Labour ?

wenger2015 posted:

I have just been reading about Corbyn's visit to Glastonbury, the report suggests he was able to engage with the audience.

Many apparently were waving banners with the word 'Hope' written on them.

I am completely surprised by his new found popularity...... all of a sudden the man can do no wrong... 

Whatever next.......maybe 'turn water into wine'?

Perhaps it's finally sinking in that decent housing and good public services have more appeal than tax cuts, a hard Brexit and bribes for bigots. 

Hungryhalibut posted:
wenger2015 posted:

I have just been reading about Corbyn's visit to Glastonbury, the report suggests he was able to engage with the audience.

Many apparently were waving banners with the word 'Hope' written on them.

I am completely surprised by his new found popularity...... all of a sudden the man can do no wrong... 

Whatever next.......maybe 'turn water into wine'?

Perhaps it's finally sinking in that decent housing and good public services have more appeal than tax cuts, a hard Brexit and bribes for bigots. 

Whilst I agree and abhor bribes in any disguise, £1bn is less than three week's additional  funding that will soon be going into the NHS...............

(3x£350m for those who voted to Leave and might have forgotten)

modern politics seems to have reduced protecting/promoting what i can only call 'tribal' vested interests rather than based on any real "leadership". this has led to inevitable polarization that we see played out every day, in a lot of governments. seems we are lacking some fundamental government "principle" beyond "we promise x and y if you vote for us". (or if you vote with us, we will give you £1.3bn!!)

on the other hand, perhaps to some extent its always been so? and that to expect otherwise is perhaps naive?

i have to say i don't see any real "leader" in any of our current crop of politicians.

enjoy

ken

Seems JC has a dastardly plan for the manifesto's missings  millions; at a Glasto local press conference Michael Eavis said JC told him that he would be in in number 10 before christmas & would scarp Trident as soon as possible - all since denied by JC (false news) - is this the mysterious labour money tree.      

ken c posted:

modern politics seems to have reduced protecting/promoting what i can only call 'tribal' vested interests rather than based on any real "leadership". this has led to inevitable polarization that we see played out every day, in a lot of governments. seems we are lacking some fundamental government "principle" beyond "we promise x and y if you vote for us". (or if you vote with us, we will give you £1.3bn!!)

on the other hand, perhaps to some extent its always been so? and that to expect otherwise is perhaps naive?

i have to say i don't see any real "leader" in any of our current crop of politicians.

enjoy

ken

Quite ! And to find an inspirational  leader.................. ?

Last year I asked if there were any Statesmen in British politics. The forum was hard pushed to suggest any. OK, one or two names were put forward, but the general outlook was fairly bleak !

Don Atkinson posted:
ken c posted:

i have to say i don't see any real "leader" in any of our current crop of politicians.

Quite ! And to find an inspirational  leader.................. ?

100% for sure in the major UK party's ...  but is that not the same in most countries,  USA is maybe a bad example,  he is neither a politician or conventional,  maybe a maverick but certainly will never be a statesman.  Macron seems to be a new bright hope for France but will probably get pulled down after the honeymoon.  The rest of Europe are just mundane conformists with no obvious charismatic tendencies.    Then we are into tyrants, dictators & despots

The "hanging out at Glasto" thing amuses me.  Glasto great event that it is is nonetheless a big money making enterprise although the way the good Mr Eavis and his team control it is probably more feudal than free-market.  Still it gave Jeremy Corbyn a good opportunity to address his disciples.

Caughting the young, hip and happening vote has historically been very difficult for middle-aged politicians: remember William Hague's flume ride/baseball cap wearing escapades at Alto Towers, Cameron chillaxing or how Blair's cool Britannia back-fired over time.

It seems that Jezza has somehow managed to pull it off. I can't stand Glasto or Corbyn but then again the little charade was not intended for me.

Ray

Whilst on my work travels today, I was listening to lDS standing in for Jeremy Vine, just like Ed Miliband last week, they both remained unbiased to their credit... 

The Subject of the Conservatives finding a couple of billion down the back of the sofa for the UDP was somewhat amusing.... It compared extremely well with JC and his money tree...

You can't help but conclude, all the parties are equally as bad as each other ....

At first blush it's completely unsurprising that the opposition parties have labelled this a grubby deal. The Conservatives would have lambasted it too, if they were in opposition.  But who can blame the DUP driving for more money for NI? And what was the alternative? Awaiting the Queen's Speech being voted down and then going for yet another election? I don't think TM really had much choice here but to pay the price set by the DUP and to try to form a workable government. Whether it will prove to be workable is another matter, of course. 

MDS posted:

At first blush it's completely unsurprising that the opposition parties have labelled this a grubby deal. The Conservatives would have lambasted it too, if they were in opposition.  But who can blame the DUP driving for more money for NI? And what was the alternative? Awaiting the Queen's Speech being voted down and then going for yet another election? I don't think TM really had much choice here but to pay the price set by the DUP and to try to form a workable government. Whether it will prove to be workable is another matter, of course. 

Labour would have done exactly the same, and of course they have attempted arrangements with DUP and SNP in the not to distant past...

I'm a bit confused by why this Con/DUP deal is being criticised.  Propositional Representation,   which most peeps agree is better/fairer than First Past the Post, will always have no one party with an overall majority & it will always require some form of cooperation agreement and/or coalition.   Its the way all of Europe with PR do it all the time.  

wenger2015 posted:
MDS posted:

At first blush it's completely unsurprising that the opposition parties have labelled this a grubby deal. The Conservatives would have lambasted it too, if they were in opposition.  But who can blame the DUP driving for more money for NI? And what was the alternative? Awaiting the Queen's Speech being voted down and then going for yet another election? I don't think TM really had much choice here but to pay the price set by the DUP and to try to form a workable government. Whether it will prove to be workable is another matter, of course. 

Labour would have done exactly the same, and of course they have attempted arrangements with DUP and SNP in the not to distant past...

Yep. Politics is essentially about being as flexible and pragmatic as is necessary to obtain/retain power. All the fine words about principles and policies are there simply to mask that. 

Mike-B posted:

I'm a bit confused by why this Con/DUP deal is being criticised.  Propositional Representation,   which most peeps agree is better/fairer than First Past the Post, will always have no one party with an overall majority & it will always require some form of cooperation agreement and/or coalition.   Its the way all of Europe with PR do it all the time.  

Personally i don't have any issue with the arrangement, if anything it works to keep the Tories in check, it may well lead to a little more loosening of the purse strings...

1bn bribe for the DUP, that’s the only thing that’s been costed in the Tory manifesto.

It’s actually cost more than 1bn, Theresa told Arlene she could take her pick of half a dozen handbags from her personal collection. That’s why finalising the deal took so long.

 

 

MDS posted:
wenger2015 posted:
MDS posted:

At first blush it's completely unsurprising that the opposition parties have labelled this a grubby deal. The Conservatives would have lambasted it too, if they were in opposition.  But who can blame the DUP driving for more money for NI? And what was the alternative? Awaiting the Queen's Speech being voted down and then going for yet another election? I don't think TM really had much choice here but to pay the price set by the DUP and to try to form a workable government. Whether it will prove to be workable is another matter, of course. 

Labour would have done exactly the same, and of course they have attempted arrangements with DUP and SNP in the not to distant past...

Yep. Politics is essentially about being as flexible and pragmatic as is necessary to obtain/retain power. All the fine words about principles and policies are there simply to mask that. 

 yes..nicely summarised

fatcat posted:

1bn bribe for the DUP, that’s the only thing that’s been costed in the Tory manifesto.

It’s actually cost more than 1bn, Theresa told Arlene she could take her pick of half a dozen handbags from her personal collection. That’s why finalising the deal took so long.

 

 

i assumed it was a couple of pairs of shoes as well..

Don Atkinson posted:
The Strat (Fender) posted:

What about the leather trousers?

No way, it's handbags !

Just wait until Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Davidson find out that Arlene has a new handbag, it'll be .......

....handbags at dawn !!

Which one will be on QVC first ???

Another of my D'oh moments  ... 'Propositional Representation'  ...  where is the spill chekkor when you need it.    But wait !!   propositional function in logic, is a sentence expressed in a way that would assume the value of true or false, except that within the sentence is a variable (x) that is not defined or specified, which leaves the statement undetermined.    Sounds just perfect for politics.  

Lurve the big woman bag Arlene,  no girly designer May bag for you eh girl?    Shame the Swatch has busted, an omen perhaps.   

Eloise posted:
wenger2015 posted:

Resignations and Sackings, I thought that was all in the past for JC .....? 

Surely its correct that the front bench represents and votes for party policy?

I agree, it can't be that difficult to back party policy, so why rock the boat.

wenger2015 posted:
Eloise posted:
wenger2015 posted:

Resignations and Sackings, I thought that was all in the past for JC .....? 

Surely its correct that the front bench represents and votes for party policy?

I agree, it can't be that difficult to back party policy, so why rock the boat.

For some I believe them that it was a matter of conscious when presented with the amendment ... but I'm pretty such Chuka Umunna was deliberately trying to undermine JC and cause division.

Eloise posted:
wenger2015 posted:
Eloise posted:
wenger2015 posted:

Resignations and Sackings, I thought that was all in the past for JC .....? 

Surely its correct that the front bench represents and votes for party policy?

I agree, it can't be that difficult to back party policy, so why rock the boat.

For some I believe them that it was a matter of conscious when presented with the amendment ... but I'm pretty such Chuka Umunna was deliberately trying to undermine JC and cause division.

Let's hope.

After JC's surprising rise in popularity, reflected in his Nuremberg like appearance and posturing at Glasto, I feel he needs to be reigned in somewhat. He's starting to show he believes too firmly in his Messiah like properties and it's still the people behind and rising with him that worry me. Lots.

Mike-B posted:

I'm a bit confused by why this Con/DUP deal is being criticised.  Propositional Representation,   which most peeps agree is better/fairer than First Past the Post, will always have no one party with an overall majority & it will always require some form of cooperation agreement and/or coalition.   Its the way all of Europe with PR do it all the time.  

Because the job of opposition seems to be to oppose. And in Parliament this is often carried out through criticism.

I have long thought it better to do away with the 'Opposition' tag. It implies the other parties are there to fight whoever is in power on all counts, and while there is clearly a large amount of truth there, perhaps just referring to all as 'Parliamentarians' would be more appropriate. Who knows, this may lead to a calmer, less childlike approach within politics.

Eloise posted:
wenger2015 posted:
Eloise posted:
wenger2015 posted:

Resignations and Sackings, I thought that was all in the past for JC .....? 

Surely its correct that the front bench represents and votes for party policy?

I agree, it can't be that difficult to back party policy, so why rock the boat.

For some I believe them that it was a matter of conscious when presented with the amendment ... but I'm pretty such Chuka Umunna was deliberately trying to undermine JC and cause division.

Eloise,

I voted for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour this time round and was encouraged by his campaign and its (relative) success.

However, I am dismayed by his decision to 'sack' the Brexit rebels. In my opinion they were simply voting with their conscience and expressing a genuine view that Britain would be better off within the single market - a view that is shared by myself and many other Labour supporters. I have always suspected that Jeremy Corbyn was a very reluctant supporter of the 'Remain' campaign, and recent events appear to bear this out. He likes to think of himself as someone who has high ideals and principles, which he is not slow to express whether or not his views are in line with those of his party. However, he and John McDonnell appear to have very little regard and tolerance for others who vote according to their principles, but who do not agree with his own views.

The decision to sack the Brexit rebels, in my opinion, reflects very badly on Jeremy Corbyn, and brings back some of mo own reservations about the way that Corbyn and his close allies behave from time to time. I had become a bit of a Corbyn (and McDonnel) convert over recent months, but I will consider my options very carefully before voting for him again.

Now if Chuka Umunna were to become a contender for leadership of the Labour party, my enthusiasm would be rekindled.   

Hmack posted:
Eloise posted:

For some I believe them that it was a matter of conscious when presented with the amendment ... but I'm pretty such Chuka Umunna was deliberately trying to undermine JC and cause division.

However, I am dismayed by his decision to 'sack' the Brexit rebels. In my opinion they were simply voting with their conscience and expressing a genuine view that Britain would be better off within the single market - a view that is shared by myself and many other Labour supporters. I have always suspected that Jeremy Corbyn was a very reluctant supporter of the 'Remain' campaign, and recent events appear to bear this out. He likes to think of himself as someone who has high ideals and principles, which he is not slow to express whether or not his views are in line with those of his party. However, he and John McDonnell appear to have very little regard and tolerance for others who vote according to their principles, but who do not agree with his own views.

I'm no dismissing your point of view, but expressing those views as a back bencher is very different from failing to present a united front as a front bencher.  

As I commented above, some of those who voted with Chuka Umunna's amendment I will accept voted as a matter of their conscious, but I believe that Chuka Umunna's motivation in presenting the amendment was as a way to undermine JC and cause division.  He could have worded the amendment in a way that could have been supportive of the "official" Labour position; but to put in the part about remaining in the single market when repeatedly that has been ruled out was designed (IMO) to sew discord and meant the amendment was destined to fail.

Having said that, Bercow chose two very divisive amendments to debate and vote on ... IMO deliberately.

The decision to sack the Brexit rebels, in my opinion, reflects very badly on Jeremy Corbyn, and brings back some of mo own reservations about the way that Corbyn and his close allies behave from time to time. I had become a bit of a Corbyn (and McDonnel) convert over recent months, but I will consider my options very carefully before voting for him again.

Labour are struggling to present a clear Brexit policy though and to allow those opponents to remain part of the Labour "spokes force" would muddy the waters even further.  I regret the result of the Brexit referendum, but Labour can't win back support and power by debating it endlessly, they need a clear position to challenge the government on and that the people know what they stand for.

I'm not sure that Corbyn's position is really a secret ... he accepts the EU has good parts and bad parts but that overall the good outweighs the bad. 

Oh and I'm not unquestioning of Corbyn and his close allies and the way they behave (not that you were suggesting I was).  During the actual election I did say it was pointless to carry on the criticism of Corbyn, but that doesn't mean that after the result that he should be allowed to carry on without criticism.

The point I'm trying (in a round about way) to make, is that following the front benchers voting for the amendment they were instructed to abstain on; Corbyn was damned whatever he did ... and I believe certain parts of the Labour party liked that he was in a no win situation.

Now if Chuka Umunna were to become a contender for leadership of the Labour party, my enthusiasm would be rekindled.   

Now if Chuka Umunna was to be leader of the Labour Party and the Labour Party's official position changed then that would be a different matter.

The Strat (Fender) posted:
Eloise posted:
wenger2015 posted:

Resignations and Sackings, I thought that was all in the past for JC .....? 

Surely its correct that the front bench represents and votes for party policy?

In which case Jeremy Corbyn should be supporting the retention and renewal of Trident.

I thought he had, Strat. The point he wouldn't be drawn on was, if he were PM, whether he would press the button.

Likes (1)
Hungryhalibut
×
×
×
×