Very much disagree. Plenty of Tories I find more likable than Alan Johnson, as a person.
Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
John Redwood is going to be a speaker at one of my mag's upcoming roundtable debates -just heard today- how about him? Maybe I'm just viewing Alan Johnson through a very narrow policy prism. I'm not sure what winds you lot up so much about him, but maybe that's reflective of my ignorance of his broader agenda tbf.
Depends on how you define Blairism. If it's the specific policy choices that that government took, then no, it won't work. If it's the idea that pitching to centre-ground voters is the best way of winning elections, then it's hard to say it's a busted flush. My main point is that I don't see how these focus groups support the idea that a properly socialist Labour (avec a smart leader) is what's wanted, which is what I was originally responding to. I'd also say it's fairly decent evidence that the pros of ousting Corbyn outweigh the negatives, given it was a pre-requisite for any of their support. Has mashed up my ideas of who's best to follow, though.
He seems very arrogant, as Nick suggested. I watch This Week a lot, which he does a lot these days, and I find Portillo more the 'sort you could have a drink and a chat with' than him.
Don't know much about Redwood - other than thinking he might've been the one who badly pretended to know the words to the Welsh national anthem...?
But the problem remains that Corbyn has a democratic mandate to lead the party, and to simply oust him essentially ignores that and pisses all over those who voted for him. I understand that a party must appeal to a wider base if it hopes to win an election, but mere victory should not be the only primary concern for a party. If a political party exists only to win elections and for no other reason, with a willingness to shift alignment at a whim, then what's the point?
I understand that a centre candidate is more likely to be successful in the long-term. I think someone in the centre-left area of Miliband, but with more conviction, might be kind of successful. The problem is that it's not what the party members want at the moment, and it's kind of hard to just ignore that for the hope of electoral success IMO. Especially when Labour potentially face major challenges that they didn't have when Blair came to power...such as the fact that they're essentially done in Scotland, and would probably lose a portion of leftie voters to a building Green party. Neither of those are particularly awful in isolation, and can be moved past, but when put together? I think there's a real threat to any chances of a Labour majority. Especially if you add in voters who have switched to UKIP from Labour. I'd suspect many of them feel disillusioned with the general state of the party in recent years, and going back to something similar is unlikely to do much to tempt them back.
There was that. He's also a City bigwig, but his firm is officially neutral on the EU referendum. It's kind of making me chuckle that he's having to write balanced articles on the pros and cons, while we all know his true feelings.This is kind of a strawman though, simply "winning" so I can say "hey look, there's a Labour PM, job done" isn't my main concern, it's just instrumental in delivering what I see to be progressive change that has little chance of occurring under Tory rule. If you read what those people in Nuneaton actually want, pitching an agenda that's inclusive to them isn't a betrayal of Labour values by any stretch. One of them actually made an interesting point, that the working class these days in the main aren't necessarily down a pit or making steel, they're the salaried service workers in a call centre or a warehouse. Yeah, they might be a bit thick and liberal lefty types might like to roll their eyes at them, but they're the people Labour depends on, they're the ones that you're supposed to be helping get on in life, helping them afford childcare, topping up their income with tax credits, getting them seen quickly at A&E by a junior doctor that's on shift rather than on strike, etc. If I've been coming across as only wanting change because I support Labour like a football team rather than because of actual policy outcomes, then my posts are worse than I suspected.
On Corbyn - agreed that whilst he retains the support of the membership he won't go anywhere. But if he loses it, he has to go. If someone has neither the popular support to win an election or the majority of members backing them, I can't see any legitimate arguing for keeping them, potential for Green defections or no. I think there'll need to be a more pro-active, focused and co-ordinated campaign for an alternative though rather than the piecemeal, scrappy criticism we get at the moment.
Scotland is obviously a huge barrier but Labour basically has to have the dual approach of listening to ex-voters in Scotland, much in the way they'll listen to ex-voters in Nuneaton, and crafting a programme that will appeal, but at the same time targeting the win through England and Wales on their own. This includes completely ruling out any deal with the SNP post-election (and for this to work, the leader saying it needs to be believed, which is where Ed fell down).
Nah, I don't think that's the case at all: I can see you genuinely want the country to succeed under a Labour government that can appeal to a wide base of people and secure a majority in doing so, and I think that's an admirable goal. I'll also agree that a lot of liberal, left type voters are probably quite out of touch with working class elements in certain respects.
Where I kind of disagree though is that I feel like for Labour to succeed under such a branch, they're going to need that sort of unified, principled ideology that they can stand to. Something that they can take to voters and win them over with, as opposed to the other way around. My issue with elements of the more centrist approach is that it appears to be based around doing exactly what voters want and altering the parties view to suit that, instead of creating ideas which can then appeal to voters.
There's obviously got to be a blended approach, and the two come hand in hand to a certain extent, but it felt like the case in the immediate aftermath of last year - I think it was one case of not voting against a more questionable Tory policy on the basis that it would be unpopular, because people hadn't voted for Labour's ideas instead of the Tories, when in reality it was probably more the case that Miliband's Labour hadn't been convincing enough in their own arguments.
As for Scotland, I genuinely think it's going to be difficult for Labour to win it back for a long, long time. They are full of utterly hopeless politicians in Scotland, because the more well-known names went to Westminster and were then booted out, while younger people who don't like the Tories typically opt for the SNP or, in some cases, Greens/Socialists/Tommy Sheridan's latest vanity project. There's a generation of Scots who almost view Labour on the same level as people did Thatcher's Tories. Only, it's less a derision or disgust, but more kind of bewilderment and bemusement now after the last two elections. A few might come back, but it seems unlikely.
Their problem up here is that they're essentially screwed no matter what they do. A more left-wing, inclusive approach, being less hostile to independence? That'll win over a few SNP voters, but it sends more over to the Tories, as we saw. A more centrist, right-wing, and strong unionist approach? Those SNP voters remain right where they are, and Labour struggle to win back their working-class vote because working-classes are more receptive to independence (which was typically a more left-wing movement, especially at grassroots level). Ruling out deals with the SNP comes under that - it patronises SNP voters, and essentially says that Labour have no interest in working with a party that (for now) represents the interests of Scots by more than double that of any other individual party. That alone doesn't rule the party out of getting a majority, but basically having lost Scotland is a massive point of concern if Labour want another party because it's essentially 40 seats they've lost that they used to have.
The best strategic move they could make right now is to push, along with every other party bar the Conservatives, for some form of PR. Would recover some of the debacle in Scotland (a fairly constant 20+% voteshare in both these wipeouts) and would prevent the Tories from ever getting an absolute majority again.
The biggest risk comes from increased UKIP seats; IIRC (Cons +UKIP) > 50% in 2015.
The biggest risk comes from increased UKIP seats; IIRC (Cons +UKIP) > 50% in 2015.
That wasn't really my point to be fair but perhaps I chose the wrong thing to counter with big tent. I haven't read the full transcripts yet so I didn't spot the Chukka quotes so I may be being premature.
There was certainly a theme present in the womens transcript that it used to be clear that Labour were working class and Tories were for the self-interested wealthy. The women felt it was easier to choose who to vote for because of this and in the last election the Tories presented themselves as centre and Labour were seen to be false in moving right (trying to please everyone).
Now I'm certainly not saying Labour should only appealing to the left but if Labour are to win it has to be on the Tories not delivering on the image they portrayed and that Labour are with the working class. The typical slimy politician trick of narrowing the gap to the opponents won't work.
It's important to reconnect with the working class base before trying to appeal wider, that connection was taken for granted so historically could be built on now it can't.
They seem to like Tony Blair for the reason most on here hate him, because he represented style over substance, was presentable and had a good media team behind him. I didn't interpret the admiration for Tony Blair to be anything to do with his policies but rather how he came across.
I think how he came across* had a lot to do with a friendly mass media which had a lot to do with his policies (endorsed by Murdoch) and was helped by the forlorn shape of his opposition.
*I was an apolitical 5 year-old Indian child when he became leader and 1st noticed his name only in 2003 (Iraq), so this is purely speculation based on what I've read.
Liz Powell on Sky at the moment trying to make political capital over the leaking of some stage 2 sats test questions (for 10 year olds) on a teachers website.
She keeps repeating 'with all the answers', as if the teachers wouldn't know the answers unless they were leaked as well. Just made me smile.
She keeps repeating 'with all the answers', as if the teachers wouldn't know the answers unless they were leaked as well. Just made me smile.
Sure that I've seen more positive headlines about Khan since Friday than I have Corbyn since he got elected. Good signs.
Can you explain what you mean by 'my bitterness and jealousy'? Again, it just seems like you're making assumptions and turning things personal.
You seem to have taken great exception to a post that only ever aimed to despair at voters who focus on style over substance. It reminds me of the Sarah Palin supporters interviewed on The Daily Show who couldn't cite a single one of her policies between them yet strongly identified with her.
http://news.sky.com/story/1693631/pm-caught-on-mic-making-gaffe-to-queen
Hello to all our friends in Nigeria and Afghanistan.
Hello to all our friends in Nigeria and Afghanistan.
http://news.sky.com/story/1693631/pm-caught-on-mic-making-gaffe-to-queen
Hello to all our friends in Nigeria and Afghanistan.
Heh. Good to see them not beating around the bush for a change.
For example, unilateral nuclear disarmament is an extremist left wing policy with a history of dividing the Labour party from the 70's and 80's onwards. I won't vote for him if he puts that in his manifesto at the next election. Corbyn is a left winger and his election was always going to divide the party if it led to this kind of policy.
I know he now says we might buy the subs and not put the nukes on them, well done there Jez you ill thought out wanker.
Maybe Corbyn views on the Falkland islands, Nato or his views on the troubles in Northern Ireland could be use as ''extremist''(Although extremist is a shitty word anyway). But nuclear disarmament is hardly a extremist view point considering most countries don't have nukes, also let's not forgot the connection the UK has to the US. I think there's a valid argument(Might not be a vote winner) about a country like the UK having nuclear weapons.
http://news.sky.com/story/1693631/pm-caught-on-mic-making-gaffe-to-queen
Hello to all our friends in Nigeria and Afghanistan.
He's not wrong. Just that he was caught saying it before meeting the two countries.
The enablers of a lot of this corruption can be found with his buddies in the City of London, they need to be invited as well
Well rhere's no point arguing but obviously I'm coming from the point of view that I don't think not wanting doomsday weapons in our possession is extreme. That's why I was more interested in the non-foreign policy side of things.
Anyway the "ill thought out wanker" part is the killer here I guess, although killer is a bit of a strong word in retrospect. Yes he mentioned it as a possibility in an interview when asked about it and he shouldn't have done, but a review is being done which will apparently be well thought out so it doesn't really boil down to that... yet.
Last edited:
The history inside the Labour Party of this policy defined it and its supporters as extreme.
Oh come on, its the defence of the country and the cornerstone of that defence for more than 50 years. His answer to being scrutinised about the possible effect of his life long held belief that the UK should unilaterally disarm it nuclear deterrence was to suggest we buy the subs and then don't put the nukes on them. Its the position of a childlike idiot who doesn't like something but can't answer the grown up part of why we do what we do.
He certainly suggested it as something that was being considered. Everything else we'll have to agree to disagree on. I like having a planet to live on and the less countries with nukes the more chance of that happening in my opinion. If we have to do the unthinkable thing that most of the countries on the planet already do and not have nukes to get one step closer to no one having no nukes then so be it!
Hello to you tohttp://news.sky.com/story/1693631/pm-caught-on-mic-making-gaffe-to-queen
Hello to all our friends in Nigeria and Afghanistan.
The problem our corrupt leaders won't give a feck. I won't be surprised if papers don't carry it as front page news.
Our system is corrupt, what else? Water is wet.
I am quite confident our new president isn't corrupt but he's like a kite dancing in a hurricane.
Edit: front page news in every paper.
Last edited:
Except the submarines in question are designed specifically to act as a platform for ICBMs, their size & characteristics preclude them from being effective in the role as a hunter-killer/intelligence gathering vessel. They would be complete white elephants without the warheads, his suggestion goes beyond being a throwaway comment into something very close to incompetence on the matter and something he should never have gone near.
Incompetence to what end? I wouldn't expect Jeremy Corbyn to know the ins-and-outs of submarine warfare as you clearly do. Hence the review. Anyway it looks like what they will be looking at is whether the Astute class submarines could have some dual use capability (I assume with cruise missiles rather than ICBMs), with a view to ordering more of those instead of the Vanguard replacements.
Anyway I'm glad that me asking for what policies outside of foreign policy people find extreme has been met with a bunch of replies on foreign policy.
Corbyn failed to congratulate the new mayor and nail Cameron for his comments last week but went instead on posted workers in the EU.
Its defence policy though isn't it?
Apologies then, getting my words mixed up.
The defence review seems kind of moot unless Corbyn agrees to vote along with whatever recommendations it gives. Will be interesting to see what he's willing to compromise on. Would he give support to nuclear weapons if there was the benefit of a supposed halve in costs?
I agree with your latter point, and wasn't trying to be personal btw. I felt just a tinge of the leftist bitterness in your apparent hatred of the right.
They looked at astute as an option back in 2000... It was concluded they could only carry a couple of missiles, the missiles would require a much reduced yield and their range would only be 1000 miles (instead of 6000)
That can't be their proposal... Its laughable
Well duh... I think the reduced capabilities are part of the point. If the Astute could do everything the Vanguard can then the government wouldn't be looking at a Vanguard successor in the first place.
yes... as in this was considered before and it was concluded the reductions were too large and rendered the option a non starter
thankfully all the labour MP's were elected on a pro trident menifesto so I am sure we can see them sticking to their promises for the electorate
They will. If there's one thing you can rely on politicians for it's voting for the big toys.
Well he's already committed to a free vote on the matter so that should be the end of divisions concerning this really.
I'm always suprised so many care about trident policy, is it actually fear or is just that people like to talk war?
Except that he has been a prominent campaigner for the CND over several decades, he must have done a good deal of research over that time period.
To what extent these have progressed from Corbyn's personal views to those of the party, i cam not entirely certain, however two areas i would cite are: his opposition to nuclear energy, and the extent of his renationalisation ambitions.