|
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 | ||
|
fridge corn posted:Surrey ftw Let's hope Corbyn is rapidly revising his next PMQs.
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:They got the alternative to somebody like Clinton and people don't want to vote for him and think he's poo poo. Unfortunately we don't live in the universe where the PLP backed Corbyn from the start so speculation of how he would have done if they did is just that: speculation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Can the parliament act be used to defeat amendments ? Why would an election help? I believe the Lords can delay a bill by up to a year before the Parliament act can be invoked. After that it could be used to force it through unamended, but it would royally gently caress the timetable. More likely the Lords will cave rather than play ping-pong and be ripped to shreds in the right-wing press.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Paxman posted:I agree in as much as any party leader needs the support of their actual MPs to succeed. Electing one who doesn't and then imagining what might have happened if the MPs were different is pointless. You can draw a bit of a distinction between a lack of support and active sabotage. We shouldn't pretend the PLP spoke out with principled objections to Corbyn's policies, they tried to character assassinate him, tried to force him to resign, and when that failed they ran a candidate against him that pretended to agree with all of his policies. They behaved disgracefully. Fundamentally though, I agree with you. Where we differ is that I think the PLP has to reflect the membership of the party rather than the PLP being given total control over the leadership and direction and the membership being honour-bound to fund them and do all the work at election time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Tom Watson up to his old tricks, stepping in at the last minute to remove Rebecca Long-Bailey from the selection panel for the next by-election and shift the balance of power towards the right of the party. Can't have a Corbyn supporter elected as an MP.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
The fact that it's referred to as an 'ambush' implies that several people were involved in stacking this last-minute telephone meeting to get Vaz on the panel. But you guys are right, one of Corbyn's biggest flaws is that he doesn't relentlessly pursue power and is often content to leave things up to the 'process' seemingly without realising people are actively working against him. It's the same attitude that ended up with a bunch of new members being ousted from the last leadership election. He should be fighting every step.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
So the national insurance rise has gone down like a lead balloon, what with hitting middle earning self employed people hardest. Pleasantly surprised to see that the tax free dividend allowance is being cut though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Paxman posted:The press have largely decided that the NI change is bad and the Budget is bad. It's also a good opportunity to see Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP all on the news attacking the Tories for a change. The last budget was the last time Labour closed significant ground. Hopefully we see something to that effect and Labour don't find a way to gently caress it up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
This Surrey Council thing also doesn't seem to be going away... https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/839550739785605120
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Breath Ray posted:Is that illegal? They're just saying they want the same as everywhere else. Also I wish Corbyn's twitter was a bit more passionate. How can you put a full stop after Explosive revelations? It's not illegal, but it's a Tory council using their connections to Tory MPs and the government to have their funding changed. Either by using money found 'down the back of the sofa' or even worse, taking it away from other councils to give to them. It's definitely extremely shady and it shows that Surrey explicitly was trying to get a sweetheart deal and the local MPs were supporting it. jBrereton posted:The last thing Labour needs right now is to have this thing spun into "Labour is so fervently against this government that they want to deny people with learning difficulties money - how low can their fanaticism stoop???". This is nonsense. The Tories are looking out for their own at the expense of everyone else, and your response is we better drop it because no-one cares and it might get spun badly. Especially if you're going to say Labour need to talk about the NHS instead, something they have been banging on about relentlessly for weeks both at PMQs and every other opportunity. jabby fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
namesake posted:It's funny because everyone goes 'Oh Eastern Europe, so corrupt!' and yet we have tons of it from directorships for exiting civil servants and MPs, Tories breaching election spending rules and nepotism favouring Tory areas and also everyone just shrugs and agrees that's what Tories do. George Osborne just landed a £650,000 job working four days a month for a fund that benefited from some of his changes to the pensions system. Better keep quiet about that, jeez no one cares you guys.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Yeah we do if we're talking in general terms, eg its a lot harder for an Indian to work here than a French person, but i think the posts i responded to were talking specifically about people who have a legal right to live and work in this country by virtue of being EU citizens. You have to question some of the assumptions you start out with. Why does the Polish worker want (or need) to work long term at a coffee shop for minimum wage, while the English worker doesn't? Is the English worker more skilled? If so, why is he/she looking for an entry level job? Why isn't the Polish worker able to gain the skills the English one has? To be honest though, the brutal truth is probably that freedom of movement is very good for corporations but maybe not so good for workers. Just like the freedom of movement of capital, of goods etc.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Or maybe the employment and immigration statistics don't show that at all, because of the growth of economy associated with there simply being more people. That is besides anecdotes. But hey, it's the brutal truth who can argue. Obviously it's debatable, but employment and immigration statistics are only going to tell you part of the story. Like Paxman was saying in their role as Devil's advocate, it's hard to measure a change in demographic of certain entry-level jobs and the knock on effects that might be having on everything from local workers to the economy of the place the immigrant worker moved away from. I'm not trying to dispute that immigration is a huge economic driver for this country and that the way things exist now we absolutely would crash and burn without it, I'm just saying that in the long term we may need to wean ourselves off an economy that relies so heavily on a steady stream of migrant workers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Sometimes it makes sense for the opposition to get out of the way for a few hours and just let the media get on with it. At the moment the press are clobbering the Government.I'm watching Newsnight focusing on the row now. Agreed. Immediately turning this into Labour vs. the Tories rather than the Tories vs. Everyone is unlikely to be helpful. Outrage is more effective when it seems to arise spontaneously rather than being spat out by the opposition.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:No. Yesterday the opposition was the House of Lords. Today the opposition is the hated media. At some point the Labour Party needs to do something to stop being irrelevant. Bizarre. The only difference between how the Commons and the Lords voted on Brexit is the number of seats each party holds. We both (presumably) hope Labour is going to capitalise on this, the only difference is I'm not sure what you want them to do RIGHT NOW that the media isn't already doing for them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:This is nuts. Labour ran a three line whip on the unamended bill. The Lords voted not to block the bill by 340 to 95, and yet you said they were the opposition. Pissflaps posted:The media won't do Corbyn's job for him. This is nuts. They are clearly doing it right now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:You think they're turning labour into a plausible party of government? Get real. I think they're damaging the Tory party and Labour directly benefits from that. I agree Labour need to go hard on this budget, but their main goal will be to prolong the negative media attention. Nothing they could do right this second would intensify it. jBrereton posted:They get sent it in advance! Labour get sent the budget in advance? I'm not sure that's correct.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Naive AF. I'll bite. What do you think the media should be saying about the budget that would benefit Labour more, and what should Corbyn say to make them do that?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:Don't bother actually trying to make him engage in substantive policy or messaging talk. He's an empty centrist idiot. Just call a spade a spade and move on. I'm not expecting an answer, just a demonstration that he doesn't have one. vv Bingo vv
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:It's not about what the media is saying it's about what Labour is or isn't saying and how it's saying or not saying it. Unless you're advocating for Corbyn going out knocking on doors, any message Labour puts out has got to be picked up and reported by the media. So what do you want them to be saying that would be better than what they're currently saying?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:"This government has seen more paperwork, and now higher taxes for people running small businesses. Unacceptable. Labour will not add to your burdens if we are the next government." Corbyn basically said that. I've seen RLB and John McDonnell on the news saying that. You can argue they should go harder on it RIGHT THIS SECOND, but I would say that at this point Labour's opinion is less important than getting the message out there that this policy is bad. If you replaced all of tomorrow's headlines with a big picture of Corbyn and the caption 'Corbyn says this is bad!' it would only hurt your case since people expect him to say that. Let people hate this policy first, then prolong the media attention and keep the focus on it by saying what you would do instead.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Since they have literally no policies atm until some kind of democratic policy bollocks is finished (and I don't think your kokoro wisher voting members are wanting less regulation of the ~petit bourgeoisie~) that seems like a stretch. jBrereton posted:When the opposition is so ineffectual and despised that it has to leave the media to do its job (and they will pick up on this and back off next time), why would anyone vote for them? It's not a question of 'having to' do anything. The best you could come up with to add to the current media furore is a footnote basically saying 'P.S. Labour wouldn't do this'. Don't you think there's mileage in prolonging the negative coverage instead?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:OK. How's about new regs, which are probably more important. Will there be new taxes on the self employed if they win at the next election? Seriously? You want Labour to interrupt the coverage of this unpopular new policy on the very first day by announcing new policies of their own, which they presumably made up on the fly? You realise this would open themselves up to analysis and criticism and actively help to take the focus off the Tories? I'm not saying it's a terrible idea, but the time to do it is definitely not before the first negative headlines have even broken about this tax increase. jBrereton posted:The media decides how long it prolongs negative coverage, not Labour. So Labour can't influence the media, except for right now when apparently they can.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Skinty McEdger posted:Tomorrow is perhaps too soon, This is literally what we're arguing about. No-one is saying Labour should do nothing, Pissflaps and jBrereton are just mad because they don't think they've done enough already.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Nick Robinson called Hammond 'Spreadshit Phil' on air. Now it's a hashtag. What a lovely day.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 12:13
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I meant more in the sense that they're worried that if they don't share the wealth a bit better, people in masks are going to start sharing it for them. I heard this point put succinctly once: "Society is asset insurance for the rich, and they haven't been keeping up the payments". Pissflaps posted:Well, centralism also gave us three labour governments. That's great, if a Labour government is your ultimate goal rather than any kind of political ideology. I prefer to think of it as 'three Labour governments gave us centrism'.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
So John McDonnell was meant to go on Question Time but thanks to a four hour train delay and full flights he can't make it. He's been replaced by Kezia Dugdale. gently caress's sake. Hire a helicopter John, we can afford it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Clone McDonnell so that he can be in many places at once. Clone McDonnell so that a McDonnell army can take to the streets and smash capitalism the way he wants to. Also, this happened. https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/839913999122706432
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
The BBC has kindly 'reality checked' the claim that the Tories broke their manifesto promise.BBC News posted:The claim: The government's increase in National Insurance contributions is a breach of its 2015 manifesto. I'm not sure whether to be grateful that they are even criticising the government or saddened that something as simple as pointing out lies requires a special 'reality check' now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
mehall posted:Kex performed well at raking the Tories against the coals where she could, but fell apart as soon as Scottish independence came up. She also sat there completely silent while the other panel members ripped Labour apart, not for anything to do with policy, but for being unpopular. The only defence came from the audience. I'm amazed she even bothered to attack the Tories. EDIT https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/839993872944136192 Britain remains well on track to becoming a one party state. jabby fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Mar 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:https://twitter.com/Law_and_policy/status/840227323907567616 Why would the mail pay to defend her personally? Or do you mean in the general sense that they pay her salary?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Sad! Why are people ending their posts like Trump tweets now? Is he someone we want to emulate? Also the row about Surrey council still isn't going away.. The Guardian posted:An analysis of new money announced in the budget shows that Surrey council, whose leader said he had secured a “gentleman’s agreement” on finance with the government, received twice as large a proportional funding increase as any other council in the country. Guys, can we stop talking about this? No one cares! Labour should definitely not draw attention to the Tories objectively being caught out as corrupt lying bastards.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Namtab posted:I have now. It seems like an accurate summary. Obviously a big issue for this thread is the fact that nobody really knows where Corbyn stands. Objectively I think he's after soft brexit but I really think there's been an issue with his message on the subject. This is something where I feel that he/the Labour pr machine are at fault. I see two main issues. The first is that Corbyn actually has something in common with May. In his ideal world he may have wanted remain, but he voted for a referendum and I'm pretty sure his principles would consider that to be ceding the decision to the British public. So he's determined to enact the result even if it may not be his own opinion. And obviously him being very soft remain in the first place helps too. The second issue is that the PLP might be more or less sticking to their 'don't attack Corbyn' line, but that doesn't extend to actually supporting him or talking about his policies in any way. Dugdale on Question Time last night was a perfect example, she managed to attack the Tories but when everyone else on the panel turned on Labour she offered no defence whatsoever. It certainly makes getting a message out there very difficult.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:This is pretty funny, crosspost from the political 'toon thread. They raised taxes. That's a big no-no that comes directly from Murdoch and his fellow media barons. You don't raise taxes, you slash public spending and drat the consequences. The irony is that May/Hammond genuinely seem to be more principled than Cameron/Osborne which is probably why they did it, and it's that tiny sliver of principle that has finally got them hammered by the media. EDIT: And of course at this point in the parliament with Labour so far behind the media can afford to hammer the Tories without actually risking the next election. Come 2020 it'll be a lot easier for May to act how she wants because the media will be obliged to tongue bath her whatever she does to make sure they stay in power. jabby fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Mar 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Man, I was trying to write a sarcy post but gently caress Jeremy Hunt for acting like this is just a failure of the NHS to pull it's finger out and get cracking rather than a systemic government failure to provide a level of funding of both the NHS and it's supporting services for over half a decade. Rumour has the person May wanted as health secretary turned it down at the last minute, which is why Hunt arrived at Downing Street to be sacked but was sent away again with his job intact. Turning down a cabinet post is widely regarded as career suicide, so the fact that it's even rumoured to have happened shows what a poisoned chalice Health is. Hunt has already come out and said it's his last job in politics, and he's right whether he wants it that way or not. He's kept in place because he doesn't fear the personal consequences of being the man who destroyed the NHS, and that's useful to the Tories.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Paxman posted:No, making up foolish arguments nobody has actually said doesn't somehow invalidate an argument that's actually been made. You're putting a huge amount of emphasis on one person's answer to one question on one TV show for the loss of the whole referendum. Sure it wasn't the best answer, but how likely was it to change the minds of tens of thousands of people? You've basically fallen into the right wing media pattern of thinking, where every bad policy or horrible decision made by the Tories is somehow Corbyns fault. He's already been blamed for the rise in NIC, when are you going to agree with that? If Cameron had got his voters to listen to him then we'd still be in the EU.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Wait, how? Prominent Telegraph piece saying Corbyn's terrible opposition is the only reason the Tories decided they could raise taxes, so it's all his fault. Pretty sure I've seen something similar in the Guardian too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Corbyn really is a stupid old arsehole Labour leader says it is not the job of Westminster to prevent Scotland holding another referendum on independence
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Seems like Corbyn enjoys undermining Labour leaders as much as any other member of the PLP. Do you think both Labour in Holyrood and Labour in Westminster should vote against another Scottish referendum? EDIT: Unrelatedly the Telegraph is reporting that cabinet ministers have had to cancel trips because more Tories than expected could be planning to rebel on the Brexit amendments. Could be 'expectation management', but interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I don't think Westminster should or will block it (though it's not really a 'block' more as a 'fail to agree to give one'), but I think it's reasonable that the timing of it is negotiated, especially if the Brexit negotiations are underway. So you think Labour in Holyrood should vote against a referendum but Labour in Westminster should vote for it. Seems like you agree with the positions of both Dugdale and Corbyn.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 18:43
|
|