How will you be voting in the UKEU Referendum? This poll is closed. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
Remain - Keep Britane Strong! | 328 | 15.40% | |
Leave - Take Are Sovreignity Back! | 115 | 5.40% | |
Remain - But only because Brexit are crazy | 506 | 23.76% | |
Leave - But only because the EU is terrible | 157 | 7.37% | |
Spoiled Ballot - This whole thing is an awful idea | 61 | 2.86% | |
I'm not going to vote | 19 | 0.89% | |
I'm not allowed to vote | 411 | 19.30% | |
Pissflaps | 533 | 25.02% | |
Total: | 2130 votes |
|
Vengeance of Pandas posted:There's also the First Past the Post electoral system which screws things even more. Which ironically might be one of the main things preventing UKIP from getting any real power in Parliament.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:21 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 00:00 |
|
Gort posted:Any left-wing leader would get the same treatment Corbyn would. They're not against him, they're against the idea of the Labour party being left-wing. I don't think this is it. At leadt not all of it. They are against the idea of losing elections and consider opposition to that more important than their political stance for the time being in the name of getting things done.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:23 |
|
Ludicro posted:Which ironically might be one of the main things preventing UKIP from getting any real power in Parliament. Until UKIP get both support from Tory and Labour voters in mass. Example: SNP
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:23 |
|
Actually, I've been leafing through the Labour Party Rule Book, and it seems to me that candidates for Westminster are supposed to be chosen by trigger ballot by the CLPs. Have I misread this? Can somebody explain to me how the Blairite parachuting worked / how this went wrong?
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:25 |
|
The biggest difference in terms of what drives party membership is that primaries are not a thing. The way candidates are picked in the UK is totally different (opaque and undemocratic).
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:26 |
|
Zalakwe posted:I don't think this is it. At leadt not all of it. They are against the idea of losing elections and consider opposition to that more important than their political stance for the time being in the name of getting things done. I'd say the fact that they're willing to face probably never winning again in order to get rid of Corbyn is evidence against this hypothesis. Either that or they've got no idea that that's what the practical effect of deposing Corbyn will be.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:28 |
|
Ewan posted:I totally understand the love for Corbyn's policies here, and why he is seen as somewhat of a "saviour" of left wing politics and I respect the efforts he has taken to try to bring Labour back to its roots. I agree UK politics having a political party more truly to the left in order to give the electorate more of a choice of centre-right vs centre-right is long overdue and reflect the views of a large chunk of the wider Labour party. This is incorrect, because nobody with the politics of Corbyn would have been able to win over the Blairites regardless of their personal qualities. Zalakwe posted:I don't think this is it. At leadt not all of it. They are against the idea of losing elections and consider opposition to that more important than their political stance for the time being in the name of getting things done. Tony Blair himself has literally stated that he'd rather lose an election than win one on a left-wing platform. The Labour right started shouting about rebelling against Corbyn before Corbyn was even elected. The current spat is damaging the party completely needlessly. The idea that the Labour right are some kind of savvy operators that ate all about winning elections at any cost should really be considered dead and buried by now.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:28 |
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Actually, I've been leafing through the Labour Party Rule Book, and it seems to me that candidates for Westminster are supposed to be chosen by trigger ballot by the CLPs. Have I misread this? Can somebody explain to me how the Blairite parachuting worked / how this went wrong? Usually the leader's office just asks the CLP to elect their parachute candidate. It's rare for them to refuse and most CLP's are very small as no one bothers turning up so they're excited enough to even receive the attention.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:28 |
|
Vengeance of Pandas posted:Bollocks, the vast majority of people are not members of any political party in the UK. I had no idea. So who cares if Corbyn got 60% of the vote in the last labour leadership election if less than 2% of the electorate voted?
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:28 |
|
Munin posted:The biggest difference in terms of what drives party membership is that primaries are not a thing. The way candidates are picked in the UK is totally different (opaque and undemocratic).
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:29 |
|
PLP are also terrified of the very real posibility that Corbyn wil give local labour branches the power to select who the nominate for MP. Most of them have gently caress all local support.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:30 |
|
Zalakwe posted:I don't think this is it. At leadt not all of it. They are against the idea of losing elections and consider opposition to that more important than their political stance for the time being in the name of getting things done. Pragmatism over idealism is only palatable if the so-called "pragmatist" can actually win elections and generally beat down the other side - but all the Labour alternatives to Corbyn look like useless schmucks who would just get their poo poo pushed in anyway. So why compromise on your ideals when the compromise candidates all look like hopeless losers anyway?
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:31 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:I had no idea. So who cares if Corbyn got 60% of the vote in the last labour leadership election if less than 2% of the electorate voted? The members of the Labour Party, obviously. The problem is if you completely ignore the wishes of the members of your party then they probably leave. And they take their money with them. And if you are the Labour Party, you don't really have the room in your budget to lose the membership dues of a hundred thousand members.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:31 |
|
Munin posted:The biggest difference in terms of what drives party membership is that primaries are not a thing. The way candidates are picked in the UK is totally different (opaque and undemocratic). That actually sounds pretty close to US primaries... (at least in cacus states)
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:31 |
|
Zalakwe posted:I don't think this is it. At leadt not all of it. They are against the idea of losing elections and consider opposition to that more important than their political stance for the time being in the name of getting things done. What the deal is with the PLP is a bit like learning about the American Civil War; there's an obvious cause, which you reject as overly simplistic when you research it some more but then when you research it a lot you find out that no, it was just the simple cause after all.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:32 |
|
The Labour party should have coups more often if it gets them 50k< new members.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:32 |
|
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:32 |
|
Munin posted:The biggest difference in terms of what drives party membership is that primaries are not a thing. The way candidates are picked in the UK is totally different (opaque and undemocratic). Not as opaque anymore - Labour election effectively functions as country-wide primary (with slight wrinkle of need for nominations). JeffersonClay posted:I had no idea. So who cares if Corbyn got 60% of the vote in the last labour leadership election if less than 2% of the electorate voted? Because it's about democratic legitimacy in the party, not in the country as a whole. Our parties aren't part of the state machinery like yours are.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:33 |
|
Excerpts from Theresa May's leadership campaign launch speech: http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/06/theresa-mays-launch-statement-full-text.htmlquote:I have invited you here today to announce my candidacy to become the Leader of the Conservative Party – and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. "No change for the foreseeable future" sounds very much like "no Article 50 for the foreseeable future". LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Jun 30, 2016 |
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:34 |
|
Cerebral Bore posted:This is incorrect, because nobody with the politics of Corbyn would have been able to win over the Blairites regardless of their personal qualities. Tony Blair isn't pulling the strings. My point isn't that they are savvy operators, it's that they care more about their electability than their ideology. The fact they do or do not like Corbyn's ideology isn't the deciding factor for many of them, or at least not the only one. You can tell this from the fact that they haven't stated an aim beyond a desire to be electable again. Edit: They also want to be in charge, elected and in charge is the totality of their vision. Zalakwe fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Jun 30, 2016 |
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:34 |
|
Firos posted:The Labour party should have coups more often if it gets them 50k< new members. It's just all from Alex Salmond showing sympathy to Corby.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:34 |
|
Firos posted:The Labour party should have coups more often if it gets them 50k< new members. Pretty much everything they do gets them less than 50k new members
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:34 |
|
since i don't think anyone linked me reminder this man wants to be prime minister https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/677024011658919936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:35 |
|
Vengeance of Pandas posted:Bollocks, the vast majority of people are not members of any political party in the UK. Thanks for the numbers -you seem to be agreeing with what I said (or at least meant to say; maybe it was a bit compressed). Someone who doesn't care enough about politics to join a left wing party is, by definition, less left wing than someone who does. So the electorate for a labour leadership contest, i.e members, is a tiny sliver at the far end of the political spectrum reflecting the whole electorate (outside Scotland, anyway). This thread can be a bit of a bubble, so maybe a bit of perspective is in order; probably all but a handful of members of the PLP are in the leftmost 50% of the national political spectrum. There is likely a clear majority in the leftmost 25%. Remember, Cameron just lost an election by not being racist enough. Boris Johnson just gave up his lifelong ambition because he is insuficiently Tory to have a chance at winning. Either someone exists who can change that dynamic, or we might as well shortcut the process and get some use out of the money spent on Trident.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:35 |
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Pretty much everything they do gets them less than 50k new members This is not how maths works
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:36 |
|
Zalakwe posted:My point isn't that they are savvy operators, it's that they care more about their electability than their ideology. And that point is wrong.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:38 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:I had no idea. So who cares if Corbyn got 60% of the vote in the last labour leadership election if less than 2% of the electorate voted? Because of how UK parties work. The labour party in particular has made itself beholden to its members, so that it isn't just some politicians randomly deciding what they want to do with no accountability except an election once every five years. The membership helps push the direction of the party and chooses who runs in it. Usually the membership had to share this responsibility with the Unions and the PLP, however the PLP thought if it just handed the vote over entirely to the membership they could get out from under the Unions thumb, who up till then basically ran the party (And do still to a degree due to them holding most of the funding) However the newly empowered membership voted in Jeremy loving Corbyn and now the PLP are making GBS threads themselves. Because the members were meant to pick one of the three bland options of middle ground politics they'd been given, not this lefty peacenik who believes in socialism and caring for others. This has caused some problems.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:38 |
|
Firos posted:The Labour party should have coups more often if it gets them 50k< new members.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:38 |
|
Labour party, always been about that free-market economy. That's why they denationalised so much industry in the 40s. Zalakwe posted:Tony Blair isn't pulling the strings. My point isn't that they are savvy operators, it's that they care more about their electability than their ideology. The fact they do or do not like Corbyn's ideology isn't the deciding factor for many of them, or at least not the only one. You can tell this from the fact that they haven't stated an aim beyond a desire to be electable again. Nah, they talk about electability because to be open about the other option (they are opposed to socialism) would destroy them utterly in the party.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:39 |
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:And that point is wrong. Where is the evidence for that? They don't even seem to have an ideology? What is it? I do think some of them dislike the left but not that it's their only or main motivator. OvineYeast posted:Nah, they talk about electability because to be open about the other option (they are opposed to socialism) would destroy them utterly in the party. Opposed to socialism is not an ideology. I would contest that if they thought it would bring them power a great deal more of them would be on board. They are avoiding the destruction not the fact it comes from the left per se (mainly, there is a bit of that). Zalakwe fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Jun 30, 2016 |
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:39 |
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Excerpts from Theresa May's leadership campaign launch speech: http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/06/theresa-mays-launch-statement-full-text.html
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:39 |
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Excerpts from Theresa May's leadership campaign launch speech: http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/06/theresa-mays-launch-statement-full-text.html So who is the least awful candidate the Tories have? Considering we are likely to be stuck with them for 4 years. Obviously they are all terrible, but does any of them have any characteristics that aren't utterly awful? Or the charisma of a damp rag, increasing the Labour Party's hopes of winning? Should I be hoping for Gove or Fox?
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:40 |
|
So it's been a week and you guys still haven't declared what you're planning on doing. Is your island literally on fire or what?
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:40 |
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/748604008508628992
|
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:40 |
|
Jose posted:since i don't think anyone linked me reminder this man wants to be prime minister Grondoth posted:So it's been a week and you guys still haven't declared what you're planning on doing. Is your island literally on fire or what? And yes, there's fire. tooterfish fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Jun 30, 2016 |
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:41 |
|
Grondoth posted:So it's been a week and you guys still haven't declared what you're planning on doing. Is your island literally on fire or what?
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:41 |
|
Thank you for this tweet.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:41 |
|
forkboy84 posted:So who is the least awful candidate the Tories have? Considering we are likely to be stuck with them for 4 years. Obviously they are all terrible, but does any of them have any characteristics that aren't utterly awful? Or the charisma of a damp rag, increasing the Labour Party's hopes of winning? Should I be hoping for Gove or Fox? You should be hoping for a rock. Grondoth posted:So it's been a week and you guys still haven't declared what you're planning on doing. Is your island literally on fire or what? Ballot and pen fires are the most hardest to extinguish.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:41 |
|
radmonger posted:Someone who doesn't care enough about politics to join a left wing party is, by definition, less left wing than someone who does. That is complete bollocks. It doesn't even begin to look true.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:41 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 00:00 |
|
radmonger posted:Thanks for the numbers -you seem to be agreeing with what I said (or at least meant to say; maybe it was a bit compressed). You are An Idiot and I claim my Five Pounds
|
# ? Jun 30, 2016 22:42 |