|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 23, 2017 11:26:08 GMT
Be under no illusion, the main reason the Labour Party looks incompetent is that talent is positively correlated with an inability to work under a Corbyn/McDonnell leadership. Rachel Reeves is hopeless. Kept putting her foot in it and sounding like some sort of Ukip leftover with regard to claimants. Glad she is on the backbenches, and I'd welcome her returning to the corporate banking sector from where she came. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 23, 2017 11:29:14 GMT
Be under no illusion, the main reason the Labour Party looks incompetent is that talent is positively correlated with an inability to work under a Corbyn/McDonnell leadership. The Labour Party looks incompetent because it isn't ruthless enough, because it thinks constantly with its heart not its head, because it sees activity as a substitute for achievement, because it prefers to manage problems rather than solve them. In short, the Labour Party currently looks incompetent because it is. But what would 'thinking with its head' mean - supporting ideas which are clearly against everything we should exist for, simply because they match the zeitgeist? Similarly, there are different methods of solving a problem, but they aren't agreed upon because they can't be - hence the attempt to manage. Ed Miliband's leadership characterised this. I tend to agree about activity and achievement, but then that's something which affects all politics. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 23, 2017 11:30:55 GMT
Be under no illusion, the main reason the Labour Party looks incompetent is that talent is positively correlated with an inability to work under a Corbyn/McDonnell leadership. The Labour Party looks incompetent because it isn't ruthless enough But that's not the problem, is it? Three quarters of Corbyn's front bench resigned. That ought to have been enough to see any political party leader resign as they could no longer function and had lost the confidence of their party. The problem was that under the rules there was no way of forcing a resignation, the leadership election rules were not fit for purpose, and the NEC misinterpreted the constitution. Everyone knows Corbyn would resign tomorrow if only he could guarantee there would be a Corbynite candidate on the leadership ballot. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 23, 2017 11:31:10 GMT
She has never been in a proper position to do so (Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary under Ed Miliband is not really enough). She would be among the top one for Chancellor/Shadow Chancellor if there was a decent leader but obviously not under Corbyn who prefers a bloke who hangs out with people who will tell you paying taxes is illegal because the UK has an army. Incidentally Jamie Reed is now Steward of the Manor of Northstead. Hilarious - she encompasses the sort of person who should never have joined the Labour party in ther first place. Absoltely no critique of market economics. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 23, 2017 11:31:51 GMT
The Labour Party looks incompetent because it isn't ruthless enough But that's not the problem, is it? Three quarters of Corbyn's front bench resigned. That ought to have been enough to see any political party leader resign as they could no longer function and had lost the confidence of their party. The problem was that under the rules there was no way of forcing a resignation, the leadership election rules were not fit for purpose, and the NEC misinterpreted the constitution. Everyone knows Corbyn would resign tomorrow if only he could guarantee there would be a Corbynite candidate on the leadership ballot. No - lost the 'confidence' of the PLP which isn't theirs to give anyway. Still, two down, many more to go.... |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 23, 2017 11:31:59 GMT
She has never been in a proper position to do so (Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary under Ed Miliband is not really enough). She would be among the top one for Chancellor/Shadow Chancellor if there was a decent leader but obviously not under Corbyn who prefers a bloke who hangs out with people who will tell you paying taxes is illegal because the UK has an army. Incidentally Jamie Reed is now Steward of the Manor of Northstead. Hilarious - she encompasses the sort of person who should never have joined the Labour party in ther first place. Absoltely no critique of market economics. Straight out of "the wrong people were voting Labour" school. Wish I could say you were hilarious but the stakes are too big. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 23, 2017 11:33:08 GMT
Hilarious - she encompasses the sort of person who should never have joined the Labour party in ther first place. Absoltely no critique of market economics. Straight out of "the wrong people were voting Labour" school. Wish I could say you were hilarious but the stakes are too big. I have no interest at all in seeing your sort of 'Labour' party return to power, as I certainly would never vote for it again. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 23, 2017 11:33:10 GMT
No - lost the 'confidence' of the PLP which isn't theirs to give anyway. Labour MPs aren't entitled to judge Saint Jeremy? You admit you actually want to see fewer Labour MPs. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 23, 2017 11:34:46 GMT
No - lost the 'confidence' of the PLP which isn't theirs to give anyway. Labour MPs aren't entitled to judge Saint Jeremy? You admit you actually want to see fewer Labour MPs. They don't elect the leader, and need to recognise their diminished status. I think there are a section of the PLP who are a liability and need to go. Most will not stand again next time. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 23, 2017 11:38:03 GMT
Facing a difficult byelection in a marginal seat and you think it's a good idea to go around saying 'Vote Labour but obviously the new MP will have a diminished status'?
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 23, 2017 11:59:25 GMT
Facing a difficult byelection in a marginal seat and you think it's a good idea to go around saying 'Vote Labour but obviously the new MP will have a diminished status'? Its simply a fact that MP's do not run the show when it comes to internal Labour party operations, and this is more so since the last set of reforms. Given the general dislike of MP's I hardly think that is going to be prominent in the minds of voters - really, I'd be much more concerned as to how we were so utterly blase as turnout dropped and has now settled at a level which is both unsatisfactory and favours the more comfortably off. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 23, 2017 12:04:14 GMT
Facing a difficult byelection in a marginal seat and you think it's a good idea to go around saying 'Vote Labour but obviously the new MP will have a diminished status'? Its simply a fact that MP's do not run the show when it comes to internal Labour party operations, and this is more so since the last set of reforms. Given the general dislike of MP's I hardly think that is going to be prominent in the minds of voters - really, I'd be much more concerned as to how we were so utterly blase as turnout dropped and has now settled at a level which is both unsatisfactory and favours the more comfortably off. Go on. Explain that one. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 23, 2017 12:05:26 GMT
What "general dislike of MPs"? Seem to be mistaking opinion among Corbyn fans for the nation as a whole, which is sadly all too frequent mistake.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Jan 23, 2017 12:18:39 GMT
What "general dislike of MPs"? Seem to be mistaking opinion among Corbyn fans for the nation as a whole, which is sadly all too frequent mistake. You've never seen those polls which have MPs down the bottom in the trustworthiness stakes, with used car salesmen? |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 23, 2017 12:20:57 GMT
Its simply a fact that MP's do not run the show when it comes to internal Labour party operations, and this is more so since the last set of reforms. Given the general dislike of MP's I hardly think that is going to be prominent in the minds of voters - really, I'd be much more concerned as to how we were so utterly blase as turnout dropped and has now settled at a level which is both unsatisfactory and favours the more comfortably off. Go on. Explain that one. Because in a system with large parties the aim of those parties is to win a parliamentary majority. The less the poor vote, the more their concerns just won't be part of the considerations as swing voters in middle England are pursued instead. Its a fact that the referendum brought out a load of people who hadn't voted for a long time particularly in seats with a traditionally low turnout. The Trump phenomenon saw the same sort of thing happen. Low turnouts when the poor don't vote, hence favour the comfortably off as they will be the concern of the main parties. This will lead to less of the poor bothering to vote for those parties..... |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 23, 2017 12:31:00 GMT
What "general dislike of MPs"? Seem to be mistaking opinion among Corbyn fans for the nation as a whole, which is sadly all too frequent mistake. You've never seen those polls which have MPs down the bottom in the trustworthiness stakes, with used car salesmen? The point is that there's absolutely nothing new about that. Even in July 1944, Gallup found that 35% of the British public said politicians were mainly out for themselves, and 22% that they were mainly interested in their party. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 23, 2017 12:35:11 GMT
You've never seen those polls which have MPs down the bottom in the trustworthiness stakes, with used car salesmen? The point is that there's absolutely nothing new about that. Even in July 1944, Gallup found that 35% of the British public said politicians were mainly out for themselves, and 22% that they were mainly interested in their party. That means that 65% thought they weren't out for themselves, and 88% not mainly interested in their party Can you imagine getting results like that now? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 23, 2017 12:44:15 GMT
Because in a system with large parties the aim of those parties is to win a parliamentary majority. The less the poor vote, the more their concerns just won't be part of the considerations as swing voters in middle England are pursued instead. Its a fact that the referendum brought out a load of people who hadn't voted for a long time particularly in seats with a traditionally low turnout. The Trump phenomenon saw the same sort of thing happen. Low turnouts when the poor don't vote, hence favour the comfortably off as they will be the concern of the main parties. This will lead to less of the poor bothering to vote for those parties..... Don't know about you but I was watching a bit on the TV news at the weekend which was about how turnout was poor in depressed urban areas, and people were increasingly not voting. It had been broadcast in April 1997. What happens if left parties go marching off to the left to try to get the votes of poor people is three things: 1) They discover that "the working class" no longer has the form of very large numbers of people working in the same job for the same employers and is now atomised with multiple different concerns. 2) The old campaign themes which used to win working class votes no longer work, and turnout doesn't change. 3) The party loses any remaining appeal to swing voters and is seen as just for poor people. If you actually wanted to change the Labour Party to appeal more to poor or working class people, you'd move it more on to the old Labour right type of agenda. Corbyn guff leaves this type of voter cold. McDonnell speeches make them vote Tory. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Copeland
Jan 23, 2017 12:46:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by neilm on Jan 23, 2017 12:46:01 GMT
You've never seen those polls which have MPs down the bottom in the trustworthiness stakes, with used car salesmen? The point is that there's absolutely nothing new about that. Even in July 1944, Gallup found that 35% of the British public said politicians were mainly out for themselves, and 22% that they were mainly interested in their party. That isn't the point. Whether it's new or not is irrelevant- there is polling to suggest that there is a general dislike of MPs, or at least an element of dislike, which you sought to claim wasn't the case. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 23, 2017 12:55:48 GMT
Because in a system with large parties the aim of those parties is to win a parliamentary majority. The less the poor vote, the more their concerns just won't be part of the considerations as swing voters in middle England are pursued instead. Its a fact that the referendum brought out a load of people who hadn't voted for a long time particularly in seats with a traditionally low turnout. The Trump phenomenon saw the same sort of thing happen. Low turnouts when the poor don't vote, hence favour the comfortably off as they will be the concern of the main parties. This will lead to less of the poor bothering to vote for those parties..... Don't know about you but I was watching a bit on the TV news at the weekend which was about how turnout was poor in depressed urban areas, and people were increasingly not voting. It had been broadcast in April 1997. What happens if left parties go marching off to the left to try to get the votes of poor people is three things: 1) They discover that "the working class" no longer has the form of very large numbers of people working in the same job for the same employers and is now atomised with multiple different concerns. 2) The old campaign themes which used to win working class votes no longer work, and turnout doesn't change. 3) The party loses any remaining appeal to swing voters and is seen as just for poor people. If you actually wanted to change the Labour Party to appeal more to poor or working class people, you'd move it more on to the old Labour right type of agenda. Corbyn guff leaves this type of voter cold. McDonnell speeches make them vote Tory. You make the wrong assumptions. I want to achieve social change. That means changing hearts and minds. We are a long way from that at the moment. |
|
