Support NeoGAF

[Moze]

You'd probably be best served in a country with proportional representation, because in a FPTP system ideological purity means electoral failure. FPTP parties need to be broad churches as they have to appeal to a wide range of people because the electoral system limits realistic choice.

And who exactly does years of perpetual Tory rule help while Labour flounces off so you can vote your conscience without any caveats?

btw the last Labour government despite my long list of grievances with it, did a hell of a lot of good. A hell of a lot more than Corbyn will ever get the chance to do.

The FPTP system is flawed, and that is a huge problem.

Moving to the right is not an option for a lot of people. Supporting somebody they believe in, and getting their vote counted is important to those people. They feel good about their vote. They actually want to vote instead of voting for somebody they hate. What is wrong with that? Are you suggesting that people should ignore the leader they want and vote for somebody they hate just because the flawed system makes it hard for them?

Blair's government also done some unforgivable things, and in many ways set the blueprint for Cameron. Blair's government introduced some absolutely unforgivable policies. Many of the problems that are still around today are Blair's fault. The current social housing crisis is Blair's fault. The current welfare system that treats almost all claimants as lazy benefit cheats is Blair's fault. Disabled people being treated like absolute dirt is Blair's fault. Cameron's government wasn't even far off from Blair's when we are talking about the treatment of the most vulnerable. Welfare cuts would have especially been a big thing for New Labour if they were allowed to carry on.

 

[Real Hero]

Disabled people being treated like absolute dirt is Blair's fault?

 

[Moze]

Disabled people being treated like absolute dirt is Blair's fault?

Blair cut disability benefits throughout his whole career in government. Blair's government also introduced ESA to replace previous disability benefits. As part of ESA, disabled people are forced into a medical conducted by a private company employed by the government. GP opinions are irrelevant. The Tory government then expanded on this. Poor disabled people are basically all treated like benefit cheats because of Tony Blair. The policy has caused deaths and suicides.

I don't really see how anybody could put anything past Blair. He was capable of pretty much anything.

 

[TimmmV]

You'd probably be best served in a country with proportional representation, because in a FPTP system ideological purity means electoral failure. FPTP parties need to be broad churches as they have to appeal to a wide range of people because the electoral system limits realistic choice.

And who exactly does years of perpetual Tory rule help while Labour flounces off so you can vote your conscience without any caveats?

btw the last Labour government despite my long list of grievances with it, did a hell of a lot of good. A hell of a lot more than Corbyn will ever get the chance to do.

While you are right, Labour are culpable for that by supporting FPTP in the AV referendum.

Unless we change to a properly proportional system, I fear we are just going to swing between Tory/Labour governments each time there is a new world-economic-crisis

 

[Bony Manifesto]

Unless we change to a properly proportional system, I fear we are just going to swing between Tory/Labour governments each time there is a new world-economic-crisis

Ah, you're an optimist I see!

 

[War Peaceman]

Blair cut disability benefits throughout his whole career in government. Blair's government also introduced ESA to replace previous disability benefits. As part of ESA, disabled people are forced into a medical conducted by a private company employed by the government. GP opinions are irrelevant. The Tory government then expanded on this. Poor disabled people are basically all treated like benefit cheats because of Tony Blair. The policy has caused deaths and suicides.

I don't really see how anybody could put anything past Blair. He was capable of pretty much anything.

As bad as Blair could be - and I don't dispute that new labour were complicit in ruining welfare - the left would dream of another period equivalent to their rule. They did incredible work;
Civil partnerships (and got rid of section 28), massive investment in NHS (with equivalent improvements, PPI was shite though), national minimum wage(!), child tax credit, Sure Start, devolution, free entry to national museums/galleries, independence of bank of england. and so on!

That is incredible. Yes, they made some terrible mistakes but who wouldn't want that again?

This is the problem with Corbyn supporters, they fail to recognise that persuading others to vote for them through policy compromise is necessary if you want to bring the country leftward.

 

[Camp Freddie]

But we know that phone calls are far less effective at turnout and voter opinions that door stop work.

I'm genuinely curious about how effective the different campaign methods are.
I'm absolutely unmoved by phone calls and door-knockers, who I treat with approximately the same level of scepticism as PPI-rebate salesmen and chuggers.
However, I assume it must be effective on some people, presumably those who are less interested in politics.

I think Corbyn's big challenge is harnessing his young supporters into an effective 'new' media strategy. I have a lot of Corbyn supporters on facebook, but they're mostly re-tweeting stories from ultra-left websites (until recently, I didn't even realise the left had it's equivalent of the Mail and Express!), complaining about why these stories don't appear in the "MSM" and trying to be holier-than-thou about their socialism.
That stuff turns me off and I'm a moderate lefty.
I'm not sure if those people can be turned into useful messengers, since they seem so sickened by anything "mainstream". Unfortunately for them, getting the message across to voters means talking to (and convincing) mainstream people.

I think it's interesting that while Corbyn supporters think he might win a general election (about 50% of them), Smith's supporters don't think he can win (only 33% of them). They just think he'll lose less badly than Corbyn. I agree with that, but it's an incredibly depressing thought that most Smith supporters see him as damage limitation.

In other news, May is having a Brexit conference at Chequers. I'm sure there will be some leaks that expose the hidden divisions at the heart of the Tory party. If only there were some opposition party in a position to capitalise on it. Maybe Farron will manage to get his face on the news for once.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

While you are right, Labour are culpable for that by supporting FPTP in the AV referendum.

Unless we change to a properly proportional system, I fear we are just going to swing between Tory/Labour governments each time there is a new world-economic-crisis

IIRC, two thirds of Labour MPs were pro-AV, which is rather impressive when you consider how strongly contrary to their self-interests electoral reform is. It's also precedent that you can't whip a party on plebsicites - they're conscience issues - so even if Miliband (pro-AV) had wanted a stronger stance, there was little he could do.

 

[TimmmV]

Ah, you're an optimist I see!

Ha, yeah its quite a bleak outlook.

I suppos the more* positive way of phrasing it would be that FPTP has made it so we only bother changing governments when one of them fucks up really really badly. Until then they basically have full control.

I guess Labour prefer that, and the chance of another go at sustained power for ~10 years than an electoral system that actually gives them a regular say in things

*(not really)

 

[kirblar]

The letter kicking someone out of the party due to twitter referenced a few pages back?

Not an isolated thing: https://twitter.com/portraitinflesh/status/771008869673803779

The purity purges have begun.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

Ha, yeah its quite a bleak outlook.

I suppos the more* positive way of phrasing it would be that FPTP has made it so we only bother changing governments when one of them fucks up really really badly. Until then they basically have full control.

I guess Labour prefer that, and the chance of another go at sustained power for ~10 years than an electoral system that actually gives them a regular say in things

*(not really)

I was actually being (somewhat) serious in that even though you're expressing it as a bad thing, your view that Labour will inevitably get another turn in power is actually very optimistic these days!

Whether you're a leftist or a centrist, the thing that everyone in the Labour Party agrees on is that their survival as a party hangs in the balance (the problem is that both sides think that the other is the cancer that needs to be excised from the party).

 

[Maledict]

The letter kicking someone out of the party due to twitter referenced a few pages back?

Not an isolated thing: https://twitter.com/portraitinflesh/status/771008869673803779

The purity purges have begun.

We have someone in the thread who actually works at labour office who said this. Removing people from the party who publicly support other parties is allowed - infact its how all the parties operate. They just don't normally do anything about it because cross-party membership is usually so low. However we know first time around Conservatives were joining the party to vote in the leadership election, so guessing the same is happening now as well.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm sure I already replied to these posts but it seems to be gone... Mysterious?!

Shifting to the right is not an option for some people. It's easy for you, as a Blairite, to say you want the party to move to the right. That is not something Corbyn voters want under any circumstances.

I think you're under the misapprehension that the choice you have is between Corbyn and Tories - that's not the choice, because Tories is the answer, each and every time. You say that moving the party rightwards isn't something Corbyn voters "want under any circumstances", but do those circumstances really not include "perpetual Tory rule"? Is Blair actually so much worse than the Tories that you'd rather have a Tory government than a Blairite one? Because *that's* the actual choice you have.

I do actually think rallies indicate people willing to do legwork, roughly, it's just legwork doesn't win elections in and of itself. I don't agree with Maledict at all; all the Corbyn supporters I know have been canvassing pretty furiously just for the leadership contest, never mind the general. I've been phoned three times in the last two weeks by JC4PM, and not once by Smith's organisation. It's just no matter how enthusiastically they knock on doors, they're not going to change the public image of Corbyn.

This is all well and good for Corbyn's campaign, but what about in a GE, which is where he actually needs that help? Are his supporters going to be out there canvassing for Simon Danczuk and Chuka? Would they even be out there canvassing for a CND, SWP, "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", British-Rail, Leyland Communist, if he doesn't have the sex appeal of Corbyn's flat cap?

 

[Moze]

I'm sure I already replied to these posts but it seems to be gone... Mysterious?!



I think you're under the misapprehension that the choice you have is between Corbyn and Tories - that's not the choice, because Tories is the answer, each and every time. You say that moving the party rightwards isn't something Corbyn voters "want under any circumstances", but do those circumstances really not include "perpetual Tory rule"? Is Blair actually so much worse than the Tories that you'd rather have a Tory government than a Blairite one? Because *that's* the actual choice you have.

To many Corbyn supporters, New Labour is not an alternative to a Tory government. New Labour is a Tory government. Blair fucked over so many people for years that it has got to the point where they will not let go of somebody they believe in. I don't see why you find it so hard to understand that Blair is cancer to so many people. To many people, Blair was great and won elections. To others, he was not, and ruined the party they once believed in. Calling those people crazy and deluded is a disgusting thing to do. There is nothing deluded about voting for something they believe in. Their vote counts, and the numbers show that they, and others like them support somebody with a more left wing approach. That support could be something that influences future leaders. You want them to just roll over and accept something they do not want.

And what exactly is the plan with Smith? He is clearly as unelectable as Corbyn. The difference is that he has no support in the party at all. Is the plan to just use Smith to get rid of the Corbyn supporters from the party and then replace Smith with a better leader? Surely he will not last until 2020.

I would call myself a Corbyn supporter, but I am not a huge Corbyn supporter. I will take him over Smith, and will I vote for him in a general election. Smith comes across as slimy to me. I did quite like Miliband, but alot of his policies were just bad. Especially on welfare. I felt he was somewhat forced to lean to the right on alot of issues.

 

[Maledict]

The fact that people view the last labour government as Tory sums the entire ridiculous, ignorant idiocy up. Sorry but at this stage there's no point sugar coating it - if you think Blair was the same as Thatcher or Cameron you have a screw loose.

 

[Moze]

The fact that people view the last labour government as Tory sums the entire ridiculous, ignorant idiocy up. Sorry but at this stage there's no point sugar coating it - if you think Blair was the same as Thatcher or Cameron you have a screw loose.

Different people have different opinions on what a good and bad government is based on their own circumstances. People generally vote for the party that is going to make their life the easiest. To many poor people, Blair took a very right wing approach and made their life as hard is he possibly could have at the time. To those people, he was basically a Tory.

It would not have got much better if Blair was allowed to stay on. Many of the more suspect policies New Labour brought in were during the end of their time in government. If they were allowed to carry on, more austerity would have happened.

I think you are the one with a screw loose if you cannot see the similarities between Blair and Cameron. You are in complete denial.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'll reply properly later, but

A) You keep accusing people of saying things they didn't day ("call them crazy and deluded"), you did it to Maledict too. Please stop doing that.

B) Blair is the only Labour leader in the last 40 years to win an election. Those people who are disappointed and for whom Blair "ruined a party they believed in", what exactly were they believing in that party to do? Because it certainly wasn't forming governments. But if you genuinely think that civil partnerships, doubling funding on the NHS, doubling funding on education, Sure Start, massively expanding university access etc is the same as what a Hague or Howard Tory party would have done, then yeah, I'm not surprised you don't make a distinction.

As for Smith, his key virtue is not that he will win the election, it's that's he won't rip apart the most successful vanguard of left wing progress the UK has seen for the last 100 years whilst doing it. And I say that as someone who is basically a Tory.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

This is all well and good for Corbyn's campaign, but what about in a GE, which is where he actually needs that help? Are his supporters going to be out there canvassing for Simon Danczuk and Chuka? Would they even be out there canvassing for a CND, SWP, "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", British-Rail, Leyland Communist, if he doesn't have the sex appeal of Corbyn's flat cap?

No to the former, which is obviously a huge problem, but yes to the latter, I think. Corbyn is not succeeding on the basis of personal appeal but because of what he offers; anyone offering similar will receive the same dedication.

 

[CyclopsRock]

No to the former, which is obviously a huge problem, but yes to the latter, I think. Corbyn is not succeeding on the basis of personal appeal but because of what he offers; anyone offering similar will receive the same dedication.

Ehhhh I dunno about that. We shall see I guess once the reselection occur. For By-elections I don't doubt it but for the GE? Maybe the ones in London...

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Ehhhh I dunno about that. We shall see I guess once the reselection occur. For By-elections I don't doubt it but for the GE? Maybe the ones in London...

Corbyn is relatively stronger outside London than he is within it, from polling. He's strongest in the North, for example, relative to Smith. He's not really powered by metropolitan quinoa eaters, much to the misunderstanding of the PLP.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Corbyn is relatively stronger outside London than he is within it, from polling. He's strongest in the North, for example, relative to Smith. He's not really powered by metropolitan quinoa eaters, much to the misunderstanding of the PLP.

In terms of percentages or... ? Because even 20% of London Labour party members represents tens of thousands of potential foot soldiers in a pretty (geographically) small area that's nonetheless packed with electoral seats. Him having 80% of support in Wales won't help him get the boots on the ground in rural Camarthanshire if there are only 10 people there that support him (that nonetheless represent 80% of party members). Ya know what I mean?

Obviously those numbers are made up.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

In terms of percentages or... ? Because even 20% of London Labour party members represents tens of thousands of potential foot soldiers in a pretty (geographically) small area that's nonetheless packed with electoral seats. Him having 80% of support in Wales won't help him get the boots on the ground in rural Camarthanshire if there are only 10 people there that support him (that nonetheless represent 80% of party members). Ya know what I mean?

Obviously those numbers are made up.

Oh, sure, my point was not that Corbyn is going to have shock troops nationwide, just that he might actually have more ground troops in most constituencies than the Labour Party of 2015 did. It's not going to make a difference to his election chances, but Maledict was worried about a collapse of the Labour Party's ground power, which from my admittedly anecdotal experience but also extrapolation from polling data is one of the few things about the Labour Party that seems to be waxing, not waning.

It's a minor point, but I think it stems from a wider misunderstanding of why Corbyn is winning that the PLP doesn't understand and has a reasonable amount to do with why their candidate (and mine!) is losing.

 

[phisheep]

Oh, sure, my point was not that Corbyn is going to have shock troops nationwide, just that he might actually have more ground troops in most constituencies than the Labour Party of 2015 did. It's not going to make a difference to his election chances, but Maledict was worried about a collapse of the Labour Party's ground power, which from my admittedly anecdotal experience but also extrapolation from polling data is one of the few things about the Labour Party that seems to be waxing, not waning.

It's a minor point, but I think it stems from a wider misunderstanding of why Corbyn is winning that the PLP doesn't understand and has a reasonable amount to do with why their candidate (and mine!) is losing.

I think a big issue here is not so much the number, but the effectiveness, of Corbyn ground troops.

I'm perfectly happy to have sensible doorstep conversations with anyone, and have had many such conversations with Labour reps over the years. But with a Corbynista we get about 30 seconds into the conversation before I am being reviled as Tory scum and obviously I must want to demolish the NHS, kill poor people and eat babies.

That's not a great way to build alliances.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think a big issue here is not so much the number, but the effectiveness, of Corbyn ground troops.

I'm perfectly happy to have sensible doorstep conversations with anyone, and have had many such conversations with Labour reps over the years. But with a Corbynista we get about 30 seconds into the conversation before I am being reviled as Tory scum and obviously I must want to demolish the NHS, kill poor people and eat babies.

That's not a great way to build alliances.

Yeah, this is the better point, because it's largely just an extension of "many Corbyn supporters do not understand it is necessary to persuade people who voted Conservative and/or UKIP in 2015 to win". I agree that Corbyn foot soldiers are not likely to be adept.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I do like all this talk of foot soldiers and shock troops. It sounds very exciting!

 

[CyclopsRock]

I do like all this talk of foot soldiers and shock troops. It sounds very exciting!

Especially when you consider that, for UKIP, their shock troopers are "Margery from the Rotary Club".

I've actually never known what the Rotary Club is. We had a flat-packed Rotary Club shed in our school play ground, as if someone had to move it someone and temporarily put it in the local school playground and it never got moved. That was basically all I knew of it. Now it's a by-word - as I've just done there - for country bumpkin nonsense about fences and who's organising the tombola at the town fete.

 

[Moze]

I'll reply properly later, but

A) You keep accusing people of saying things they didn't day ("call them crazy and deluded"), you did it to Maledict too. Please stop doing that.

B) Blair is the only Labour leader in the last 40 years to win an election. Those people who are disappointed and for whom Blair "ruined a party they believed in", what exactly were they believing in that party to do? Because it certainly wasn't forming governments. But if you genuinely think that civil partnerships, doubling funding on the NHS, doubling funding on education, Sure Start, massively expanding university access etc is the same as what a Hague or Howard Tory party would have done, then yeah, I'm not surprised you don't make a distinction.

As for Smith, his key virtue is not that he will win the election, it's that's he won't rip apart the most successful vanguard of left wing progress the UK has seen for the last 100 years whilst doing it. And I say that as someone who is basically a Tory.

You have called people who think Corbyn is electable idiots and delusional though. You also seem to think voting for Corbyn is a wasted vote. I assume you also think it is crazy thing to do to waste your vote? You don't seem to have any respect for people voting for Corbyn. Let's not get into this though. It's irrelevant.

Maybe they believed the party would not participate in illegal wars, not fuck up social housing after saying they would not fuck up social housing, not introduce the blueprint for future Tory welfare reform with welfare policies that have literally caused the most vulnerable in our society to kill themselves. And much more.

The Tories would have eventually moved to the centre without Blair.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I wouldn't go so far as idiots, but I think that people who think Corbyn could win an election are either consciously or unconsciously ignoring the realities of the situation. I'd be interested to see an argument for the contrary.

 

[travisbickle]

I remember the good old days a year ago when there wasn't actually anyone who supported Corbyn and it was really a large portion of Conservative supporters trying to sabotage the party. Now, they're out there hassling phisheep at his front door!

 

[The Hamburglar]

Blair cut disability benefits throughout his whole career in government. Blair's government also introduced ESA to replace previous disability benefits. As part of ESA, disabled people are forced into a medical conducted by a private company employed by the government. GP opinions are irrelevant. The Tory government then expanded on this. Poor disabled people are basically all treated like benefit cheats because of Tony Blair. The policy has caused deaths and suicides.

I don't really see how anybody could put anything past Blair. He was capable of pretty much anything.

Tony Blair has been nothing but scum yet he's still appleaded. Dat charisma.

 

[Maledict]

Tony Blair has been nothing but scum yet he's still appleaded. Dat charisma.

Massive reductions in child poverty.
National minimum wage.
Civil partnerships.
Doubling of NHS funding.
Massive increases in education spending.
Ground breaking equalities legislation.
Largest redistribution of wealth since the 60s

= 'nothing but scum'

 

[RedSparrows]

Being unhappy with Blair does not excuse the critical failure that is 'Red Tories, all the same'. It's lazy and shit.

 

[CyclopsRock]

You have called people who think Corbyn is electable idiots and delusional though.

Yeah, because they are. That's not what you-said-that-I-said though.

"To many people, Blair was great and won elections. To others, he was not, and ruined the party they once believed in. Calling those people crazy and deluded is a disgusting thing to do."

Both issues would be under the heading "The Labour Party in the early 21st Century" in a text book, but beyond that they aren't the same thing, because "No liking Blair" and "Thinking Corbyn is electable" are two non-comparable statements. One being true (or an opinion you hold) has no bearing on the other people true (or you also holding that opinion).

You also seem to think voting for Corbyn is a wasted vote.

Are we talking about in the General or the leadership election? Either way the answer is "It is", but for different reasons I guess.

I assume you also think it is crazy thing to do to waste your vote? You don't seem to have any respect for people voting for Corbyn. Let's not get into this though. It's irrelevant.

I've said before that there are two groups - those who like Corbyn but think he won't win the general, and those who like Corbyn and think that he will. The latter are wrong and silly and politically shrink-wrapped but they obviously have noble aims. It's the former I have a "respect" problem with, because they're the ones willingly and knowingly damning their own party to destruction in the name of purity. They don't actually care about enacting left wing policies because, by their own admission, they know he won't win an election, therefore the Tories will, therefore no left wing policies will get enacted. I have no respect for them.

Maybe they believed the party would not participate in illegal wars, not fuck up social housing after saying they would not fuck up social housing, not introduce the blueprint for future Tory welfare reform with welfare policies that have literally caused the most vulnerable in our society to kill themselves. And much more.

This is a nonsense comparison, because you're making a comparison between "New Labour" and "Socialist Utopia", or even "New Labour" and "Kinnock". But the reality is that, come 2020 and being at the ballot box, that's not your choice. Your choice is "Labour" and "Tory", and a Labour party lead by Corbyn will absolutely never win. This is the very definition of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

The Tories would have eventually moved to the centre without Blair.

Why?

 

[Jackpot]

You have called people who think Corbyn is electable idiots and delusional though. You also seem to think voting for Corbyn is a wasted vote.

"Jeremy Corbyn Has 0% Chance Of Leading Labour To Outright Majority, Electoral Calculus Says"

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...ral-calculus-says_uk_57a985cbe4b07285e131da02

 

[Hazzuh]

Massive reductions in child poverty.
National minimum wage.
Civil partnerships.
Doubling of NHS funding.
Massive increases in education spending.
Ground breaking equalities legislation.
Largest redistribution of wealth since the 60s

= 'nothing but scum'

In the new Labour party we don't care about thing like that that, we judge leaders by how much they talk about the Chartists and Tolpuddle martyrs instead.

 

[PJV3]

"Jeremy Corbyn Has 0% Chance Of Leading Labour To Outright Majority, Electoral Calculus Says"

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...ral-calculus-says_uk_57a985cbe4b07285e131da02

Some view democracy as having your true opinion heard even if it means accepting losing, in that sense it isn't wasted.

 

[Randy Lanzarote]

Lucas and Bartley elected as Green Party co-leaders

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37251361

Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley have been elected co-leaders of the Green Party of England and Wales in a job-sharing arrangement.

They saw off competition from five others to succeed Natalie Bennett, who is stepping down after four years.

The two said the joint election showed the party was "not bound by tradition".

There could be hope for Smith ... 😂 😂

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Bennett was even worse then Corbyn lol

Once listened to her do one of the most bizarre interviews.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

lol wtf? Doesn't that just prove that neither of them are good enough to win an election even in their own party?

 

[benjipwns]

lol wtf? Doesn't that just prove that neither of them are good enough to win an election even in their own party?

If you're asking about the Green Party, they (in most countries anyhow) usually do co-leaders (or co-spokespeople) of each mainstream gender.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Some view democracy as having your true opinion heard even if it means accepting losing, in that sense it isn't wasted.

Right, but it is still wasted. If the Conservatives get in government, you can make them hear your voice all you want, that doesn't mean they have to listen. Meanwhile, functionally, the poorest in society are worse off, the disabled are worse off, minorities are worse off, children are worse off, the sick are worse off, and all the other groups normally punished under Conservative governments are worse off. So what was the point of making a vote that could simply be ignored again?

I mean, I hate the logic above as much as the next man. I'll argue pretty vehemently for PR any day of the week. But until we change from FPTP, it remains a true argument. You having your voice heard just fucked over the disabled. What a fantastic accomplishment.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

If you're asking about the Green Party, they (in most countries anyhow) usually do co-leaders (or co-spokespeople) of each mainstream gender.

So what's this about "not being bound by tradition"?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So what's this about "not being bound by tradition"?

It's not tradition from the perspective of the UK Green Party.

 

[benjipwns]

So what's this about "not being bound by tradition"?

They went to a single leader for the last eight years:

Until 2008, when Ms Lucas was elected for the first time, the party did not have a single leader but relied on two principal speakers.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

They went to a single leader for the last eight years:

So they're going back to the tradition of the first 18 years of the party?

It's not tradition from the perspective of the UK Green Party.

Apparently, it is!

Edit:

Didn't the Romans do a similar thing with their military leaders? And it was a huge disaster?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Apparently, it is!

More accurately, it was. Then it wasn't. Now it is again!

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Lucas on her own was the only time they ever looked remotely effective though

 

[Camp Freddie]

Lucas and Bartley elected as Green Party co-leaders

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37251361

There could be hope for Smith ... 😂 😂

To my shame, I always thought Lucas was the leader of the Greens. She certainly seems to get in the press a lot more than Bennet (whom I had to google to remind myself of what she looked like!)

I'm resigned to thinking that Corbyn is the best candidate, simple because Smith is a nobody and if he leads now and loses in 2020, we'll have another 5 years where the hard left say they lost because they weren't socialist enough.
At least when Corbyn gets destroyed in 2020, it'll be clear that the opposition has to be centre-left if it is to stand any chance of stopping a right-wing government.

I didn't like Blair's labour, but while they were 'red tories', a red tory is a lot better than a blue one. Kinnock's Labour showed that 'true labour' can't win. Blair did a lot of good things and quite a lot of bad things, but Cameron has been mostly bad.

Apporpriately for GAF, I think ytou have to show-not-tell in politics. My belief is that if you want to shift the country to the left, you first need to get into power, then you enact some popular left-wing policies and show people that it works and doesn't make us communists. Then you gain some political capital to enact more left-wing policies.
I think that's how Cameron/Osbourne managed to shift the country to the right. They pretended to be one-nation, modern, liberal hoodie-huggers while slowly squeezing the pubic finances. They started with popular right-wing stuff stuff like higher limits on inheritance and income tax and then slowly added stuff like cutting the 50% rate and capital gains tax. They started by cutting some less popular benefits and claiming it was forced upon them by the recession, and then extended it to cutting everything in the name of austerity.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

To my shame, I always thought Lucas was the leader of the Greens. She certainly seems to get in the press a lot more than Bennet (whom I had to google to remind myself of what she looked like!)

Not your fault, Bennet was all but hidden after she did one of the worst rounds of the press ever.

She basically cannot do interviews

 

[PJV3]

Right, but it is still wasted. If the Conservatives get in government, you can make them hear your voice all you want, that doesn't mean they have to listen. Meanwhile, functionally, the poorest in society are worse off, the disabled are worse off, minorities are worse off, children are worse off, the sick are worse off, and all the other groups normally punished under Conservative governments are worse off. So what was the point of making a vote that could simply be ignored again?

I mean, I hate the logic above as much as the next man. I'll argue pretty vehemently for PR any day of the week. But until we change from FPTP, it remains a true argument. You having your voice heard just fucked over the disabled. What a fantastic accomplishment.

I agree but still understand people being fed up of their compromise being seen as whole hearted support for a position. To me that still isn't a wasted vote it's just incredibly counter-productive