I had edited it before your post
Last edited:
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
A Political Thread
- Thread starter Draggs
- Start date
- Status
I had edited it before your post
Corybns a terrible leader what has he achieved as party leader apart from splitting it into pieces. People voted for him because they like his ideas and views but he's a damp squid in any form of leadership
Quoting for posterity - sorry TS
He has got thousands of people to join the Labour party.
He has got more people interested in politics than there has ever been.
He has moved away from the c*ck shaking nature of the private school elite politics and had actually made Prime Ministers Questions watchable for more of the population.
He is a man with values and ideas which resonate with the vast majority of the population.
He may not may it to No.10 but his legacy will be noticeable for the next 20 years.
I personally want a leader I can admire and have similar values with.
Okay
1) Yeh lot of good that has done him.
2) Again calling BS on this, his supporters are the ones already politically active.
3) First half i agree with second half he has been fairly poor in PMQ IMO.
4) Obviously the majoirity of the pop don't feel that is the case.
5) What legacy will that be a broken party?
No they don't resonate with the vast majority of the population unless you think the vast majority of the population live in west London or a university campus
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,877
- Reaction score
- 6,910
Think he was just highlighting that being sea creatures squid are usually damp in the squid / squib typo.
As for Corbyn, the man is arrogant beyond belief. He's never had power before and now he and his ego likes the taste. How anyone can carry on after being so publicly slaughtered by their parliamentary party is beyond me. Any government needs an effective opposition yet he could be about to condemn his party, or what's left of it, to years in the wilderness.Values are useless without judgement.
But he was voted in by the people, by the members of the party.
If the toffs in Westminster want him gone then maybe they should think about moving to a different party as they're obviously not on the same wavelength as the member base or their leader.
There are 230 labour MPs, there were 251,417 Labour party members that voted for Corbyn.
If the toffs in Westminster want him gone then maybe they should think about moving to a different party as they're obviously not on the same wavelength as the member base or their leader.
There are 230 labour MPs, there were 251,417 Labour party members that voted for Corbyn.
It does seem an odd argument. Democracy tends to be on the side of the person who wins a landslide majority; not the 0.1% of the electorate who don't like the result.
or is it that he ****** so many of them off they want him gone? He just isnt a political leader.
Just because you've been given the job by the legitimate authority doesn't mean you should take it or continue to do the job if you're no good at it. Whether he's Labour's rightful leader or not is irrelevant to whether he's a bad leader.
Also, if MPs should move to a different party when they're temporarily not on the same wavelength at the party membership, then Jeremy Corbyn shouldn't be Labour party leader to begin with because he should have gone aaaaaages ago. He didn't of course, because MPs have every right to say "I continue to agree with the aims of the party and disagrees with the current methods of achieving them and will therefore remain in the party and actively seek to agitate for change". Nor are they bound to follow the wishes of the selectorate because their duty is to their constituents and party principles before it is to the selectorate. As such, I do not believe they have a moral duty to follow the elected party leader. The party can deselect them if it so wishes but, as seen with Corbyn, one can walk a long way outside the line before deselection becomes worth it.
In any case, moral issues aside, it is next to impossible to perform the duties of party leader without the confidence of the parliamentary party. They can't come up with, present, or execute policies without them on side. That's why generally party leaders go if they receive a vote of no confidence. Once its in, they are simply incapable of doing their job.
If nothing else, a Corbyn win will be fascinating in terms of whether a leader can rebuild that lost confidence - and no British party leader has lost confidence more than Corbyn - to levels where they are able to perform the job. That is, of course, assuming he wants to. He may not. It is highly possible that Corbyn does not regard being an effective leader of the opposition party as his most important job right now in which case, why bother with what the MPs think?
Incidentally, I very much dislike the sentiment of "They lost the democratic vote, they are no longer allowed to talk against the idea" that seems to be creeping into political discourse in this country. Not only does free speech mean they can indeed continue talking about how bad an idea something was and is, it mistakes the nature of democracy. Democracy is not about unchangeable decisions. It is about the will of the people, and that is mutable, and attempts to change that can go on all of the time. Even just after lost votes. And they probably should.
Also, if MPs should move to a different party when they're temporarily not on the same wavelength at the party membership, then Jeremy Corbyn shouldn't be Labour party leader to begin with because he should have gone aaaaaages ago. He didn't of course, because MPs have every right to say "I continue to agree with the aims of the party and disagrees with the current methods of achieving them and will therefore remain in the party and actively seek to agitate for change". Nor are they bound to follow the wishes of the selectorate because their duty is to their constituents and party principles before it is to the selectorate. As such, I do not believe they have a moral duty to follow the elected party leader. The party can deselect them if it so wishes but, as seen with Corbyn, one can walk a long way outside the line before deselection becomes worth it.
In any case, moral issues aside, it is next to impossible to perform the duties of party leader without the confidence of the parliamentary party. They can't come up with, present, or execute policies without them on side. That's why generally party leaders go if they receive a vote of no confidence. Once its in, they are simply incapable of doing their job.
If nothing else, a Corbyn win will be fascinating in terms of whether a leader can rebuild that lost confidence - and no British party leader has lost confidence more than Corbyn - to levels where they are able to perform the job. That is, of course, assuming he wants to. He may not. It is highly possible that Corbyn does not regard being an effective leader of the opposition party as his most important job right now in which case, why bother with what the MPs think?
Incidentally, I very much dislike the sentiment of "They lost the democratic vote, they are no longer allowed to talk against the idea" that seems to be creeping into political discourse in this country. Not only does free speech mean they can indeed continue talking about how bad an idea something was and is, it mistakes the nature of democracy. Democracy is not about unchangeable decisions. It is about the will of the people, and that is mutable, and attempts to change that can go on all of the time. Even just after lost votes. And they probably should.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,877
- Reaction score
- 6,910
All Labour Party members want to see their party back in power and the MPs, who understand how Westminster works, are by far best placed to judge whether Corbyn can achieve that. They don't think he can and I think the membership would be foolish to ignore that. Even if loads of MPs publicly backtrack, which I doubt, the lack of support for the leader is an ongoing open goal which May can exploit whenever she wants. Of course she might just decide that her interests are best served by him keeping the job.
How Westminster work? You mean the game and rules they have set up to benefit themselves but not outsiders who want to get in? I am more than happy that someone may not play by their rules, because quite frankly there rules suck.
^this it's bloody scary how many people believe this.
yes it does but you your never going to change it while your are on the sidelines with a protest leader.
http://dailym.ai/2aCC04x
Interesting - always thought with the different levels of birth rate it might be a few years yet but maybe earlier although it is the DM.......
Interesting - always thought with the different levels of birth rate it might be a few years yet but maybe earlier although it is the DM.......
You cannot count people who have been turned off by leftism and voted for anti-immigration populism instead (Lab-to-UKIP voters), or swing voters (Lab-to-Tory voters), as being "splitters of the left". They are no longer of the left.
As I have said before, electoral pacts.
Take Thurrock. Tories won by 33.7% to Labour's 32.6%. Lib Dems had 1.3%. Make a pact that only Labour stands, with Liberal Democrats encouraging their voters to support Labour. (In return, Labour stands down in a Labour-Lib Dem marginal.)
Take Cardiff North. Tories won 42.4% to Labour's 38.3%. Collectively, Plaid, Lib Dems and Greens had 10.8%.
Collectively, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens had 41.2% of the vote. And then, if they still fall short of a majority of seats, they bring SNP on board in a coalition.
Labour just need to sustain their support from the last election... which they seemed to be doing until the coup. There's been a 3-4% drop in Labour voting intentions within the last month. Imagine if the rebellion were actually working with Corbyn, and hammering at the Tories? Labour could have actually been in a decent position by now.
... or the Labour MPs are bad followers. Leadership is a two-way interaction and a break down in it isn't necessarily the fault of the leader.
re: the first bolded part. Surely for practical and political reasons their duty is to the Labour-voting constituents. Practical because most MPs have constituencies which have a plurality of non-Labour voters, with non-Labour interests, happy to see the Labour party fail, which would make the political process impractical if the MP had to represent these people. Political because when you stand as an MP, under a platform, you want to be able to represent those that resonate with that platform. In this case, let me turn the question on you: is an MP breaking their duty if the MP is working against a constituency mostly in favour of Corbyn?
re: the second bolded part. Which principle is Corbyn breaking?
I think you have left out one other duty: to the party. Which is odd, because this is arguably the one on which Corbyn may fall down: his so-called "electability". That said, I think the coup have presented an even more unelectable candidate.
You seem to be generally supportive of this behaviour of the PLP despite decrying the "leftist circular firing squad".
Aye, agreed.
As an aside, politicians tell people that they can have their own say by getting involved in the political process and voting. Sure, the Labour membership does not make up a large proportion of people in this country. But they do make up a big proportion of the particularly politically motivated left. I think that when you have party MPs working against these members, the message being sent is that politics and political decisions are not for the masses, they are for the entitled few MPs. The implication that a few hundred MPs know better than the collective hundreds of thousands of members. It's not exactly great for political engagement. And when these MPs turn to these members, asking for canvassers and donations, I suspect a few MPs may have to lower their expectations.
And with all of this being said... this:
http://www.sharonhodgson.org/sharon...resignation_and_her_support_for_owen_smith_mp
In particular:
Makes me see the other side. The bit that voters generally aren't privy to: the day-to-day working arrangements of the party. This is where I wonder about Corbyn/McDonnell. I hope more MPs release things like this, and Corbyn/McDonnell release a statement sharing their POV too.
Last edited:
Sonic Kiwi
Academy Player
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2015
- Messages
- 204
- Reaction score
- 0
Kiwi dictionary.....just because we talk shut(****) doesn't mean we eat it
- Status
Similar threads
