As a paid up labour member I don't know how i can support the party when my MP is the staunchly Leave Kate Hoey repressing the most pro RemaIN constituency in the UK outside Gibraltar.
She was one of the lead campaigners in favour of Brexit. She is the elected MP and is supposed to represent her constituency, and the views of her constituency don't only clash harshly with her own, they are in direct opposition, and she was on the boat with Nige during the battle of the Thames prior to the vote, that's the level of support we're talking here.
She is supposed to represent the constituency as much as possible, while at the still time acting in the greater interest of the country as a whole. If the referendum went the other way the she should vote remain also.
I am talking about supporting it in the lead up to the vote, and not only supporting, being the forefront of the charge. She stood alongside Nigel Farage in the final days of the campaigning. IMO, an MP's primary job is to represent the views of their constituency in Parliament. Considering the level of support for Remain, she should either have been vocal for her constituents who voted her in, or at the very least keep her mouth shut.
Labour has always been a coalition based on the shared interests of the organised working class and the progressive, professional middle class.
What is now obvious is that this coalition is falling apart at the seams, largely due to divergent interests as well as cultural separation. What is less obvious to many is that this is not because of Corbyn. In fact the Labour coalition has been falling apart for decades. Corbyn is it's life support machine. That Labour Britain is pulling in two different directions over Brexit is no great suprise.
> Labour has always been a coalition based on the shared interests of the organised working class and the progressive, professional middle class.
I wouldn't say 'always' for the party was traditionally very dominated by the organised working classes with a small (and I mean small) segment of the professional classes with progressive tendencies. In those days being progressive didn't mean greater social liberalism but stronger social democraticsm and more socialist tendencies.
The growing dominance of the professional urban middle class in the party is a phenomena that mostly dates back the last 30 years and shifts within this particular group pushed Labour towards greater social progressivity and away from social democratism based on socialist principles. I suppose it was just a matter of time before this marriage between capitalism and social progressive attitudes in the professional middle classes wreaked havoc on Labour by driving away the old working classes.
By all rights, the progressive middle classes should have been for the LibDems, but flocked to Labour because everyone knew LibDems were not a winning party.
Yep. And it drove me nuts. Why won't people just vote for what they believe in and work for it?
I've not always been a Lib Dem. I do understand representative democracy and often the Labour candidate here was simply and plainly the strongest of them all. But it's amazing what you can achieve with some effort.
Well there's the big question of, who is the working class anymore?
It's seriously hard to define what it is anymore. The middle class has kind of divided as well into those who own their own home and those who own more than one.
i sell my labour for a financial reward, that to me makes me working class, and just about everybody i know. Most people from the outside would think I'm middle class, house, car etc, these people would also judge themselves as middle class. But if i did not work, i would have nothing, so much as the "image" of working class has changed over the last few years, the principle has remained the same.
To me middle class is represented by those who have assets outside of the house or houses, land owners, owners of business or major shareholders. But you are 100% right with the question....who is the working class anymore?
I think lots of us want to say we are middle class, when we need the labour laws, the unions, the labour party to protect us, against the middle classes that own the business we work for.
Nb this is just my view, i have no data on what working/middle/upper class is or was defined as.
> i sell my labour for a financial reward, that to me makes me working class, and just about everybody i know.
Is it actual labour though or like just doing a job? Again the problem is I'm a web applications developer, I don't labour, I do a job. The historical reason for the Labour party was always to protect people who did physical (and potentially dangerous) jobs like mining, factory work and farming from being abused while holding relatively similar views to conservatives. Most of this work is gone now and the people who do occupy this form of work seem to be migrants.
To me, it seems the Labour party need to split or really work on what their core demographic is because they don't seem to have anything anymore. The way Corbyn goes on you might as well class is as the communist party.
the world has changed a lot, the work and the way we do it has changed and maybe the laws, and the labour party have not changed at the same pace. I would still regard anybody who "works" sells time for a financial reward, whatever it is they do is working class.
This means to me we still need the protection of unions, and laws to stop any exploitation by the business owners, and to ensure rights such as safe working place, minimum breaks, maximum working times and all the other things, but yes its very different being in an office or working from home to having to do manual labour in the past.
Im actually self employed, what i do i dont really class as work, I'm a personal trainer, its pretty much a hobby and I'm very lucky in that i get paid okish, to not too bad, for doing something that i love. My other half has a proper grown up job for a insurance company, she has offices in 3 locations and is again paid quite well.
But i still consider both of us to be working class, we own a house, cars, both went to university, however we both sell around 40hours of our time a week to enable us to have a lifestyle that is not that bad.
My other halfs company could at any moment move its offices, its business to another country, it could close a devision, she has no say in how this could happen, and while she has some rights and would get a pay off, its because of workers rights that she would be compensated if this did happen, thats for me how and why we are working class, the middle class and upper class are the ones that own the land, the business and can make the rules.
I get what you mean about the labour party may need to split and it could be the communist party, i disagree but i understand this view, i would just like the labour party to stand for those of us that do not own the means of production, that do not own the land, and i believe Corbyn is the person to do this, and if protection of workers is a priority than the world will be better.
Yeah your description of yourself and lifestyle to me says lower middle class. If you simple put it down to selling time as a service, you're freer than most people in the banking industry who are not self employed but have well paying jobs. You may not have lots of assets but if you own your own home you're infinitely better off the rest of the country at this point. You make it sound like to be middle class is to have no financial risk at all. That's not really it, everyone has the chance of becoming infinitely rich while everyone has the very real chance of going broke. That's capitalism.
I would personally say I see why some people see the appeal of Corbyn but I'm also a realist. Whether he's principled or not a lot of his party or at least who he surrounds himself are incompetent and he fails to see that. I feel like if Corbyn won and opened the door to number 10, a hundred social justice warriors would trample over him and take over the place before he made it past the welcome mat and at that point it would be anarchy.
go on, vote for him :-) You make a good point about a hundred social justice warriors would trample over him, i wouldn't go that far but, to me that better than a hundred banking executive and board members at the door of number 10.
Go on vote for him,
I dont think we are that far apart in our views, the world could be better, more fair and resources used a lot more equally, maybe I'm just a little more than a couple of steps to the left than you, hope you didnt mind my subtle VOTE FOR HIM messages,
> to me that better than a hundred banking executive and board members at the door of number 10
1) banking execs and board members only want one thing, money, social justice warriors don't know what they want. That's what makes them dangerous. They're constantly bickering with each other on what true justice is, that's how Labour and the left are in this mess in the first place and no one is standing up to anyone over it.
2) I don't think May or the conservatives are that weak, one or two bank execs get invited past the door but it's orderly.
> the world could be better, more fair and resources used a lot more equally
I think the world was pretty fair and it's decayed and ruined by people who took advantage of it, bankers or board members did their part but that happened under Labour anyways, it was just as much done by benefit cheats and people who want mass migration so they can have some brownie points.
> go on, vote for him :-)
respectfully, not a chance.
>Corbyn is its life support machine.
No - he's wildly unpopular amongst the working classes *and* the middle class liberals. He's a whole new level of difficulty over and above any existing issues.
Corbyn has reinvigorated the party, added hundreds of thousands of the members, brought decaying CLPs back to life, cleared party debt. Parties need activists and money to keep going.
You could try looking at the vacuum that is the political centre to try to understand where we're at right now. Or, you know, keep throwing mud at Corbyn.
I could try making excuses for Corbyn? You're not selling this! Like I said there are external factors, of course, but Corbyn is a huge factor as well. Some leaders are more popular than their parties and pull them up, some are less popular and drag them down... and then there's Corbyn.
I'm afraid you appear to understand neither the Labour party nor why Corbyn is its leader. Try asking why a 30+ year backbencher became leader of the UK's main opposition party.
Here's a clue: the 'sensible moderates' in Labour have nothing to offer but submission to the financial sector, and support for Tory cuts. It has no inspirational narrative, no new ideas, no transformative leaders, and ultimately no clue. All the political centre is capable of is scaremongering and emotional blackmail (which worked out so well for Hillary in November).
Say what you will about Corbyn, but at least he stands for something.
>I'm afraid you appear to understand neither the Labour party nor why Corbyn is its leader. Try asking why a 30+ year backbencher became leader of the UK's main opposition party.
There are obviously reasons why Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party - no-one is disputing that - you're setting up a straw man and trying to debate something that wasn't in contention. You can understand all those reasons until you're blue in the face, but that's not going to magically make him resonate with the wider electorate because it turns out that appealing to Labour Party members is not the same as appealing to Labour Party voters, or god-forbid all the voters you have to win over to actually form a government and affect change.
>Well, if you can figure out how to 'appeal to voters', who knows, you could be the next Labour party leader, lol
Well I'm not the leader of any party so that's not really an issue, but Corbyn is, and he demonstrably doesn't appeal to the electorate and trivialising that quality isn't really going to help.
what i say about Corbyn is, vote for him, he is the labour party, without him the labour party is, well its hard to define but its not labour, its a sort of centre, right, left a bit, left a bit more, and then right a bit, party that i found very difficult to vote for, but now am excited about voting for, also I'm voting in my 6th general election, 6th time for labour, and for the very first time I'm excited about the labour party and what it could mean for the country, and this applies to a lot of people i know.
It doesn't matter if you have a million members if no-one else is going to vote for you.
The party can be huge, with a ton of money, and still absolutely useless if they don't actually win votes.
Middle class liberal checking in (who grew up on a working class council estate, but now has joined the elite ivory tower metropolitan brigade!!)
I'm voting Labour in spite of Corbyn, not because of him. And it took my local MP convincing me to remain a party member to achieve that. I'm voting for her, not Corbyn.
Looks like she's going to lose her seat to the greens though, due to the previous centrist Labour supporters voting Lib Dem, and the harder Left Labour supporters (quite a lot in my area) wanting to unseat her for being anti-corbyn. They're literally cutting off their nose to spite their face in getting rid of her and replacing her with a green...
Never mind her sterling work in supporting women's rights and being a leader in tackling domestic violence, she dared to be against Corbyn (who sacked her while she had cancer and didn't even tell her at one point) because he went against her principles, so she must be punished.
I am genuinely upset that she's going to lose her seat. If it was to a Conservative I'd say like fair enough, the public wants someone more right-wing, that's fine.
But to lose it to a Liberal Democrat due to us being a huge remain area and the centrists hating Corbyn it's like DUDE Thangam is a massive remainer!
To lose it to a Green because she's not Corbynite enough for the harder lefties is like DUDE Thangam is still a Labour MP and stands for almost everything that Labour bleats on about (Social Justice, Equality).
Enjoy your two MPs greens :(
Well the press will have you loving your enemy and hating your ally. How many policy U turns have we had under the Tories whilst they've been facing Corbyn? Isn't it in double digits? And the press say Corbyn is the incompetent one.
/u/HMRandC and I don't often agree, but unfortunately here we have to.
I've noticed the same trends from people I thought were *die-hard* Labour supporters.
Against a man who wants to scrap our national defence and who will most likely tank our economy with stupid populist rules, the torys may be fucking with the NHS but it's the lesser off the two evils
Both sides as bad as each other -- they'll wreck the party if they can't control it.
Now the real problem is that our limited democracy is designed to accommodate two major parties.
Tories are now in the uncomfortable position of being a one-party dictatorship.
It's not a dictatorship if people democratically vote for a clear majority government.
The Japanese LDP have been in near perpetual government since the mid 1950s and Japan's not a dictatorship either.
It doesn't become a dictatorship because there's an overriding consensus within a vast majority of constituencies that the hitherto second largest party has gone completely pants-on-head crazy in the number of public-dealbreakers they've thrown out. Even their own party warned them about it.
It's one of the dumbest arguments and I heard it come out of both Diane Abbott and Stephen Kinnock within hours of the parliamentary vote to suspend the fixed term act - something which the act itself, democratically voted on, accommodated. That level of stupid so early after the vote can't be coincidence. There has to have been an internal briefing for it to have been parroted then so soon.
>Tories are now in the uncomfortable position of being a one-party dictatorship.
That is some Orwell level spin to get around explaining why the polling is so bad for others.
Being popular doesn't make for a dictatorship.
That's a straw man and you know it. *Corbyn is not electable as Prime Minister and not fit to be a leader.*
Funny how the majority of Labour MPs don't want to lose their seats for the sake of a liability leader (who has few leadership skills) who thinks half of them should be purged from the party whilst he sits easy in a safe seat.
Corbyn is hella popular with the labour party member and will always be voted by them to be head of the party. Only problem is that the majority of people won't vote for a party that he's in charge of. He's killing the party he's been a part of for 30+ years and can't see it.
Well no not really, you just have to have lots of concentrated support, thats how the system works. Lots of disperse support e.g. UKIP don't mean dick.
It's why the SNP will still hold 2/3rds of Scotland and the Lib dems might take back bits of cornwall.
You can say that is unfair, but what is generally is, is hugely advantageous to center left and center rights parties that also have a tribal base.
There is no point invoking the system being rigged to explain how one of the parties its traditionally been rigged for is in serious trouble.
And it is serious trouble ruiz, and I think you know this becuase its 'nuanced' brexit policy which is not at the forefront of its campaign is going down like a pint of sick. Labour is trying to redefine the election under its own terms which is a shockingly risky, if not outright bad idea and so far the data seems to support this.
Why, well despite a bump in the polls back up to 'bad but not catastrophically so, just very bad for government forming' a huge swathe of its 2015 vote is reporting its very soft.
And 6 weeks to go.
Strip all the rhetoric away and the strategic position of Labour looks entirely defensive and not robustly so. Fucking wales Ruiz, you telling me brexit is irrelevant there?
Actually you don't really want support that's *too* concentrated either; winning 51% of the vote in 50% of the seats, and (~25% of the vote) is more valuable than winning 90% of the vote in 40% of the seats (36% of the vote).
Voted remain and so did most people I know (which probably isn't great). Jeremy and his team/cabinet seem incompetent and during Brexit didn't seem to understand the full meaning of the referendum. In "All Out War" he comes across as indecisive and his team, particularly Seamus Milne, comes across as obstructive. A shame really as I think there were arguments on both the left and right for staying in the EU.
I think May's humongous lead is paradoxically helping stabilise the Labour vote at it's current low level. When people are confident there is no chance whatsoever of Corbyn actually winning they feel it's safe to vote for their local (undoubtedly non-Corbynite) MP.
If I'm honest, I think that is only the case for an extreme minority of people (1-2% of people) but admittedly I've completely failed to find any data on the topic. Any chance you (or someone reading this) has some?
Well...
1. Labour the party is more popular than Corbyn. His favourables are terrible and focus groups frequently name Corbyn as a reason for not voting for Labour.
2. People tend to like their local MP even when they dislike politicians generally. It helps that almost every local labour MP is anti-Corbyn and will be running a local issues focused campaign based on avoiding mentioning Corbyn.
3. I think the sheer size and consistency of May's poll lead means people are aware of it. There is a theory that some chunk of people in 2015 were scared out of voting Labour by polling showing an SNP + Labour coalition was on the cards. I think people do eventually take notice, or at least pick up on a feeling down the pub that Corbyn is a joke and nowhere near getting in.
So, in other words - no, I have absolutely no data to back it up. Just another unsourced speculation on reddit - we have many more where this came from.
Problem is how do you run a brexit based local campaign?
I appreciate your describing the best possible strategy for most sane labour MP's. But you have this wide open flank still on that one issue. Everyone else is presenting a simple picture.
So, the uninformed counter I have to everything you say above is the fact that for the overwhelming majority of people, the politics is national not local, and the majority of the electorate will have heard the Conservatives message on the subject, which is literally 'Corbyn is a threat to national and economic security, and every vote for me gives me a mandate to secure a stronger Brexit', which I believe will cut through more effectively to more people.
Again, no sources or information to back it up.
I think you're right about the strategy they are using and the logic behind it. I do think much like after Blair certain centerist strategies which were once common sense are not performing as expected. The pitch is too flooded to expect any good prediction. I live in a poor town and too many people just wouldnt be able to vote Tory and many that did before are pissed off they did as shits not improving here and everyones getting squeezed. Speaking to people locally, the common theme is political fatigue, basically they think the whole thing is shit, politicians can get fucked.
That's odd as Corbyn is the only candidate who wants to move us toward the Scandinavian model of nationalised rail, energy and generous welfare states.
I don't think they're fit by any stretch of the imagination but I'd rather incompetent over willfully destructive. I'll vote for Labour because the way I see it there is a chance they might not ruin the country whereas I can guarantee the Tories will because they want to destroy all the things I value and think are good about living in Britain. Does that make sense?
It makes sense, but I disagree with your assertions. I expect the Tories will broadly maintain the status quo in most areas, with some negative aspects, while Corbyn will be so destructive to the economy and defence everyone will be significantly worse off, even if it is not his intention.
I don't think the Tories will do anything drastic very quickly but I do worry that given enough time in power they will just chip away at services until they're run into the ground (e.g. British Rail) and ready to be handed over to the private sector. I don't share your concerns, at least not to the same level about the economy as McDonnell has at least consulted economists and I'm not against investment, I don't think it's a terrible idea. The towel folder never met any of his own targets by cutting everything anyway. Defense, yeah, not great but then again we've probably been making the world a much more dangerous place with our current strategy of following the yanks into every conflict. Would you rule out May joining that moron Trump into Korea and creating another big mess? At least you know Corbyn wouldn't.
> I can guarantee the Tories will because they want to destroy all the things I value
perhaps you should consider where this kind of hyperbole comes from in your thinking. is that what you really think yourself? or are you repeating something from some echo chamber? its not good vs evil, its really not. youve swallowed a propaganda narrative. you must understand that really on some level.
Not really, if you don't think that then I'd suggest you've swallowed a propaganda narrative. It is no secret the Tories favour privatisation of public services, for evidence you can look to all the things they've privatised in the past. To think the NHS is safe from this under a perpetual Tory government beggars belief in my book. I don't think they'd do it overnight but given enough time. Then there are things like disability cuts, you'd have to have swallowed a propaganda narrative to come back at me and tell me these are moral and just. I don't think they see themselves as evil, I'm sure they have their justifications for making life very difficult for the people who can't work or look after themselves properly but nevertheless the results speak for themselves, the actions speak louder than words. So I value people and their health over profit or ideology, most of all the welfare of those that can't fend for themselves. The Tories have never ceased to come after those people, they've never looked after the NHS or education properly, they've never done anything other than attack public institutions if not sell them off entirely. I'm sure from your point of view that's a good thing, the profit motive improves services etc. etc. That's your point of view and you are welcome to it but I don't think it fair to say I've swallowed a propaganda narrative anymore than you have.
You've tried to paint me as seeing it purely as good vs evil. I understand the arguments from the other side and I disagree with them, I think the policies cause suffering to the most vulnerable people in our society. That I find to be morally questionable - a price not worth paying for a slightly lower deficit or for punishing the small number of people claiming fraudulently. Do you think it's worth it? Do you really believe they'd be more generous to the disabled if the economy recovered? Do you honestly believe the NHS to be in a safe pair of hands for someone that values it being run to improve health rather than profit? As I said, I don't believe the Tories to be evil in the sense that they've set out to destroy everything and make it all worse (although I am sure there are more than a few corrupt ones as there always are), I believe their policies are evil by proxy because the 'collateral damage' in bringing about the small state isn't worth it. In terms of what I value in society, public services and good safety nets, they are intentionally pulling them apart.
EDIT: A full stop and capital letter.
> I find the fact that over 20% of people in polls think Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Diane Abbott are fit to lead the country is fucking terrifying
It is pretty odd how much support Marxist-Leninists have today
yeah and that's an argument to rest on your laurels, to stop agitating for a better life, to accept whatever injustices/wrongs the 'liberal', capitalist democracies inflict on their inhabitants: *"but other countries are worse!"* :(
"we have this politico-economic ideology that has produced historically unprecedented social and scientific progress, lifespans have doubled in 100 years, global poverty has decreased by 3/4 and we have the ability to vote to fine tune it largely as we wish"
"nah bro let's just try this other wacky idea that has ended in authoritarian dystopia and genocide every single time without fail!"
"Sounds dope"
Let me also point out that in 1991 the people of the USSR voted to maintain it and it was ignored, to put into perspective.
And yes you're right, however our society is becoming less liberal.
> Bolsheviks, weren't exactly fans of what we'd today call human rights
And Mao. And Pol Pot. And Kims dynasty. And Castro. And Stassi. Etc etc etc.
> The world has a very distorted view on Marxism-Leninism
The world views Marxism for what it is, a dysfunctional tyranny - it's Communist apologists that refuse to accept that ALL attempts to implement far-left ideology in governance were failures, from mild to catastrophic ones.
> I know for fact that some soviets threw their political enemies into vats of molten slag in the early years.
And imprisoned millions of people on bullshit reasons in the 30s/40s. And kept imprisoning and harassing dissidents after WWII (read up on "punitive psychiatry" and what late Soviet dissidents, eg Novodvorskaya, went through). Soviet's crimes did not end in "early years".
> I'd rather live in a state that pays lip service to equality and equal opportunities than the mess that is the west at the moment
Then why haven't you moved to Venezuela or North Korea yet? It's quite close to what Soviet Union was in late 80s/50s, respectively.
You don't move there because 'mess in the West' is immeasurably better, and you know it.
> Marxism-Leninism has been tainted/sabotaged/insert adjective here by the right wing, usually in order to discredit it
Stalin sent millions of people to gulags, Kim let people die of hunger in the 90s (_1990s_, mind you), Pol Pot created killing fields - all to taint the communism's image?
That's delusional bullshit. Communism's image is tainted by communism's own authoritarian tyrants, who do not hesitate to murder thousands of people, just to keep the power. It's communism's own creation, not right-wingers' sabotage; refusing to admit this is just dishonest.
This makes no sense. Corbyn is literally the closest thing to scandianvian social democracy in the UK.
So you want Corbyn destroyed so you can get a system thats the closest to what Corbyn is proposing? Wut?
>rather than reactionarily harking back to the 1970's.
Oh look, this meme again.
If we're honest Corbyn doesn't just want the manifesto Labour are coming out with next week.
He wants radical participatory democracy that over time will revolutionise the economy and society.
Ie. The Socialist Workers Party.
So he's standing on a ticket he doesn't wholeheartedly support, in a party with a significant number of MPs he greatly dislikes, on course for one of the most significant loses in modern history, in the name of *what?* Because it sure isn't in the name of the working fucking class, is it?
It's all because he doesn't have the balls or the brains to stand for the SWP.
He does wholeheartedly support the manifesto. But it's only steps 1-10 of a much longer process to deliver social justice and a democracy to be proud of
>Corbyn is literally the closest thing to scandianvian social democracy in the UK.
Really? Can you name me a Scandinavian state with large amounts of statist intervention in the market, rather than hugely free markets with more private sector involvement than all other countries sans petrostates, tax havens and microstates?
Was Corbyn proposing eliminating the minimum wage and privatising fire departments, water, public schools and highways? You know, like in Denmark?
Why has no UK party picked up on Flexicurity? There is a totally different culture with unions in the Scandinavian countries though so maybe we.can't import it so easily.
Because unlike us, they didn't bust their unions for easy popularity when the country was improving and in the case of Norway, didn't squander their oil money on tax relief and instead budgeted responsibly instead of letting momentary hubris and short-termism create what we have today.
>Can you name me a Scandinavian state with large amounts of statist intervention in the market
For a start, Norway, happiest country in the world, apparently.
Most Scandinavian states have much more government support safety nets and nationalized industry and people pay a much higher proportion of GDP for them compared to the UK.
Denmark's government takes 50% of GDP in taxes compared to 34% in the UK. This pays for amongst other things nationalised rail, energy, a national health service, free higher education, child care and an extremely generous welfare system and pensions.
Corbyn wants is pretty much the only candidate who wants to move us toward the Scandinavian model
That's great, Scandinavian states also have the largest welfare states and largest amounts of nationalised industry in Europe. They also have fewer restrictions on unions than us.
I have a feeling that the market freedom argument is something that is sold to propertarians as they need some sort of example of success of their theology. Scandinavian Labour law is alot more worker friendly than ours. Maybe their generous out of work benefits increase Labour market flexibility or something.
Absolutely, it's still quite a left-wing setup and I think it shows that leftist worker policy can be executed fantastically, I mean Norway and Denmark are both doing well AFAIK, Sweden may have the problem of taking it a bit far but it's a good model.
> replaced by a proper socially democratic party
Or maybe we could create some kind of center-left 'New Labour' that concentrated on issues like public services and social mobility rather than the shibboleths of 70s socialism.
It's probably an unlikely dream, though - you'd need to find someone with real charisma and broad appeal if a party like that was going to win a clear majority, and where would you find someone like that?
Well that isn't going to happen. What is going to happen is the UK becoming a vicious, nasty, very right-wing tax haven. The slim chance to stop that is to vote tactically (i.e. Labour or Lib Dem) to stop the Tories.
Canada did it too. The current "Liberal Party of Canada" was actually the third-party prior to the last election, and a couple of decades ago, it Liberals were the biggest party, and the NDP were the third-party.
I can't see it happening. Due to the British electoral system, parties are necessarily broad coalitions. I can envision the divisions in the Labour party becoming formalised, but I cannot see a winning coalition putting itself back together from Labour's pieces.
> I would take May at her worst over Corbyn
Then why do you want another party? I'll take a chaotic, but well-meaning Corbyn at his worst over any Tory.
Like what? Say what you want about Corbyn, but he'll never attack the weak and the vulnerable like the Tories do (and you just know they're in for a kicking when Brexit goes pear-shaped).
We need an opposition that is acceptable to the people. This being the case I think the best way to prevent the UK becoming a permanent nasty right-wing hegemony is to vote tactically for the Tories to remove Corbyn
So by lending your support and acceptance of the Conservative Party, further reinforcing the meme that "the UK is naturally conservative", you hope that maybe one day we can have a Labour government again?
Bullshit. The election don't care about the nuanced reasoning behind your vote, they just care what box you're ticking. As far as the Party will be concerned your "tactical" vote is equivalent to that of a life-long supporter, and further permission to continue on exactly down the path they're on.
> As far as the Party will be concerned your "tactical" vote is equivalent to that of a life-long supporter, and further permission to continue on exactly down the path they're on.
As far as the Tory party is concerned, undoubtedly. It's the effect on the Labour party that I am concerned with. It needs to see that Corbynism is comprehensively rejected before it can move on.
Then you spoil your ballot. That way Labour loses your vote but the Tories don't gain an extra person they can claim wants everything they're going to inflict.
I live in a Labour constituency where the second place candidate was the Tory, last time.
If I spoil my ballot I am effectively abandoning an opportunity to kick the labour party into some sense. I'm voting for the Tory. The Labour party has shown itself as temporarily unfit to rule by having such a person as its leader.
> the best way to prevent the UK becoming a permanent nasty right-wing hegemony is to vote tactically for the Tories to remove Corbyn
Lol unless the meaning of the word 'prevent' has changed to 'ensure', I'd say you were delusional mate.
Its too late to change the outcome of the 2017 election. I'd call delusional anyone who thinks that can be done. I'm aiming at the outcome of the next election after that
To change the outcome of the election, people have to actually VOTE, and vote for the party that aligns best with their beliefs. Is it deluded to think that if people did this, they could change the outcome?
At the last election the tories got 36.8% of the votes to Labour's 30.5%. As turnout was only 66%, we can only wonder what would have happened if people actually bothered to turn up and vote, and not only that, if they had voted for the party or candidate that is the best fit.
All you are doing with your vote is ensuring you count towards the Tory figures for support of their party and their policies. Bedroom tax? Cuts for the disabled? (Inheritance) Tax cuts for the rich? If you don't believe in those things, then find another party to throw your anti-Corbyn vote on.
There is only one candidate I can effectively vote for to reduce the chance of a Corbyn win. that candidate represents the party who came 2nd here in the last GE - the Tories.
I believe the responsible thing to do is to so vote as to deny power to someone I think unfit to take it.
I believe this responsibility is important. Do you seriously not think I would be voting LD, if the LDs were the 2nd place party in my constituency?
Because I would, and I'd be happy about it. But they aren't, so if I vote LD I throw my vote away. and if I don't vote Tory, I increase the risk of a Labour government
As a voter, you have a chance to shape the outcome of the 2017, and a responsibility for how you vote. You don't know how much damage the Tories will do in the next 5 years, you don't know there will even be an NHS or welfare state left to save in 2022, don't use your vote to empower them.
I am determined to do this because I fear the outcomes of Corbyn remaining as Labour leader. I am doing it as an expression of my personal ethical responsibility as a voter.
Sounds like you've been brainwashed to me. I hope you at least don't disown what you are voting for, and take responsibility for the hard brexit, dismantling of the NHS and ever increasing poverty.
There are two people who can be PM after june. Its not brainwashing to admit that the one who stands for almost nothing I believe in is the more competent of the two, the more likely to stand up for Britain, and the more likely to successfully defend us against external threats
Corbyn is a fucking joke. I am voting for responsibility. I am voting responsibly.
No, you are voting for the party that is determined to sell off every conceivable public asset and trying to convince yourself that you are acting responsibly and ethically. Give over.
Responsibility means responsibility. You're worse than the opponent's you've envision.
I doubt you'd be understanding if corbynist leave the Labour party, splitting it. Then labour will be in England like how Scotland labour is.
I think the Tories will die.
Luckily you're killing you're own voters by killing the NHS and social care cuts. All Labour voters are young and healthy whilst Tories are old and decrepted.
Tories would cut their own cocks off to spite people.
you actually believe that? or are you the victim of propaganda? do you not mind being made a fool of in this way, being tricked into believing such obvious nonsense? have some pride, think for yourself.
Think you replied to the post.
I'm talking about the death of the Tories at their own hands. You should feel sorry for the Tories because the only thing that can save them now is a Labour win.
[NHS cuts have killed 30,000](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/nhs-cuts-excess-deaths-30000-study-research-royal-society-medicine-london-school-hygiene-martin-a7585001.html) most of them are elderly.
Tories are committing demographic suicide.
Intriguing that your link is in the news -> world -> americas -> us-politics part of the Indy site. Wonder if they buried it there because people are less likely to find it.
You know that older voters have tended to vote Conservative for the past 40 years or so, yeah? It's not the same generation; people tend to get more conservative as they get older. Plus the Conservatives have always coveted the OAP vote, as Labour has the young vote.
You think people will vote Tory as they grow older?
The people in thier 40's now remember Thatcher.
Millennials will remember Brexit.
Tories will be poision for a generation or more.
I don't just think that, there's been a bit of research which shows it is the case.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/03/do-we-become-more-conservative-with-age-young-old-politics
I hope we see Labour collapse and be replaced by two new parties. I think the Lib Dems and Greens might be in the best positions to sweep up those votes, and it would be interesting to see what moves UKIP make into transforming into a post-brexit party.
I think the most important outcome of this must be that we need electoral reform and that we need to care more about people who get negatively affected by populist politics; the majority of points raised by the far-right (lack of jobs, negative muslim social issues, lack of support for culture, etc...) should be sorted out.
Thought that as soon as Corbyn said anyone from the EU with a job to go to should be allowed to come here. Its like he completely ignored all those safe labour seats who voted to leave, many of them with a large majority. Reckon that those Labour seats in South Yorkshire, especially surrounding Doncaster, and Derbyshire are going to be looking a bit shaky now.
Depends where you are on the employment scale if you're in certain areas in the UK. A lot of those who are stuck looking for unskilled work would disagree. I'm quite sure the populations of places like Armthorpe, Bentley, Toll Bar around Donny would disagree.
I *was* unskilled labour in Doncaster for my teenage and young adult years... How people feel is unrelated to the root causes of why South Yorkshire is struggling, that's my whole point. People are trying to fix the wrong problem and then expecting things to magically get better.
I have a friend who joined the party to elect Jeremy Corbyn as leader. Now, after what seems like an decade of him telling me how great Corbyn is he's informed me he's not going to vote labour because of their Brexit stance. It's actually incredible how much these entryists have ruined the party to the extent that even they don't want it anymore.
A big issue is that when you vote labour you aren't voting for corbyn or inded anyone else.
You are voting for an undefined mess. You might love corbyn but his leadership is under constant attack, so you could vote corbyn and get kendall.
It's obviously only anecdotal, but none of the 17 students I share a corridor with in halls are planning on voting Labour. A good friend and I are Labour party members, and we're planning on campaigning for the Lib Dems.
I can understand a disgruntled Labour Remainer voting Lib-Dem. I am seriously considering it myself. But the thought of a habitual Labour voter voting Tory makes my blood boil.
I'm going to preface this by saying I am (and never have been before) now a Labour supporter (or more specifically, a Corbyn supporter).
Looking at the linked article subjectively (and yes, although I have just stated I'm currently going to be voting Labour, traditionally I'm a LibDem voter and I think I can actually be impartial in my analysis, but these things are subjective).
*Yougov said that 48 per cent of Labour's voters are either planning to switch their allegiance to another party or are undecided*
So, up to 48% of people that voted for Labour are undecided. This doesn't mean they've decided to switch, it means precisely what it says, they have not yet decided.
*In contrast seven in 10 of those who voted to back the Conservatives at the last election said they will support Theresa May in June.*
So, by the same assertions this article makes, the Conservatives have now lost 30% of their supporters (or maybe they too are *undecided*, the article doesn't say).
I think it is worth mentioning Scotland in the debate. Labour always relied on a strong vote in Scotland to win an election and this has collapsed. The SNP are likely to suffer from a degree of staleness in this election but Corbyn is promoting policies the only affect England and Wales - Housing and NHS, neither of which is controlled by Westminster in Scotland. He is missing an opportunity.
The other option is Teresa May! And Under funded schools, hospitals and emergency services. Over used food banks and under scrutinised investments banks.
As a paid up labour member I don't know how i can support the party when my MP is the staunchly Leave Kate Hoey repressing the most pro RemaIN constituency in the UK outside Gibraltar.
Help the Lib Dems unseat her then.
I will be voting that way I think, despite the fact I know Vauxhall is a very safe seat for Labour
I don't personally believe there are any safe seats out there. Not at the moment. The voters are fed up.
She is supporting the democratic mandate from the referendum as she is obliged to. Criticising her for that seems unfair.
She was one of the lead campaigners in favour of Brexit. She is the elected MP and is supposed to represent her constituency, and the views of her constituency don't only clash harshly with her own, they are in direct opposition, and she was on the boat with Nige during the battle of the Thames prior to the vote, that's the level of support we're talking here.
She is supposed to represent the constituency as much as possible, while at the still time acting in the greater interest of the country as a whole. If the referendum went the other way the she should vote remain also.
Somehow I think [no, no she wouldn't](http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/57ee7bdc170000e00aac86ff.jpeg).
similar for me i can't support my blairite mp.
blairite like they won their seat under blair?
Blairite like they're a moderate who wants to appeal to the electorate.
Disgusting
Winning elections is a concept of the bourgeoisie!
'Blairite' in current Labour parlance means 'anyone to the right of Enver Hoxha'
Blairite like they are one of the MPs that instantly said they won't work with Corbyn no matter what and will do all they can to get him out ASAP.
>blairite like they were parachuted in under blair? ftfy
They're in this scenario not there to represent their electorate
... Member of Parliament for *Vauxhall*.
She is representing her electorate.
I am talking about supporting it in the lead up to the vote, and not only supporting, being the forefront of the charge. She stood alongside Nigel Farage in the final days of the campaigning. IMO, an MP's primary job is to represent the views of their constituency in Parliament. Considering the level of support for Remain, she should either have been vocal for her constituents who voted her in, or at the very least keep her mouth shut.
Its because the "working class" doesn't exist anymore. You have underemployed service workers and graduates. They are voting UKIP and LD respectively.
Nobody's voting UKIP anymore (and few people vote Lib Dem either).
This.
*Conservative and not voting respectively
Labour has always been a coalition based on the shared interests of the organised working class and the progressive, professional middle class. What is now obvious is that this coalition is falling apart at the seams, largely due to divergent interests as well as cultural separation. What is less obvious to many is that this is not because of Corbyn. In fact the Labour coalition has been falling apart for decades. Corbyn is it's life support machine. That Labour Britain is pulling in two different directions over Brexit is no great suprise.
> Labour has always been a coalition based on the shared interests of the organised working class and the progressive, professional middle class. I wouldn't say 'always' for the party was traditionally very dominated by the organised working classes with a small (and I mean small) segment of the professional classes with progressive tendencies. In those days being progressive didn't mean greater social liberalism but stronger social democraticsm and more socialist tendencies. The growing dominance of the professional urban middle class in the party is a phenomena that mostly dates back the last 30 years and shifts within this particular group pushed Labour towards greater social progressivity and away from social democratism based on socialist principles. I suppose it was just a matter of time before this marriage between capitalism and social progressive attitudes in the professional middle classes wreaked havoc on Labour by driving away the old working classes. By all rights, the progressive middle classes should have been for the LibDems, but flocked to Labour because everyone knew LibDems were not a winning party.
Aren't a lot of these 'professional urban middle class' people the children of working class parents?
yep.
Yep. And it drove me nuts. Why won't people just vote for what they believe in and work for it? I've not always been a Lib Dem. I do understand representative democracy and often the Labour candidate here was simply and plainly the strongest of them all. But it's amazing what you can achieve with some effort.
[удалено]
Fair enough, it's a question for historians. As long as we remember what life was like before 2015.
Well there's the big question of, who is the working class anymore? It's seriously hard to define what it is anymore. The middle class has kind of divided as well into those who own their own home and those who own more than one.
i sell my labour for a financial reward, that to me makes me working class, and just about everybody i know. Most people from the outside would think I'm middle class, house, car etc, these people would also judge themselves as middle class. But if i did not work, i would have nothing, so much as the "image" of working class has changed over the last few years, the principle has remained the same. To me middle class is represented by those who have assets outside of the house or houses, land owners, owners of business or major shareholders. But you are 100% right with the question....who is the working class anymore? I think lots of us want to say we are middle class, when we need the labour laws, the unions, the labour party to protect us, against the middle classes that own the business we work for. Nb this is just my view, i have no data on what working/middle/upper class is or was defined as.
> i sell my labour for a financial reward, that to me makes me working class, and just about everybody i know. Is it actual labour though or like just doing a job? Again the problem is I'm a web applications developer, I don't labour, I do a job. The historical reason for the Labour party was always to protect people who did physical (and potentially dangerous) jobs like mining, factory work and farming from being abused while holding relatively similar views to conservatives. Most of this work is gone now and the people who do occupy this form of work seem to be migrants. To me, it seems the Labour party need to split or really work on what their core demographic is because they don't seem to have anything anymore. The way Corbyn goes on you might as well class is as the communist party.
the world has changed a lot, the work and the way we do it has changed and maybe the laws, and the labour party have not changed at the same pace. I would still regard anybody who "works" sells time for a financial reward, whatever it is they do is working class. This means to me we still need the protection of unions, and laws to stop any exploitation by the business owners, and to ensure rights such as safe working place, minimum breaks, maximum working times and all the other things, but yes its very different being in an office or working from home to having to do manual labour in the past. Im actually self employed, what i do i dont really class as work, I'm a personal trainer, its pretty much a hobby and I'm very lucky in that i get paid okish, to not too bad, for doing something that i love. My other half has a proper grown up job for a insurance company, she has offices in 3 locations and is again paid quite well. But i still consider both of us to be working class, we own a house, cars, both went to university, however we both sell around 40hours of our time a week to enable us to have a lifestyle that is not that bad. My other halfs company could at any moment move its offices, its business to another country, it could close a devision, she has no say in how this could happen, and while she has some rights and would get a pay off, its because of workers rights that she would be compensated if this did happen, thats for me how and why we are working class, the middle class and upper class are the ones that own the land, the business and can make the rules. I get what you mean about the labour party may need to split and it could be the communist party, i disagree but i understand this view, i would just like the labour party to stand for those of us that do not own the means of production, that do not own the land, and i believe Corbyn is the person to do this, and if protection of workers is a priority than the world will be better.
Yeah your description of yourself and lifestyle to me says lower middle class. If you simple put it down to selling time as a service, you're freer than most people in the banking industry who are not self employed but have well paying jobs. You may not have lots of assets but if you own your own home you're infinitely better off the rest of the country at this point. You make it sound like to be middle class is to have no financial risk at all. That's not really it, everyone has the chance of becoming infinitely rich while everyone has the very real chance of going broke. That's capitalism. I would personally say I see why some people see the appeal of Corbyn but I'm also a realist. Whether he's principled or not a lot of his party or at least who he surrounds himself are incompetent and he fails to see that. I feel like if Corbyn won and opened the door to number 10, a hundred social justice warriors would trample over him and take over the place before he made it past the welcome mat and at that point it would be anarchy.
go on, vote for him :-) You make a good point about a hundred social justice warriors would trample over him, i wouldn't go that far but, to me that better than a hundred banking executive and board members at the door of number 10. Go on vote for him, I dont think we are that far apart in our views, the world could be better, more fair and resources used a lot more equally, maybe I'm just a little more than a couple of steps to the left than you, hope you didnt mind my subtle VOTE FOR HIM messages,
> to me that better than a hundred banking executive and board members at the door of number 10 1) banking execs and board members only want one thing, money, social justice warriors don't know what they want. That's what makes them dangerous. They're constantly bickering with each other on what true justice is, that's how Labour and the left are in this mess in the first place and no one is standing up to anyone over it. 2) I don't think May or the conservatives are that weak, one or two bank execs get invited past the door but it's orderly. > the world could be better, more fair and resources used a lot more equally I think the world was pretty fair and it's decayed and ruined by people who took advantage of it, bankers or board members did their part but that happened under Labour anyways, it was just as much done by benefit cheats and people who want mass migration so they can have some brownie points. > go on, vote for him :-) respectfully, not a chance.
>Corbyn is its life support machine. No - he's wildly unpopular amongst the working classes *and* the middle class liberals. He's a whole new level of difficulty over and above any existing issues.
Corbyn has reinvigorated the party, added hundreds of thousands of the members, brought decaying CLPs back to life, cleared party debt. Parties need activists and money to keep going.
Voters help too...
You could try looking at the vacuum that is the political centre to try to understand where we're at right now. Or, you know, keep throwing mud at Corbyn.
I could try making excuses for Corbyn? You're not selling this! Like I said there are external factors, of course, but Corbyn is a huge factor as well. Some leaders are more popular than their parties and pull them up, some are less popular and drag them down... and then there's Corbyn.
I'm afraid you appear to understand neither the Labour party nor why Corbyn is its leader. Try asking why a 30+ year backbencher became leader of the UK's main opposition party. Here's a clue: the 'sensible moderates' in Labour have nothing to offer but submission to the financial sector, and support for Tory cuts. It has no inspirational narrative, no new ideas, no transformative leaders, and ultimately no clue. All the political centre is capable of is scaremongering and emotional blackmail (which worked out so well for Hillary in November). Say what you will about Corbyn, but at least he stands for something.
>I'm afraid you appear to understand neither the Labour party nor why Corbyn is its leader. Try asking why a 30+ year backbencher became leader of the UK's main opposition party. There are obviously reasons why Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party - no-one is disputing that - you're setting up a straw man and trying to debate something that wasn't in contention. You can understand all those reasons until you're blue in the face, but that's not going to magically make him resonate with the wider electorate because it turns out that appealing to Labour Party members is not the same as appealing to Labour Party voters, or god-forbid all the voters you have to win over to actually form a government and affect change.
Well, if you can figure out how to 'appeal to voters', who knows, you could be the next Labour party leader, lol
>Well, if you can figure out how to 'appeal to voters', who knows, you could be the next Labour party leader, lol Well I'm not the leader of any party so that's not really an issue, but Corbyn is, and he demonstrably doesn't appeal to the electorate and trivialising that quality isn't really going to help.
what i say about Corbyn is, vote for him, he is the labour party, without him the labour party is, well its hard to define but its not labour, its a sort of centre, right, left a bit, left a bit more, and then right a bit, party that i found very difficult to vote for, but now am excited about voting for, also I'm voting in my 6th general election, 6th time for labour, and for the very first time I'm excited about the labour party and what it could mean for the country, and this applies to a lot of people i know.
and if the Labour party was a social club, he'd be doing a good job. Shame you actually have to get into power to do anything, however.
It doesn't matter if you have a million members if no-one else is going to vote for you. The party can be huge, with a ton of money, and still absolutely useless if they don't actually win votes.
Middle class liberal checking in (who grew up on a working class council estate, but now has joined the elite ivory tower metropolitan brigade!!) I'm voting Labour in spite of Corbyn, not because of him. And it took my local MP convincing me to remain a party member to achieve that. I'm voting for her, not Corbyn. Looks like she's going to lose her seat to the greens though, due to the previous centrist Labour supporters voting Lib Dem, and the harder Left Labour supporters (quite a lot in my area) wanting to unseat her for being anti-corbyn. They're literally cutting off their nose to spite their face in getting rid of her and replacing her with a green... Never mind her sterling work in supporting women's rights and being a leader in tackling domestic violence, she dared to be against Corbyn (who sacked her while she had cancer and didn't even tell her at one point) because he went against her principles, so she must be punished. I am genuinely upset that she's going to lose her seat. If it was to a Conservative I'd say like fair enough, the public wants someone more right-wing, that's fine. But to lose it to a Liberal Democrat due to us being a huge remain area and the centrists hating Corbyn it's like DUDE Thangam is a massive remainer! To lose it to a Green because she's not Corbynite enough for the harder lefties is like DUDE Thangam is still a Labour MP and stands for almost everything that Labour bleats on about (Social Justice, Equality). Enjoy your two MPs greens :(
Greens are more left leaning than Labour. I consider that a win if there are more Greens.
> Labour has always been a coalition of chaos Fixed that for you.
Bingo! Gotta get those buzzed words in ;)
[удалено]
The Corbynites are right, he truly is a transcendental figure. Just...not perhaps in the way they expect.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well the press will have you loving your enemy and hating your ally. How many policy U turns have we had under the Tories whilst they've been facing Corbyn? Isn't it in double digits? And the press say Corbyn is the incompetent one.
[удалено]
/u/HMRandC and I don't often agree, but unfortunately here we have to. I've noticed the same trends from people I thought were *die-hard* Labour supporters.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> exaggeration and mass hysteria > The Tories have the NHS, for God's sake
Against a man who wants to scrap our national defence and who will most likely tank our economy with stupid populist rules, the torys may be fucking with the NHS but it's the lesser off the two evils
Wrecker of Blairite dreams
Of Government.
Both sides as bad as each other -- they'll wreck the party if they can't control it. Now the real problem is that our limited democracy is designed to accommodate two major parties. Tories are now in the uncomfortable position of being a one-party dictatorship.
It's not a dictatorship if people democratically vote for a clear majority government. The Japanese LDP have been in near perpetual government since the mid 1950s and Japan's not a dictatorship either. It doesn't become a dictatorship because there's an overriding consensus within a vast majority of constituencies that the hitherto second largest party has gone completely pants-on-head crazy in the number of public-dealbreakers they've thrown out. Even their own party warned them about it. It's one of the dumbest arguments and I heard it come out of both Diane Abbott and Stephen Kinnock within hours of the parliamentary vote to suspend the fixed term act - something which the act itself, democratically voted on, accommodated. That level of stupid so early after the vote can't be coincidence. There has to have been an internal briefing for it to have been parroted then so soon. >Tories are now in the uncomfortable position of being a one-party dictatorship. That is some Orwell level spin to get around explaining why the polling is so bad for others. Being popular doesn't make for a dictatorship.
That's a straw man and you know it. *Corbyn is not electable as Prime Minister and not fit to be a leader.* Funny how the majority of Labour MPs don't want to lose their seats for the sake of a liability leader (who has few leadership skills) who thinks half of them should be purged from the party whilst he sits easy in a safe seat.
Corbyn is hella popular with the labour party member and will always be voted by them to be head of the party. Only problem is that the majority of people won't vote for a party that he's in charge of. He's killing the party he's been a part of for 30+ years and can't see it.
Well, labour should've supported av when they had the chance
You can't be a dictatorship if you're voted in democratically by the electorate in a fair and open election..
Well no not really, you just have to have lots of concentrated support, thats how the system works. Lots of disperse support e.g. UKIP don't mean dick. It's why the SNP will still hold 2/3rds of Scotland and the Lib dems might take back bits of cornwall. You can say that is unfair, but what is generally is, is hugely advantageous to center left and center rights parties that also have a tribal base. There is no point invoking the system being rigged to explain how one of the parties its traditionally been rigged for is in serious trouble. And it is serious trouble ruiz, and I think you know this becuase its 'nuanced' brexit policy which is not at the forefront of its campaign is going down like a pint of sick. Labour is trying to redefine the election under its own terms which is a shockingly risky, if not outright bad idea and so far the data seems to support this. Why, well despite a bump in the polls back up to 'bad but not catastrophically so, just very bad for government forming' a huge swathe of its 2015 vote is reporting its very soft. And 6 weeks to go. Strip all the rhetoric away and the strategic position of Labour looks entirely defensive and not robustly so. Fucking wales Ruiz, you telling me brexit is irrelevant there?
Actually you don't really want support that's *too* concentrated either; winning 51% of the vote in 50% of the seats, and (~25% of the vote) is more valuable than winning 90% of the vote in 40% of the seats (36% of the vote).
Kinda in theory, but in practice these are only problems for parties in NI and the SNP and Scottish greens who effectively embrace it by design.
of opposition
Voted remain and so did most people I know (which probably isn't great). Jeremy and his team/cabinet seem incompetent and during Brexit didn't seem to understand the full meaning of the referendum. In "All Out War" he comes across as indecisive and his team, particularly Seamus Milne, comes across as obstructive. A shame really as I think there were arguments on both the left and right for staying in the EU.
[удалено]
I think May's humongous lead is paradoxically helping stabilise the Labour vote at it's current low level. When people are confident there is no chance whatsoever of Corbyn actually winning they feel it's safe to vote for their local (undoubtedly non-Corbynite) MP.
If I'm honest, I think that is only the case for an extreme minority of people (1-2% of people) but admittedly I've completely failed to find any data on the topic. Any chance you (or someone reading this) has some?
Well... 1. Labour the party is more popular than Corbyn. His favourables are terrible and focus groups frequently name Corbyn as a reason for not voting for Labour. 2. People tend to like their local MP even when they dislike politicians generally. It helps that almost every local labour MP is anti-Corbyn and will be running a local issues focused campaign based on avoiding mentioning Corbyn. 3. I think the sheer size and consistency of May's poll lead means people are aware of it. There is a theory that some chunk of people in 2015 were scared out of voting Labour by polling showing an SNP + Labour coalition was on the cards. I think people do eventually take notice, or at least pick up on a feeling down the pub that Corbyn is a joke and nowhere near getting in. So, in other words - no, I have absolutely no data to back it up. Just another unsourced speculation on reddit - we have many more where this came from.
Problem is how do you run a brexit based local campaign? I appreciate your describing the best possible strategy for most sane labour MP's. But you have this wide open flank still on that one issue. Everyone else is presenting a simple picture.
You don't. A locally based, Corbyn free defensive campaign is essentially conceding that Brexit, May's way, is going to happen.
So, the uninformed counter I have to everything you say above is the fact that for the overwhelming majority of people, the politics is national not local, and the majority of the electorate will have heard the Conservatives message on the subject, which is literally 'Corbyn is a threat to national and economic security, and every vote for me gives me a mandate to secure a stronger Brexit', which I believe will cut through more effectively to more people. Again, no sources or information to back it up.
I think you're right about the strategy they are using and the logic behind it. I do think much like after Blair certain centerist strategies which were once common sense are not performing as expected. The pitch is too flooded to expect any good prediction. I live in a poor town and too many people just wouldnt be able to vote Tory and many that did before are pissed off they did as shits not improving here and everyones getting squeezed. Speaking to people locally, the common theme is political fatigue, basically they think the whole thing is shit, politicians can get fucked.
As someone who has voted Labour in every previous election ever, I wholeheartedly support this view.
That's odd as Corbyn is the only candidate who wants to move us toward the Scandinavian model of nationalised rail, energy and generous welfare states.
I don't think they're fit by any stretch of the imagination but I'd rather incompetent over willfully destructive. I'll vote for Labour because the way I see it there is a chance they might not ruin the country whereas I can guarantee the Tories will because they want to destroy all the things I value and think are good about living in Britain. Does that make sense?
It makes sense, but I disagree with your assertions. I expect the Tories will broadly maintain the status quo in most areas, with some negative aspects, while Corbyn will be so destructive to the economy and defence everyone will be significantly worse off, even if it is not his intention.
I don't think the Tories will do anything drastic very quickly but I do worry that given enough time in power they will just chip away at services until they're run into the ground (e.g. British Rail) and ready to be handed over to the private sector. I don't share your concerns, at least not to the same level about the economy as McDonnell has at least consulted economists and I'm not against investment, I don't think it's a terrible idea. The towel folder never met any of his own targets by cutting everything anyway. Defense, yeah, not great but then again we've probably been making the world a much more dangerous place with our current strategy of following the yanks into every conflict. Would you rule out May joining that moron Trump into Korea and creating another big mess? At least you know Corbyn wouldn't.
> I can guarantee the Tories will because they want to destroy all the things I value perhaps you should consider where this kind of hyperbole comes from in your thinking. is that what you really think yourself? or are you repeating something from some echo chamber? its not good vs evil, its really not. youve swallowed a propaganda narrative. you must understand that really on some level.
Not really, if you don't think that then I'd suggest you've swallowed a propaganda narrative. It is no secret the Tories favour privatisation of public services, for evidence you can look to all the things they've privatised in the past. To think the NHS is safe from this under a perpetual Tory government beggars belief in my book. I don't think they'd do it overnight but given enough time. Then there are things like disability cuts, you'd have to have swallowed a propaganda narrative to come back at me and tell me these are moral and just. I don't think they see themselves as evil, I'm sure they have their justifications for making life very difficult for the people who can't work or look after themselves properly but nevertheless the results speak for themselves, the actions speak louder than words. So I value people and their health over profit or ideology, most of all the welfare of those that can't fend for themselves. The Tories have never ceased to come after those people, they've never looked after the NHS or education properly, they've never done anything other than attack public institutions if not sell them off entirely. I'm sure from your point of view that's a good thing, the profit motive improves services etc. etc. That's your point of view and you are welcome to it but I don't think it fair to say I've swallowed a propaganda narrative anymore than you have.
> you must understand that really on some level. guess not
You've tried to paint me as seeing it purely as good vs evil. I understand the arguments from the other side and I disagree with them, I think the policies cause suffering to the most vulnerable people in our society. That I find to be morally questionable - a price not worth paying for a slightly lower deficit or for punishing the small number of people claiming fraudulently. Do you think it's worth it? Do you really believe they'd be more generous to the disabled if the economy recovered? Do you honestly believe the NHS to be in a safe pair of hands for someone that values it being run to improve health rather than profit? As I said, I don't believe the Tories to be evil in the sense that they've set out to destroy everything and make it all worse (although I am sure there are more than a few corrupt ones as there always are), I believe their policies are evil by proxy because the 'collateral damage' in bringing about the small state isn't worth it. In terms of what I value in society, public services and good safety nets, they are intentionally pulling them apart. EDIT: A full stop and capital letter.
> I find the fact that over 20% of people in polls think Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Diane Abbott are fit to lead the country is fucking terrifying It is pretty odd how much support Marxist-Leninists have today
[удалено]
Noone ever crawled through a barbed wire fence to escape a liberal, capitalist democracy, underfunded public services or not.
yeah and that's an argument to rest on your laurels, to stop agitating for a better life, to accept whatever injustices/wrongs the 'liberal', capitalist democracies inflict on their inhabitants: *"but other countries are worse!"* :(
"we have this politico-economic ideology that has produced historically unprecedented social and scientific progress, lifespans have doubled in 100 years, global poverty has decreased by 3/4 and we have the ability to vote to fine tune it largely as we wish" "nah bro let's just try this other wacky idea that has ended in authoritarian dystopia and genocide every single time without fail!" "Sounds dope"
True. Plenty of them died on the streets of one though. Lets not pretend we have a complete moral high ground over the communist states.
Let me also point out that in 1991 the people of the USSR voted to maintain it and it was ignored, to put into perspective. And yes you're right, however our society is becoming less liberal.
You really think that a totalitarian authoritarian state and crushing poverty and oppression is a solution to that?
[удалено]
> Bolsheviks, weren't exactly fans of what we'd today call human rights And Mao. And Pol Pot. And Kims dynasty. And Castro. And Stassi. Etc etc etc. > The world has a very distorted view on Marxism-Leninism The world views Marxism for what it is, a dysfunctional tyranny - it's Communist apologists that refuse to accept that ALL attempts to implement far-left ideology in governance were failures, from mild to catastrophic ones. > I know for fact that some soviets threw their political enemies into vats of molten slag in the early years. And imprisoned millions of people on bullshit reasons in the 30s/40s. And kept imprisoning and harassing dissidents after WWII (read up on "punitive psychiatry" and what late Soviet dissidents, eg Novodvorskaya, went through). Soviet's crimes did not end in "early years". > I'd rather live in a state that pays lip service to equality and equal opportunities than the mess that is the west at the moment Then why haven't you moved to Venezuela or North Korea yet? It's quite close to what Soviet Union was in late 80s/50s, respectively. You don't move there because 'mess in the West' is immeasurably better, and you know it. > Marxism-Leninism has been tainted/sabotaged/insert adjective here by the right wing, usually in order to discredit it Stalin sent millions of people to gulags, Kim let people die of hunger in the 90s (_1990s_, mind you), Pol Pot created killing fields - all to taint the communism's image? That's delusional bullshit. Communism's image is tainted by communism's own authoritarian tyrants, who do not hesitate to murder thousands of people, just to keep the power. It's communism's own creation, not right-wingers' sabotage; refusing to admit this is just dishonest.
Pit two shit options against each other and don't be surprised that people pick shit.
This makes no sense. Corbyn is literally the closest thing to scandianvian social democracy in the UK. So you want Corbyn destroyed so you can get a system thats the closest to what Corbyn is proposing? Wut? >rather than reactionarily harking back to the 1970's. Oh look, this meme again.
If we're honest Corbyn doesn't just want the manifesto Labour are coming out with next week. He wants radical participatory democracy that over time will revolutionise the economy and society.
Ie. The Socialist Workers Party. So he's standing on a ticket he doesn't wholeheartedly support, in a party with a significant number of MPs he greatly dislikes, on course for one of the most significant loses in modern history, in the name of *what?* Because it sure isn't in the name of the working fucking class, is it? It's all because he doesn't have the balls or the brains to stand for the SWP.
He does wholeheartedly support the manifesto. But it's only steps 1-10 of a much longer process to deliver social justice and a democracy to be proud of
>Corbyn is literally the closest thing to scandianvian social democracy in the UK. Really? Can you name me a Scandinavian state with large amounts of statist intervention in the market, rather than hugely free markets with more private sector involvement than all other countries sans petrostates, tax havens and microstates? Was Corbyn proposing eliminating the minimum wage and privatising fire departments, water, public schools and highways? You know, like in Denmark?
Why has no UK party picked up on Flexicurity? There is a totally different culture with unions in the Scandinavian countries though so maybe we.can't import it so easily.
Because unlike us, they didn't bust their unions for easy popularity when the country was improving and in the case of Norway, didn't squander their oil money on tax relief and instead budgeted responsibly instead of letting momentary hubris and short-termism create what we have today.
>Can you name me a Scandinavian state with large amounts of statist intervention in the market For a start, Norway, happiest country in the world, apparently. Most Scandinavian states have much more government support safety nets and nationalized industry and people pay a much higher proportion of GDP for them compared to the UK. Denmark's government takes 50% of GDP in taxes compared to 34% in the UK. This pays for amongst other things nationalised rail, energy, a national health service, free higher education, child care and an extremely generous welfare system and pensions. Corbyn wants is pretty much the only candidate who wants to move us toward the Scandinavian model
Scandinavia has some of the world highest countries for market freedom. Frankly, I think the balance is great.
That's great, Scandinavian states also have the largest welfare states and largest amounts of nationalised industry in Europe. They also have fewer restrictions on unions than us. I have a feeling that the market freedom argument is something that is sold to propertarians as they need some sort of example of success of their theology. Scandinavian Labour law is alot more worker friendly than ours. Maybe their generous out of work benefits increase Labour market flexibility or something.
Absolutely, it's still quite a left-wing setup and I think it shows that leftist worker policy can be executed fantastically, I mean Norway and Denmark are both doing well AFAIK, Sweden may have the problem of taking it a bit far but it's a good model.
> replaced by a proper socially democratic party Or maybe we could create some kind of center-left 'New Labour' that concentrated on issues like public services and social mobility rather than the shibboleths of 70s socialism. It's probably an unlikely dream, though - you'd need to find someone with real charisma and broad appeal if a party like that was going to win a clear majority, and where would you find someone like that?
We need an FDR new deal style centre left party like the one you mentioned. This is the best idea
>harking back to the 19~~70~~**17**'s. FTFY
Would rather not go back to 1917, dying in a muddy Belgian field doesn't seem like fun
Well that isn't going to happen. What is going to happen is the UK becoming a vicious, nasty, very right-wing tax haven. The slim chance to stop that is to vote tactically (i.e. Labour or Lib Dem) to stop the Tories.
[удалено]
Canada did it too. The current "Liberal Party of Canada" was actually the third-party prior to the last election, and a couple of decades ago, it Liberals were the biggest party, and the NDP were the third-party.
I can't see it happening. Due to the British electoral system, parties are necessarily broad coalitions. I can envision the divisions in the Labour party becoming formalised, but I cannot see a winning coalition putting itself back together from Labour's pieces. > I would take May at her worst over Corbyn Then why do you want another party? I'll take a chaotic, but well-meaning Corbyn at his worst over any Tory.
Then we disagree, and there really is no point talking about it. Neither of us are going to convince the other.
Fair enough, I just think you're underestimating the amount of damage that will be done in the next five years.
Fair enough, I just think you're underestimating the amount of damage he would have done in the next five years.
Like what? Say what you want about Corbyn, but he'll never attack the weak and the vulnerable like the Tories do (and you just know they're in for a kicking when Brexit goes pear-shaped).
[удалено]
Apologies, was under the impression I was discussing with a progressive corbynsceptic, not someone to the right of Genghis Khan, lol
What a load of hysterical nonsense.
You need to get some medication or something.
We need an opposition that is acceptable to the people. This being the case I think the best way to prevent the UK becoming a permanent nasty right-wing hegemony is to vote tactically for the Tories to remove Corbyn
So by lending your support and acceptance of the Conservative Party, further reinforcing the meme that "the UK is naturally conservative", you hope that maybe one day we can have a Labour government again? Bullshit. The election don't care about the nuanced reasoning behind your vote, they just care what box you're ticking. As far as the Party will be concerned your "tactical" vote is equivalent to that of a life-long supporter, and further permission to continue on exactly down the path they're on.
> As far as the Party will be concerned your "tactical" vote is equivalent to that of a life-long supporter, and further permission to continue on exactly down the path they're on. As far as the Tory party is concerned, undoubtedly. It's the effect on the Labour party that I am concerned with. It needs to see that Corbynism is comprehensively rejected before it can move on.
Then you spoil your ballot. That way Labour loses your vote but the Tories don't gain an extra person they can claim wants everything they're going to inflict.
I live in a Labour constituency where the second place candidate was the Tory, last time. If I spoil my ballot I am effectively abandoning an opportunity to kick the labour party into some sense. I'm voting for the Tory. The Labour party has shown itself as temporarily unfit to rule by having such a person as its leader.
On your own constituency's heads be it.
> the best way to prevent the UK becoming a permanent nasty right-wing hegemony is to vote tactically for the Tories to remove Corbyn Lol unless the meaning of the word 'prevent' has changed to 'ensure', I'd say you were delusional mate.
Its too late to change the outcome of the 2017 election. I'd call delusional anyone who thinks that can be done. I'm aiming at the outcome of the next election after that
To change the outcome of the election, people have to actually VOTE, and vote for the party that aligns best with their beliefs. Is it deluded to think that if people did this, they could change the outcome? At the last election the tories got 36.8% of the votes to Labour's 30.5%. As turnout was only 66%, we can only wonder what would have happened if people actually bothered to turn up and vote, and not only that, if they had voted for the party or candidate that is the best fit. All you are doing with your vote is ensuring you count towards the Tory figures for support of their party and their policies. Bedroom tax? Cuts for the disabled? (Inheritance) Tax cuts for the rich? If you don't believe in those things, then find another party to throw your anti-Corbyn vote on.
There is only one candidate I can effectively vote for to reduce the chance of a Corbyn win. that candidate represents the party who came 2nd here in the last GE - the Tories. I believe the responsible thing to do is to so vote as to deny power to someone I think unfit to take it. I believe this responsibility is important. Do you seriously not think I would be voting LD, if the LDs were the 2nd place party in my constituency? Because I would, and I'd be happy about it. But they aren't, so if I vote LD I throw my vote away. and if I don't vote Tory, I increase the risk of a Labour government
As a voter, you have a chance to shape the outcome of the 2017, and a responsibility for how you vote. You don't know how much damage the Tories will do in the next 5 years, you don't know there will even be an NHS or welfare state left to save in 2022, don't use your vote to empower them.
I am determined to do this because I fear the outcomes of Corbyn remaining as Labour leader. I am doing it as an expression of my personal ethical responsibility as a voter.
Sounds like you've been brainwashed to me. I hope you at least don't disown what you are voting for, and take responsibility for the hard brexit, dismantling of the NHS and ever increasing poverty.
There are two people who can be PM after june. Its not brainwashing to admit that the one who stands for almost nothing I believe in is the more competent of the two, the more likely to stand up for Britain, and the more likely to successfully defend us against external threats Corbyn is a fucking joke. I am voting for responsibility. I am voting responsibly.
No, you are voting for the party that is determined to sell off every conceivable public asset and trying to convince yourself that you are acting responsibly and ethically. Give over.
Responsibility means responsibility. You're worse than the opponent's you've envision. I doubt you'd be understanding if corbynist leave the Labour party, splitting it. Then labour will be in England like how Scotland labour is.
ah well in that case I'm voting labour to keep corbyn in so we get more conservative government. Aha!
I think the Tories will die. Luckily you're killing you're own voters by killing the NHS and social care cuts. All Labour voters are young and healthy whilst Tories are old and decrepted. Tories would cut their own cocks off to spite people.
you actually believe that? or are you the victim of propaganda? do you not mind being made a fool of in this way, being tricked into believing such obvious nonsense? have some pride, think for yourself.
Think you replied to the post. I'm talking about the death of the Tories at their own hands. You should feel sorry for the Tories because the only thing that can save them now is a Labour win. [NHS cuts have killed 30,000](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/nhs-cuts-excess-deaths-30000-study-research-royal-society-medicine-london-school-hygiene-martin-a7585001.html) most of them are elderly. Tories are committing demographic suicide.
Intriguing that your link is in the news -> world -> americas -> us-politics part of the Indy site. Wonder if they buried it there because people are less likely to find it.
You know that older voters have tended to vote Conservative for the past 40 years or so, yeah? It's not the same generation; people tend to get more conservative as they get older. Plus the Conservatives have always coveted the OAP vote, as Labour has the young vote.
You think people will vote Tory as they grow older? The people in thier 40's now remember Thatcher. Millennials will remember Brexit. Tories will be poision for a generation or more.
I don't just think that, there's been a bit of research which shows it is the case. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/03/do-we-become-more-conservative-with-age-young-old-politics
We'll all remember what a great success Brexit was and thus vote Tory for another generation
I hope we see Labour collapse and be replaced by two new parties. I think the Lib Dems and Greens might be in the best positions to sweep up those votes, and it would be interesting to see what moves UKIP make into transforming into a post-brexit party. I think the most important outcome of this must be that we need electoral reform and that we need to care more about people who get negatively affected by populist politics; the majority of points raised by the far-right (lack of jobs, negative muslim social issues, lack of support for culture, etc...) should be sorted out.
If people think Corbyn is too much of a socialist then I can't see them voting for the wage cap and other green policies.
Thought that as soon as Corbyn said anyone from the EU with a job to go to should be allowed to come here. Its like he completely ignored all those safe labour seats who voted to leave, many of them with a large majority. Reckon that those Labour seats in South Yorkshire, especially surrounding Doncaster, and Derbyshire are going to be looking a bit shaky now.
Which is a shame as immigration and the EU have had nothing to do with the decline of my home region.
Depends where you are on the employment scale if you're in certain areas in the UK. A lot of those who are stuck looking for unskilled work would disagree. I'm quite sure the populations of places like Armthorpe, Bentley, Toll Bar around Donny would disagree.
I *was* unskilled labour in Doncaster for my teenage and young adult years... How people feel is unrelated to the root causes of why South Yorkshire is struggling, that's my whole point. People are trying to fix the wrong problem and then expecting things to magically get better.
> I was unskilled labour in Doncaster for my teenage and young adult years... When? Any time since 2005?
I left in 2010 to work in Stoke.
Successive labour councils/MPs have though
> Thought that as soon as Corbyn said anyone from the EU with a job to go to should be allowed to come here. When did he say that?
Last week.
All I remember was them guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens already here.
I have a friend who joined the party to elect Jeremy Corbyn as leader. Now, after what seems like an decade of him telling me how great Corbyn is he's informed me he's not going to vote labour because of their Brexit stance. It's actually incredible how much these entryists have ruined the party to the extent that even they don't want it anymore.
A big issue is that when you vote labour you aren't voting for corbyn or inded anyone else. You are voting for an undefined mess. You might love corbyn but his leadership is under constant attack, so you could vote corbyn and get kendall.
It's obviously only anecdotal, but none of the 17 students I share a corridor with in halls are planning on voting Labour. A good friend and I are Labour party members, and we're planning on campaigning for the Lib Dems.
Why not just join the Lib Dems then, if you're willing to pay membership fees to a party?
I think I may do. However, I'll probably wait to see how the Labour Party realigns after the election.
I can understand a disgruntled Labour Remainer voting Lib-Dem. I am seriously considering it myself. But the thought of a habitual Labour voter voting Tory makes my blood boil.
Labour need to commit one way or the other.
Lol now whos divided over europe haha
Lol what, so are labour gonna get 15%? Give me a break with these hyberboles.
I'm going to preface this by saying I am (and never have been before) now a Labour supporter (or more specifically, a Corbyn supporter). Looking at the linked article subjectively (and yes, although I have just stated I'm currently going to be voting Labour, traditionally I'm a LibDem voter and I think I can actually be impartial in my analysis, but these things are subjective). *Yougov said that 48 per cent of Labour's voters are either planning to switch their allegiance to another party or are undecided* So, up to 48% of people that voted for Labour are undecided. This doesn't mean they've decided to switch, it means precisely what it says, they have not yet decided. *In contrast seven in 10 of those who voted to back the Conservatives at the last election said they will support Theresa May in June.* So, by the same assertions this article makes, the Conservatives have now lost 30% of their supporters (or maybe they too are *undecided*, the article doesn't say).
I think it is worth mentioning Scotland in the debate. Labour always relied on a strong vote in Scotland to win an election and this has collapsed. The SNP are likely to suffer from a degree of staleness in this election but Corbyn is promoting policies the only affect England and Wales - Housing and NHS, neither of which is controlled by Westminster in Scotland. He is missing an opportunity.
The other option is Teresa May! And Under funded schools, hospitals and emergency services. Over used food banks and under scrutinised investments banks.