|
Poll: Who Should Be Leader of HM Most Loyal Opposition? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremy Corbyn |
|
95 | 18.63% |
| Dennis Skinner |
|
53 | 10.39% |
| Angus Robertson |
|
20 | 3.92% |
| Tim Farron |
|
9 | 1.76% |
| Paul Ukips |
|
7 | 1.37% |
| Robot Lenin |
|
105 | 20.59% |
| Tony Blair |
|
28 | 5.49% |
| Pissflaps |
|
193 | 37.84% |
| Total: | 510 votes | ||
|
A "Buy British" button could allow online shoppers to filter out filthy foreign groceries as we take back control from European cucumbers.Daily Torygraph posted:Online supermarket shoppers could soon be offered a "Buy British" button to filter out foreign produce as part of post-Brexit plans, MPs have said. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/14/buy-british-button-could-let-online-shoppers-filter-foreign About time in my view
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I look forward to Cooper and May trying to outdo each other on toughness on crimes as we're all led into the camps. She wouldn't though. She may be less left wing that many people here would like but she's not the same as Theresa May. She's not a Tory. She's from the same tradition that introduced the National Minimum Wage in the face of opposition from the Tories and right wing media and moved the Overton Window so now even the Tories boast about increasing it; increased funding for schools; increased the number of nurses and doctors; wrote off a lot of debt for the developing world; introduced devolution; created paternity leave; increased child benefit; created sure start; signed the Good Friday agreement; cut pensioner poverty; cut child poverty; doubled the overseas aid budget; abolished Section 28; introduced civil partnerships, and moved the Overton window so even the Tories now try to boast about who loves LGBTQ people the most. Even with all the things Labour did wrong, that's a lot better than a Tory government. It's not true that most Labour MPs are the same as the Tories, they're actually much better. A government led by these people would be much better than a Tory government. And for all Yvette Cooper's faults, the alternative people seem to be offering is a Labour leader who is actively destroying the party and helping the Tories stay in power for God knows how long to come. I mean, I don't see why those of us who actually want a Labour government constantly need to answer the question "who do you think would be better than Corbyn?". Who don't you tell us who you think would be better than Cooper, if she's bad? Seriously, i'm not stuck on Yvette Cooper if people have better ideas but who would be better?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Ummm, you don't have to be a Tory to be absolutely abysmal on civil liberties. Well this is true
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
dispatch_async posted:The internal politics in the Labour party today doesn't include the option "more 1997 era New Labour". The right wing of the party didn't even want that option in 2007. Labour haven't run an election on that kind of platform since 2005 (Brown promised spending cuts deeper than Thatcher in 2010, Miliband promised to spend less on the NHS than Cameron in 2015). In 2017 Blue Labour is more influential on internal Labour party politics than New Labour. Surely it didn't seem like I was suggesting Labour should today should just echo the policies of 1997 to 2005. I'm saying Labour's record in Government suggests it's not true that the party is just as bad as the Tories when it gets into power, even when it has a centrist leader. It's actually better than the Tories, and would be again. Having said that, there's no denying people like Yvette Cooper did a really bad job of explaining what Labour should stand for today, during the 2015 leadership campaign, and looked a lot like they hadn't bothered to think very hard about it. She'd still be a better leader than what we have now though in my view (it's a low bar). So would Lisa Nandy. I don't think proposing a huge increase in NHS funding is a bad idea, even if it means tax rises. McDonnell's plan to set up an independent authoritative body to work out just how much extra spending the NHS needs might be a sensible way of preparing public opinion for this,. rather than simply naming a figure now. On welfare, I'd like to see a government axe the bedroom tax and reverse various cuts on people with disabilities and people in low incomes generally, but I don't know what the correct figure is or claim to know enough about the welfare system to know exactly what's needed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Collateral posted:Didn't Chuka get caught, pants down, with a dude? Nope. He decided not to stand for vague personal reasons which were never quite explained (something to do with the media harassing his gran as I recall) so people just let their imaginations run wild. I think a lot of straight men just like to tell themselves that anyone as handsome as that must be gay.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:No. this is what happens when people like what the government is doing. They have no need or desire for an opposition. If they were pissed off they could put a vote in for the mysterious 'other' or none of the above. It's hard to work out what Labour's policies are right now. But they seem generally to be rather good. Also, they haven't changed much since Ed Miliband was leader. I do think the party might do a little better if it had a leader capable of articulating what it stands for and doing the odd interview without loving up. Also, if it had a leader who appointed PR people and strategists who had a clue what they are doing. It would certainly be an interesting experiment to see if Labour's polling picked up in those circumstances. Labour made gains in England in the last election under Ed Miliband who had his faults, though it lost far more seats in Scotland. I'm not sure the public has suddenly embraced fascism in the past 24 months and it should be possible at least to carry on making small gains in England (I'd love to be optimistic about Scotland too but I don't really know what's happening there). That's far short from what we really want of course, but it does look possible that Labour will actually make losses at the next election, which shouldn't happen.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Corbyn is terrible. I'm not making excuses for him. I'm fed up of this lovely magical thinking that everything would be ok if only Corbyn was replaced. Nobody's saying that though
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Talking about editors I saw this yesterday That sounds like a really interesting book and I'm going to get it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Yeah well half the party arent actual socialists though are they so we would prefer the lot of them gone, they might all be able to get along then He has to have the confidence of the actual MPs, not imaginary ones, just like any leader needs the confidence of the people they're trying to lead.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:if you're going to post results from that yougov poll you shouldn't miss out this one This is fun but the poll doesn't really show anyone thinks Corbyn is a better leader than Atlee. They're asked to choose three, so I'd guess most Corbyn fans pick him because they support him in the knowledge that they have two choices left for their historic heroes. So everyone picks Corbyn, and then there's some variety in the other choices.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Taear posted:I guess when it comes down to it I just can't understand how you could ever go from the Tories right to Labour or the other way around. I know the general public doesn't really think in terms of right and left but it's anathema to me. People ask questions like "which party is most likely to keep me in my job" and "which party is most likely to keep the local hospital open", and the answers to those questions can change in their eyes. Some of us might think it's obvious that the Tories hate the NHS and Labour loves the NHS, but it's not obvious to a lot of voters. It's even less obvious which party is going to create jobs, given that this is usually seen as a result of "managing the economy effectively" which is a pretty nebulous concept.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Lots of complete crap from Nick Cohen, but: They'd say things like bankers were responsible for the economic crash rather than nurses, and therefore Osborne should stop freezing public sector pay and instead tax the bankers more.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
One of the roles of the party leader is to lead the PLP and they have to do this successfully in order to achieve the Labour Party's goals, such as providing an effective opposition, convincing the public they would make a good government (which means convincing people to elect Labour MPs) and providing an effective government. So it's true that you need a leaderr and PLP who can work together, but electing a leader who can't work with his MPs and then idly theorycrafting about replacing the PLP seems like an odd way of going about it. Howver, replacing existing MPs with Corbynite candidates is clearly one answer, though it would cause total chaos in the short term as local MPs tend to be de facto leaders of their local parties (with exceptions - sometimes the relationship has broken down).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Sometimes, spirits in the Labour Party can run high https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/843947779957248000
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
He sounds to me like a Play School presenter explaining that Big Ted *chortle* can sometimes be a bit naughty.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Emily Thornberry was on Newsnight talking about an elderly woman who's been told her home help is going to come at noon instead of in the morning due to cuts, and is now terrified that she won't be able to get up and have breakfast in the morning. Her message was that everyone should unite and focus on fighting the Tories but it occurred to me that she is helping destroy the only organisation capable of removing the Tories from power. The only possible justification for this is if you honest to God believe that the Labour Party under a different leader would actually be in favour of cutting social care for elderly vulnerable people, which I guess is why Corbyn's supporters are so keen to argue that most Labour MPs are kind of evil. I don't believe that though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
namesake posted:Ed Balls + Miliband had the position of austerity being 'too far, too fast' rather than actively harmful, counterproductive and bad and fought the 2015 election on further austerity, Harriet Harmon refused to consider opposing the welfare bill when she was acting leader and then Jeremy won. Post-Brown, pre-Corbyn the Labour Party has been absolutely fine with cutting services so yes given the evidence that's a completely understandable belief. They fought the 2015 election on a policy of running a surplus on day to day spending and investing in infrastructure, which is almost identical to the current policy of balancing the books on day to day spending. Technically the difference could be £1. McDonnell has adopted their plans for a national investment bank and series of regional banks. Harman never said she refused to consider opposing the welfare bill, she said Labour should abstain at second reading and attempt to amend it before deciding what to don't third reading depending on whether the amendments were successful. It was lousy politics but it doesn't mean she wanted to cut home help. Hasn't something strange happened when the best defence of Jeremy Corbyn is to insist the party he's been a member of all these years and the MPs he volunteered to lead are largely terrible people?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wasn't that their policy position when they were pro austerity? They talked about capping the cost of social care but his was a cap on the cost you'd have to pay yourself. The pre-Corbyn policy doesn't seem terrible to me. Labour 2015 manifesto posted:Care is at the heart of Labour’s values. No-one should fear old
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
jabby posted:As people have already said Labour under Ed did not oppose Tory welfare cuts. They only accused them of being 'too fast', whatever that means. The fact that she was appointed by a democratically elected leader, which nobody disputes, doesn't make any difference to the fact that she (or really Corbyn, who she seems to be close to) is helping destroy Labour. It's perfectly possible to have a free and fair election which a lousy candidate wins. I'm sure some Labour members do care about winning elections, which is the only real way Labour can help people after all. Back during the leadership elections there was a lot of talk about Corbyn moving the Overton window left, winning back support for Labour in Scotland and getting people who never voted before to support Labour, so his supporters seemed to care about that. Also, I actually think Labour has a responsibility to the country in general, particularly the most vulnerable people on it, not just to its members.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
jabby posted:Heavy on rhetoric, light on substance. I totally accept your judgment on this but I still suspect it passes the bar of "significantly better than what's happening under the Tories". Or not?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Not quite as bad as the tories" has never been a sustainable or compelling platform for a democratic socialist party. Not quite what I said:) But if the failings of the rest of the Labour Party are being used to justify handing the Tories a load of Labour seats on a plate, isn't the burden of proof the other way? Doesn't the non-Corbym wing of the party have to be pretty fuckin terrible if their failings are meant to justify what's happening now?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
jabby posted:https://twitter.com/MomentumBury/status/845611367042297856 The criticism of Momentum is that old Trots and other people who are basically opposed to Labour have joined Momentum as a way of either taking over or destroying the Labour Party. The students aren't the problem, they're what's good about it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
TinTower posted:So there's literally nothing on the BBC News site about the massive pro-EU march going down in London right now. Hmm. HuffPo has a nice piece, and I see Tim Farron has been speaking. http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_58d67cd9e4b02a2eaab48312?ir=UK Tim posted:“We are here to show solidarity and respect for those who voted leave. We do not believe they wanted this. I don't think there will be an election before we quit the EU but if there is, I think I'll vote LibDem. Would it make sense for someone who wants to stay in the EU to vote differently? Here are some signs: https://twitter.com/bignickguff/status/845610585828085760
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Certain posters deciding the media is actually fine and all upstanding honest people is the worst revisionist poo poo to ever happen in this thread. The media's always been disproportionately right wing, as have the British people really. Labour used to deal with this by talking a lot about tough choices and so on, while quietly putting up public spending and redistributing wealth. I have no idea what the media strategy is nowadays, but it's not a new challenge. There's an interesting piece about Momentum in the New Statesman where Momentum's founder Jon Lansman talks about this. New Statesman posted:The last Labour government, he says, did one thing and said another: “Wanting a liberal immigration policy while talking tough about refugees and migrants. Having a strong welfare policy and generous tax credits while talking about ‘strivers’ and ‘scroungers’ unfortunately shifted opinion the wrong way.” I don't agree that Labour shifted opinion so much as saw it as immovable and concluded it had to appear to play along with it. E: Probably should have included a link to the article I quoted http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/losing-momentum-how-jeremy-corbyn-s-support-group-ran-out-steam Paxman fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Mar 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Depends who it is innit. Are you actually a member of the Labour Party? (You seemed to confirm to Pissflaps earlier that you are)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Let us all drink of this wisdom
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
vodkat posted:it would be really nice if we had a separate ukmt thread where corby chat was banned so we could talk about recent happenings rather than rehash the same corbyn arguments for 1000 posts every week There are indeed more important things Ken Livingstone posted:“We have a supervolcano eruption every 70,000 years and that’s devastating. And actually it’s 69,000 years since the last one. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-a7651196.html
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
What if it was possible for WhatsApp to break the encryption on behalf of the police if there was a genuine reason for seeing a specific person's recent conversation, as there arguably is now. Is it technically feasible to design it so it works that way? (I have no idea).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I think you're making this up. I disagree, the Corbyn leadership campaign was actually really well organised and good at getting a message out. Whether that had anything to do with Momentum I dunno, but it was a slick operation. What's bonkers is the idea that somehow splits in the Labour Party are preventing the leadership from doing good PR now. People working on Labour's communications don't need to phone up Hilary Benn or Yvetter Cooper to get their permission to put out a statement. There are people on the PR side (James Schneider, Matt Zarb-Cousins (though he's leaving), Seamus Milne) who are loyal to Corbyn personally, and there's the Labour PR team who will put out whatever they're told to put out. Corbyn is actually a really good leadership candidate but he's just a poo poo party leader.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Almost certainly. Most surveys show a majority of people are absolutely fine with things like nationalised utiilties, a generous social safety net, and a more redistributive tax system - as long as they're not described in those terms, because the Tories have done such a good job of poisoning that well. Well yes, and the question is whether it's better to compromise a bit on the messaging or to remain pure and let the Tories stay in power forever.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 12:02
|
|