuse...I hope she fails.

I think the leadership displayed by Corbyn during the EU referendum campaign was extremely weak. The case he made for remain seemed reluctant and negative. He failed to get across the benefits of EU membership such as EU funding for disadvantaged areas, protections for workers rights and short term economic stability to the many working class areas in the Midlands and the north of England. In my opinion he is not electable to the UK electorate even against an opponent significantly to the right such as Theresa May. However it's true that some of the motivation amongst Labour MPs to get rid of him is based on political differences.

Jeremy Corbyn is far more likable than Theresa May, and by a wide margin. Corbyn has a -7 Net favorability rating while Theresa May's is -45. This is according to YouGov. Corbyn also has extremely high favorability among working class/lower income voters and young people. Theresa May is more popular with Women and older people, however she is highly disliked by working class voters and even more so with young people. If Corbyn decides to work with the Greens, and smaller left wing parties like TUSC, Respect and others, I think he can win. And given Caroline Lucas is running for leader of the Greens with the goal of building a progressive coalition, I think this is not an implausible scenario. And given many Blairites are facing no confidence votes from their CLPs, I think many anti-Blairite voters will be more willing to return to Labour, and many of these people voted UKIP last time around.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 1:29:04 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/11/2016 8:02:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:20:58 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Today, Angela Eagle announced she would challenge Jeremy Corbyn for leadership of the Labour Party. She differs with him on many issues, including foreign policy.

And that's why she will be royally fvcked in the leadership vote.

After the Chilcot Report, some Labour MPs gave up on replacing Corbyn. With Blair a now universally hated figure, the Labour membership isn't about to elect a Blairite who supported the war in Iraq and has been outspoken in favor of aggressive foreign polciies that might have just been illegal.

On the heels of said report, if the Labour Party was really in touch with their base - they would have picked someone who is far closer to Corbyn in policy and did not back the Iraq War.

Don't get me wrong - I don't dislike Eagle. But someone who says she doesn't want to pick at single issues is a damned hypocrite when considering the main reason of challenging Corbyn.

As long as the Labour party decides as leader Corbyn does not need the backing of 51 MPs to stand in the leadership contest I think his chances of winning are extremely high. The only chance the rebellious MPs have is to stop him getting on the ballot paper which would obviously be undemocratic and unfair on both Corbyn and Labour party members.

Having said that it's hard to see how someone can carry on as leader with 170 MPs calling for you to resign and only 40 supporting you. In my opinion it would be the honourable thing to do to resign. Corbyn is too far to the left to get elected. The Labour party members are much further to the left than the majority of it's MPs and the key voters in the Centre ground it needs to attract to win elections. The question is if Labour wants to remain in opposition standing up for socialism or embrace capitalism and get in power. Tony Blair showed Labour what it needs to do to get in power, move to the right.

while it may have worked briefly, I think that the Great Recession and the Iraq War have changed people's minds on that, especially given that many Labour voters voted UKIP, Green or SNP last time because they thought Labour was still too Blairite.
People don't want austerity heavy vs austerity lite.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 1:34:58 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/11/2016 10:23:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:06:00 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 7/11/2016 8:12:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 1:25:43 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Indeed, this isn't about making the party 'electable' at all; especially since its membership has doubled and in fact taken over that of the Conservative party--thus suggesting more popularity. The problem is that Corbyn's viewpoints are just too liberal for the likes of Eagle...and they're using electability and (alleged) failure to lead properly as an excuse...I hope she fails.

I think the leadership displayed by Corbyn during the EU referendum campaign was extremely weak. The case he made for remain seemed reluctant and negative. He failed to get across the benefits of EU membership such as EU funding for disadvantaged areas, protections for workers rights and short term economic stability to the many working class areas in the Midlands and the north of England. In my opinion he is not electable to the UK electorate even against an opponent significantly to the right such as Theresa May.

I actually think the way Corbyn approached his campaign was admirable; he didn't resort to any propaganda or hyperbole to get his point across--which, is pretty unusual these days in politics. He did in fact reference all of those things (in particular workers' rights.) but did so in a sensible manner. If his leadership wasn't affective, then I don't believe that Labour would have anywhere near the amount of support from members that they now presently have.

One also has to consider how much more 'electable' Angela Eagle actually is, and from what I can see, it's not a lot--if at all. She voted for the Iraq war and invasion into Syria, so already has a questionable record on foreign policy--one that is bound to discourage a lot of Labour voters. In addition to that, she supported cuts that the Tory government made; again, not something that will attract most Labour people...and definitely not something that corresponds with the general party message or the direction that Jeremy Corbyn is trying to take it in. The whole point is to provide an 'opposition', and as I can see, she has the tendency to agree with much of what is proposed by the current U.K government--that is far from what opposition technically constitutes.

However it's true that some of the motivation amongst Labour MPs to get rid of him is based on political differences.

It's entirely due to political differences. The fact is that he was democratically elected with a mandate of 60%--the only thing that these MP's are doing is (further) dividing their party and undermining the vote that was made only 10 months ago.

I agree Angela Eagle is a weak candidate who would not fare that much better than Corbyn in a general election. A strong candidate such as Hillary Benn needs to step up and challenge Corbyn. I assume you are a Labour supporter. Would you prefer a Hillary Benn led Labour government or a Theresa May led conservative government? I acknowledge it's frustrating you cannot have an ideal candidate but you have to respect the electorate is to the right of your position so it's unlikely a left wing candidate will be elected barring scandal, turmoil or the appointment of a Farage like far right Conservative leader. What needs to be considered by those on the left is to people in the centre like me Corbyn is just an unelectable as people like Farage. To win elections you win the battle for the centre. It's extremely simple.

Labour tried that last time, NDP did that in Canada, the democrats have been doing that for years in the US, and it has not worked out to well for any of them. Labour lost two consecutive elections, NDP lost the overwhelming majority of their seats, and Democrats went from being the dominant party to losing both the house and Senate. People don't like having two similar options. They want an alternative to the status quo.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 8:50:49 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 1:34:58 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:23:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:06:00 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 7/11/2016 8:12:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 1:25:43 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Indeed, this isn't about making the party 'electable' at all; especially since its membership has doubled and in fact taken over that of the Conservative party--thus suggesting more popularity. The problem is that Corbyn's viewpoints are just too liberal for the likes of Eagle...and they're using electability and (alleged) failure to lead properly as an excuse...I hope she fails.

I think the leadership displayed by Corbyn during the EU referendum campaign was extremely weak. The case he made for remain seemed reluctant and negative. He failed to get across the benefits of EU membership such as EU funding for disadvantaged areas, protections for workers rights and short term economic stability to the many working class areas in the Midlands and the north of England. In my opinion he is not electable to the UK electorate even against an opponent significantly to the right such as Theresa May.

I actually think the way Corbyn approached his campaign was admirable; he didn't resort to any propaganda or hyperbole to get his point across--which, is pretty unusual these days in politics. He did in fact reference all of those things (in particular workers' rights.) but did so in a sensible manner. If his leadership wasn't affective, then I don't believe that Labour would have anywhere near the amount of support from members that they now presently have.

One also has to consider how much more 'electable' Angela Eagle actually is, and from what I can see, it's not a lot--if at all. She voted for the Iraq war and invasion into Syria, so already has a questionable record on foreign policy--one that is bound to discourage a lot of Labour voters. In addition to that, she supported cuts that the Tory government made; again, not something that will attract most Labour people...and definitely not something that corresponds with the general party message or the direction that Jeremy Corbyn is trying to take it in. The whole point is to provide an 'opposition', and as I can see, she has the tendency to agree with much of what is proposed by the current U.K government--that is far from what opposition technically constitutes.

However it's true that some of the motivation amongst Labour MPs to get rid of him is based on political differences.

It's entirely due to political differences. The fact is that he was democratically elected with a mandate of 60%--the only thing that these MP's are doing is (further) dividing their party and undermining the vote that was made only 10 months ago.

I agree Angela Eagle is a weak candidate who would not fare that much better than Corbyn in a general election. A strong candidate such as Hillary Benn needs to step up and challenge Corbyn. I assume you are a Labour supporter. Would you prefer a Hillary Benn led Labour government or a Theresa May led conservative government? I acknowledge it's frustrating you cannot have an ideal candidate but you have to respect the electorate is to the right of your position so it's unlikely a left wing candidate will be elected barring scandal, turmoil or the appointment of a Farage like far right Conservative leader. What needs to be considered by those on the left is to people in the centre like me Corbyn is just an unelectable as people like Farage. To win elections you win the battle for the centre. It's extremely simple.

Labour tried that last time, NDP did that in Canada, the democrats have been doing that for years in the US, and it has not worked out to well for any of them. Labour lost two consecutive elections, NDP lost the overwhelming majority of their seats, and Democrats went from being the dominant party to losing both the house and Senate. People don't like having two similar options. They want an alternative to the status quo.

Tony Blair got elected. Brown was to his left. Labour lost seats. Miliband was further to the left again. Labour lost more seats. Do you remember Neil Kinnock? Did he get elected? No.

That sums things up really. Obviously as a socialist you would like politics to move left but in reality it should move to the centre ground. That's where elections are won.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 8:56:07 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 1:29:04 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 8:02:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:20:58 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Today, Angela Eagle announced she would challenge Jeremy Corbyn for leadership of the Labour Party. She differs with him on many issues, including foreign policy.

And that's why she will be royally fvcked in the leadership vote.

After the Chilcot Report, some Labour MPs gave up on replacing Corbyn. With Blair a now universally hated figure, the Labour membership isn't about to elect a Blairite who supported the war in Iraq and has been outspoken in favor of aggressive foreign polciies that might have just been illegal.

On the heels of said report, if the Labour Party was really in touch with their base - they would have picked someone who is far closer to Corbyn in policy and did not back the Iraq War.

Don't get me wrong - I don't dislike Eagle. But someone who says she doesn't want to pick at single issues is a damned hypocrite when considering the main reason of challenging Corbyn.

As long as the Labour party decides as leader Corbyn does not need the backing of 51 MPs to stand in the leadership contest I think his chances of winning are extremely high. The only chance the rebellious MPs have is to stop him getting on the ballot paper which would obviously be undemocratic and unfair on both Corbyn and Labour party members.

Having said that it's hard to see how someone can carry on as leader with 170 MPs calling for you to resign and only 40 supporting you. In my opinion it would be the honourable thing to do to resign. Corbyn is too far to the left to get elected. The Labour party members are much further to the left than the majority of it's MPs and the key voters in the Centre ground it needs to attract to win elections. The question is if Labour wants to remain in opposition standing up for socialism or embrace capitalism and get in power. Tony Blair showed Labour what it needs to do to get in power, move to the right.

while it may have worked briefly, I think that the Great Recession and the Iraq War have changed people's minds on that, especially given that many Labour voters voted UKIP, Green or SNP last time because they thought Labour was still too Blairite.
People don't want austerity heavy vs austerity lite.

I don't think you can really blame Tony Blair for a worldwiderecession. All countries took a hit regardless of their government. Britain actually faired better than most European economies. It's surprising how many people in the UK accept the need for responsible spendingpolicies. Not many people actually want the government to increase borrowing. People want a socially liberal government that stands up for the UK on the world stage and delivers high employment and economic growth while keeping spending under control.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 9:07:02 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 1:20:26 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 8:12:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 1:25:43 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Indeed, this isn't about making the party 'electable' at all; especially since its membership has doubled and in fact taken over that of the Conservative party--thus suggesting more popularity. The problem is that Corbyn's viewpoints are just too liberal for the likes of Eagle...and they're using electability and (alleged) failure to lead properly as an excuse...I hope she fails.

I think the leadership displayed by Corbyn during the EU referendum campaign was extremely weak. The case he made for remain seemed reluctant and negative. He failed to get across the benefits of EU membership such as EU funding for disadvantaged areas, protections for workers rights and short term economic stability to the many working class areas in the Midlands and the north of England. In my opinion he is not electable to the UK electorate even against an opponent significantly to the right such as Theresa May. However it's true that some of the motivation amongst Labour MPs to get rid of him is based on political differences.

Jeremy Corbyn is far more likable than Theresa May, and by a wide margin. Corbyn has a -7 Net favorability rating while Theresa May's is -45. This is according to YouGov. Corbyn also has extremely high favorability among working class/lower income voters and young people. Theresa May is more popular with Women and older people, however she is highly disliked by working class voters and even more so with young people. If Corbyn decides to work with the Greens, and smaller left wing parties like TUSC, Respect and others, I think he can win. And given Caroline Lucas is running for leader of the Greens with the goal of building a progressive coalition, I think this is not an implausible scenario. And given many Blairites are facing no confidence votes from their CLPs, I think many anti-Blairite voters will be more willing to return to Labour, and many of these people voted UKIP last time around.

The far left parties only pick up limited support. They dont win any seats. He would need to get them to agree not to stand in elections and endorse him instead. I doubt they would do this unless he promised their leaders some sort of role in government. If he did this he would alienate the centre even more than he already has. Labour would face a huge defeat. Elections are won in conservative/ Labour marginal seats. Winning over conservative party voters must be the target to achieve election victory.

Please show a link of that poll. Most things I've read suggest the opposite.

https://www.ipsos-mori.com...
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 9:08:15 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/16/2016 8:56:07 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/14/2016 1:29:04 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 8:02:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:20:58 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Today, Angela Eagle announced she would challenge Jeremy Corbyn for leadership of the Labour Party. She differs with him on many issues, including foreign policy.

And that's why she will be royally fvcked in the leadership vote.

After the Chilcot Report, some Labour MPs gave up on replacing Corbyn. With Blair a now universally hated figure, the Labour membership isn't about to elect a Blairite who supported the war in Iraq and has been outspoken in favor of aggressive foreign polciies that might have just been illegal.

On the heels of said report, if the Labour Party was really in touch with their base - they would have picked someone who is far closer to Corbyn in policy and did not back the Iraq War.

Don't get me wrong - I don't dislike Eagle. But someone who says she doesn't want to pick at single issues is a damned hypocrite when considering the main reason of challenging Corbyn.

As long as the Labour party decides as leader Corbyn does not need the backing of 51 MPs to stand in the leadership contest I think his chances of winning are extremely high. The only chance the rebellious MPs have is to stop him getting on the ballot paper which would obviously be undemocratic and unfair on both Corbyn and Labour party members.

Having said that it's hard to see how someone can carry on as leader with 170 MPs calling for you to resign and only 40 supporting you. In my opinion it would be the honourable thing to do to resign. Corbyn is too far to the left to get elected. The Labour party members are much further to the left than the majority of it's MPs and the key voters in the Centre ground it needs to attract to win elections. The question is if Labour wants to remain in opposition standing up for socialism or embrace capitalism and get in power. Tony Blair showed Labour what it needs to do to get in power, move to the right.

while it may have worked briefly, I think that the Great Recession and the Iraq War have changed people's minds on that, especially given that many Labour voters voted UKIP, Green or SNP last time because they thought Labour was still too Blairite.
People don't want austerity heavy vs austerity lite.

I don't think you can really blame Tony Blair for a worldwiderecession. All countries took a hit regardless of their government. Britain actually faired better than most European economies. It's surprising how many people in the UK accept the need for responsible spending policies. Not many people actually want the government to increase borrowing. People want a socially liberal government that stands up for the UK on the world stage and delivers high employment and economic growth while keeping spending under control.

I wasn't saying Blair alone was responsible, as Two US presidents and a number of Wall Street and London Bankers are to blame as well, however the policies of New Labour (i.e. Neoliberalism) are what brought about the crash, and the rise of the SNP, the Greens and Jeremy Corbyn are really a response to this, as is the rise of UKIP. People don't want more Neoliberalism, especially working people and young people. If Labour tries to do New Labour again, they will lose again, just like the last two elections.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 9:16:19 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/16/2016 9:08:15 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 7/16/2016 8:56:07 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/14/2016 1:29:04 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 8:02:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:20:58 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Today, Angela Eagle announced she would challenge Jeremy Corbyn for leadership of the Labour Party. She differs with him on many issues, including foreign policy.

And that's why she will be royally fvcked in the leadership vote.

After the Chilcot Report, some Labour MPs gave up on replacing Corbyn. With Blair a now universally hated figure, the Labour membership isn't about to elect a Blairite who supported the war in Iraq and has been outspoken in favor of aggressive foreign polciies that might have just been illegal.

On the heels of said report, if the Labour Party was really in touch with their base - they would have picked someone who is far closer to Corbyn in policy and did not back the Iraq War.

Don't get me wrong - I don't dislike Eagle. But someone who says she doesn't want to pick at single issues is a damned hypocrite when considering the main reason of challenging Corbyn.

As long as the Labour party decides as leader Corbyn does not need the backing of 51 MPs to stand in the leadership contest I think his chances of winning are extremely high. The only chance the rebellious MPs have is to stop him getting on the ballot paper which would obviously be undemocratic and unfair on both Corbyn and Labour party members.

Having said that it's hard to see how someone can carry on as leader with 170 MPs calling for you to resign and only 40 supporting you. In my opinion it would be the honourable thing to do to resign. Corbyn is too far to the left to get elected. The Labour party members are much further to the left than the majority of it's MPs and the key voters in the Centre ground it needs to attract to win elections. The question is if Labour wants to remain in opposition standing up for socialism or embrace capitalism and get in power. Tony Blair showed Labour what it needs to do to get in power, move to the right.

while it may have worked briefly, I think that the Great Recession and the Iraq War have changed people's minds on that, especially given that many Labour voters voted UKIP, Green or SNP last time because they thought Labour was still too Blairite.
People don't want austerity heavy vs austerity lite.

I don't think you can really blame Tony Blair for a worldwiderecession. All countries took a hit regardless of their government. Britain actually faired better than most European economies. It's surprising how many people in the UK accept the need for responsible spending policies. Not many people actually want the government to increase borrowing. People want a socially liberal government that stands up for the UK on the world stage and delivers high employment and economic growth while keeping spending under control.

I wasn't saying Blair alone was responsible, as Two US presidents and a number of Wall Street and London Bankers are to blame as well, however the policies of New Labour (i.e. Neoliberalism) are what brought about the crash, and the rise of the SNP, the Greens and Jeremy Corbyn are really a response to this, as is the rise of UKIP. People don't want more Neoliberalism, especially working people and young people. If Labour tries to do New Labour again, they will lose again, just like the last two elections.

In my opinion over confidence, over spending and over borrowing all over the world both by governments and business led to the worldwide recession. However history suggests recessions are inevitable every now and again. If Labour was so far to the right in the last two general Elections why did the left wing minor parties pick up so few seats? The SNP is left wing but it's support is motivated by nationalism. The appointment of Corbyn as Labour leader did not prevent a crushing SNP victory in the Scottish parliament elections.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 9:45:47 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/16/2016 8:50:49 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/14/2016 1:34:58 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:23:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:06:00 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 7/11/2016 8:12:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 1:25:43 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Indeed, this isn't about making the party 'electable' at all; especially since its membership has doubled and in fact taken over that of the Conservative party--thus suggesting more popularity. The problem is that Corbyn's viewpoints are just too liberal for the likes of Eagle...and they're using electability and (alleged) failure to lead properly as an excuse...I hope she fails.

I think the leadership displayed by Corbyn during the EU referendum campaign was extremely weak. The case he made for remain seemed reluctant and negative. He failed to get across the benefits of EU membership such as EU funding for disadvantaged areas, protections for workers rights and short term economic stability to the many working class areas in the Midlands and the north of England. In my opinion he is not electable to the UK electorate even against an opponent significantly to the right such as Theresa May.

I actually think the way Corbyn approached his campaign was admirable; he didn't resort to any propaganda or hyperbole to get his point across--which, is pretty unusual these days in politics. He did in fact reference all of those things (in particular workers' rights.) but did so in a sensible manner. If his leadership wasn't affective, then I don't believe that Labour would have anywhere near the amount of support from members that they now presently have.

One also has to consider how much more 'electable' Angela Eagle actually is, and from what I can see, it's not a lot--if at all. She voted for the Iraq war and invasion into Syria, so already has a questionable record on foreign policy--one that is bound to discourage a lot of Labour voters. In addition to that, she supported cuts that the Tory government made; again, not something that will attract most Labour people...and definitely not something that corresponds with the general party message or the direction that Jeremy Corbyn is trying to take it in. The whole point is to provide an 'opposition', and as I can see, she has the tendency to agree with much of what is proposed by the current U.K government--that is far from what opposition technically constitutes.

However it's true that some of the motivation amongst Labour MPs to get rid of him is based on political differences.

It's entirely due to political differences. The fact is that he was democratically elected with a mandate of 60%--the only thing that these MP's are doing is (further) dividing their party and undermining the vote that was made only 10 months ago.

I agree Angela Eagle is a weak candidate who would not fare that much better than Corbyn in a general election. A strong candidate such as Hillary Benn needs to step up and challenge Corbyn. I assume you are a Labour supporter. Would you prefer a Hillary Benn led Labour government or a Theresa May led conservative government? I acknowledge it's frustrating you cannot have an ideal candidate but you have to respect the electorate is to the right of your position so it's unlikely a left wing candidate will be elected barring scandal, turmoil or the appointment of a Farage like far right Conservative leader. What needs to be considered by those on the left is to people in the centre like me Corbyn is just an unelectable as people like Farage. To win elections you win the battle for the centre. It's extremely simple.

Labour tried that last time, NDP did that in Canada, the democrats have been doing that for years in the US, and it has not worked out to well for any of them. Labour lost two consecutive elections, NDP lost the overwhelming majority of their seats, and Democrats went from being the dominant party to losing both the house and Senate. People don't like having two similar options. They want an alternative to the status quo.

Tony Blair got elected. Brown was to his left. Labour lost seats. Miliband was further to the left again. Labour lost more seats. Do you remember Neil Kinnock? Did he get elected? No.

That sums things up really. Obviously as a socialist you would like politics to move left but in reality it should move to the centre ground. That's where elections are won.

In terms of distance, Brown was about a centimeter to the left of Blair and Miliband was about 3 centimeters away from Blair. Brown was New Labour from the start and Miliband was planted in New Labour, but was willing to reach out to the left, but not enough to win.
And I think you are thinking of Micahel Foot, not Neil Kinnock, because Neil Kinnock actually helped Labour make significant gains against the SDP/Liberal Alliance AND the Tories in 87 and 92. He also moved Labour to the center, if you remember he famously struggled with Militant, refused to support the miners Strike, even condemning it at times, and changed the party logo from the red flag to the rose, associated with moderate social democrats in Western Europe.
Michael Foot was the leftist, but he was pushing for good policie at the wrong time, because Thatcher was riding high off of her victory in the Falklands and the fact that he was a staunch leftist had caused a rift in the party resulting In the Liberal/SDP alliance. The manifesto could have been a bit more tempered, I admit. I would have left out the abolition of the House of Lords and immediate withdrawal from the EEC, and maybe reduced emphasis on re-nationalization.
And on Milband, you do realize he lost most of those votes to parties that were more left like SNP and the Greens.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 9:59:04 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/16/2016 9:16:19 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/16/2016 9:08:15 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 7/16/2016 8:56:07 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/14/2016 1:29:04 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 8:02:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:20:58 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Today, Angela Eagle announced she would challenge Jeremy Corbyn for leadership of the Labour Party. She differs with him on many issues, including foreign policy.

And that's why she will be royally fvcked in the leadership vote.

After the Chilcot Report, some Labour MPs gave up on replacing Corbyn. With Blair a now universally hated figure, the Labour membership isn't about to elect a Blairite who supported the war in Iraq and has been outspoken in favor of aggressive foreign polciies that might have just been illegal.

On the heels of said report, if the Labour Party was really in touch with their base - they would have picked someone who is far closer to Corbyn in policy and did not back the Iraq War.

Don't get me wrong - I don't dislike Eagle. But someone who says she doesn't want to pick at single issues is a damned hypocrite when considering the main reason of challenging Corbyn.

As long as the Labour party decides as leader Corbyn does not need the backing of 51 MPs to stand in the leadership contest I think his chances of winning are extremely high. The only chance the rebellious MPs have is to stop him getting on the ballot paper which would obviously be undemocratic and unfair on both Corbyn and Labour party members.

Having said that it's hard to see how someone can carry on as leader with 170 MPs calling for you to resign and only 40 supporting you. In my opinion it would be the honourable thing to do to resign. Corbyn is too far to the left to get elected. The Labour party members are much further to the left than the majority of it's MPs and the key voters in the Centre ground it needs to attract to win elections. The question is if Labour wants to remain in opposition standing up for socialism or embrace capitalism and get in power. Tony Blair showed Labour what it needs to do to get in power, move to the right.

while it may have worked briefly, I think that the Great Recession and the Iraq War have changed people's minds on that, especially given that many Labour voters voted UKIP, Green or SNP last time because they thought Labour was still too Blairite.
People don't want austerity heavy vs austerity lite.

I don't think you can really blame Tony Blair for a worldwiderecession. All countries took a hit regardless of their government. Britain actually faired better than most European economies. It's surprising how many people in the UK accept the need for responsible spending policies. Not many people actually want the government to increase borrowing. People want a socially liberal government that stands up for the UK on the world stage and delivers high employment and economic growth while keeping spending under control.

I wasn't saying Blair alone was responsible, as Two US presidents and a number of Wall Street and London Bankers are to blame as well, however the policies of New Labour (i.e. Neoliberalism) are what brought about the crash, and the rise of the SNP, the Greens and Jeremy Corbyn are really a response to this, as is the rise of UKIP. People don't want more Neoliberalism, especially working people and young people. If Labour tries to do New Labour again, they will lose again, just like the last two elections.

In my opinion over confidence, over spending and over borrowing all over the world both by governments and business led to the worldwide recession. However history suggests recessions are inevitable every now and again. If Labour was so far to the right in the last two general Elections why did the left wing minor parties pick up so few seats? The SNP is left wing but it's support is motivated by nationalism. The appointment of Corbyn as Labour leader did not prevent a crushing SNP victory in the Scottish parliament elections.

The recession was caused by risky gambling by Large Banks and amplified by Neoliberal Globalization. This was allowed thanks to deregulation.
And while recessions are inevitable under capitalism, they have not been so frequent or so severe, at least since the 1930s.
In the 2010 election the LibDems had a more progressive manifesto than Labour. billy Bragg even voted LibDem, and boy was that a mistake. That's why the LibDems are so hated now, they did a MASSIVE U-Turn. And in 2010 the Greens got their first seat in parliament, winning it from, suprise, Labour. And while SNP is first and foremost a nationalist party (which I do support), in the last GE they ran on an Anti-Austerity platform, rather than a nationalist platform. Did you even watch the debates? How about their Election broadcast?
And you do realize that Soctland has a devolved Labour Party. Corbyn didn't lead that campaign. And Scottish Labour failed because a) they lost the Unionist vote to the Tories, and b) Nicola Sturgeon is very popular in Scotland and people are happy with the SNP. Labour only went after the SNP and left itself open to attacks from the Tories, SNP, and the Greens. They just tired to out SNP the SNP and that didn't work.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 10:04:51 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/16/2016 9:07:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/14/2016 1:20:26 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 8:12:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 1:25:43 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Indeed, this isn't about making the party 'electable' at all; especially since its membership has doubled and in fact taken over that of the Conservative party--thus suggesting more popularity. The problem is that Corbyn's viewpoints are just too liberal for the likes of Eagle...and they're using electability and (alleged) failure to lead properly as an excuse...I hope she fails.

I think the leadership displayed by Corbyn during the EU referendum campaign was extremely weak. The case he made for remain seemed reluctant and negative. He failed to get across the benefits of EU membership such as EU funding for disadvantaged areas, protections for workers rights and short term economic stability to the many working class areas in the Midlands and the north of England. In my opinion he is not electable to the UK electorate even against an opponent significantly to the right such as Theresa May. However it's true that some of the motivation amongst Labour MPs to get rid of him is based on political differences.

Jeremy Corbyn is far more likable than Theresa May, and by a wide margin. Corbyn has a -7 Net favorability rating while Theresa May's is -45. This is according to YouGov. Corbyn also has extremely high favorability among working class/lower income voters and young people. Theresa May is more popular with Women and older people, however she is highly disliked by working class voters and even more so with young people. If Corbyn decides to work with the Greens, and smaller left wing parties like TUSC, Respect and others, I think he can win. And given Caroline Lucas is running for leader of the Greens with the goal of building a progressive coalition, I think this is not an implausible scenario. And given many Blairites are facing no confidence votes from their CLPs, I think many anti-Blairite voters will be more willing to return to Labour, and many of these people voted UKIP last time around.

The far left parties only pick up limited support. They dont win any seats. He would need to get them to agree not to stand in elections and endorse him instead. I doubt they would do this unless he promised their leaders some sort of role in government. If he did this he would alienate the centre even more than he already has. Labour would face a huge defeat. Elections are won in conservative/ Labour marginal seats. Winning over conservative party voters must be the target to achieve election victory.

Please show a link of that poll. Most things I've read suggest the opposite.

https://www.ipsos-mori.com...-

It's on YouGov. Just Search Jeremy Corbyn, it's on his profile.
And it is true that elections are won in marginal seats, however to win these seats it is best to get a large turnout. And in order to do that, you need to make people want to vote for you. To win Labour needs workers and young people and they need to be encouraged to vote.