RugbyRebels

.... as expected.

Do these clowns have a single clue as to how much they are loathed by the Labour constituency?

They just got their corporatist arses kicked in the EU referendum and they think it's a good time to overthrow a (leftist) popular leader.

Have at it F knuckles.

They certainly think it a good time to oust a lefty leader who's only popular with the lefties, and not what one might actually call popular.

Perhaps the more progressive elements of labour think the traditionalists can be brought around, and the lefties might think there's a chance the general electorate will agree with them - if so both are looking wrong.

It was always a matter of when this would happen. The referendum result offered a perfect opportunity.

Might the timing be linked to the Chilcott enquiry report?

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... ar-stupid/

fivepointer wrote:It was always a matter of when this would happen. The referendum result offered a perfect opportunity.

Might the timing be linked to the Chilcott enquiry report?

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... ar-stupid/

That would certainly make conspiracy theorist sense. However back in the real world...

Labour MPs worried at keeping their seats. Labour voters a great perceived immigration issues, but according to Corbyn, unlimited immigration is fine while Brexit was caused by austerity. MNy labour MPs felt pressure from UKIP last time and are worried at their chances if there is an early election.

Sandydragon wrote:Labour MPs worried at keeping their seats. Labour voters a great perceived immigration issues, but according to Corbyn, unlimited immigration is fine while Brexit was caused by austerity. MNy labour MPs felt pressure from UKIP last time and are worried at their chances if there is an early election.

Thats a deliberately disingenuous way of phrasing his point. He said the issues in the economy that people are blaming on immigrants are actually the result of austerity.

Are you saying Labour should pander to the misinformed and start campaigning against immigrants, rather than trying to inform the populace of the truth?

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Labour MPs worried at keeping their seats. Labour voters a great perceived immigration issues, but according to Corbyn, unlimited immigration is fine while Brexit was caused by austerity. MNy labour MPs felt pressure from UKIP last time and are worried at their chances if there is an early election.

Thats a deliberately disingenuous way of phrasing his point. He said the issues in the economy that people are blaming on immigrants are actually the result of austerity.

Are you saying Labour should pander to the misinformed and start campaigning against immigrants, rather than trying to inform the populace of the truth?

I've said it before and I'll say it again,the concerns over immigration have been felt I parts of England since 2005, remind me when austerity started. A bloke on question time has just made the point that labour has ignored its core voters for 20 years. That was a huge part of the vote, and if labour had looked after their core voters better, the rise of UKIP in their safe seats wouldn't be happening.

Sandydragon wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Labour MPs worried at keeping their seats. Labour voters a great perceived immigration issues, but according to Corbyn, unlimited immigration is fine while Brexit was caused by austerity. MNy labour MPs felt pressure from UKIP last time and are worried at their chances if there is an early election.

Thats a deliberately disingenuous way of phrasing his point. He said the issues in the economy that people are blaming on immigrants are actually the result of austerity.

Are you saying Labour should pander to the misinformed and start campaigning against immigrants, rather than trying to inform the populace of the truth?

I've said it before and I'll say it again,the concerns over immigration have been felt I parts of England since 2005, remind me when austerity started. A bloke on question time has just made the point that labour has ignored its core voters for 20 years. That was a huge part of the vote, and if labour had looked after their core voters better, the rise of UKIP in their safe seats wouldn't be happening.

And who has been in charge for 20 years?

The UK needs a strong left. If Corbyn cant kick the Blairites out, there'll be a new party instead

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
Thats a deliberately disingenuous way of phrasing his point. He said the issues in the economy that people are blaming on immigrants are actually the result of austerity.

Are you saying Labour should pander to the misinformed and start campaigning against immigrants, rather than trying to inform the populace of the truth?

I've said it before and I'll say it again,the concerns over immigration have been felt I parts of England since 2005, remind me when austerity started. A bloke on question time has just made the point that labour has ignored its core voters for 20 years. That was a huge part of the vote, and if labour had looked after their core voters better, the rise of UKIP in their safe seats wouldn't be happening.

And who has been in charge for 20 years?

The UK needs a strong left. If Corbyn cant kick the Blairites out, there'll be a new party instead

you may think that the UK needs a strong left but they've repeatedly voted for the alternative. Furthermore if Corbyn can't persuade Labour supporters to vote in the direction he suggests then what's the point in him?

There'll be a Leadership election. He'll probably win it again (although the centrists will probably be clever enough to put up 1 candidate). However at some point there'll be a general election and the Brexit vote shows that the country is hardly itching for his message of international socialism.

Sandydragon wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: remind me when austerity started.

1976.

Digby wrote:They certainly think it a good time to oust a lefty leader who's only popular with the lefties, and not what one might actually call popular.

Perhaps the more progressive elements of labour think the traditionalists can be brought around, and the lefties might think there's a chance the general electorate will agree with them - if so both are looking wrong.

There's a lot more lefties in the general population than you apparently believe.

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote:They certainly think it a good time to oust a lefty leader who's only popular with the lefties, and not what one might actually call popular.

Perhaps the more progressive elements of labour think the traditionalists can be brought around, and the lefties might think there's a chance the general electorate will agree with them - if so both are looking wrong.

There's a lot more lefties in the general population than you apparently believe.

And if they get them all out to vote then Labour already hold something like 93/100 of the lowest voter turnout constituencies, so it'll make sod all difference (and that ignoring Corbyn would lose seats). And to give some perspective I could be called centre left, maybe, and allowing that on some issues I'd come down centre right, but Ed Milliband was beyond the pale in my estimation so Corbyn is just a bad if not pathetic joke. Also whilst I've never in my life voted labour there's no way I'd vote for Johnson, Gove or May, just as things stand there's no way I'd think of voting Labour either. 'tis possible that with Dave Milliband in charge and with an alternative of say Gove I could vote Labour, but absent of Dave, or perhaps a Chuka Umunna, and a sensible manifesto then it's a non starter

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
Thats a deliberately disingenuous way of phrasing his point. He said the issues in the economy that people are blaming on immigrants are actually the result of austerity.

Are you saying Labour should pander to the misinformed and start campaigning against immigrants, rather than trying to inform the populace of the truth?

I've said it before and I'll say it again,the concerns over immigration have been felt I parts of England since 2005, remind me when austerity started. A bloke on question time has just made the point that labour has ignored its core voters for 20 years. That was a huge part of the vote, and if labour had looked after their core voters better, the rise of UKIP in their safe seats wouldn't be happening.

And who has been in charge for 20 years?

The UK needs a strong left. If Corbyn cant kick the Blairites out, there'll be a new party instead

Mate, if you can't listen to the accounts of former labour voters in their traditional heartlands and get the fact that they feel abandoned. It's not just immigration, it's the whole internationalist globalisation thing and they feel left out.

A labour leader stating that immigration isn't a problem when millions of labour voters think it is will only end badly. Frankly I couldn't give a toss about labour, but their arrogance towards their traditional voters over the last few decades has contributed hugely towards Brexit.

Digby wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote:They certainly think it a good time to oust a lefty leader who's only popular with the lefties, and not what one might actually call popular.

Perhaps the more progressive elements of labour think the traditionalists can be brought around, and the lefties might think there's a chance the general electorate will agree with them - if so both are looking wrong.

There's a lot more lefties in the general population than you apparently believe.

And if they get them all out to vote then Labour already hold something like 93/100 of the lowest voter turnout constituencies, so it'll make sod all difference (and that ignoring Corbyn would lose seats). And to give some perspective I could be called centre left, maybe, and allowing that on some issues I'd come down centre right, but Ed Milliband was beyond the pale in my estimation so Corbyn is just a bad if not pathetic joke. Also whilst I've never in my life voted labour there's no way I'd vote for Johnson, Gove or May, just as things stand there's no way I'd think of voting Labour either. 'tis possible that with Dave Milliband in charge and with an alternative of say Gove I could vote Labour, but absent of Dave, or perhaps a Chuka Umunna, and a sensible manifesto then it's a non starter

Blair won his elections by appealing to the centre. He seemed relevant to ordinary voters, not the president of a students union debating society. The lurch to the left following his departure hasn't worked for labour, but apparently hey need to attempt to make Corbyn .electable to realise that. Maybe Corbyn will be able to reach those traditional voters that feel left behind since the new labour project got underway, but evidence thus far wouldn't support that.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

UGagain wrote:

There's a lot more lefties in the general population than you apparently believe.

And if they get them all out to vote then Labour already hold something like 93/100 of the lowest voter turnout constituencies, so it'll make sod all difference (and that ignoring Corbyn would lose seats). And to give some perspective I could be called centre left, maybe, and allowing that on some issues I'd come down centre right, but Ed Milliband was beyond the pale in my estimation so Corbyn is just a bad if not pathetic joke. Also whilst I've never in my life voted labour there's no way I'd vote for Johnson, Gove or May, just as things stand there's no way I'd think of voting Labour either. 'tis possible that with Dave Milliband in charge and with an alternative of say Gove I could vote Labour, but absent of Dave, or perhaps a Chuka Umunna, and a sensible manifesto then it's a non starter

Blair won his elections by appealing to the centre. He seemed relevant to ordinary voters, not the president of a students union debating society. The lurch to the left following his departure hasn't worked for labour, but apparently hey need to attempt to make Corbyn .electable to realise that. Maybe Corbyn will be able to reach those traditional voters that feel left behind since the new labour project got underway, but evidence thus far wouldn't support that.

Milliband and now Corbyn have echoed the Conservatives moves in appointing the likes of Hague, Howard and IDS, it's a move that makes the faithful feel good about themselves, but the voters (and certainly those that vote) are mainly centrists. There's some wiggle room given 1st past the post going constituency by constituency, but not enough to move away from the centre.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
And if they get them all out to vote then Labour already hold something like 93/100 of the lowest voter turnout constituencies, so it'll make sod all difference (and that ignoring Corbyn would lose seats). And to give some perspective I could be called centre left, maybe, and allowing that on some issues I'd come down centre right, but Ed Milliband was beyond the pale in my estimation so Corbyn is just a bad if not pathetic joke. Also whilst I've never in my life voted labour there's no way I'd vote for Johnson, Gove or May, just as things stand there's no way I'd think of voting Labour either. 'tis possible that with Dave Milliband in charge and with an alternative of say Gove I could vote Labour, but absent of Dave, or perhaps a Chuka Umunna, and a sensible manifesto then it's a non starter

Blair won his elections by appealing to the centre. He seemed relevant to ordinary voters, not the president of a students union debating society. The lurch to the left following his departure hasn't worked for labour, but apparently hey need to attempt to make Corbyn .electable to realise that. Maybe Corbyn will be able to reach those traditional voters that feel left behind since the new labour project got underway, but evidence thus far wouldn't support that.

Milliband and now Corbyn have echoed the Conservatives moves in appointing the likes of Hague, Howard and IDS, it's a move that makes the faithful feel good about themselves, but the voters (and certainly those that vote) are mainly centrists. There's some wiggle room given 1st past the post going constituency by constituency, but not enough to move away from the centre.

Agreed. Excepting the odd local constituency, centralism wins elections.

The mythical wanking "centre".

morepork wrote:The mythical wanking "centre".

Well I don't think it's mythical, and it's my strong preference over having candidates more akin to Chavez or Le Pen

Ok, this thread is TL so DR, but if the PLP is so removed from the Party's general membership, doesn't that indicate huge scope for a third or even new party to make large gains by wooing those voters who feel "their" party has left them?

Lizard wrote:Ok, this thread is TL so DR, but if the PLP is so removed from the Party's general membership, doesn't that indicate huge scope for a third or even new party to make large gains by wooing those voters who feel "their" party has left them?

Except third parties rarely, if ever, have real long-term traction outside of supporting coalition roles, as the two main parties develop ever-growing tents.

It could be worse though, it could be like Japan, where the Liberal Democratic Party and the Democratic Party are basically the occupying the same space, and it's really a case of who's got the better branding. It's just that the LDP tent is sticking out a slight bit to the right, and the DP tent is sticking out a bit to the left (but not really).

Lizard wrote:Ok, this thread is TL so DR, but if the PLP is so removed from the Party's general membership, doesn't that indicate huge scope for a third or even new party to make large gains by wooing those voters who feel "their" party has left them?

Which qas kind of my point...

The world has changed. High quality relatively honest politics can have a chance, but it needs the media to not be vehemently against it.

cashead wrote:

Lizard wrote:Ok, this thread is TL so DR, but if the PLP is so removed from the Party's general membership, doesn't that indicate huge scope for a third or even new party to make large gains by wooing those voters who feel "their" party has left them?

Except third parties rarely, if ever, have real long-term traction outside of supporting coalition roles, as the two main parties develop ever-growing tents.

Throughout history. But Fidesz was a new party. Podemos was. Syriza was. And several other examples. Even Labour was new once remember. Perhaps it's simply time for another change

Yes, I know how 3rd parties in the UK usually fare as it was similar in NZ before we got proportional representation (and hasn't changed a great deal since then other than to have a number of small parties either more or less tied to a "natural" coalition partner on the same wing of the political spectrum or being not trusted as they simply support whoever offers them the shiniest baubles.)

My point is that the combination of constitutional, shall we say uncertainty (is "crisis" too strong?), combined with serious division in both major parties makes it a time when another option could potentially displace one of the two main parties. Or perhaps the main parties will undergo some fundamental changes. There's nothing making the Conservative and Labour parties permanent fixtures of the British Constitution. If it could happen to the old Tory party, Whigs, Liberals etc, why not the current major parties now?

Lizard wrote:Yes, I know how 3rd parties in the UK usually fare as it was similar in NZ before we got proportional representation (and hasn't changed a great deal since then other than to have a number of small parties either more or less tied to a "natural" coalition partner on the same wing of the political spectrum or being not trusted as they simply support whoever offers them the shiniest baubles.)

My point is that the combination of constitutional, shall we say uncertainty (is "crisis" too strong?), combined with serious division in both major parties makes it a time when another option could potentially displace one of the two main parties. Or perhaps the main parties will undergo some fundamental changes. There's nothing making the Conservative and Labour parties permanent fixtures of the British Constitution. If it could happen to the old Tory party, Whigs, Liberals etc, why not the current major parties now?

Because the parties like two big US ones, or the LDP, or the Tories have been around long enough to be entrenched at this stage. It comes down to whether or not a party has actual, real staying power, and whether or not they can realistically compete with one or two entrenched parties.

Historically, new parties like the ones that Stom mentioned come to the fore and have some impact on the landscape during a protracted period of political and social upheaval. Whether or not the Brexit aftermath is that is anyone's guess at this stage.

Case in point the post-WWII Japanese system, where you have one monster giganto-tent party like the LDP, and a constantly shifting opposition, that is in a permanent state of mergers and dissolutions - the current main opposition is the Democratic Party, which is a merger of the Democratic Party of Japan, the Vision of Reform and the Japan Innovation Party. The DPJ and JIP were both themselves mergers of other parties, which themselves were mergers. Basically, you end up with a chimera. Meanwhile, smaller parties like the Soka Gakkai-backed Komeito survive as a designated coalition partner - the LDP usually has the seats to govern alone, but it pays to throw the Komeito a bone since it keeps the that lobby happy (kind of like how our own politicians are often cosy with the Ratana Church).

The Whigs were an entrenched serious force for 170 years. No one is immune from history.