I think Corbyn would be a breath of fresh air in British Politics...Although I don't agree with a lot of what he says it would make a nice change to have someone who will state something because he believes in it.....on a side note I wonder if he does become leader I wonder if there will be any defections to the Lib Dems?
A rather important part don't you think, especially when read as part of the complete sentence?
Or, put it another way, you are called on to form a government if you win elections.
And if the Labour Party is doings its job properly, it should be striving to represent as many "working men" as possible across the whole country, and to do that effectively it needs to win as many seats as possible in order to send as many representatives to Parliament as possible.
And if it has the most representatives in Parliament (i.e. it has done the first part well enough), it actually wins the election.
I didn't ignore it, I included it in my response. My point is that it doesn't exist only to form a government, it also has to represent is members.
Winning the election and just being Tory-lite isn't what is members or unions want.
I actually think The Labour Party will not repeat the experiment they did with Ed and will pick a more electable leader. We will soon find out.
So let me, dear leftie, illustrate the point with respect to my own radical views. I hold a set of beliefs which would, to put it gently, try the patience of the British people. I believe the monarchy is an embarrassment to a meritocracy. I believe children have done nothing to merit their parental inheritance which should be taxed heavily. I think gains in the property market should be treated as unearned income and taxed accordingly. I have every reason to believe, from being abused in the street to an abundance of polling data, that these views are unpopular.
This gives me a dilemma if I decide to run for public office. Do I, as no doubt you would, dear naive leftie, proclaim these beliefs loudly in the certain knowledge I am right and the public is wrong? Or do I concentrate on other issues, such as economic prosperity? Do I perhaps even have enough respect for the electorate to concede that, in a democracy, I have no mandate for my republican views? For the Corbynite left, this shows a flinching coward and a sneering traitor. For anyone with a less adolescent view of the world this is no “hypocrisy” or “betrayal”. It’s politics in a democracy. Here’s the rub, simple-minded leftie, in words of one syllable: grow up.
I apologise to readers of an intelligent disposition for the next sentence. If Labour is not in power, the Conservatives are. The Labour party was formed to send the representatives of working men to parliament and form a government. Mr Corbyn is a loser who will help to ensure the original purpose of the Labour party is frustrated.
It misrepresents Corbyn's stance on how policy will be decided.
If Corbyn becomes the leader he wants to make the Labour party more democratic.
It will be the party that decides who is in the shadow cabinet not the leader and it will be the party that decides policies not the leader.
The party presumably at party conference will decide by debate and vote if they want to go with Corbyn's various policy ideas or amend them or go with other people's different policy ideas, the party will freely choose what it wants to do.
A question for Corbyn since he is a serial rebel is will he going forward in his new more democratic Labour party vote in accordance to what the party democratically decides it wants even if it is counter to his conscience or opinion. And how does he as a serial rebel expect to be able to instil party unity in regards to Labour MPs voting all together as a united block.
Think its the independent they summed it up nicely.
Its not that Corbyn is some amazing leader the others are just so awful.
they already know its a labour loss in 2020.
We all know if Burnham wins its going to be non stop NHS Scandal hit hospital, how it happened on his watch.
The irony being that it didn't happen on his watch. He became health secretary years after mid staffs happened.
The Tories are just scraping the barrel to find something to attack him with.
You did include it, but you did not refer to it in any way, Odd as it's inclusionin the sentence changes the meaning quite significantly (especially so if you read it as the one being part and parcel of the other)
My point is that it doesn't exist only to form a government, it also has to represent is members.
And it cannot represent its members (or supporters) effectively if it does not win seats in parliament. The more seats that it wins, the more effective it becomes.
Winning the election and just being Tory-lite isn't what is members or unions want.
It might not be what its members or unions want, but it might be what its supporters (i.e. voters and potential voters) throughout the country want.
I actually think The Labour Party will not repeat the experiment they did with Ed and will pick a more electable leader. We will soon find out.
I hope that you are right - and if they don't this time, then I hope that they will the next time (and hopefully a few years before the next election)
Whilst, currently, I wouldn't want Labour anywhere near the levers of power, the act of self harm they seem to be destined to carry out in September genuinely worries me greatly.
I do not want to live in a one party state. There is much about the Tories that concerns me, and in 5 years time I may well wish to have a realistic alternative.
The simple fact the Corbynites are ignoring (and boy, did Diane Abbott excel herself in the idiot stakes on Newsnight last eve. Does this woman have any functioning brain cells whatsoever?) is that we have a political system that makes it a necessity to appeal to a broad range of people to win a majority. If we had a modern proportional system (and I wish we did), then the leftwingers could form their Corbynite party, which would elect the number of MPs comensurate with their support in the country. Hell would freeze over before they won a majority (likewise all parties), so they would be forced to compromise with a Social Democratic Party to form a coalition, as happens in nearly all democratic countries. That is not the position in the UK, as we know full well. FPTP crucifies any marginal party, and a Corbyn led Labour party WILL be marginalised.
Nevermind that his brand of politics will never appeal to sufficient people to elect the party, the man has absolutely no experience of government whatsoever - not even a junior ministerial position. His credibility is a big, fat ZERO.
The situation was summed up by the Communications Union cretin yesterday. Wasn't concerned about Corbyn's qualities or electability - purely wanted to stick it to the Blairites and rid the party of their "virus". If ever the infantile politics of the Unions was writ large, this was it.
I desperately do not want Corbyn to be elected Labour leader. Not because I disagree with his policies, or because I'm a Blairite Labour supporter. Because I want a genuine plurality in this country, and with our joke of an electoral system we cannot afford the luxury of futile gesture politics of the Left being the only option to a Tory government.
The simple fact the Corbynites is ignoring (and boy, did Diane Abbott excel herself in the idiot stakes on Newsnight last eve. Does this woman have any functioning brain cells whatsoever?) is that we have a political system that makes it a necessity to appeal to a broad range of people to win a majority. If we had a modern proportional system (and I wish we did), then the leftwingers could form their Corbynite party, which would elect the number of MPs comensurate with their support in the country. Hell would freeze over before they won a majority (likewise all parties), so they would be forced to compromise with a Social Democratic Party to form a coalition, as happens in nearly all democratic countries. That is not the position in the UK, as we know full well. FPTP crucifies any marginal party, and a Corbyn led Labour party WILL be marginalised.
A very good point, well worth considering.
The situation was summed up by the Communications Union cretin yesterday. Wasn't concerned about Corbyn's qualities or electability - purely wanted to stick it to the Blairites and rid the party of their "virus". If ever the infantile politics of the Unions was writ large, this was it.
Agreed, not a good day as far as demonstrating that the unions (or at least, this one) have a mature argument. I wonder what the electorate at large has made of that and Unite's stance on Corbyn and the Labour Party?
I desperately do not want Corbyn to be elected Labour leader. Not because I disagree with his policies, or because I'm a Blairite Labour supporter. Because I want a genuine plurality in this country, and with our joke of an electoral system we cannot afford the luxury of futile gesture politics of the Left being the only option to a Tory government.
For God's sake Labour - GROW UP.
Agreed. And it would be futile gesture politics. All very well-principled and no doubt well-argued on TV, but whether those policies are fit for a 21st century economy is another question.
The relevant sentence is:
"The Labour party was formed to send the representatives of working men to parliament and form a government"
The Labour Party represents workers? That is a laugh, especially when they are happy for workers to lose rights as long as they get tax off them. Further when industry complains that it cannot get staff it says 'Oh course how many do you need' - and neglects to ask the workers if there really is a shortage. (there was not and all it achieved was lower wages).
It wasn't formed just to win elections.
You cannot do the right thing, without being in power to do it.
The Labour Party represents workers? That is a laugh, especially when they are happy for workers to lose rights as long as they get tax off them. Further when industry complains that it cannot get staff it says 'Oh course how many do you need' - and neglects to ask the workers if there really is a shortage. (there was not and all it achieved was lower wages).
Founded The quote wasn't referring to the last 20 years.
I think Corbyn would be a breath of fresh air in British Politics...Although I don't agree with a lot of what he says it would make a nice change to have someone who will state something because he believes in it.....on a side note I wonder if he does become leader I wonder if there will be any defections to the Lib Dems?
I wouldn't rule out a new "Labour" party formed mostly by Blairites following a New Labour strategy.. funded by Blair.. and perhaps joining forces with the Lib Dems. It's a long shot but you never know. I certainly think Blair fancies doing something.
This would be the inevitable outcome of a Corbyn "victory".
Exactly. Labour will bring in voting on the shadow cabinet, more discussion on policy at the conference, change their HQ staff, change the NEC and when thats all done it'll be 2017 and the Tories will be so far ahead in the polls you won't see them for dust. None of those things will get votes or improve the party, whats the point in appointing shadow cabinet members if they have little to no say in policy and are just given them to defend.
Public sector workers have had a pay freeze and going forward their pay rises are capped at 1%. They have also seen their pension contributions increased. In real terms they have seen their wages going down significantly not up.
I think Corbyn would be a breath of fresh air in British Politics...Although I don't agree with a lot of what he says it would make a nice change to have someone who will state something because he believes in it.....on a side note I wonder if he does become leader I wonder if there will be any defections to the Lib Dems?
Maybe there would be defections to Labour from the LibDems?
I get the feeling that recently both party's membership has been to the left of the party's leadership.
Public sector workers have had a pay freeze and going forward their pay rises are capped at 1%. They have also seen their pension contributions increased. In real terms they have seen their wages going down significantly not up.
Of course they have.
Brown inflated the public sector to an unustainable size. It has to be reduced, and those who remain can only be paid what the country can afford.
Exactly. Labour will bring in voting on the shadow cabinet, more discussion on policy at the conference, change their HQ staff, change the NEC and when thats all done it'll be 2017 and the Tories will be so far ahead in the polls you won't see them for dust. None of those things will get votes or improve the party, whats the point in appointing shadow cabinet members if they have little to no say in policy and are just given them to defend.
Well, it would be certainly entertaining to go back to the days when party conferences had open discussions and decision making powers. How that would make them more electable would be anyone's guess. There used to be open warfare on the floor of Labour Conferences. When electing a government do people really want a party which is so disunited?
Labour need to spend the next 5 years looking out into the country and the world not inwards into itself. 99% of the population couldn't care less about NEC elections or party structure.
A rather important part don't you think, especially when read as part of the complete sentence?
Or, put it another way, you are called on to form a government if you win elections.
And if the Labour Party is doings its job properly, it should be striving to represent as many "working men" as possible across the whole country, and to do that effectively it needs to win as many seats as possible in order to send as many representatives to Parliament as possible.
And if it has the most representatives in Parliament (i.e. it has done the first part well enough), it actually wins the election.
The days of thousands of men working down the pits and in factories and in steelworks has gone. Those were the archetypal "working men". That's what Blair knew and he shifted his political ground and won - three times.
Well, it would be certainly entertaining to go back to the days when party conferences had open discussions and decision making powers. How that would make them more electable would be anyone's guess. There used to be open warfare on the floor of Labour Conferences. When electing a government do people really want a party which is so disunited?
Labour need to spend the next 5 years looking out into the country and the world not inwards into itself. 99% of the population couldn't care less about NEC elections or party structure.
I can hardly wait for this year's Labour Special Conference announcing its new Labour leader and deputy. Not long to go - 12th September.
But CEOs need massive bonus schemes to motivate them. Only the poor work harder when you pay them less (apparently).
There is no "apparently" about it, it has always been the Tory way for as long as I can remember,
In order to encourage to poor to work harder or to be more productive they have to be punished by having their (already low) income reduced and are told "if you want more money then you will just have to work harder or longer or both just to get the same amount of money that you were getting before we punished you for not working hard enough" as well as taking any 'excuse' they can to reduce the low paid worker employment rights and to attack the bodies which protect those rights.
In order to encourage the rich to work harder or to be more productive there is NEVER any reduction in their already high income they are just given extra cash (lower taxes) bonuses/pay rises of a higher percentage than the prolls and told they can keep their money as THEY 'deserve' it because they have voted Tory.......... oops sorry did I write that out loud? they are told they deserve it because they have earned it, unlike the low paid workers who are to be seen as little different than scroungers and treated with utter contempt and have their intelligence insulted at every opportunity.
Comments
I didn't ignore it, I included it in my response. My point is that it doesn't exist only to form a government, it also has to represent is members.
Winning the election and just being Tory-lite isn't what is members or unions want.
I actually think The Labour Party will not repeat the experiment they did with Ed and will pick a more electable leader. We will soon find out.
I think you're on to something there. The lower the wages the harder they work! Nice one Tories!
But CEOs need massive bonus schemes to motivate them. Only the poor work harder when you pay them less (apparently).
If Corbyn becomes the leader he wants to make the Labour party more democratic.
It will be the party that decides who is in the shadow cabinet not the leader and it will be the party that decides policies not the leader.
The party presumably at party conference will decide by debate and vote if they want to go with Corbyn's various policy ideas or amend them or go with other people's different policy ideas, the party will freely choose what it wants to do.
A question for Corbyn since he is a serial rebel is will he going forward in his new more democratic Labour party vote in accordance to what the party democratically decides it wants even if it is counter to his conscience or opinion. And how does he as a serial rebel expect to be able to instil party unity in regards to Labour MPs voting all together as a united block.
The irony being that it didn't happen on his watch. He became health secretary years after mid staffs happened.
The Tories are just scraping the barrel to find something to attack him with.
You don't have to scrape the barrel with Burnham. His barrel overfloweth.
And it cannot represent its members (or supporters) effectively if it does not win seats in parliament. The more seats that it wins, the more effective it becomes.
It might not be what its members or unions want, but it might be what its supporters (i.e. voters and potential voters) throughout the country want.
I hope that you are right - and if they don't this time, then I hope that they will the next time (and hopefully a few years before the next election)
So why attack him over something he was not responsible for?
I do not want to live in a one party state. There is much about the Tories that concerns me, and in 5 years time I may well wish to have a realistic alternative.
The simple fact the Corbynites are ignoring (and boy, did Diane Abbott excel herself in the idiot stakes on Newsnight last eve. Does this woman have any functioning brain cells whatsoever?) is that we have a political system that makes it a necessity to appeal to a broad range of people to win a majority. If we had a modern proportional system (and I wish we did), then the leftwingers could form their Corbynite party, which would elect the number of MPs comensurate with their support in the country. Hell would freeze over before they won a majority (likewise all parties), so they would be forced to compromise with a Social Democratic Party to form a coalition, as happens in nearly all democratic countries. That is not the position in the UK, as we know full well. FPTP crucifies any marginal party, and a Corbyn led Labour party WILL be marginalised.
Nevermind that his brand of politics will never appeal to sufficient people to elect the party, the man has absolutely no experience of government whatsoever - not even a junior ministerial position. His credibility is a big, fat ZERO.
The situation was summed up by the Communications Union cretin yesterday. Wasn't concerned about Corbyn's qualities or electability - purely wanted to stick it to the Blairites and rid the party of their "virus". If ever the infantile politics of the Unions was writ large, this was it.
I desperately do not want Corbyn to be elected Labour leader. Not because I disagree with his policies, or because I'm a Blairite Labour supporter. Because I want a genuine plurality in this country, and with our joke of an electoral system we cannot afford the luxury of futile gesture politics of the Left being the only option to a Tory government.
For God's sake Labour - GROW UP.
Agreed, not a good day as far as demonstrating that the unions (or at least, this one) have a mature argument. I wonder what the electorate at large has made of that and Unite's stance on Corbyn and the Labour Party?
Agreed. And it would be futile gesture politics. All very well-principled and no doubt well-argued on TV, but whether those policies are fit for a 21st century economy is another question.
The Labour Party represents workers? That is a laugh, especially when they are happy for workers to lose rights as long as they get tax off them. Further when industry complains that it cannot get staff it says 'Oh course how many do you need' - and neglects to ask the workers if there really is a shortage. (there was not and all it achieved was lower wages).
You cannot do the right thing, without being in power to do it.
No the wages are going up significantly. It's benefits that are being reduced.
Founded The quote wasn't referring to the last 20 years.
I wouldn't rule out a new "Labour" party formed mostly by Blairites following a New Labour strategy.. funded by Blair.. and perhaps joining forces with the Lib Dems. It's a long shot but you never know. I certainly think Blair fancies doing something.
Exactly. Labour will bring in voting on the shadow cabinet, more discussion on policy at the conference, change their HQ staff, change the NEC and when thats all done it'll be 2017 and the Tories will be so far ahead in the polls you won't see them for dust. None of those things will get votes or improve the party, whats the point in appointing shadow cabinet members if they have little to no say in policy and are just given them to defend.
Maybe there would be defections to Labour from the LibDems?
I get the feeling that recently both party's membership has been to the left of the party's leadership.
Of course they have.
Brown inflated the public sector to an unustainable size. It has to be reduced, and those who remain can only be paid what the country can afford.
Or would you prefer a Greek situation?
Your feeling is 100% correct.
The major problem is that the memberships are considerably to the left of the majority of the public.
Something they will come to realise in the most painful manner.
Well, it would be certainly entertaining to go back to the days when party conferences had open discussions and decision making powers. How that would make them more electable would be anyone's guess. There used to be open warfare on the floor of Labour Conferences. When electing a government do people really want a party which is so disunited?
Labour need to spend the next 5 years looking out into the country and the world not inwards into itself. 99% of the population couldn't care less about NEC elections or party structure.
The days of thousands of men working down the pits and in factories and in steelworks has gone. Those were the archetypal "working men". That's what Blair knew and he shifted his political ground and won - three times.
Who is Corbyn going to influence?
I can hardly wait for this year's Labour Special Conference announcing its new Labour leader and deputy. Not long to go - 12th September.
In order to encourage to poor to work harder or to be more productive they have to be punished by having their (already low) income reduced and are told "if you want more money then you will just have to work harder or longer or both just to get the same amount of money that you were getting before we punished you for not working hard enough" as well as taking any 'excuse' they can to reduce the low paid worker employment rights and to attack the bodies which protect those rights.
In order to encourage the rich to work harder or to be more productive there is NEVER any reduction in their already high income they are just given extra cash (lower taxes) bonuses/pay rises of a higher percentage than the prolls and told they can keep their money as THEY 'deserve' it because they have voted Tory.......... oops sorry did I write that out loud? they are told they deserve it because they have earned it, unlike the low paid workers who are to be seen as little different than scroungers and treated with utter contempt and have their intelligence insulted at every opportunity.
Oddly enough me either.