Labour leadership

[laptop]

I dont think that's a legally binding oath

It is, however, a binding contractual term. You can legitimately be prevented from voting if your statement is false.

 

[belboid]

I dont think that's a legally binding oath

it is (one of) the terms of a legally binding contract tho. If it is found that it is not true, the other party to the contract would be legally entitled to consider it null and void.

(quietly curses laptop)

 

[killer b]

But paying £3 and agreeing to that statement, and then voting is more active support than just being cautiously welcoming would imply.

I think you may be giving more weight to that statement than most of the people who've actually signed it.

 

[killer b]

It is, however, a binding contractual term. You can legitimately be prevented from voting if your statement is false.

it is (one of) the terms of a legally binding contract tho. If it is found that it is not true, the other party to the contract would be legally entitled to consider it null and void.

(quietly curses laptop)

so what?

 

[Diamond]

It is, however, a binding contractual term. You can legitimately be prevented from voting if your statement is false.

Perhaps - you can make an argument saying that it lacks certainty and therefore is unenforceable though.

 

[DotCommunist]

Chomps were ten pence when I was a child. If they don't cost at least 15p (if not 20p) by now then I'll be left with no option but to assume they are now made from people.

15p mate. I was reminded of my own mortality when I first noticed that iniquitous price hike

 

[frogwoman]

I think you may be giving more weight to that statement than most of the people who've actually signed it.

But then why sign it and then go to all the trouble of voting etc? You said people viewed it with cautious optimism and in general id agree, but im not sure thats a phrase id use to describe most of the people who have actually signed up.

 

[DotCommunist]

Chomps are 25p

Not under Corbyn they won't be

 

[belboid]

so what?

it means it kinda is a legally binding oath. If it has been taken in falsity, the swearer must bear the consequences. Which is just not getting a vote anyway.

Just bloody pedantry, really (although I didn't join in no small part because I couldn't sign that statement)

 

[Louis MacNeice]

It is, however, a binding contractual term. You can legitimately be prevented from voting if your statement is false.

Not if you vote now online...with your fingers crossed...ironically.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[spitfire]

Not under Corbyn they won't be

I'll be casting my £3 vote later accordingly.

#thesethingsmatter

 

[J Ed]

Not under Corbyn they won't be

I hope that they will be nationalised, subsidised and renamed Chompskys

 

[danny la rouge]

I'll try to keep this concise.

First, pyrrhic - Cameron just won the election, by surprise, on an extremely conservative prospectus. If you think that the electorate are prepared to vote Corbyn in, fair enough, but I think you are fundamentally wrong. Labour tacked left over the last election campaign and were resoundly sunk. Tacking further left still might uphold "values" but will almost certainly sink the party further.

I disagree with you on the last sentence. As to the rest, it remains to be seen how the public will respond to Corbyn in electoral terms, but I don't think you can extrapolate from the Tory victory in May that the conservative prospectus was the cause of their victory. There are many other things to consider. But let me put this point to you: the Tories are in power on a minority of the popular vote, so victory or not, you can't use the election results as evidence for public support for the Tory agenda.

You still haven't explained what would be Pyrrhic and for whom.

And this comes to the fundamental question - do you want Labour to be a party of government?

Who me? I'm an anarchist. I haven't voted Labour since I left the party in the mid-80s.

Second, "Butskellism", "old centre", "used to be the political consensus" - maybe you can start to get the nostalgic picture here.

Nope. Nothing.

But look at what Corbyn proposes: http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/standing_to_deliver For example "Public ownership of railways and in the energy sector". "Of" the railways, but only "in" not "of" the energy sector. Remember electricity remained publically owned until the very end of Thatcher's reign. So Corbyn is potentially suggesting something less than even Thatcher lived for 10 years with.

Corbyn is a siren call to the past that might seem attractive but doesn't read across onto the modern world.

Who are you talking to? Because I have noticed that people are responding to Corbyn doesn't mean I support him.

I was thinking about this further over lunch - how are we to reindustrialise as a nation and which group of young people are you going to persuade to do so when we have limited natural resources left and the jobs that they entail bring with them long, hard hours?

Oh, Jesus. This is too big a topic to even begin with you on, but if you want the Keynesian version read up on FDR and the Overseas Highway. If you want the anarchist communist version (my preference), then read Fields, Factories and Workshops. What Corbyn has proposed is, once more, here: http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/standing_to_deliver

Anything there that suggests working hours being extended?

And finally - isn't the whole point of what happened in May was that the pollsters from YouGov and others got it radically wrong?

"It"? They called this election wrong. That doesn't mean they are wrong about everything.

I'm not sure how that happened

Clearly.

You haven't answered my questions, as I was warned, but lets summarise our disagreements: you are a pro-parliamentarian and as far as I can tell a rightist. I am neither.

 

[Pickman's model]

So the result of the general election was not a Tory victory?

Is that what you are saying?

what i am saying is it is iniquitous for a party with the support of a scanty 25% of the electorate to have achieved a plurality of seats. and it is a sign of deep-rooted stupidity to take such a tainted victory as evidence that the country is four-square behind the conservatives and their view of politics more generally.

 

[killer b]

it means it kinda is a legally binding oath. If it has been taken in falsity, the swearer must bear the consequences. Which is just not getting a vote anyway.

Just bloody pedantry, really (although I didn't join in no small part because I couldn't sign that statement)

You could have. You could have fibbed.

That's what I'm saying - you're taking this much more seriously than most of the people who've signed up - they've paid their 3 quid and told a small lie, and when the ballot papers come through they'll spend a few minutes voting for Corbyn - it's hardly a giddy breathless headlong leap into some kind of blind faith in the revolution, tomorrow.

 

[LDC]

Not under Corbyn they won't be

The Daily Mail says under Corbyn they'll be 25 roubles.

 

[Favelado]

I hope that they will be nationalised, subsidised and renamed Chompskys

Nom Chompskys

 

[frogwoman]

You could have. You could have fibbed.

That's what I'm saying - you're taking this much more seriously than most of the people who've signed up - they've paid their 3 quid and told a small lie, and when the ballot papers come through they'll spend a few minutes voting for Corbyn - it's hardly a giddy breathless headlong leap into some kind of blind faith in the revolution, tomorrow.

But i dont think anyone was saying that most people thought it was? Just that these people do exist, a lot of them former or current members of other leftist groups, and they seem to have enough of a presence for me not to want to take it seriously. (Among many other reasons)

 

[rutabowa]

they'll spend a few minutes voting for Corbyn - it's hardly a giddy breathless headlong leap into some kind of blind faith in the revolution, tomorrow.

it only took me 5 minutes because i didn't know I'd have to vote for the deputy and the major as well, so I had spend some time coming back to this thread and asking how to vote.

 

[Diamond]

what i am saying is it is iniquitous for a party with the support of a scanty 25% of the electorate to have achieved a plurality of seats. and it is a sign of deep-rooted stupidity to take such a tainted victory as evidence that the country is four-square behind the conservatives and their view of politics more generally.

So your complaint is constitutional?

But, also, what is your source for 25% of the electorate?

 

[killer b]

But i dont think anyone was saying that most people thought it was? Just that these people do exist, a lot of them former or current members of other leftist groups, and they seem to have enough of a presence for me not to want to take it seriously. (Among many other reasons)

do you judge all political movements by the stances of their loudest and most foolish adherents?

 

[Pickman's model]

But, also, what is your source for 25% of the electorate?

 

[frogwoman]

do you judge all political movements by the stances of their loudest and most foolish adherents?

Well, no not at all. Ive already said my reasons why i have trouble supporting it and the stupid bollocks being uttered on a regular basis is just making me more annoyed with the whole thing as time goes on.

 

[Pickman's model]

But, also, what is your source for 25% of the electorate?

36.9 x 0.661 = 24.4 <-- this is the percentage of the registered voters who voted conservative.

 

[rutabowa]

public phone-in with jeremy corbyn from earlier today http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b066f91x#play

 

[Diamond]

I disagree with you on the last sentence. As to the rest, it remains to be seen how the public will respond to Corbyn in electoral terms, but I don't think you can extrapolate from the Tory victory in May that the conservative prospectus was the cause of their victory. There are many other things to consider. But let me put this point to you: the Tories are in power on a minority of the popular vote, so victory or not, you can't use the election results as evidence for public support for the Tory agenda.

You still haven't explained what would be Pyrrhic and for whom.

Who me? I'm an anarchist. I haven't voted Labour since I left the party in the mid-80s.

Nope. Nothing.

But look at what Corbyn proposes: http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/standing_to_deliver For example "Public ownership of railways and in the energy sector". "Of" the railways, but only "in" not "of" the energy sector. Remember electricity remained publically owned until the very end of Thatcher's reign. So Corbyn is potentially suggesting something less than even Thatcher lived for 10 years with.

Who are you talking to? Because I have noticed that people are responding to Corbyn doesn't mean I support him.

Oh, Jesus. This is too big a topic to even begin with you on, but if you want the Keynesian version read up on FDR and the Overseas Highway. If you want the anarchist communist version (my preference), then read Fields, Factories and Workshops. What Corbyn has proposed is, once more, here: http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/standing_to_deliver

Anything there that suggests working hours being extended?

"It"? They called this election wrong. That doesn't mean they are wrong about everything.

Clearly.

You haven't answered my questions, as I was warned, but lets summarise our disagreements: you are a pro-parliamentarian and as far as I can tell a rightist. I am neither.

First, the Tories hold a significant majority of the popular vote as far as I am aware - happy to be corrected if I'm wrong on that.

Second, Corbyn's victory would be pyrrhic because it would be a triumph for long suppressed Labour values that would lead to the the party going down in flames. Politics is the art of the possible etc...

Third, I like the "standing to deliver" part of the manifesto in terms of its ambitions but I'm not sure how that drives back towards a publically owned economy whatsoever. And, leading on from that, how do you think British working rules and regulations will allow this putative British industry, which I quite frankly have no idea from where it will launch forth, compete with other nations? It's not a nice idea that other people elsewhere are prepared to work a lot harder for a lot less pay doing more unpleasant industrial jobs but it is the fact of the matter.

Pro-parliament? Not sure what you're getting at here. Yes, I think our constitution works pretty well, as it has done for hundreds of years.

Rightist? That makes you sound like a Maoist but if you want to make that judgment, feel free.

 

[killer b]

Well, no not at all. Ive already said my reasons why i have trouble supporting it and the stupid bollocks being uttered on a regular basis is just making me more annoyed with the whole thing as time goes on.

fine, but the posts you've made over the last page or so are arguing against something some dickhead trots are saying on your facebook feed rather than what's being discussed by posters here. you don't like it when treelover does that, so it's not unreasonable to ask you to exercise restraint yourself.

 

[Pickman's model]

First, the Tories hold a significant majority of the popular vote as far as I am aware - happy to be corrected if I'm wrong on that.

but this chart does not show the 33.9% of people who decided on 'none of the above'

 

[Diamond]

but this chart does not show the 33.9% of people who decided on 'none of the above'

That's a pretty poor cop-out.

Your point was designed to show that the Tories had an extremely marginal victory - even your own stats don't demonstrate that.

Very weak stuff.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, I think our constitution works pretty well, as it has done for hundreds of years.

could you pls link to this excellent constitution?