Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Andrew Hertford]

Once you tell me who John O'Donnell is.

John O'Donnell is a boxer. I mistook the name McDonnell for O'Donnell.

Now, explain your way of changing government which doesn't involve the democratic process...

 

[Pickman's model]

John O'Donnell is a boxer. I mistook the name McDonnell for O'Donnell.

Now, explain your way of changing government which doesn't involve the democratic process...

Yeh that being the case why haven't you responded to my previous requests about o'donnell?

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Yeh that being the case why haven't you responded to my previous requests about o'donnell?

So is it that you can't back up your claim? Or do you just refuse to?

 

[Pickman's model]

So people like Big Tom are wasting their time trying to shift public opinion?

Do you have a way of changing government which doesn’t involve democracy??

Yeh military coups. Coalitions. Changes in party leadership. Revolution.

 

[Pickman's model]

So is it that you can't back up your claim? Or do you just refuse to?

No, it's due to me doing other things tonight than being solely at you beck and call you effete and ineffectual twat. You don't even know what you were asking

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Yeh military coups. Coalitions. Changes in party leadership. Revolution.

Coalitions depend on democracy, so does change of leadership. The tories changed leader recently, do you think that means we no longer have a tory government?

Do you favour revolution and military coups?

 

[Pickman's model]

Coalitions depend on democracy, so does change of leadership. The tories changed leader recently, do you think that means we no longer have a tory government?

Do you favour revolution and military coups?

You asked about changes in government which can mean both a change in direction as well as a change of government. Coalitions don't need to depend on election s eg during ww2

 

[Andrew Hertford]

You asked about changes in government which can mean both a change in direction as well as a change of government. Coalitions don't need to depend on election s eg during ww2

The WW2 coalition did depend on democracy, the two parties involved were the ones which won most seats in Parliament at the previous GE.

I didn't ask about changes in government, I asked about changing government.

So that leaves coups and revolution. Do you favour either of them?

 

[Mr Moose]

That was the baffling thing about that campaign. Miliband had helped expose serial press criminality and had stopped something that would have been one of the more stupid foreign policy adventures of recent times, and yet they were never mentioned and instead they spent their time talking about immigrants, agreeing with austerity and raising menhirs.

Those things weren't going to win enough votes. After the financial crisis and the 'there's no money left' disasters Labour couldn't just ignore the hole in the economy. It tried to put the case for investment/growth and less cutting but either their hearts weren't really in cutting (vote loser with those who feared 'overspending') or they were (a traditional vote loser). They could hardly ignore immigration either. It's ironic, given the reaction to the Thornberry tweet here and elsewhere and that immigration utterly dominated the referendum, that in some way you think Labour could have dodged talking about it. I bet they got it on many a doorstep.

As it was they needed a decent pitch, a war on undercutting wages, homes for all, some way that migration and need could be balanced but they tried to look tough and came over as both nasty and ineffectual.

Life will or should be easier for Labour post Brexit, post the Brexit/Trump attacks on Liberalism. It is free to make a clear pitch for doing things together and demarcate itself from the Tories. But Corbyn can't lead that. His political capital and authority was all spent years ago.

 

[teqniq]

Interesting. Could it be that Corbyn has effectively written off the PLP north of the border?

Jeremy Corbyn says a second Scottish independence referendum would be 'absolutely fine'

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Interesting. Could it be that Corbyn has effectively written off the PLP north of the border?

Jeremy Corbyn says a second Scottish independence referendum would be 'absolutely fine'

It does, as well as writing off any realistic chance of a Labour government whether it's led by him or anyone else.

 

[emanymton]

Interesting. Could it be that Corbyn has effectively written off the PLP north of the border?

Jeremy Corbyn says a second Scottish independence referendum would be 'absolutely fine'

What PLP north of the border?

 

[Pickman's model]

The WW2 coalition did depend on democracy, the two parties involved were the ones which won most seats in Parliament at the previous GE.

I didn't ask about changes in government, I asked about changing government.

So that leaves coups and revolution. Do you favour either of them?

You don't know what the fuck you asked, it keeps changing

 

[Mr Moose]

Interesting. Could it be that Corbyn has effectively written off the PLP north of the border?

Jeremy Corbyn says a second Scottish independence referendum would be 'absolutely fine'

One way for Labour to hold UKIP in check would be a simple rebranding of Labour into not only Scottish Labour but also more clearly and defined the Labour Party of England and Wales, thereby taking on a mildly national or regionalist type agenda similar to the SNP. Of course then it's Unionist position is more federal or even not at all.

He needs to be careful talking about the 'regions' though. Scotland is a nation.

Mostly though this is pure Corbo. Never wishing to offend. There will be another referendum and he'll probably campaign for the Union with the all the appetite of a cat eating dry weetabix.

 

[agricola]

Those things weren't going to win enough votes. After the financial crisis and the 'there's no money left' disasters Labour couldn't just ignore the hole in the economy. It tried to put the case for investment/growth and less cutting but either their hearts weren't really in cutting (vote loser with those who feared 'overspending') or they were (a traditional vote loser). They could hardly ignore immigration either. It's ironic, given the reaction to the Thornberry tweet here and elsewhere and that immigration utterly dominated the referendum, that in some way you think Labour could have dodged talking about it. I bet they got it on many a doorstep.

As it was they needed a decent pitch, a war on undercutting wages, homes for all, some way that migration and need could be balanced but they tried to look tough and came over as both nasty and ineffectual.

Life will or should be easier for Labour post Brexit, post the Brexit/Trump attacks on Liberalism. It is free to make a clear pitch for doing things together and demarcate itself from the Tories. But Corbyn can't lead that. His political capital and authority was all spent years ago.

I am not sure that they wouldn't have won enough votes; if anything they would have probably attracted far more votes than signing up to offer Diet versions of what the Tories were proposing did, and reminding people at every turn of what the papers had done would have at least given a response to the slating that they were giving him. As part of the decent pitch you propose they could have easily helped people see that the Government made bad decisions that would make things worse, something that is demonstrably true in terms of the economy.

 

[Mr Moose]

You don't know what the fuck you asked, it keeps changing

Just discuss it with him and have done for heavens sakes.

 

[brogdale]

Just discuss it with him and have done for heavens sakes.

He'd have to say wtf he means by democracy for there to be any hope of meaningful discourse.

 

[Mr Moose]

I am not sure that they wouldn't have won enough votes; if anything they would have probably attracted far more votes than signing up to offer Diet versions of what the Tories were proposing did, and reminding people at every turn of what the papers had done would have at least given a response to the slating that they were giving him. As part of the decent pitch you propose they could have easily helped people see that the Government made bad decisions that would make things worse, something that is demonstrably true in terms of the economy.

They were always going to lose. The polls were fatal in allowing them to think that it was close (that was the view on U75) so they should play the loaded game.

They should have kicked Ed out before and campaigned on something their supporters believed in. It was craven.

 

[Mr Moose]

He'd have to say wtf he means by democracy for there to be any hope of meaningful discourse.

Hertford from Mars, Pickman's from Venus.

 

[agricola]

Hertford from Mars, Pickman's from Venus.

Good under pressure, and destroys Soviet space probes?

 

[brogdale]

Cue Uranus jokes.

 

[teqniq]

What PLP north of the border?

 

[Andrew Hertford]

And you still can't answer his question - how does voting for right-leaning Labour (which basically imposes austerity, and privatisation - albeit 'less hard and fast' than the Tories) actually help to protect public services, public ownership for the benefit of the working class? And how does it in anyway lead to Labour shifting leftwards in the future (at least in government?).

BigTom has been really patient and fair, and explained his positions with you, so give him some respect and stop being such a cock.

Where did I say that we should vote for 'right-leaning Labour which basically imposes austerity, and privatisation'? That's merely your own interpretation of what Labour would be if it wasn’t led by Corbyn.

The only question being avoided is what is the point of the Labour party if it can’t get elected?

Why do you keep doing this shit when you know that's not what posters like BigTom remotely think or have said?

I respect Tom’s point of view and it may not be what Tom thinks or has said, but favouring an unelectable Labour Party because that might hasten ‘real change’, does indeed amount to sacrificing several generations of poor and vulnerable people to tory cuts. Even then, real change is by no means guaranteed.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Just discuss it with him and have done for heavens sakes.

I don't think he can.

 

[Pickman's model]

Where did I say that we should vote for 'right-leaning Labour which basically imposes austerity, and privatisation'? That's merely your own interpretation of what Labour would be if it wasn’t led by Corbyn.

The only question being avoided is what is the point of the Labour party if it can’t get elected?



I respect Tom’s point of view and it may not be what Tom thinks or has said, but favouring an unelectable Labour Party because that might hasten ‘real change’, does indeed amount to sacrificing several generations of poor and vulnerable people to tory cuts. Even then, real change is by no means guaranteed.

Don't know about where you live but all the Labour councils of which I'm aware have imposed austerity before and indeed during Corbyn's leadership. In a very real sense they impose austerity and privatisation - see e.g. Haringey, Hackney, Southwark, Lambeth, Camden...

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't think he can.

Yeh. Like you are in any sense the arbiter of debate here.

 

[Pickman's model]

So people like Big Tom are wasting their time trying to shift public opinion?

Do you have a way of changing government which doesn’t involve democracy??

1

 

[Pickman's model]

Then you need to explain precisely how we can change government without the democratic process. Because until you do, it's a meaningless claim.

2

 

[Pickman's model]

You said there was a way of changing government which doesn’t involve democracy.

Describe it.

... And back to 1 again

You do see how the question changes I hope

 

[redsquirrel]

Where did I say that we should vote for 'right-leaning Labour which basically imposes austerity, and privatisation'? That's merely your own interpretation of what Labour would be if it wasn’t led by Corbyn.

So when was the last time the Labour Party, either in government or opposition, was opposed to privatisation, was not attacking the working class, wasn't neo-liberal?

And as PM, myself, steph etc have repeatedly pointed out the Labour Party is currently imposing austerity and privatisation on communities at the local level.