Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
- Thread starter
- #181
I think it's because we're more worldly wise
(Joke)
No place for your socialist jokes on this thread young HT
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Labour
- Thread starter Hampster Gull
- Start date
No place for your socialist jokes on this thread young HT
drew
Drew
Think you'll find Corbyn was introduced in the very first post, if not by name, by implication! The reality of the matter is though, even if Corbyn did win a general election, we are not going to become a socialist state in the strictest sense of the word that you seem to be debating. Just as the Tories need some of the centre vote to win an election, so do Labour.
drew
Drew
Where did you get the idea that 500k joined to back Corbyn?
cunning fergus
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,745
But you are conflating different points.
If Labour members wanted to win the election from a centre left neo liberal policy position they would have not voted for Corbyn. Kendall, Cooper and Burnham were the candidates that perfectly fit that objective.
They were rejected for Corbyn principally because he has not associated himself with such a neo liberal position (Blairite).
Furthermore, they did not vote in Corbyn so he would desert his long held socialist beliefs to replace them with a watered down version.
His positions in many policy areas do not allow for that.........how does he water down his republican position, opposition to NATO or rejection of nuclear weapons?
These are binary positions, there is no third way.................whether you or I think they are electable policies is not the point, Corbyn has held them for years, rejecting them now to keep Blairite MPs like Hilary Benn happy means Corbyn is no different from the 3 candidates he defeated.
cunning fergus
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,745
Fair enough, fat finger........the general point stands though, many thousands of new skins joined and/or voted for Corbyn because of his views, they rejected Blairism.
They did not vote for Blairism by Corbyn.
drew
Drew
Fat finger, ouch!!!! You seem to have a habit of making things up. First you suggest 500k people joined the labour party to vote for Corbyn. Now you claim that many thousands joined up (or merely become affiliated members) just to vote Corbyn. How do you know many thousands didn't sign up to vote for the other three candidates? Have you got any other made up facts?
cunning fergus
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,745
It's not ouch I didn't know the final number.......I would have said it was circa 400,000 increase, but the actual number does not matter it is a fact that many tens of thousands of individuals took the opportunity to take part in the leadership election who were not Labour Party members at the general election.
The results of the leadership election prove that they joined in overwhelming numbers to back Corbyn.
Do you seriously think I am making this up?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33892407
I'm losing track of Cunning Fergus' invented ideas which unravel. He used the fat-fingers excuse with me once as well. Budget deficits, pharmacoeconomics, VAT, foreign nurses are all previous nonsense which quickly fell apart after some scrutiny. I'll add this to the list.
cunning fergus
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,745
I'm losing track of Cunning Fergus' invented ideas which unravel. He used the fat-fingers excuse with me once as well. Budget deficits, pharmacoeconomics, VAT, foreign nurses are all previous nonsense which quickly fell apart after some scrutiny. I'll add this to the list.
Ha ha you silly sausage, what scrutiny has unraveled the fact that the Labour Party's electorate jumped from 200k after the General election to 600k by the leadership election deadline?
Like I said the numbers aren't that important, the overwhelming majority that joined backed Corbyn.
Those "joiners" we're not backing Corbyn because they wanted Blairism. Blairism MPs putting the squeeze on Corbyn won't change that.
I know neo liberal Tory types like you find it difficult to understand, but lots of people disagree with your capitalist free market pro austerity policies.
You do make me laugh.........
drew
Drew
Proves nothing of the sort, merely your speculation (and one line of speculation in the report not supported by any evidence). How do you know that the hardcore Labour membership weren't the ones that predominantly voted for Corbyn more than the new members.
As for the numbers not being important, what tripe.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Labour Party's own data says so. Even if you apportion all of Corbyn's 120,000 full member votes to pre-existing members (there were 200,000 members in May), he therefore still gained 130,000 votes from new members, almost as many as the others got in total combined.
cunning fergus
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,745
Well the implication of your logic would be that the predominantly Blairite membership (post general election) had an epiphany and converted to socialism, whilst at the same time a new surge in membership took place in order to make sure a Blairite leader remained in place..........that really doesn't sound right does it?
The numbers don't matter because it doesn't change the nature of the situation.
Corbyn was voted in by 60% of the Labour Party electorate to deliver policies based on his beliefs........which as we know are grounded in socialism, republicanism and anti militarism.
He was not voted in to yield on these beliefs to keep Blairite MPs happy.
If he does yield on these long held beliefs he is likely to be toast, and would the next leadership election be any different?
Will those new members who were unhappy at Blairite neo liberal capitalist bullshit and supported Corbyn come round next time to Chuka Ummuna?
I would suggest not.
No doubt there are some people who enthusiastically supported Blair, Brown, Miliband and now Corbyn who will find a way to reconstruct their frail political convictions to do so but I think they are just a few silly sausages.
cunning fergus
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,745
Labour Party's own data says so. Even if you apportion all of Corbyn's 120,000 full member votes to pre-existing members (there were 200,000 members in May), he therefore still gained 130,000 votes from new members, almost as many as the others got in total combined.
Indeed, there's not even been any suggestion from anyone in the media, Labour Party etc. that it was any different.............the things some people are prepared to believe should never be under estimated.
Silly sausages.
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
- Thread starter
- #195
I think its unacceptable to call [MENTION=409]Herr Tubthumper[/MENTION] a silly sausage. A silly bierwurst perhaps
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
- Thread starter
- #196
We need to agree the basic point here. labour have voted for a socialist leader and is would be odd to seek some middle ground now. Lets see the red flag flying high over labour party HQ.
drew
Drew
Labour Party's own data says so. Even if you apportion all of Corbyn's 120,000 full member votes to pre-existing members (there were 200,000 members in May), he therefore still gained 130,000 votes from new members, almost as many as the others got in total combined.
Firstly, I'm not saying that it didn't happen, just that there is no evidence to actually support it. It is just speculation. I joined as an affiliated member and didn't vote for Corbyn. Not every member of every union is a staunch trotskyist!!!!
As has been proven, CF has a penchant for making things up and posting them as fact.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
I think you'd have a difficult job arguing otherwise, even basing it on the assumption that the existing members voted for Corbyn:
All 120,000 votes from pre-existing members, all 70,000 pre-existing affiliates vote for him still leaves 60,000 new members voting for Corbyn which would leave 90,000 new voters split between Burnham, Cooper and Kendall. And this is a worst-case scenario for Corbyn, remember. I think the evidence is there. All the other candidates accept it as fact, every Labour politician I've heard interviewed accepts it, all the political pundits too.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
This is another vote-winner. The Shadow Farming Minister wants meat eaters to be treated like smokers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...ew-vegan-farming-minister-Kerry-McCarthy.html
I fully acknowledge that her views are deeply felt and sincere but elevating someone with such an extreme position on meat and dairy to be the Shadow Farming Minister is just idiocy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...ew-vegan-farming-minister-Kerry-McCarthy.html
I fully acknowledge that her views are deeply felt and sincere but elevating someone with such an extreme position on meat and dairy to be the Shadow Farming Minister is just idiocy.
Not the wisest appointment but then, how many voters does it really lose? I imagine there are more people in rural areas with six-fingers on each hand than there are Labour voters.
Don't think this a first though. I have an idea that an agriculture minister in the Welsh Assembly was veggie
EDIT. I was right. It was 16 years ago but there is precedent
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/351596.stm