The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[Dardandec 32]

43 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Which begs the question, why do we allow the super- rich Elite 1%, who, make no mistake, have got the system nicely rigged in their favour, to dictate terms to the rest of us?

How can "the super- rich Elite 1%" dictate terms to the rest of us? I'm confused? Oh wait on, no it can't be can it? Oh yes that is it, "the super- rich Elite 1%" persuaded you to vote leave, forget everything I just said, sorry.

[Dardandec 32]

52 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Which is why we probably need Proportional Representation. However we are stuck with a 2 party system which means we have to use crude methods of identity division for the sake of speed.

We did have a vote on it Anna in 2011 and FPTP won.

[Pettytom 1]

On 07/11/2019 at 08:38, Jeddo said:

Wow ...see  live Ian Austin (resigned Lab MP) interview with Kay Burley this morning. Says Corbyn not fit to run country or Lab party, and trad Labour voters should vote Tory in this coming election because although he doesn't agree with all the Toies do, they are fit to run the country, and there are only two real options for PM  in this election.

 

The guy nearly broke down and said he had to be honest about the state of tbe Labour Party now.

Did you see Kay Burley’s interview with James Cleverley?

 

Or, were you still in the toilet reflecting upon the Austin interview with some paper products?

31 minutes ago, Dardandec said:

We did have a vote on it Anna in 2011 and FPTP won.

No reason why we shouldn’t have another vote. People might have changed their minds.

[Anna B 1,414]

55 minutes ago, Dardandec said:

We did have a vote on it Anna in 2011 and FPTP won.

No, although the Lib Dems wanted PR and pushed for a vote on it before they would agree to a coalition pact, we didn't actually vote on PR. We voted on a different system that nobody understood and nobody wanted.

 

It was a typically scheming and unscrupulous Tory switch tactic that paid off handsomely for them.

 

The Tories didn't want the voting system changed (why would they? It's rigged in their favour...) but they agreed to a vote for change to secure the coalition, but the Lib Dems neglected to specify to which system, thus leaving the Tories able to move the goalposts to a different system (which as I said nobody wanted,) and in return the Lib Dems were forced to agree to giving up their election manifesto promise to abolish student fees, which brought their worst result in the following election, lost Leader Nick Clegg and many other Lib Dem MPs their seats, broke the coalition, and gave Cameron overall total control at the following election.  

 

You have to watch the Machiavellian Tories for every detail. . .

Edited November 11, 2019 by Anna B

[Dardandec 32]

26 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

No reason why we shouldn’t have another vote. People might have changed their minds.

Absolutely, I'm not disputing that, but it is going to be a heck of a long time before there are any referendums in this country again (forsaking any possible people's vote, but that will only be to sort the mess out from the first one. If that is even possible.)

7 minutes ago, Anna B said:

No, although the Lib Dems wanted PR and pushed for a vote on it before they would agree to a coalition pact, we didn't actually vote on PR. We voted on a different system that nobody understood and nobody wanted.

 

It was a typically scheming and unscrupulous Tory switch tactic that paid off handsomely for them.

 

The Tories didn't want the voting system changed (why would they? It's rigged in their favour...) but they agreed to a vote for change to secure the coalition, but the Lib Dems neglected to specify to which system, thus leaving the Tories able to move the goalposts to a different system (which as I said nobody wanted,) and in return the Lib Dems were forced to agree to giving up their election manifesto promise to abolish student fees, which brought their worst result in the following election, lost Leader Nick Clegg and many other Lib Dem MPs their seats, broke the coalition, and gave Cameron overall total control at the following election.  

 

You have to watch the Machiavellian Tories for every detail. . .

Labour won in 1997 with a massive landslide, didn't hear them moaning about FPTP?

[Anna B 1,414]

7 minutes ago, Dardandec said:

Absolutely, I'm not disputing that, but it is going to be a heck of a long time before there are any referendums in this country again (forsaking any possible people's vote, but that will only be to sort the mess out from the first one. If that is even possible.)

Labour won in 1997 with a massive landslide, didn't hear them moaning about FPTP?

Neither of the 2 main parties want PR, it will reduce their power base. 

 

The only reason we got the chance at all was because of the coalition.

 

The Lib Dems , who do want it, made it the price of their cooperation in the Tory / Lib Dem pact. The moral is to never get into bed with the Tories, you just can't trust them.

[Anna B 1,414]

Indeed...

 

2 hours ago, CaptainSwing said:

If that's why "ordinary" people vote for the Tories, then "ordinary" people are misinformed.  As your own Peter Hitchens puts it, "The Tory record on the economy is dreadful ... to vote Tory because you think the economy is safe in their hands is actually daft."

 

Discussed here:

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/408858-peter-hitchens-~-mail-blog

 

 

 

                 Ooops made a mess of that, sorry. Posted by mistake.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Anna B

[Anna B 1,414]

12 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

Yes, that was my point.  In general, people have been propagandised into voting for parties that espouse policies well to the right of the ones they (the people) believe in.  That was one of the points made in the London Economics article that you linked to, and was borne out by the Political Compass thread a while back.  IIRC, one person on that thread who self-identifies as a LibDem came out closer to the Greens, and another who routinely decries "lefties" on the forum came out somewhere between the Greens and Labour, on the left/right axis.

 

I'll just repeat the quote from Edward Bernays that I posted some time ago.  [In case anybody doesn't know, he was one of the 20th century's most effective propagandists - he got women smoking, and made US interference in Latin American affairs acceptable to the American people.]

 

Here is the quote:

 

“[W]hen the example of the leader is not at hand and the herd must think for itself, it does so by means of clichés, pat words or images which stand for a whole group of ideas or experiences.  Not many years ago, it was only necessary to tag a political candidate with the word interests to stampede millions of people into voting against him … Recently the word Bolshevik has performed a similar service for persons who wished to frighten the public away from a line of action."

 

From Propaganda (1928)

 

For Bolshevik we can of course now substitute Corbyn or maybe just socialist.

We hear this ridiculous Bolshevik claim about Corbyn, but much less about Boris and co. being Neoliberals. The Tory party has moved on. One thing they are good at however is coining a catchy cliche which they repeat at every opportunity until it becomes part of the zeitguiest and is oft repeated by misinformed people who can't think for themselves. Oh, and attacking their opponents rather than discussing the issues that matter, which is why I think Corbyn will do well in the live TV debates.

[Ms Macbeth 75]

Do the Labour activists really believe that their stance on immigration will encourage anyone other than themselves to support Corbyn?  I suspect if its part of their manifesto it could have the opposite effect in many constituencies.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/10/labour-activists-call-on-jeremy-corbyn-to-push-radical-stance-on-migration

[alchresearch 214]

6 hours ago, Anna B said:

 One thing they are good at however is coining a catchy cliche which they repeat at every opportunity until it becomes part of the zeitguiest and is oft repeated by misinformed people who can't think for themselves. 

Yes. New Labour, New Danger was a pretty memorable one. Didn't work though, Labour had a landslide victory.

 

But, in hindsight, was it right?

 

[convert 10]

You really couldn't make it up.

 

Does anyone know the LAbbour party policy regards Brexit?

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7671943/Emily-Thornberry-gets-muddled-tries-explain-Labours-Brexit-stance.html#v-3149767747182179516

 

 

It seems that even senior mebers of the party don't.

 

 

If they can't get their ducks in a row on this, what chance have they of forming a Government!

 

[tinfoilhat 11]

11 minutes ago, convert said:

You really couldn't make it up.

 

Does anyone know the LAbbour party policy regards Brexit?

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7671943/Emily-Thornberry-gets-muddled-tries-explain-Labours-Brexit-stance.html#v-3149767747182179516

 

 

It seems that even senior mebers of the party don't.

 

 

If they can't get their ducks in a row on this, what chance have they of forming a Government!

 

Even I know this, corbyn tweeted it.

 

3 month renegotiation.

Peoples vote.