What now for Labour? (Part 2)

First topic message reminder :

Phil Hornby wrote:I feel that Corbyn is sincere, polite, interesting and likeable - so are my neighbours but, like them, he isn't electable as Prime Minister.

In which case, why should we pay some phoney twicer to be something else?

oftenwrong wrote:

marcolucco wrote: ....  We need someone strong - not a saint - .... who would bring more terror to the Tories than ever Jeremy would.

I'm not sure whether Jeremy Corbyn would laugh or cry at hearing himself depicted as a "saint", but leaving aside journalistic hyperbole it is a fact that right-wing commentators are like a rabbit caught in the headlights when it comes to the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.  There is anti-Corbyn vitriol on every alternate page of today's Sunday Times , and as Oscar Wilde said, "The only thing worse than being talked about is NOT being talked about."

Only Robin Cook had that paralysing effect on the Tory machine up to now, and we do actually need Jeremy Corbyn or someone like him if we are to avoid becoming a One-Party State.

You have hit the nail the head OW, the reason the right wing Tory controlled media has never been off Jermy Corbyn back is because they want a PERMANANT Tory gov't who will give them tax breaks and put into law tax LOOPHOLES so the people who do not want to pay there fair share of tax can hide there millions in other countries.

marco,

Corbyn's reaction to the Paris murders was, imo, respectful and rational; and perhaps that is a better approach than the knee-jerk reactions we've witnessed from others. Perhaps others haven't learnt the lessons of past knee-jerk reactions.

for his history shows him in alignment with those who rebel against the rich West

Can you shed more light on this statement, and provide your source/s of information?

sickchip wrote:Corbyn's reaction to the Paris murders was, imo, respectful and rational;

Yep - we simply disagree.


"Can you shed more light on this statement, and provide your source/s of information? " Would it make any difference? I deduced but you would deduce something else. I dislike the man and pray he and his awful sidekick have nothing to do with running (or ruining) the country. Labour has eminently better, wiser, saner, cleverer potential leaders. I named two.

Sorry to disagree with you Redflag. Wars ruin some and benefit others, but I'm sure people don't go to war in order to please arms dealers. I agree with bombing Syria - we are already at war with ISIS, bombing them in Iraq. They cross the border and we should follow them. We were asked by France to help and, correctly, we did. Our contribution may not be as great as that of America, but we are partners.

Of course I like America! They are kin.

the reason the right wing Tory controlled media has never been off Jermy Corbyn back is because they want a PERMANANT Tory gov't who will give them tax breaks and put into law tax LOOPHOLES so the people who do not want to pay there fair share of tax can hide there millions in other countries.

Redflag wrote:

It's not JUST the Tory press who criticise Corbyn, Redflag. Most sane people do. Thankfully we should see a change of leadership in a few months time and you'll be able to devote your energies to serving a proper leader, not something that's jumped out of Wonderland. I can't wait.

Who would this 'proper leader' be?...........

"Who would this 'proper leader' be?"

Ezekiel I am not but anything would be an improvement - a badger, maybe. Hilary Benn and Dan Jarvis would do well and, unlike Corbyn, would frighten the Tories.

"Can you shed more light on this statement, and provide your source/s of information?" Would it make any difference?

Yes.

However if you want to carry on making unfounded accusations, and ridiculous claims, about Corbyn based on nothing but your own 'imaginings', please do so.......it makes your case against Corbyn look a little weak, foolish, and desperate.

sickchip wrote:However if you want to carry on making unfounded accusations, and ridiculous claims, about Corbyn based on nothing but your own 'imaginings', please do so.

I imagine his fellow MPs don't want him. Are they all fools?
I imagine he appointed someone who quotes Mao, an absolute disgrace.
I imagine he endorses what Livingstone says about our armed forces.
I imagine he gave Labour two policies, not one, on bombing Syria -
I imagine he made controversial statements regarding the shooting of so called Jihadi John. This is in perfect harmony with the perceived view that he's no friend of the West.

He is a dangerous fool. Just now he is tearing the Labour Party to bits but if he ever got into power Britain would suffer the same agonies.

marco

Learn to place things in their true context instead of just hearing certain buzzwords, making assumptions, and being reactionary. You really shouldn't believe twisted interpretations on what Corbyn says, or does, printed by a press intent on portraying him in a bad light. There is a lot of deliberate misrepresentation and misinformation about Corbyn being touted by a primarily right wing media who don't want change.

And yes, I acknowledge some of the PLP are not enamoured with JC, but they are the mps tinged Tory Blue by their Blairist tendencies and don't want their cosy political bubble rocked - they're perfectly happy voting through Tory policies, only providing token opposition, and keeping the status quo as it is. Corbyn is turning Labour into a real opposition again, and providing people with a real choice at the next election.......instead of Tory or diluted Tory. And so that is a wrestle for power a certain clique within the party have started, and I hope Corbyn can win it and convince the doubters to stand with him.

We should appreciate the fact that Corbyn has brought ideas, and principles, to the fore in politics after years of seemingly careerist politicians. It is refreshing to see a politician with integrity and resolve, rather than one who will say anything just to curry favour.

Were you also aware that he has consistently claimed less expenses than any of the other freeloaders?
During the 2009 expenses scandal, Corbyn was revealed to have submitted the smallest amount in expenses of any British MP. In 2010 he claimed the lowest sum of all 650 MPs. In an interview with The Islington Gazette he said: "I am a parsimonious MP. I think we should claim what we need to run our offices and pay our staff but be careful because it's obviously public money. In a year, rent for the [constituency] office [on] Durham Road, Finsbury Park is about £12,000 to £14,000." Corbyn rents his constituency office from the Ethical Property Company.

There is a lot of deliberate misrepresentation and misinformation about Corbyn being touted by a primarily right wing media who don't want change.

This misrepresentation is blatant and obvious - but it seems many prefer to believe every word, and 'imagine' that it is a true representation.

"Learn to place things in their true context"
I will do my best.

"You really shouldn't believe twisted interpretations"
I will try to figure out which interpretations are twisted and which are not. I trust it is fine to regard your interpretation as untwisted.

Now let me tell you something.

You point out that JC has claimed least expenses, This is certainly commendable. I am genuinely full of admiration for that. My post deals with his suitability to be a leader not his qualifications for entering paradise. Showing the man has fine character traits does NOT show he has suitable leadership qualities. I am aware that you get differing messages from different newspapers. The views I have of Wilson, Blair and Brown and even Thatcher are not first hand assessments. If I had to look at Ivan's pictures and draw conclusions from them that would be closer to Ivan's truth, not necessarily close to fact. Poor dupes that we are, we must form opinions - and I am happy to change mine when I am duly persuaded. I do listen.

marcolucco wrote:-
It is ludicrous to take two outstanding examples of reform and question why Blair cannot vie with them, omitting all the positives the man did - and there were many. He is the only Labour prime minister to serve three terms, which suggests that he did NOT lose support. He wasn't a failure: he quite courageously brought about the Good Friday Agreement.

Blair did lose support; the Labour vote fell from 13,518,167 in 1997 to 9,552,436 in 2005 (only 205,132 more than Ed Miliband achieved this year). He won three general elections (Harold Wilson won four), but he didn’t serve three terms, he resigned two years after his third victory.

It’s not “ludicrous” to expect those who hold power for a significant length of time to leave a permanent imprint. Wilson set up the Open University and presided over the abolition of capital punishment and theatre censorship, along with the legalisation of abortion and homosexuality. All of those measures have survived Tory governments.

Yes, Blair’s lasting achievements may be the minimum wage and the Good Friday Agreement. What a pity that he won’t be remembered as a man of peace but as a warmonger, because of his later actions and utterances. But let’s not forget that he achieved peace in Northern Ireland by talking to, and negotiating with, people that some have called “terrorists”. Is it so terrible if Livingstone and Corbyn also think that it’s sometimes better to talk to people we may not like, rather than try and bomb our way to peace?

marcolucco wrote:.... Dan Jarvis would do well and, unlike Corbyn, would frighten the Tories.

Oh, but the evidence is that many "professional politician MPs" are extremely worried that their comfortable tenure of The Best Club in London might be replaced by a Jeremy Corbyn inspired "Hair Shirt" style.

Hence the continual spray of gunfire in his direction. His administration looks set to be the enemy of complacency. Making waves. Rocking the boat. Most unwelcome for those well-upholstered backsides polishing the green leather benches.

marcolucco wrote:"Who would this 'proper leader' be?"

Ezekiel I am not but anything would be an improvement - a badger, maybe. Hilary Benn and Dan Jarvis would do well and, unlike Corbyn, would frighten the Tories.

Well, you do surprise me.......With all your vast knowledge of how the Labour party should be run you are unable or unwilling to give one name of who YOU think must be the Labour leader, who would be a vote winner with wider Labour voters............But then again you seem to have only one goal and that is to see the end of Corbyn...........

All too often, British foreign-intervention policy has fallen under the heading of, "The Operation was a success, but unfortunately the patient died".

astradt1 wrote:"Who would this 'proper leader' be?"

marcolucco wrote:Hilary Benn and Dan Jarvis would do well ..........

        hello, hello, hello - anyone there?    I said Hilary Benn and Dan Jarvis....
H...I..L..A..R..Y......    B..E..N..N  .....      D..A..N....   J..A..R..V..I..S          Merry Christmas, I say MERRY CHRSTMAS. Take care now.

marcolucco wrote:

sickchip wrote:However if you want to carry on making unfounded accusations, and ridiculous claims, about Corbyn based on nothing but your own 'imaginings', please do so.

I imagine his fellow MPs don't want him. Are they all fools?
I imagine he appointed someone who quotes Mao, an absolute disgrace.
I imagine he endorses what Livingstone says about our armed forces.
I imagine he gave Labour two policies, not one, on bombing Syria -
I imagine he made controversial statements regarding the shooting  of so called Jihadi John. This is in perfect harmony with the perceived view that he's no friend of the West.

He is a dangerous fool. Just now he is tearing the Labour Party to bits but if he ever got into power Britain would suffer the same agonies.

1. NO - rogues2 Why?
2. You setting up a censorshi3.
3. Who cares what you imagine? It is probably indecent.
4. Are you sozzled?
5. You believe in encouraging terrorism. How is your opinion better than a cock on a dungheap

No - it is you who are a dangerous fool, encouraging people who represent onty Murdoch.

You are indeed terrible, Ivan


I said: "It is ludicrous to take two outstanding examples of reform and question why Blair cannot vie with them"

You said:

"It’s not ludicrous to expect those who hold power for a significant length of time to leave a permanent imprint."

You seem to think one statement contradicts the other. I have no great disagreement with the statement you've come up with and Blair did leave a permanent imprint. He killed Saddam. I think the former dictator would regard that as pretty permanent.

Penderyn wrote:1.  NO - rogues2   Why?
2.  You setting up a censorshi3.
3. Who cares what you imagine?   It is probably indecent.
4.  Are you sozzled?
5.   You believe in encouraging terrorism.   How is your opinion better than a cock on a dungheap

No - it is you who are a dangerous fool, encouraging people who represent onty Murdoch.

Ha,ha - funny but too silly to comment on.

marcolucco wrote:Ha,ha  - funny but too silly to comment on.

For once you have printed the truth marco, every post you put on here have rest of us rolling in the isles with laughter

marcolucco wrote:the reason the right wing Tory controlled media has never been off Jermy Corbyn back is because they want a PERMANANT Tory gov't who will give them tax breaks and put into law tax LOOPHOLES so the people who do not want to pay there fair share of tax can hide there millions in other countries.

It's not JUST the Tory press who criticise Corbyn, Redflag. Most sane people do. Thankfully we should see a change of leadership in a few months time and you'll be able to devote your energies to serving a proper leader, not something that's jumped out of Wonderland. I can't wait.

The only people on the Labour side that berate JC are Blairite who are upset because there candidate was rejected by Labour party members, let me tell you and those that want to change JC as leader they will cause a REVULTION within the UK. Instead of getting a new Labour leader the Blairites will find themselves out of a job, not unless of course they join there true party which is the Tories and we

all seen what happened to the Lib-Dems for jumping into bed with Tories ANNIHILATION in May 2015. I will definitely not vote for a Blairite leader if they do oust JC for all I did not vote for him this time round so let me assure you I would be voting for him if there is a COUP against him, we lost the 2010 G.E and lost in the 2015 G.E along with quite a lot of seats in areas we should have won the reason for this is people do not want a Labour party that is willing to use Tory policies when in gov't.

The majority of the right wing media are owned by money men who know they will be forced to pay there FULL amount of tax that is the only reason the right wing media want rid of JC, but of course the right wing media only print or say what Tory HQ tell them to say, they are also large donors to the what else THE TORY PARTY

"For once you have printed the truth marco, every post you put on here have rest of us rolling in the isles with laughter"

Thanks Redflag - I do try to be funny. Love appreciation!

You're welcome marco

Redflag wrote: let me tell you and those that want to change JC as leader they will cause a REVULTION within the UK.

My God, Redflag, not a revultion! Maybe we'd better just stick with Jerry then.

    " Instead of getting a new Labour leader the Blairites will find themselves out of a job"

A bit Stalinist, Redflag - uplifting the muzhiks and removing the intelligentsia.

A politician would no doubt respond to recent comments on this thread by saying that there isn’t a vacancy at present.

When William Hague became Tory leader in 1997, he received 90 votes, as only Tory MPs were allowed to vote and there were only 165 of them altogether. To his credit, Hague changed that voting system, and now Tory MPs must arrive at a shortlist of two which is then put before the entire membership of the party (even those in the Pease Pottage Conservative Club of whom, sadly, we have heard very little recently).  

Jeremy Corbyn wasn’t chosen by 90 people but by 251,417 Labour members and supporters, 59.5% of those eligible to vote. Those in the party who disagree with the result should still accept it, it’s known as democracy. Hilary Benn? No thanks, one speech doesn’t make a leader. Benn could have stood in the election, but he decided instead to back Andy Burnham. Dan Jarvis declined to stand because he has three children and quite rightly wants to put them first, after having lost his first wife to cancer.

Party membership has doubled since the general election, as a result of which debts have been paid off and there are many more foot soldiers, which MPs need to deliver leaflets and to canvass on their behalf. The Fire Brigades Union has re-affiliated and the Oldham by-election saw Labour win an increased percentage of the vote. Any attempts to undermine the leader, who has only been in post for three months, are quite unjustified and will only serve to help the Tories by distracting attention from the damage that they’re doing to the UK and the majority of its population.

marcolucco wrote:Sorry to disagree with you Redflag. Wars ruin some and benefit others, but I'm sure people don't go to war in order to please arms dealers. I agree with bombing Syria - we are already at war with ISIS, bombing them in Iraq. They cross the border and we should follow them. We were asked by France to help and, correctly, we did. Our contribution may not be as great as that of America, but we are partners.

Of course I like America! They are kin.

Then why kick off about Jermy Corbyn going to a Christmas dinner with stop the war campaign, but eff all said when gov't minsters go on a jolly abroad to sell ARMS to the same people that will use them against us.

I did not agree with your last short line about USA, as far as I am concerned if I was you I would check out TTIP its an agreement between the EU & USA and NONE of it good for the UK or the rest of the EU then maybe your blinkers will be taken off and see through this Tory gov't and our so called friends in the USA because all they see is the $ sign when it comes to the UK I refuse to be the USA poodle or lap dog.

Redflag wrote:I did not agree with your last short line about USA,........when it comes to the UK I refuse to be the USA poodle or lap dog.

I have nothing but admiration for USA, Redflag. I prefer America when she is wrong to most others when they are right. I can't see the United States of America asking you to be a lap dog so no need to worry there. I've travelled a lot in the States and found wonderful people and have many friends there. Perhaps you will come round when they have to send us foodstuffs if ever JC destroys our country. They probably have all the essential info on him, which is another fine aspect of the country- their ability to get up-to-date information on much of what is happening. They are our friends in a terrorist world.

"A politician would no doubt respond to recent comments on this thread by saying that there isn’t a vacancy at present."

There is a vacancy in the mind of the present leader and there will be a leadership vacancy in a few months time, what with pressure or simple incompetence.

Hilary Benn and Dan Jarvis may not offer their services but they are more capable than JC. It is good of you to see positives. They are built on HOPE not reason. The position is one of great instability - can it be anything else with McDonnell? Things will crash. Extremists can always say they had their few months of power and that is surely enough.

"Extremists can always say they had their few months of power and that is surely enough." A point of view sometimes expressed by the "Owners" of a domestic pet who ponder arranging for their darling one solitary chance at union with the opposite sex.

Is that taken to be a treat or a punishment?

marcolucco wrote:

Penderyn wrote:1.  NO - rogues2   Why?
2.  You setting up a censorshi3.
3. Who cares what you imagine?   It is probably indecent.
4.  Are you sozzled?
5.   You believe in encouraging terrorism.   How is your opinion better than a cock on a dungheap

No - it is you who are a dangerous fool, encouraging people who represent onty Murdoch.

Ha,ha  - funny but too silly to comment on.

No - true despite the (mild) dyslexia with which my comments are normally embellished.   Like Mr Murdoch and our other masters you don't like arguments, do you?   I expect God is the same.

The Americans they allow out are mostly very charming, but anyone who admires American governments is seriously ill.

oftenwrong wrote:"Extremists can always say they had their few months of power and that is surely enough."  A point of view sometimes expressed by the "Owners" of a domestic pet who ponder arranging for their darling one solitary chance at union with the opposite sex.

Is that taken to be a treat or a punishment?

I haven't the foggiest idea what you're trying to say.

  "Like Mr Murdoch and our other masters you don't like arguments, do you?   I expect God is the same."

You are obsessed with Murdoch. As it happens I like arguments - sensible ones - do you? I'm told God doesn't tolerate rebellion.

"The Americans they allow out are mostly very charming."
Your generalisations border on silliness but I suppose you are simply being provocatively hyperbolic, which is fine. As I say I like what America stands for. George iii was mad, of course, to let her go. Great country!

As you know subconsciously. Murdoch has got you so brainwashed that you wouldn't knew a sensible argument if it bit your balls off.    I have, as a strict matter of fact, never disliked any American I have met or approved of any action by any American government except (before he was captured by cowboys) that pea-nut one, (Carter?) who was honest.   Why do you keep up this posturing at being independent, when you haven't the faintest idea of thinking for yourself?

Penderyn wrote:Murdoch has got you so brainwashed that you wouldn't knew a sensible argument if it bit your balls off.  

 

You have an enviable way with words, Penderyn.

Penderyn wrote: Why do you keep up this posturing at being independent, when you haven't the faintest idea of thinking for yourself?

One of the joys of being here is receiving a lecture from an independent thinker. Listen, Penderyn, I have taught people to think independently with no assistance from Mr. Murdoch. I am more aware than you of the "hidden persuaders". I form and change my views as I see fit, and may you continue to do the same. That we reach different conclusions is the way of the world. Stop assuming you have a monopoly of wisdom - be thankful that I credit you with some. Go well and keep out of the Sun.

I've often wondered why condescension is usually said to "drip", but that provides the model, though unfortunately adding little to our knowledge of the topic.

What now for Labour? The new leader is popular in that country which is not delimited within London, and especially among "the young" who are notoriously contemptuous of the political norm. There is a palpable feeling that a new force is about to make itself felt, but of course only time will tell.

" condescension" - Rousseau was wrong about all men being born equal.

" The new leader is popular especially among "the young" who are notoriously contemptuous.".... and badly educated. This would suggest that those who oppose JC are right. Own goal, OW?

Penderyn, for the record I detest the Murdoch press. I admire the points you make - apart from telling me I'm sozzled -
and you are absolutely right about people believing all they read. It happens with people here too. I wish you all the best.

Ivan wrote:A politician would no doubt respond to recent comments on this thread by saying that there isn’t a vacancy at present.

I have been impressed by your apposite insertions; they are hard to argue against. Much or all of what you say is very true about the Tories and given the intensity your feelings it is no wonder that a radical politician like Jeremy Corbyn gains your valuable support. I'm afraid I distrust politicians in general -you don't. We are promised Eden and we get Hell most of the time. Despite my witticisms about your pictures, they are pretty spot-on.

Best regards and may you prosper in the New Year.

marcolucco wrote:Penderyn, for the record I detest the Murdoch press. I admire the points you make - apart from telling me I'm sozzled -
and you are absolutely right about people believing all they read. It happens with people here too.  I wish you all the best.

If some of the Labour MPs try to get rid of JC there would be trouble marco, I will not vote for any Labour MP for leader because we will get a Labour leader then get Tory policies people are SICK & TIRED of Austerity for the few while those that caused the problem get huge salaries & bonuses while the rest of us have had pay freezes or the huge amount of 1% in pay rises ( EXCEPT MPs) who got 11% pay rise which tells me its one law for us and another for the Elite of the UK.

Also since JC became leader of the Labour party people can see the difference between the parties that is why so many people have came back to the Labour party, in my opinion if we change leader for a Tory Lite one WE WILL lose the 2020 general election. IS THAT WHAT THE UK WANT or maybe it is what YOU WANT ??