• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I don't think leftwing or rightwing matter that much - but I think the party had an established elite who literally didn't give a shit about the membership, and are seen as part of the establishment and part of the previous failed government by most of the electorate.

The assumption is a Corbyn victory will clear them out, which is why they are so nervous about his appointment.

At that point, new people will come in who may be more right wing, but most importantly, will be new, so they won't feel safe and they won't be tainted by Iraq et al.

I think "I'm not the jackass who lead you before and I always hated him" is literally the best thing you can say in an election. Labour's problem is that Corbyn is the only candidate who can say that.

I just think that's such a dangerous way of thinking about it. I agree it's troublesome that the Labour Party has a tightly guarded hierarchy stemming largely from when Blair (and to a lesser extent, Kinnock before him) severed the link between the party conference and party policy allowing the leader to streamline candidates not necessarily liked by the party at large; but I just think "fuck them all" is an utterly assinine solution that doesn't solve anything.

New entrants to a Corbyn labour party are not going to be leftwing. Why would you? The membership will have shifted irrevocably left and Corbyn will take the opportunity to stack the deck with his own people as much as anyone would - the left did this all the time, look at Benn's reselection campaigns. It'd be a waste of time joining as a rightwinger, you'd literally just be biding time for Corbyn to lose, and then hope that the membership doesn't just pick a similar successor. So when you clear out existing rightwing people as well, you literally just kill an entire wing of the party for decades - what the Labour right did to the Labour left in the mid '90s. That's just not healthy for a party to do, at all.

There's a very interesting discussion on Benn's changes to the Labour party structure here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7s0F5JusjQ
 

Mindwipe

Member
I just think that's such a dangerous way of thinking about it. I agree it's troublesome that the Labour Party has a tightly guarded hierarchy stemming largely from when Blair (and to a lesser extent, Kinnock before him) severed the link between the party conference and party policy allowing the leader to streamline candidates not necessarily liked by the party at large; but I just think "fuck them all" is an utterly assinine solution that doesn't solve anything.

I didn't necessarily say it was good (I'm not really a Corbyn supporter, I just want to make sure that Cooper loses). But I do think it's the way any electorate works. Much like Cameron was elected as leader of the Tories primarily on a ticket that he was completely unlike his predecessors who had failed (even though that wasn't really true).

New entrants to a Corbyn labour party are not going to be leftwing.

I presume you mean rightwing here?

Why would you? The membership will have shifted irrevocably left and Corbyn will take the opportunity to stack the deck with his own people as much as anyone would - the left did this all the time, look at Benn's reselection campaigns. It'd be a waste of time joining as a rightwinger, you'd literally just be biding time for Corbyn to lose, and then hope that the membership doesn't just pick a similar successor.

By that logic, why would any leftwing people join the current Labour party? And yet it is clearly happening. I don't actually think that it will be explicitly Blairite right wingers that will join Labour - but their numbers are collapsing and they are discredited. But there will be a new movement within Labour of younger, more libertarian voters, who will actually adopt policies that are "of the right" economically. There are a lot of them, they no longer have an electoral home after the Lib Dem implosion, and they'd quite like to support someone where they have real influence and can win, and if they think the Labour party's direction is up for grabs after their establishment clears out then they probably will.

I think it's worth remembering - the status quo isn't an option for Labour. "We're not the Tories but we are quite close" had failed as a general election strategy and as a recruitment strategy for new members to such an extent that the party is still in serious danger of going bankrupt, which is worse for it's ability to fight an election than who the leader is (much more so than electing Corbyn). They also exist in a political situation that nobody is really discussing enough that the amount of the population voting is in systemic and total collapse to the point where very small swings in real terms will have massive effects in voting patterns, and still remaining likelihood that the Tory party can't keep it together either.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I didn't necessarily say it was good (I'm not really a Corbyn supporter, I just want to make sure that Cooper loses). But I do think it's the way any electorate works. Much like Cameron was elected as leader of the Tories primarily on a ticket that he was completely unlike his predecessors who had failed (even though that wasn't really true).

I mean, yes and no. You do want to be largely unconnected to your failed predecessors - but you *do* want to be relatively well connected to the party as a whole. Cameron had a large amount of the New Tories at his back. Corbyn has... who?

I presume you mean rightwing here?

Yes, sorry.

By that logic, why would any leftwing people join the current Labour party? And yet it is clearly happening.

I think they actually more or less did stop joining, and only restarted joining after Miliband opened up the leadership. That's obviously a problem in itself, but the solution doesn't seem to be "let's do it back".

I don't actually think that it will be explicitly Blairite right wingers that will join Labour - but their numbers are collapsing and they are discredited. But there will be a new movement within Labour of younger, more libertarian voters, who will actually adopt policies that are "of the right" economically. There are a lot of them, they no longer have an electoral home after the Lib Dem implosion, and they'd quite like to support someone where they have real influence and can win, and if they think the Labour party's direction is up for grabs after their establishment clears out then they probably will.

Alternatively they just join the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems won't be down and out for long; the distrust was largely associated specifically with Clegg.

I think it's worth remembering - the status quo isn't an option for Labour. "We're not the Tories but we are quite close" had failed as a general election strategy and as a recruitment strategy for new members to such an extent that the party is still in serious danger of going bankrupt, which is worse for it's ability to fight an election than who the leader is (much more so than electing Corbyn). They also exist in a political situation that nobody is really discussing enough that the amount of the population voting is in systemic and total collapse to the point where very small swings in real terms will have massive effects in voting patterns, and still remaining likelihood that the Tory party can't keep it together either.

I'm not saying status quo, I'm saying "the party is literally going to implode if Corbyn or Kendall or probably even Cooper get elected". We can focus on sorting out the future when we've got over the fact that we have two almost irreconcileable (at this point) wings that want almost nothing to do with one another. Burnham is literally the only candidate who seems to understand this election isn't really about the next general election, it's about Labour not collapsing.
 

Mindwipe

Member
I mean, yes and no. You do want to be largely unconnected to your failed predecessors - but you *do* want to be relatively well connected to the party as a whole.

Not really seeing any justification for that distinction.

Cameron had a large amount of the New Tories at his back.

Mostly out of sheer desperation that the old wing of the party was unelectable.

Corbyn has... who?

A bunch of Labour's returning members.

Again, not saying that Labour are going to sweep to victory in an election. But I am very sure that any of the prospective other candidates would to considerably worse. The idea that, say, Burnham can keep the party together is fanciful to my mind.

I think they actually more or less did stop joining, and only restarted joining after Miliband opened up the leadership. That's obviously a problem in itself, but the solution doesn't seem to be "let's do it back".

I think it's more of a solution than "let's lie down an die now."

Alternatively they just join the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems won't be down and out for long; the distrust was largely associated specifically with Clegg.

I think the Lib Dem party machinery has collapsed to such a massive extent they're never coming back. The Green Party will obtain any Lib Dem vote that isn't claimed by Labour or (more likely) not voting at all in the next election.

I'm not saying status quo, I'm saying "the party is literally going to implode if Corbyn or Kendall or probably even Cooper get elected". We can focus on sorting out the future when we've got over the fact that we have two almost irreconcileable (at this point) wings that want almost nothing to do with one another. Burnham is literally the only candidate who seems to understand this election isn't really about the next general election, it's about Labour not collapsing.

I don't understand why it would be any less likely to implode with Burnham, or while imploding is actually worse than a rapid death by a million cuts. The results are very similar.

New Statesman endorses Cooper, unsurprisingly. The fact their long article on why only contains two sentences about Cooper herself probably should have indicated to them they'd not made a good choice.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Not really seeing any justification for that distinction.

Because otherwise you don't have a cabinet and you don't have anyone who will vote with you. I mean, who is Corbyn's cabinet actually going to be?

Mostly out of sheer desperation that the old wing of the party was unelectable.

I'm unconvinced that's true, and I actually think the divide between "Traditional Conservatives" and "New Tories" is one of the big dividing lines in the Conservative party.

A bunch of Labour's returning members.

Members who have proved entirely useless at getting anything done. They've had literally decades to change parties the proper way, by going to the local Labour Party constituency meetings that select candidates and having their say there. Trying to put in a massively radical change from the top down is not going to work.

Meanwhile, I wasn't talking about members. I was talking about the people that can actually get policies passed - MPs.

Again, not saying that Labour are going to sweep to victory in an election. But I am very sure that any of the prospective other candidates would to considerably worse. The idea that, say, Burnham can keep the party together is fanciful to my mind.

Why? He's demonstrated again and again he's willing to shift positions to accomodate as many people as possible. That's not a bad quality in a party as broad as the Labour Party is right now. No other candidate would do that.

I think it's more of a solution than "let's lie down an die now."

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you can't solve two decades of diversion between the party mechanism and the party and expect to resolve it overnight by the election of the most extreme MP in the entire party. This is part of the frustration I have with Corbyn voters - "the entire world must change for me immediately now and no possible other policy will have any effect". That's just not how life works.

I think the Lib Dem party machinery has collapsed to such a massive extent they're never coming back. The Green Party will obtain any Lib Dem vote that isn't claimed by Labour or (more likely) not voting at all in the next election.

Just obviously wrong. Look at the Liberal Party's history. In '51 they were so poor they could only field enough candidates to compete in a quarter of the UK. They're still around after that, and their position isn't as bad as that now anyway.

I don't understand why it would be any less likely to implode with Burnham, or while imploding is actually worse than a rapid death by a million cuts. The results are very similar.

Because Burnham is flexible. That's not a bad quality to have at all in a party leader. Corbyn is not flexible. Kendall is not flexible. Cooper is not flexible. Each of them has a particular position they have not been willing to compromise on. This is not how leaders should function. The leader of something like the Labour party cannot be a dictator once elected, or you just end up with the part of the party that doesn't agree with them being shunted out the door. The leader has to be, effectively, the referee - they have to allow everyone to have their discussions, and try and resolve those differences. This was the mould for almost all successful Labour leader aside from Blair. Attlee, Wilson, and Callaghan were all known for the fact that they tended to have closely kept opinions of their own that were only rarely pushed strongly, and instead acted as the central counterweight to all the different factions in their party.

New Statesman endorses Cooper, unsurprisingly. The fact their long article on why only contains two sentences about Cooper herself probably should have indicated to them they'd not made a good choice.

Yes, I agree. Cooper would be as terrible as Corbyn, if not more so.
 

cabot

Member
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you can't solve two decades of diversion between the party mechanism and the party and expect to resolve it overnight by the election of the most extreme MP in the entire party. This is part of the frustration I have with Corbyn voters - "the entire world must change for me immediately now and no possible other policy will have any effect". That's just not how life works.

A frustrating truth among sections of the SNP movement (and Corbyn as well). This the biggest issue I have, there are still people I know talking about another referendum in a couple of years.
 

Mindwipe

Member
Edit: Sorry this is a huge wall of broken quote text. I wrote this and only just realised tbh. I'll try and write a little bit more coherently in future.

Because otherwise you don't have a cabinet and you don't have anyone who will vote with you. I mean, who is Corbyn's cabinet actually going to be?

MPs are a power hungry lot. I don't think filling shadow cabinet positions will be even a slightest problem. Indeed, I don't expect even a single MP to turn an offer down.

I'm unconvinced that's true, and I actually think the divide between "Traditional Conservatives" and "New Tories" is one of the big dividing lines in the Conservative party.

I think there are a bunch of splits there, but I don't think that's really significantly larger than any of the others.

Members who have proved entirely useless at getting anything done. They've had literally decades to change parties the proper way, by going to the local Labour Party constituency meetings that select candidates and having their say there. Trying to put in a massively radical change from the top down is not going to work.

I don't see how this is radical change from the top down... it's radical change from the bottom up, that results in the head being chopped off. Members who are kinda useless and borderline insane are still more effective than no members, as the SNP have proven.

Meanwhile, I wasn't talking about members. I was talking about the people that can actually get policies passed - MPs.

Labour's MPs are it's problem - they're tainted by their involvement in previous governments with the electorate. 75%+ of them are going to have to go in the next ten years if the party ever hopes to get any power back.

Why? He's demonstrated again and again he's willing to shift positions to accomodate as many people as possible. That's not a bad quality in a party as broad as the Labour Party is right now. No other candidate would do that.

As I've said before, the two party narrative is irrevocably dying, and dying quickly. Shifting positions to accommodate probably isn't going to work any more. Look at how the Lib Dems did that, and it's destroyed them.

Anti-establishment parties are gaining ground across Europe precisely because people are sick of hearing shifting, vague answers designed to try and alienate as few people as possible. This is exactly why Burnham is doing so badly - he should have walked this - because he's not laid out any positions to try and keep a broad church.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you can't solve two decades of diversion between the party mechanism and the party and expect to resolve it overnight by the election of the most extreme MP in the entire party. This is part of the frustration I have with Corbyn voters - "the entire world must change for me immediately now and no possible other policy will have any effect". That's just not how life works.

At a point of small electoral turnout, it is how elections work. Wild swings are going to become much more common, as they have across Europe. UKIP's entire identity is "we're not them." And while it hasn't translated into seats yet, it has translated into huge numbers of votes that's knackered Labour.

I am actually pretty serious when I say if the Labour Party adopted a position that, if elected, it would take anyone who'd previously served as an MP for any party and have them tarred and feathered they'd win by a general election by a landslide. That's how bad anti-politics has gotten.

Just obviously wrong. Look at the Liberal Party's history. In '51 they were so poor they could only field enough candidates to compete in a quarter of the UK. They're still around after that, and their position isn't as bad as that now anyway.

But... they're not still around. The Liberal Party literally doesn't exist. They were replaced by the Lib Dems, and yes a merger was involved, but ultimately the Liberal Party, as it was, died, and never came back. And we are in a much more rapid period of electoral change and shifting ability for parties to exist than we were in the 50s.

Attlee, Wilson, and Callaghan were all known for the fact that they tended to have closely kept opinions of their own that were only rarely pushed strongly, and instead acted as the central counterweight to all the different factions in their party.

As I've said before, I don't think those are valid in an era of fragmenting public discourse and mass communication, and collapsing voter numbers. The political game is changing a lot and none of those approaches work today.

Yes, I agree. Cooper would be as terrible as Corbyn, if not more so.

I think the interesting thing is why certain bits of the press are so willing to burn their credibility here backing candidates that are poor and they know can't win. Is the Guardian and New Statesman really so blinded now they've literally just done it because their respective editors think gender is the 100% most important thing? How is that supposed to fit with them saying there's no point electing Corbyn because he can't win? I'm honestly confused by it.
 
MPs are a power hungry lot. I don't think filling shadow cabinet positions will be even a slightest problem. Indeed, I don't expect even a single MP to turn an offer down.

I don't think that's the case at all. Most Labour Party MPs don't actually agree with him and when he's inevitably gone in, at most, 5 years, those MPs (who will want to still be MPs) will need to be able to totally be shot of his leadership. This is ignoring the fact that they won't want to vote with him on quite a bit of stuff because they simply don't agree with him.

Take a look at this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13YH0DQUey-g7hXUdQwtPk-w_sXzVGE_JrjS43-RUpsY/edit

Only 15 MPs actually support him enough to vote for him. This is a pretty disastrous position to be starting a leadership from. It's all well and good that the £3 not-quite-members like him, but being leader of the party doesn't mean he can actually control the Labour MPs votes.
 

Mindwipe

Member
I don't think that's the case at all. Most Labour Party MPs don't actually agree with him and when he's inevitably gone in, at most, 5 years, those MPs (who will want to still be MPs) will need to be able to totally be shot of his leadership. This is ignoring the fact that they won't want to vote with him on quite a bit of stuff because they simply don't agree with him.

What's that got to do with them not accepting cabinet positions?

The Lib Dems didn't like the Tories, but they leapt into suicidal pacts the second cabinet places were in the offings.

I have really very little doubt most MPs would join a religion they didn't believe if they thought a cabinet or shadow cabinet job was a reward, never mind be under a leader they hated.
 
What's that got to do with them not accepting cabinet positions?

The Lib Dems didn't like the Tories, but they leapt into suicidal pacts the second cabinet places were in the offings.

I have really very little doubt most MPs would join a religion they didn't believe if they thought a cabinet or shadow cabinet job was a reward, never mind be under a leader they hated.

The Lib Dems did it because it was the only chance at being in government they'd ever get. They also didn't expect it to be the suicide pact (I'm not sure that's an accurate term, incidentally - the Tories didn't commit suicide!) at the time.

With Labour MPs, they'll have one and three quarter eyes on 2020 and their careers beyond that. If they jump into bed with Corbyn in senior cabinet positions and he ends up having a ruinous leadership, they're not going to be the first call Jarvis makes in 2020, are they?
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
MPs are a power hungry lot. I don't think filling shadow cabinet positions will be even a slightest problem. Indeed, I don't expect even a single MP to turn an offer down.

No. See what Cyclops says.

I think there are a bunch of splits there, but I don't think that's really significantly larger than any of the others.

It's probably the second largest split in the Conservative party after Europe and was responsible for a number of backbench revolts in Cameron's 2010 administration.

I don't see how this is radical change from the top down... it's radical change from the bottom up, that results in the head being chopped off. Members who are kinda useless and borderline insane are still more effective than no members, as the SNP have proven.

It needs to be from the bottom up because otherwise Corbyn has no MPs. He certainly can't dictate who becomes an MP, because that is, still, largely decided by constituency groups - the same groups which have by and large selected Blairite candidates over the last 15 years.

Labour's MPs are it's problem - they're tainted by their involvement in previous governments with the electorate. 75%+ of them are going to have to go in the next ten years if the party ever hopes to get any power back.

Labour's MPs aren't the problem. Most people can't name more than about ten individual Labour MPs anyway.

As I've said before, the two party narrative is irrevocably dying, and dying quickly. Shifting positions to accommodate probably isn't going to work any more. Look at how the Lib Dems did that, and it's destroyed them.

The two party narrative doesn't 'die' just because people hope and wish a bit. FPTP means that only two parties stand a chance of winning in any given seat. Sometimes countries with large regional disparities can sustain a sort of extra "half party" like the NDP in Canada and the Lib Dems in the UK, but no more than that. The two party narrative only dies when one of the governing parties changes the voting system. Until then, people not happy with the two parties don't vote for them, which has very little effect on the overall outcome other than an even further push towards the centre for both parties as only happy moderates remain.

Corbyn will change none of this because he opposes electoral reform.

Anti-establishment parties are gaining ground across Europe precisely because people are sick of hearing shifting, vague answers designed to try and alienate as few people as possible. This is exactly why Burnham is doing so badly - he should have walked this - because he's not laid out any positions to try and keep a broad church.

There is essentially no country except Greece where the anti-establishment party has acheived anything, and even that's debatable. The most common response of the political system to an anti-establishment party is just to form a coalition against it (see Sweden). All that forming an explicit anti-establishment does is take all of the people who don't like the status quo out of the currently existing parties, a.k.a. the only ones that can win, meaning the only winners are those happy with the establishment.

At a point of small electoral turnout, it is how elections work. Wild swings are going to become much more common, as they have across Europe. UKIP's entire identity is "we're not them." And while it hasn't translated into seats yet, it has translated into huge numbers of votes that's knackered Labour.

They've also done nothing.

I am actually pretty serious when I say if the Labour Party adopted a position that, if elected, it would take anyone who'd previously served as an MP for any party and have them tarred and feathered they'd win by a general election by a landslide. That's how bad anti-politics has gotten/

Yes, and then any MP with some basic common sense realizes that if this is done once, it'll probably be done the next time, too, and then suddenly nobody wants to be an MP because your career is to be shat on regular five yearly intervals (and this is a problem anyway).

But... they're not still around. The Liberal Party literally doesn't exist. They were replaced by the Lib Dems, and yes a merger was involved, but ultimately the Liberal Party, as it was, died, and never came back. And we are in a much more rapid period of electoral change and shifting ability for parties to exist than we were in the 50s.

That's like saying the Conservative Party isn't around because it merged with the Liberal Unionist Party. The Liberal Democrats are obviously a direct continuity from the Liberals, and they are so because there is almost always a niche for "people dumped by one of the two main parties when they go too far left/right". That niche becomes a shit-ton bigger when Corbyn is elected. You think Labour moderates won't switch to Liberal Democrats under Corbyn?

As I've said before, I don't think those are valid in an era of fragmenting public discourse and mass communication, and collapsing voter numbers. The political game is changing a lot and none of those approaches work today.

The game hasn't really changed. I mean, in some senses it's changed - far less people vote and everyone is more pissed off - but those things haven't actually meaningfully done anything and won't meaningfully do things when pissed off people don't actually do anything effective. I hate to quote Dan Hodges because he's a prick but it's broadly true that aiming your campaign at non-voters is like setting up a butcher's shop aimed at vegetarians
 

spunodi

Member
Anybody following the #LabourPurge trend on Twitter?

Seems a LOT of people are being knocked back from being able to vote. I can't see this ending well.
 
I hate to quote Dan Hodges because he's a prick but it's broadly true that aiming your campaign at non-voters is like setting up a butcher's shop aimed at vegetarians

nostradamus_18thcentury.jpg
 

Par Score

Member
Anybody following the #LabourPurge trend on Twitter?

Seems a LOT of people are being knocked back from being able to vote. I can't see this ending well.

It's utterly ludicrous how Labour have managed to turn a surge of interest and membership in their party, the likes of which hasn't been seen for a long damn time, into such an utter clusterfuck.

This 'purge' on the back of social media tattle-tailing is a farcical disgrace.

I mean, there are people like this getting turfed out. A committed union member, Labour activist, and two time Labour council candidate for fucks sake. He did voice his support for Corbyn though, so either the process is malevolent, or it's just completely shambolic.
 

danwarb

Member

Jesus H. Corbyn!

I hope JC does win so that we're forced to look at his policy proposals somewhat rationally instead of through the dismissive misrepresentations we've seen from most outlets and hysterical 'New Labour' big mouths. He's not much more radical than prosperous Scandinavian countries, and Germany.

Labour are not representing labour, and they do need a correction.
 
Politics fact: The Liberal Party still exists, as does the SDP.

Anyone saying the Lib Dems are dead or destroyed is welcome to believe that. I mean, you're wrong, but you're welcome to believe that.

LOL at that email. The Labour Party, ladies and gentlemen!

EDIT: BTW, thoughts about a post-Corbyn nuke party landscape:

Left to right:

Greens, Corbynite Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, Blairite Labour, Tories, UKIP.

Greens return to minor environment party as its lefties flock to Corbynite Labour, removing them from relevance.

Lib Dems absorb quite a few ex-Labour people.

Blairite Labour, shorn of both its traditional voterbase and infrastructure, is annialated in 2020.

Lib Dems and SNP end up standing alone in the centre-left as Labour implodes.

I cannot really see any out for the Blairites to survive unless they entered an electoral pact with the Lib Dems. They'll have a lot of MPs but no party infrastructure, funding or identity. It makes me really unhappy as a Lib Dem to know that we'll probably end up working with or inheriting a lot of people from Blair fans, but I don't really see an alternative if we're to get back into power and fix the voting system.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
Jesus H. Corbyn!

I hope JC does win so that we're forced to look at his policy proposals somewhat rationally instead of through the dismissive misrepresentations we've seen from most outlets and hysterical 'New Labour' big mouths. He's not much more radical than prosperous Scandinavian countries, and Germany.

Why do you think winning would force people to discuss them rationally, if even proposing them is no bueno in the current media mainstream?
 

Jackpot

Banned
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34013497

Jeremy Corbyn has said he will formally apologise on behalf of the Labour Party for taking the country to war with Iraq if elected leader.

Mr Corbyn told the Guardian the party would "never again flout the United Nations and international law".

He said there was no need to wait for the Chilcot inquiry into the war "to know that mistakes were made".

Now that's a definite plus point.

edit:

CM2NpW_UwAApES7.jpg


heh.
 

Conan-san

Member
Anyone saying the Lib Dems are dead or destroyed is welcome to believe that. I mean, you're wrong, but you're welcome to believe that.

They don't need to be dead, they had their time on the throne and now they'll never get back on it. They sold their soul a penny and that's the end of the matter for them.
 

Protome

Member
Politics fact: The Liberal Party still exists, as does the SDP.

Anyone saying the Lib Dems are dead or destroyed is welcome to believe that. I mean, you're wrong, but you're welcome to believe that.

They aren't necessarily destroyed, they just won't be the third largest party again in our lifetimes.
 
To me what happens to UKIP after the EU referendum - whatever the result - is the most interesting question now. The SNP have done well after the IndyRef but that's because they were already a significant political force (the party of government in Scotland etc) for some time, dealing with other aspects of policy. UKIP is still really only wheeled out on EU issues now the election's over, so it'll be interesting to see how they fare once the EU issue has been settled for a generation. I genuinely don't know. My hunch is that they'll recede if we stay in, and grow slightly if we leave but I don't think they'll ever come a significant force in Westminster politics.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Interesting. There's a late and sudden surge in Burnham's odds against Corbyn, and I'm not entirely sure why.
 

BKK

Member
To me what happens to UKIP after the EU referendum - whatever the result - is the most interesting question now. The SNP have done well after the IndyRef but that's because they were already a significant political force (the party of government in Scotland etc) for some time, dealing with other aspects of policy. UKIP is still really only wheeled out on EU issues now the election's over, so it'll be interesting to see how they fare once the EU issue has been settled for a generation. I genuinely don't know. My hunch is that they'll recede if we stay in, and grow slightly if we leave but I don't think they'll ever come a significant force in Westminster politics.

It's a really interesting question, but I I don't see how Corbyn reclaims the working class voter. That type of voter is not going to be regained by moving to the left. Looking at the other side, I don't see them going to Cameron either. Of course, the Tories already have a planned succession before the next election, but I don't see many Kippers seeing that as a bigger appeal than Cameron.

Actually I think they are a bigger issue for the Tories next election. I think a lot of potential Ukippers ended up voting Tory over fear that Labour/SNP would get in power (amazing belief by lynton crosby to keep pushing that issue). Now with a Tory majority and a Labour party in disarray there's no need for that. Still, really interesting times right now, labour can steal all of the left voters, but lose all of the centre.
 

BKK

Member
I guess it has already been mentioned, but Paddy Power paid out already. If you want to bet, take the 1.46 for Corbyn, those are huge odds, easy money.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Voted.

Corbyn/Kendall/Cooper/Burnham: I like my politics crunchy, and Corbyn comes fresh out of the box. He seems to have the best chance of forming an effective opposition (being closer to the SNP/Greens), the best chance of offering a coherent and sellable set of positive policies, the best line on small businesses. I fully don't expect him to win in 2020 or to still be around in 2025, but he is also the best bet for Labour finding its soul again. If he were to win in 2020 then at least everyone would know what platform he won on, and I'm more relaxed about the prospect of Corbyn in charge than I am about any of the other three.

Creasey/Watson: This was a tighter decision. Watson is impressive, but I'm inclined to think he'd be more effective under Corbyn in an appointed rather than an elected position - as attack dogs need a leash. Besides, Creasey has impressed during the campaign and the Corbyn/Creasey combination provides very good balance.
 
They aren't necessarily destroyed, they just won't be the third largest party again in our lifetimes.

1933
"Nah man, Labour had their shot at power and blew it, we'll never see them back in power again."

1945
Clement Atlee wins landslide.

My belief is twofold:

1. The Lib Dems have the right attitude and opportunities to return to winning ways.
2. Labour imploding leaves the Lib Dems standing as the only credible centre-left party in England and most of Wales.

Corbyn cannot win an election, and much of the elected members of the Labour movement will have quit, defected or been forced out by 2020. If New Labour moves to form a new SDP, they will need to work with Lib Dems, as they will be shorn of basic things like viable local parties and brand identity. If they don't, they're facing Corbynite Labour and a very angry swarm of Lib Dems in most of their seats.

It's daft to proclaim the Lib Dems as destroyed, irrelevant or incapable of returning to power. Labour is handing the party exactly what is needed to rebuild quickly.
 

ruttyboy

Member
Voted.

Corbyn/Kendall/Cooper/Burnham: I like my politics crunchy, and Corbyn comes fresh out of the box. He seems to have the best chance of forming an effective opposition (being closer to the SNP/Greens), the best chance of offering a coherent and sellable set of positive policies, the best line on small businesses. I fully don't expect him to win in 2020 or to still be around in 2025, but he is also the best bet for Labour finding its soul again. If he were to win in 2020 then at least everyone would know what platform he won on, and I'm more relaxed about the prospect of Corbyn in charge than I am about any of the other three.

Creasey/Watson: This was a tighter decision. Watson is impressive, but I'm inclined to think he'd be more effective under Corbyn in an appointed rather than an elected position - as attack dogs need a leash. Besides, Creasey has impressed during the campaign and the Corbyn/Creasey combination provides very good balance.

You do realise by posting that you've voted for Corbyn and comparing him to the SNP/Greens, that your vote will now be removed?
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
You do realise by posting that you've voted for Corbyn and comparing him to the SNP/Greens, that your vote will now be removed?

It is far more likely that my vote will be removed (if it is) because I said on the form that I voted Tory last time round. No point being dishonest about it.
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
I don't understand the logic of opening up voting to anyone who wants to pay £3 and then refusing it to people on their own arbitrary basis. You either have an accessible voting structure with a low barrier to entry and higher participation (plus money!) or create a higher barrier to entry and a 'purer' voting group. You can't have both.

Do you get your money back if you are purged? If not, it is disgraceful. Not that it isn't already disgraceful.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I don't understand the logic of opening up voting to anyone who wants to pay £3 and then refusing it to people on their own arbitrary basis. You either have an accessible voting structure with a low barrier to entry and higher participation (plus money!) or create a higher barrier to entry and a 'purer' voting group. You can't have both.

Do you get your money back if you are purged? If not, it is disgraceful. Not that it isn't already disgraceful.

I think that's somewhat unfair. There are definitely people who vote with the intention of selecting the worst potential Labour leader than the best one, and I think we can probably agree they shouldn't be allowed to vote. The trouble is how you actually separate them from people who have opposed the Labour party in the past but genuinely want to participate now.

That said, the actual attempt at separating them has been horrific.
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
That's what I mean. If you want wider participation you need a lower barrier to entry (and you do need a barrier for this) but that comes at the cost of people looking to abuse the process. This is one of inbuilt factors that will arise when the cost for a vote is £3. They should have expected this.

To now go back and purge voters is arbitrary. You have to commit to the decision that you made and I do think it was good to try and make the Labour elections as inclusive as possible. Labour's priority should be rejuvenation.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
https://markfiddaman.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/6-links-jeremy-corbyn-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about/

6 Links Jeremy Corbyn Doesn’t Want You to Know About

6. THE UNIVERSE

Mr. Corbyn is thought to own property in the universe and can often be seen dining there.

The universe, scientists say, could one day run out of thermodynamic free energy, a process known as the “heat death”, which would wipe out every living being in the cosmos.

“This is typical loony left,” writes Seb Twunt in the Telegraph. “They’re so hell-bent on reducing inequality that they’re prepared to support the total destruction of all organic life to do it.”

We ask Corbyn to publicly condemn the annihilation of life as we know it.

Until his position on the heat death of the universe is clarified, we can’t know that Mr. Corbyn won’t be rubbing his hands in gleeful anticipation of complete oblivion.

rofl
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
The vote is either open to all party members or it isn't. Simple as that.

There should probably be some reasonable checks to make sure that Tory MPs can't become Labour Party members, though - conflict of interest gets pretty bad with that one. The trouble is Labour is doing them after the fact and not before it.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
One of my least favourite people. My blood fair boils just at the mention of her.
 
I totally would smang however.

My favourite moment of hers was when she retweeted "labour" campaign posters that /pol/ created and distributed as misinformation. Of course she thought they were genuine.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
The Mail on Sunday were always batshit, they haven't gone anywhere.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I love how "The Bank of England is renamed the People's Bank" is as bad as "Selling nukes to Putin".

ok.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom