Support NeoGAF

[dapperbandit]

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Regardless of what else you think of him, Corbyn has spent a lifetime genuinely considering his political stances, and believes firmly in them. I'm fairly sure Trump makes stuff up as he goes along. Corbyn is more comparable to Sanders.

It's not a direct comparison, I'm only remarking on reactions to their progress within the opposition and how support has manifested.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Regardless of what else you think of him, Corbyn has spent a lifetime genuinely considering his political stances, and believes firmly in them. I'm fairly sure Trump makes stuff up as he goes along. Corbyn is more comparable to Sanders.

It's true that both Trump and the Colonel are entrepreneurs, but to my knowledge he wasn't into politics?

 

[dapperbandit]

It's true that both Trump and the Colonel are entrepreneurs, but to my knowledge he wasn't into politics?

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who immediately makes this connection when seeing Sanders' name.

 

[phisheep]

I've pretty much made my mind up who to vote for for Labour leader. But I'm in a bit of a tizzy over the deputy leadership.

Ideally I'd want someone to counterbalance Corbyn in much the same way that Prescott counterbalanced Blair. Bradshaw maybe?

Any suggestions welcome.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I've pretty much made my mind up who to vote for for Labour leader. But I'm in a bit of a tizzy over the deputy leadership.

Ideally I'd want someone to counterbalance Corbyn in much the same way that Prescott counterbalanced Blair. Bradshaw maybe?

Any suggestions welcome.

Creasey - young Blairite woman is probably a good counter to old socialist man.

 

[phisheep]

Creasey - young Blairite woman is probably a good counter to old socialist man.

Maybe a bit lacking in Parliamentary experience?

No, actually you're right on the nose there. Untainted by the previous administration - that's kind of important.

I'll hang fire for maybe a few more responses though.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

I'm kind of conflicted about Corbyn. For all I like a lot of what he says, I'm less keen on him with regards to foreign policy. This is in part due to his prominent position within the Stop the War Coalition, which in recent years has been little more than a farcical anti-Western platform for the extreme left.

In particular, some of the stuff he's said in the past concerning the Ukrainian Crisis really disturbs me.

 

[Jezbollah]

I'm kind of conflicted about Corbyn. For all I like a lot of what he says, I'm less keen on him with regards to foreign policy. This is in part due to his prominent position within the Stop the War Coalition, which in recent years has been little more than a farcical anti-Western platform for the extreme left.

In particular, some of the stuff he's said in the past concerning the Ukrainian Crisis really disturbs me.

Yep, that nugget on Nato was posted a few pages back. His views on that subject alone is a huge red flag for me..

 

[phisheep]

There's been some interesting lefty trolling going on on the Labour Party website.

Until a few days ago, under "Our History" it said something like:

"Despite this, the Labour Party has only held power for four short periods of the 20th Century"

... so, basically ignoring the whole of the 13 years of New Labour.

I quote that from memory, since the whole History of the Labour Party page has now been taken down.

 

[anonymous_abc]

There's been some interesting lefty trolling going on on the Labour Party website.

Until a few days ago, under "Our History" it said something like:

"Despite this, the Labour Party has only held power for four short periods of the 20th Century"

... so, basically ignoring the whole of the 13 years of New Labour.

I quote that from memory, since the whole History of the Labour Party page has now been taken down.

To be fair though, Blair was elected in 1997 so the influence of new labour in the 20th century is marginal. The 20th century was overwhelmingly blue.

 

[samn]

I'm kind of conflicted about Corbyn. For all I like a lot of what he says, I'm less keen on him with regards to foreign policy. This is in part due to his prominent position within the Stop the War Coalition, which in recent years has been little more than a farcical anti-Western platform for the extreme left.

In particular, some of the stuff he's said in the past concerning the Ukrainian Crisis really disturbs me.

Actually his views on the Ukrainian Crisis are one of the bright spots of his foreign policy.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

two family members have contacted me in the last week asking how to vote for jeremy corbyn for labour leader, one of whom barely ever even watches the news

dudes getting his name out there

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Actually his views on the Ukrainian Crisis are one of the bright spots of his foreign policy.

No, absolutely not. NATO is not belligerent. Countries which have applied to join NATO have not done so because America is tacitly threatening them with internal destablization if they do not do so. They have applied because they feal threatened by Russia. Russia can't threaten all of its immediate neighbours, then claim foul play by the United States when those neighbours turn to the United States as a result.

 

[CyclopsRock]

His foreign policy is fuckin' dangerous. The idea that you can "stop war" by simply wanting to is for the birds, man. The freedoms we have today were not gifted to us, they were fought for; I'm not sure why some beardy old wanker nutters (naming no names) think that the idea of maintaining them in the same manner is some despicable evil. Fuck off.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

His foreign policy is fuckin' dangerous. The idea that you can "stop war" by simply wanting to is for the birds, man. The freedoms we have today were not gifted to us, they were fought for; I'm not sure why some beardy old wanker nutters (naming no names) think that the idea of maintaining them in the same manner is some despicable evil. Fuck off.

I mean in fairness, the UK could almost certainly more or less disband our army and pursue an isolationist policy as long as we kept a reasonable air force and navy (and don't care about the Falklands or Gibraltar). We've done it quite a few times before. But I do think we have a basic moral duty to other states and their people as well as our own, and it seems unconscionable to contribute to a basic European defense scheme.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I mean in fairness, the UK could almost certainly more or less disband our army and pursue an isolationist policy as long as we kept a reasonable air force and navy (and don't care about the Falklands or Gibraltar). We've done it quite a few times before. But I do think we have a basic moral duty to other states and their people as well as our own, and it seems unconscionable to contribute to a basic European defense scheme.

Would Gib and the Falklands be at risk without an army, though? It's largely the RAF and Navy that defend those bad boys anyway, no?

I love Gib. I'm going there for New Years. There's 8 of us renting a villa in Spain for a few days but we're getting murdered on NYE in the Casemates down in Gib and having a right ol' fun time of it. I swear if I wake up and it's bloody Spanish I'll throw my toys right out the pram.

Edit: obviously it won't be, my boy DC would hold it down himself. I mean in a hypothetical Corbyn future where he's relinquished control over the islands so they can return to the control of the native population of apes.

 

[Succinct Verbosity]

That's always my issue with the established left. I view my self as left-wing. The traction that the left are regaining in the labour party is exciting to me, if only because there needs to be stronger opposition to policies in both parties. However, on foreign policy I guess you could say it's the one area where I'd side with the traditional tory voter.

 

[phisheep]

To be fair though, Blair was elected in 1997 so the influence of new labour in the 20th century is marginal. The 20th century was overwhelmingly blue.

However, that Labour History page that they took down purported to be the whole history of the Party, and it made no mention at all of the New Labour thing or or having been in power at the beginning of the 21st century for 10 years or anything like that - wich is why I think it was a troll.

By the way, the 20th century wasn't really overwhelmingly blue, there was an awful lot of Liberals and various coalitions. Not as much true blue as you might expect.

 

[Jezbollah]

Speaking of Blair.............

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-dont-take-labour-over-cliff-edge-tony-blair

 

[danwarb]

His foreign policy is fuckin' dangerous. The idea that you can "stop war" by simply wanting to is for the birds, man. The freedoms we have today were not gifted to us, they were fought for; I'm not sure why some beardy old wanker nutters (naming no names) think that the idea of maintaining them in the same manner is some despicable evil. Fuck off.

War isn't always a good thing, even though some people get rich on it and push for more. We do it wrong more often than not. Look at the fucking horrendous messes in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya...

Corbyn's mentality would've saved a couple of million lives and there'd be no ISIS. War at a last resort to prevent suffering instead of rushing to it for profit and other bullshit.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Would Gib and the Falklands be at risk without an army, though? It's largely the RAF and Navy that defend those bad boys anyway, no?

I love Gib. I'm going there for New Years. There's 8 of us renting a villa in Spain for a few days but we're getting murdered on NYE in the Casemates down in Gib and having a right ol' fun time of it. I swear if I wake up and it's bloody Spanish I'll throw my toys right out the pram.

Edit: obviously it won't be, my boy DC would hold it down himself. I mean in a hypothetical Corbyn future where he's relinquished control over the islands so they can return to the control of the native population of apes.

I mean, from a practical perspective unless we keep a naval fleet stationed at the Falklands at all times, we'd probably need an army to retake it after it had already been taken, then use the navy to protect it for some time. Same with Gibraltar.

 

[phisheep]

Speaking of Blair.............

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-dont-take-labour-over-cliff-edge-tony-blair

Yeah sure.

Dear Labour Party,

I promised I would make me us electable, I did.

I promised to roust the hated Tories for a thousand years, but utterly failed to have any sane succession plan up to beyond Gordon. I did that too.

I promised an ethical foreign policy and proved it by going to war with Iraq. I did that.

I promised an end to the hereditary principal. I sort of did about 50% of that, but do vote for my boy Euan when his name crops up.

I promise you now that you will be wrong to vote for Jeremy Corbyn. I know it is your vote and all, and you know I'm a pretty straight chap, but believe me when I say that ...

I'd carve all this on stone, but Alastair tells me it wouldn't be a great idea.

Peter who?

Yours

Tony
(or Mister Blair to you, unless you are the US media when it is Prime Minister Blair)

 

[Par Score]

Speaking of Blair.............

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-dont-take-labour-over-cliff-edge-tony-blair

Tony Blair can fuck so far off he loops around and starts coming back, then when he does he can fuck right off again.

 

[Volotaire]

Any opinions on making a Labour Leadership contest thread a few days before the results?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Any opinions on making a Labour Leadership contest thread a few days before the results?

I'd support that.

 

[twobear]

The evidence just doesn't bear out, though. Where are these magical leftwing voters coming from? The Labour Party could win every single Green party voter there is (and it's ludicrous to suggest they would, the Green party has its own identity that exists independently of how leftwing or not Labour is), and would still have less votes than the Conservatives. The SNP are a more rightwing party than Labour was under Miliband and arguably than under Blair, so it's difficult to see how Corbyn helps with that - the issue is messaging, not policy. There's no evidence that non-voters are significantly more leftwing than they are rightwing (they're marginally so, but only because younger people are somewhat more likely to be non-voters), and there's no reason to suppose that Corbyn will galvanize the left-wing non-voters more than he will the right-wing ones to vote for the other side. What's left? Winning TUSC votes? Wow, election-winning strategy right there.

Let's be brutally honest, here: British elections, fundamentally, are decided by a very small group of Labour-Conservative swing voters in a number of key constituencies, and by the media sources they read the most which have a large part in determining their decisions (primarily the Sun and the Daily Mail). Nobody else matters in deciding who takes government. This group of swing voters has shown no real preference for Corbyn over any other candidate, and tend to, as a whole, lean towards Burnham before anyone else (even Liz Kendall, contrary to Cyclops Rock's suppositions).

That doesn't mean Labour has to "abandon its core principles". Labour's core principles were making sure that people got access to healthcare, support, and education regardless of the situation. At the point you're going "we're sitting out this election because ideological purity", you are directly reducing the chance that healthcare, support, and education are taken away from those who need it most. You want to talk about food banks? How many people more do you think will be in food banks after another five years of Conservative policies?

Corbyn would be an excellent PM, but he wouldn't be an excellent election-winner. One day, we can fight for someone like Corbyn - when we have a candidate who is young, attractive, fresh; when a previous more moderate Labour government has managed to institute the media reforms that this country desperately needs, when all the baby boomers are dead and the current generation of people who've been fucked over by Conservative policies are the main generation. That day isn't today. Today is the day where we have an admittedly slim chance to wrestle control from a country that is, by nature, Conservative. I'm not letting that chance go.

It's also worth pointing out that Burnham is on the left of the party. Corbyn is literally the left-most figure in the entire Labour party given his voting record, so obviously Burnham doesn't quite compare to that, but you already have a very viable option to take the Labour party leftwards - and this one stands a (small) chance at winning!

EDIT: And for what it's worth, the Conservatives actually *did* do the above, which is why they're winning. Cameron doesn't appeal to core Conservatives - up until he eked that narrow majority, backbenchers hated his guts and he faced some of the most serious revolts of any PM since Major. Die-hard Conservatives think he's a wet Tory, and doesn't go far enough. He got his majority because he didn't listen to die-hard Conservatives, and made at least a sop to centre-ground issues.

I'm back now, hi everyone. Anyway I saw this post while I was away and I wanted to respond to it.

In some sense I agree with you that if Corbyn is unelectable then Labour isn't going to be able to shift the dialogue towards the left. But it seems a little silly to me to say that it's unrealistic to believe that Corbyn could be elected, but then to paint a frankly fantasist picture of the future where people are ready to elect someone like him in 15 years time. We know what happens to the political dialogue when centrist Labour governments take power--it shifts to the right. That's all that happened after 13 years of New Labour. It made a radical Conservative economic agenda seem palatable. And I don't believe that a centrist Labour party would do anything about that, ever. They would be happy to coast along as 'the less bad version of the Tories' forever if it'll guarantee power.

And I also don't believe for a second that anybody who's politically active and in favour of a thoroughgoing left-wing Labour party now will suddenly rally behind a Corbyn-esque figure then either. More realistically they'll become part of the bloc of voters who don't vote at all, or they'll move to parties like the Greens. Another 15 years of the status quo will have an incredibly powerful effect on the motivation of all of those people to do anything about the situation.

 

[CyclopsRock]

War isn't always a good thing, even though some people get rich on it and push for more. We do it wrong more often than not. Look at the fucking horrendous messes in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya...

Corbyn's mentality would've saved a couple of million lives and there'd be no ISIS. War at a last resort to prevent suffering instead of rushing to it for profit and other bullshit.

War isn't always good, but it's "stop the war" not "stop the war except the good ones". Iraq and Afghanistan could have been done better but let's not pretend those dead were living the life of Riley over there under the Taliban and Sadam "gas the Kurds" Hussein. He literally committed genocide, and Corbyn would have shrugged and looked the other way. Likewise, whilst Bosnians were being made to dig their own graves before being shot into them on Europe's doorstep? That was NATO. What about Sierra Leone? When the villagers heard land rover tyres squealing outside their homes in the middle of the night, it wasn't a British flag they were afraid of seeing on the arm band of the soldiers. That British force saved the woefully inadequate UN force and ushered in the longest era of peace in several generations - stop the war indeed. At the risk of sounding too American, there are people out there, both British and not, who need us to have big guns and need us to be willing to use them. Not always and hopefully not often, but that's too much for our Jezza. If Putin isn't an example of a belligerent in his eyes, I can't imagine Corbyn being useful in any of the above scenarios.

I mean, from a practical perspective unless we keep a naval fleet stationed at the Falklands at all times, we'd probably need an army to retake it after it had already been taken, then use the navy to protect it for some time. Same with Gibraltar.

I guess, but they're both tiny - especially Gib. The RAF and Navy both have trained ground personnel that could handle it and given they're both effectively islands (Gib isn't but since we'd need to fight through Spain to get their by land it might as well be) then I'm not sure the Army would actually have much to do. Obviously they wouldn't hurt but I can't imagine them being the difference between victory and defeat.

 

[twobear]

War isn't always good, but it's "stop the war" not "stop the war except the good ones". Iraq and Afghanistan could have been done better but let's not pretend those dead were living the life of Riley over there under the Taliban and Sadam "gas the Kurds" Hussein. He literally committed genocide, and Corbyn would have shrugged and looked the other way. Likewise, whilst Bosnians were being made to dig their own graves before being shot into them on Europe's doorstep? That was NATO. What about Sierra Leone? When the villagers heard land rover tyres squealing outside their homes in the middle of the night, it wasn't a British flag they were afraid of seeing on the arm band of the soldiers. That British force saved the woefully inadequate UN force and ushered in the longest era of peace in several generations - stop the war indeed. At the risk of sounding too American, there are people out there, both British and not, who need us to have big guns and need us to be willing to use them. Not always and hopefully not often, but that's too much for our Jezza. If Putin isn't an example of a belligerent in his eyes, I can't imagine Corbyn being useful in any of the above scenarios.

Presumably Corbyn's view is that those situations could have been avoided if the right diplomatic ends had been pursued in the first place.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Presumably Corbyn's view is that those situations could have been avoided if the right diplomatic ends had been pursued in the first place.

That's the "console optimisation" of the foreign policy world though, ain't it? A basically bottomless source of solutions and, uh, frame rate as long as it's in a "woulda coulda shoulda" context. It can never be proved wrong because there's always something else you could have said or done or offered.

 

[twobear]

That's the "console optimisation" of the foreign policy world though, ain't it? A basically bottomless source of solutions and, uh, frame rate as long as it's in a "woulda coulda shoulda" context. It can never be proved wrong because there's always something else you could have said or done or offered.

Maybe? But it seems to me that our foreign policy at the moment is anything but war preventative.

 

[StealthGoblin]

I genuinely think the tories will eat a Corbyn Labour party for breakfast.

Last cycle they managed to destroy the Lib Dems, held off Labour despite making huge cuts and changes and have somewhat nullified the SNP.

Corbyn would present a lot of things to take aim at. A lot of his ideas would involve spending large amounts of money which would be the first thing the Tory machine would latch onto.

Labour stand a better chance when Dave fails with the EU renegotiations.

 

[Jackpot]

I wonder if they realise that being opposed by Blair and Alastair Campbell is practically a ringing endorsement?

This left me bemused:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...winger-to-be-barred-from-voting-10452628.html

The comedian and writer Mark Steel has become the latest prominent left-winger to be barred from voting in the Labour leadership election.

Steel, who has volunteered to knock on doors for the party in the past, said he was “fuming” at the rejection, which he was told was because he does not “support their values”.

Steel said that he was outraged to have been barred. “The cheek of it. Is Tony Blair allowed to vote? He invaded Iraq on a completely bogus set of principles. Is that Labour values?” he said.

“I applied as a supporter about three weeks ago. Then I started getting all the emails that people get, from Yvette Cooper and people like that, thanking me. Then I just suddenly get this, and there’s nothing I can do about it.”

What exactly are Labour's values?

 

[Jezbollah]

This left me bemused:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...winger-to-be-barred-from-voting-10452628.html

What exactly are Labour's values?

I saw this earlier. I am sure there's more behind this, but if there isnt, it stinks of hypocrisy by the Labour Party.

 

[phisheep]

What exactly are Labour's values?

From the Labour Party website:

The values Labour stands for today are those which have guided it throughout its existence.

• social justice
• strong community and strong values
• reward for hard work
• decency
• rights matched by responsibilities

These values are so vapid you'd have to search really hard to find anyone who disagreed with any of them.

 

[JonathanEx]

I dunno, you could find lots of people who are against social justice and their damn warriors lololol XD roflcopters

 

[Par Score]

What exactly are Labour's values?

They appear to be most easily summed up as: "Power at any cost"

The PLP seem to run a mile at the first sign of anything resembling principles or convictions, they want a leader willing to win at any cost, and damn the rest.

 

[Uzzy]

I stand for strong values, strongly.

 

[Walshicus]

Last cycle they managed to destroy the Lib Dems, held off Labour despite making huge cuts and changes and have somewhat nullified the SNP.

The Lib Dems destroyed themselves, and the Tories have done absolutely nothing to diminish the SNP. Meanwhile, a Labour party with no clear message ended up barely shifting the needle.

I've said it time and again - we don't need two Tory parties.

 

[Jex]

The amount of high level opposition to Corbyn just draws more attention to him then ever before, at least that's what if feels like. Every time some big name figure steps out of the shadows to denounce him the media is forced to run a story on it drawing more attention to Corbyn and, consequently, less attention on his competitors.

I honestly didn't really have that much interest in the man until this swell of opposition rose up to try and knock him down.

 

[Jezbollah]

The Mirror has plumped for Burnham.

 

[CyclopsRock]

If Corbyn wins, there'll be an utter bloodbath and I don't mean at the election. There's no way he'll survive until 2020. He's an MP who has voted against his own party over 500 times. I don't doubt they were all in good conscience, but the difference in opinion between the PLP and the various stakeholders that vote for the leadership is so large that it's hard to imagine many wanting to serve in his cabinet and many actually agreeing with his policies anyway. So when he says "vote this way" and everyone else says "But I think I should vote that way", given his record of total disloyalty, it's hard to see him being able to credibly complain about constant defying of the whip. He won't be able to control the party and he'll have no choice but to stand down. To do anything else will be to go into an election having spent 4 years as a totally incapable opposition and with a PLP that won't even support the manifesto they're campaigning on.

That's without even considering his actual policies and how they'll sell to the electorate. There's no version of a Corbyn future that ends up well for Labour, and I can actually understand the somewhat hyperbolic comments that it could actually destroy the party.

 

[Par Score]

That's without even considering his actual policies and how they'll sell to the electorate. There's no version of a Corbyn future that ends up well for Labour, and I can actually understand the somewhat hyperbolic comments that it could actually destroy the party.

I expect a Corbyn/Watson win to lead to a split of the Labour party the likes of which we haven't seen for a long time.

The Left of the party, including a lot of the new members, with the Unions and a bunch of the more sensible fringes of the Left will stick with Corbyn's Labour. This could lead to some broader 'progressive alliance', perhaps turning into "English Labour" as a more isolationist/nationalist Left in order to join together with the SNP, Plaid Cymru, etc.

The Right will split away, probably taking some of the Centre with it, though who can say how much. They might be tempted by getting into bed with the Remnants of the Lib Dems in some way, though in all honesty they might as well just have done with it and join the Tories.

I think a rejuvenated Labour has enough brand power to hang around regardless of the split, and since Corbyn will push for mandatory re-selection anyway, Right-wing Labour MPs will be out on their arse before the next election anyway.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Why will the right of the Labour Party split away? It's just silly talk. The SDP were actually popular and could win seats. Who genuinely *likes* the Blairites as opposed to just tolerating them? They'd get massacred.

They'll just stick around trying to knife Corbyn for the next five years.

 

[twobear]

I agree that I don't think there's a version of the future that doesn't see progressive politics dead for a generation.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I agree that I don't think there's a version of the future that doesn't see progressive politics dead for a generation.

I disagree entirely. I think if anything, it looks brighter and brighter for progressive politics as time goes on. People are consuming less and less media from newspapers and the TV. Instead, the internet has cultivated a dramatic rise in peer-to-peer news and blogging. This is breaking the stranglehold that a mostly white, wealthy, conservative class had over access to information in this country. At the same time, the country's demographics are becoming less and less Conservative over time. People think that old people are Conservative. That's not actually true, in e.g. the '80s older people predominantly supported Labour. The old people who support Conservatives don't do it because they're old, they did it because they were the original Thatcherite cohort - and they're dying off. They're getting replaced by a generation of young voters who are amongst the most leftwing we've seen in many generations. Britain is becoming less white and more multicultural, and the participation of minorities is also rising.

I don't think Corbyn is wrong, I just think he's ahead of his time. This isn't to take the future for granted. We still need a Labour government now to focus on voting reforms and media reforms, as well as to just prevent general Conservative damage. But I think you're grossly underestimating the future. We need ~15-20 years, tops, before I think we see a significant leftward shift in the political orientation of this country.

 

[twobear]

I disagree entirely. I think if anything, it looks brighter and brighter for progressive politics as time goes on. People are consuming less and less media from newspapers and the TV. Instead, the internet has cultivated a dramatic rise in peer-to-peer news and blogging. This is breaking the stranglehold that a mostly white, wealthy, conservative class had over access to information in this country. At the same time, the country's demographics are becoming less and less Conservative over time. People think that old people are Conservative. That's not actually true, in e.g. the '80s older people predominantly supported Labour. The old people who support Conservatives don't do it because they're old, they did it because they were the original Thatcherite cohort - and they're dying off. They're getting replaced by a generation of young voters who are amongst the most leftwing we've seen in many generations. Britain is becoming less white and more multicultural, and the participation of minorities is also rising.

I don't think Corbyn is wrong, I just think he's ahead of his time. This isn't to take the future for granted. We still need a Labour government now to focus on voting reforms and media reforms, as well as to just prevent general Conservative damage. But I think you're grossly underestimating the future. We need ~15-20 years, tops, before I think we see a significant leftward shift in the political orientation of this country.

Is there any evidence at all that people in this country are become more left-wing over time? They just voted in a Tory government after the Tory government just spent five years making a pigs ear of running the country.

If Corbyn wins, he wont be allowed to win an election. If Corbyn doesn't win, the slight-left-of-Tory Labour party will stick with that position forever. They will not give you voter reforms and media reforms, ever. This is fantasist delusion that you need to forget about.

A generation of people will become alienated by whatever happens over the next 5 to 10 years and you'll never get them back. This country will be Tory for the next 50 years. Mark my words. The Tories have effectively won. I think historians will look back at 2005-2010 as the years that the leftwing died in the UK's mainstream political discourse.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Is there any evidence at all that people in this country are become more left-wing over time? They just voted in a Tory government after the Tory government just spent five years making a pigs ear of running the country.

Yes. people consistently report more and more leftwing opinions. Note that one of the questions pollsters had is that people said they didn't like Ed Miliband, didn't trust Labour on the economy, but would still vote Labour. This was one of the things that produced the on-the-day discrepancy, because those people didn't vote Labour, but it's important because it tells you people broadly agree with Labour and actually want to vote Labour - they just think they're too incompetent, so they go, as they see it, head over heart. The issue isn't an ideological one, it's the fact that Blair made the Labour party look disciplined and in shape, whereas Ed Miliband looked like Gromit.

If Corbyn wins, he wont be allowed to win an election. If Corbyn doesn't win, the slight-left-of-Tory Labour party will stick with that position forever. They will not give you voter reforms and media reforms, ever. This is fantasist delusion that you need to forget about.

No, that's silly. The Labour party did that before. *Blair* did it before - Scotland has MMP, Wales has MMP, London uses SV, the House of Lords was reformed, and Labour set up the Jenkins Commission that Blair actually wanted to go through with but was shelved by Brown. Miliband backed AV in the referendum, voting reform was part of the Labour manifesto. Miliband also took on Murdoch - something which cost him in the end, but he did. Labour were instrumental in OFCOM's formation. They obviously didn't go far enough, but as ever, politics works step by step and we need more steps.

This schoolboy attitude of "fuck them they're all Tories" is assinine and unhelpful. There are real differences and when you ignore them you do us all harm.

A generation of people will become alienated by whatever happens over the next 5 to 10 years and you'll never get them back. This country will be Tory for the next 50 years. Mark my words. The Tories have effectively won. I think historians will look back at 2005-2010 as the years that the leftwing died in the UK's mainstream political discourse.

What a load of boring claptrap that flies completely in the face of the evidence. Stop being melodramatic.

 

[twobear]

On the plus side at least Labour will save lots of money during election campaigns for the next forty years. Just take the Tory manifesto, change the blue to red, and take a couple of percent off whatever public spending cuts they're promising.

 

[twobear]

Yes. people consistently report more and more leftwing opinions. Note that one of the questions pollsters had is that people said they didn't like Ed Miliband, didn't trust Labour on the economy, but would still vote Labour. This was one of the things that produced the on-the-day discrepancy, because those people didn't vote Labour, but it's important because it tells you people broadly agree with Labour and actually want to vote Labour - they just think they're too incompetent, so they go, as they see it, head over heart. The issue isn't an ideological one, it's the fact that Blair made the Labour party look disciplined and in shape, whereas Ed Miliband looked like Gromit.

And yet when push came to shove they voted for the most right-wing government in a century again. That's all you really need to know.

No, that's silly. The Labour party did that before. *Blair* did it before - Scotland has MMP, Wales has MMP, London uses SV, the House of Lords was reformed, and Labour set up the Jenkins Commission that Blair actually wanted to go through with but was shelved by Brown. Miliband backed AV in the referendum, voting reform was part of the Labour manifesto. Miliband also took on Murdoch - something which cost him in the end, but he did. Labour were instrumental in OFCOM's formation. They obviously didn't go far enough, but as ever, politics works step by step and we need more steps.

This schoolboy attitude of "fuck them they're all Tories" is assinine and unhelpful. There are real differences and when you ignore them you do us all harm.

'Miliband took on Murdoch and lost' is all you need to know. And voter reform is dead, we had a referendum and the people in this country elected to keep an undemocratic system in place.

What a load of boring claptrap that flies completely in the face of the evidence. Stop being melodramatic.

It's true. Young, left-wing voters are already feeling browbeaten in the face of a government that has been successful in completely marginalising their entire existence. Now we feel like we have a chance for real change and the forces of media darkness have arrayed against them. Nobody is going to give the left a chance after this.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

And yet when push came to shove they voted for the most right-wing government in a century again. That's all you really need to know.

Then you're not listening, and you deserve what befalls you.

'Miliband took on Murdoch and lost' is all you need to know. And voter reform is dead, we had a referendum and the people in this country elected to keep an undemocratic system in place.

Largely because of Clegg's unpopularity. Voting reform still actually has public support, people rejected specifically AV.

It's true. Young, left-wing voters are already feeling browbeaten in the face of a government that has been successful in completely marginalising their entire existence. Now we feel like we have a chance for real change and the forces of media darkness have arrayed against them. Nobody is going to give the left a chance after this.

Then you're stupid and deserve your loss. In 20 years time, you will be 40-something year olds and one of the key voting demographics. Are you honestly going to tell me you're still not going to vote then when you have direct control over who is elected because all the baby boomers are dead? Childish, negligent and irresponsible. God help Britain's poorest if this is all the gumption the left has.