Corbyn & Cabinet in the Media

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm guessing that those numbers will be dismissed because they're inconvenient.

Read them more carefully and you find 56% favouring replacing Trident. So there's a soft majority actively in favour of nukes overall, which becomes a soft minority in Scotland, where people are more exercised in their thoughts about it and it has been on the forefront of the political agenda for a while. Making a case and getting things discussed makes a difference to these things.

Plus, as ever, you should never just go on one poll (and I'd be saying the same if it were giving a majority against) - you need to bear a few things in mind, including methodology, the phrasing of the question and the timing of the question (what else is in the news at the time - this matters). A better idea is given by metadata from a few polls. And an even better idea is given by metadata from a few polls once the issue has been at the front of the political agenda for a period of time.

 

[Pickman's model]

Read them more carefully and you find 56% favouring replacing Trident. So there's a soft majority actively in favour of nukes overall, which becomes a soft minority in Scotland, where people are more exercised in their thoughts about it and it has been on the forefront of the political agenda for a while. Making a case and getting things discussed makes a difference to these things.

Plus, as ever, you should never just go on one poll (and I'd be saying the same if it were giving a majority against) - you need to bear a few things in mind, including methodology, the phrasing of the question and the timing of the question (what else is in the news at the time - this matters). A better idea is given by metadata from a few polls. And an even better idea is given by metadata from a few polls once the issue has been at the front of the political agenda for a period of time.

it's nuanced opinions like these that make MarkyMarrk's blood boil.

 

[MarkyMarrk]

Great, you can prove stuff with numbers. How about constructing a coherent argument? Is that beyond your ken?

You asked for numbers. I gave them. "Thank you" would suffice.

 

[MarkyMarrk]

Not to mention the question of what he would gain by nuking us.
But all that would be irrelevant. The 'argument' would be Putin can't nuke us now because we can nuke him back; if we got rid of Trident we wouldn't be able to do that. Most of the electorate won't analyse the situation further.

I don't think Putin analyses it much further. The prospect of Mutually agreed destruction kept us alive during the cold war.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The prospect of Mutually agreed destruction kept us alive during the cold war.

This argument is fireproof right up to the day when it isn't.

Also, tell that to the families of the dead in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and all the other countries the superpowers bombed during the Cold War.

 

[Pickman's model]

You asked for numbers. I gave them. "Thank you" would suffice.

i think at this point most people would use the efficacious word.

 

[gosub]

This argument is fireproof right up to the day when it isn't.

Also, tell that to the families of the dead in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and all the other countries the superpowers bombed during the Cold War.

That if Vietnam or Afghanistan had had nukes, they wouldn't have been invaded. More than likely.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That if Vietnam or Afghanistan had had nukes, they wouldn't have been invaded. More than likely.

Every country in the world should have nukes! That way we can all be safe.

 

[Flanflinger]

What do you base this judgement on? Nobody has ever been given a vote on whether or not to remove nuclear weapons.

The 1983 GE was the closest we have got to that vote.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The 1983 GE was the closest we have got to that vote.

I'd say two things to that -

1. it wasn't that close, given that it was also, and probably mainly, about a whole host of other things.

2. It was over 30 years ago. Things change.

 

[Pickman's model]

The 1983 GE was the closest we have got to that vote.

but no cigar

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

It does seem from the polls that there's a majority favouring keeping Trident. That's not surprising when the argument against is barely heard though is it? A big part of the reason Labour has just kept lurching to the right is the belief that there's a fixed (and very right wing) electorate and the trick is to keep following them instead of deciding what the party stands for and trying to convince people of that.

 

[Mr Moose]

Ken's got the old heave-ho from the review.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Reading through Labour blogs, one that caught my attention argued:

"We need a culture change. I suggest looking at:

• As a party, learn to debate reasonably, so we have disagreements not fights. Both left and right of the party seem convinced that organising is the way to shape the party, never persuasion.
• Recreate routes for working class people to get into politics. And by “working class” I mean manual workers and unskilled labourers who haven’t even gone to university.
• Give up on identity politics. We are not the arbiters of who is or is not sexist or racist. Positive discrimination makes us look utterly unconcerned with fair treatment of individuals.
• Don’t let any issue be a taboo. Immigration is the obvious issue, but we are becoming equally unable to articulate sensible thoughts on benefit spending too.
• Stop arguing over the record of the last Labour government. And in particular, don’t make future policy on the basis of continuing, or correcting, the policy of the last Labour government.
• Stop attacking the media whenever we are unable to get good coverage.

Ideally, we could have a Labour Party that wasn’t dominated by underachieving middle class people who work in the public sector (like me) arguing over history and developing grudges about things nobody in the real world cares about."

I agree with it.

All very well, but what you've posted misses the importance of the party's relationship to power for some members. Bear in mind that for some Parliamentary Labour Party members, a Labour Party seeking government can only ever be a neoliberal Labour Party sitting firmly behind all facets of neoliberalism, subverting the party's policies and politics to the sustainment of neoliberalism.

 

[MarkyMarrk]

All very well, but what you've posted misses the importance of the party's relationship to power for some members. Bear in mind that for some Parliamentary Labour Party members, a Labour Party seeking government can only ever be a neoliberal Labour Party sitting firmly behind all facets of neoliberalism, subverting the party's policies and politics to the sustainment of neoliberalism.

Who in the PLP says this? Have you got a link?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Mass executions coming up according to the Inde. Possibly by beheading possibly all at once by machine gun, they don't specify:

Corbyn critics ‘fear bloodbath’ after constituency boundary changes

And yet once you've read the article, the fact that some of Corbyn's critics find their seats under threat turns out to have nothing to do with them being "Corbyn critics", and everything to do with bad luck, the whiney bastards.

 

[Pickman's model]

these 'corbyn critics' are as nice as the people you used to see introduced on the news as 'saudi dissidents'.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Who in the PLP says this? Have you got a link?

My own MP - Chuka Umunna - has made quite clear his commitment to the perpetuation of neoliberalism. Progress members also make this quite clear - their raison d'etre is perpetuation of the "new Labour" vision - essentially the submission of Labour Party politics to neoliberalism.
As for links, you only need read through the Progress website, although I'd advise keeping a bottle of your favourite indigestion remedy handy.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Indeed, their constant whining, sniping and criticism of the leadership does make the party appear more divided, and less attractive to voters.

That appears to be the intention.

 

[irf520]

Who in the PLP says this? Have you got a link?

Why do you need a link? Look at their policies last time they were in power. It was mostly about sucking up to mega corporations. You could barely put a rizla paper between Labour and Tory policies.

 

[killer b]

That appears to be the intention.

It is the intention. Dethrone and take over before the next GE, or dethrone and take over after, they don't really mind, although presumably they'd prefer before. What isn't an option (for the right of the party) is a Corbyn victory in 2020.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Oh noes, it would mean the following (amongst others) would have to seek nomination in new/redrawn seats: Hilary Benn, Chuka Umunna, Tristram Hunt, Liam Byrne, and Alison McGovern. A catastrophe for the Labour party I tell you.

Chuckles I wouldn't piss on if he were burning, given the atrocious job he's done for those of his constituents that live in social housing or squats. Hunt (according to Stokey mates) is a condescending shambles, and Byrne is a full-blown Blairite with no room for anything remotely socially-driven, only the market.

 

[laptop]

It strikes me that it's the "Corbyn critics" who have abandoned the Labour Party as "unelectable".

If they hadn't, they'd not be shooting their mouths off to any hack from a Tory rag who'll buy them a drink or three... would they?

We don't see as much, or any, mouth-shooting from the friends of Jeremy, do we?


E2A: I seem to have been preceded...

 

[MarkyMarrk]

My own MP - Chuka Umunna - has made quite clear his commitment to the perpetuation of neoliberalism. Progress members also make this quite clear - their raison d'etre is perpetuation of the "new Labour" vision - essentially the submission of Labour Party politics to neoliberalism.
As for links, you only need read through the Progress website, although I'd advise keeping a bottle of your favourite indigestion remedy handy.

I'll take that as a no.

 

[MarkyMarrk]

Why do you need a link? Look at their policies last time they were in power. It was mostly about sucking up to mega corporations. You could barely put a rizla paper between Labour and Tory policies.

I'll take that as a 'no' as well.

 

[MarkyMarrk]

Chuckles I wouldn't piss on if he were burning, given the atrocious job he's done for those of his constituents that live in social housing or squats. Hunt (according to Stokey mates) is a condescending shambles, and Byrne is a full-blown Blairite with no room for anything remotely socially-driven, only the market.

They should not be elected next time then if so unpopular in the constituencies.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Minor league compared to what is happening within a few weeks of Corbyn's election.

The Labour Party has been heading left since 1997. More and more of the members think politics is about them, rather than the electorate. Hence we have the Tories guaranteed power until well into the 2020s.

The Labour Party headed right politically and economically from 1994 until they lost power in 2010. What you claim flies in the face of facts to the contrary.
A few examples:
1) The Labour Party elite re-engineered the party's constitution without wider membership approval.
2) The Labour Party hierarchy centralised power away from constituency parties.
3) The Labour Party de-regulated the economy further than the Tories had done, with the inevitable (to any of us who can read history books and or do basic arithmetic) consequences.
4) The Labour Party engaged in crony capitalism on a wide scale, and expanded the "revolving door" between business and government.

All the above are moves to the right, and all had a powerful effect on removing accountability from government.

 

[MarkyMarrk]

The Labour Party headed right politically and economically from 1994 until they lost power in 2010. What you claim flies in the face of facts to the contrary.
A few examples:
1) The Labour Party elite re-engineered the party's constitution without wider membership approval.
2) The Labour Party hierarchy centralised power away from constituency parties.
3) The Labour Party de-regulated the economy further than the Tories had done, with the inevitable (to any of us who can read history books and or do basic arithmetic) consequences.
4) The Labour Party engaged in crony capitalism on a wide scale, and expanded the "revolving door" between business and government.

All the above are moves to the right, and all had a powerful effect on removing accountability from government.

Blair to Brown to Miliband to Corbyn.

IE left to left to left.
Arithmetic? Look at the elections.

 

[ViolentPanda]

They should not be elected next time then if so unpopular in the constituencies.

You don't appear to understand either electoral dynamics, political tribalism or the current political system of "parliamentary democracy".
Local party members don't have the power to choose their prospective parliamentary candidate. The hierarchy of the national party allocated that power to itself 20 years ago, in order to parachute followers of the Blairite project into seats.

 

[stethoscope]

Blair to Brown to Miliband to Corbyn.

IE left to left to left.
Arithmetic? Look at the elections.

Not really. Corbyn is the first in a long time to try and shift Labour from it's centre-right (Blairite) position. And look at the consternation it's creating!