The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[Ridgewalk 99]

11 hours ago, Longcol said:

The Corbynistas made Labour unelectable - simple as. He was never electable during his "honeymoon" period - ie the 2017 election when Labour trailed the Tories by 55 seats - the longer he was leader the more he was rejected by the electorate. He was a half decent leader of a protest group - never in a million years a Prime Minister.

 

Labour will always struggle without the 54 seats they relied  on in Scotland and it was Blair's Labour Party that led to  the massive swing to the SNP.  The Tories lost their majority in Parliament and had to bribe the DUP with 17 billion pounds to stay in power. Remember May's message to the health workers " there is no magic money tree" but she " magically" found one when  it came to keeping the  Tories in power. 

 

Boris is a Prime Minister so what does that tell you about the qualities required ?

[banjodeano 31]

11 hours ago, Longcol said:

The Corbynistas made Labour unelectable - simple as. He was never electable during his "honeymoon" period - ie the 2017 election when Labour trailed the Tories by 55 seats - the longer he was leader the more he was rejected by the electorate. He was a half decent leader of a protest group - never in a million years a Prime Minister.

They were already unelectable long before Corbyn came along, people despised the party over what Blair stood for...

I have said it once and i will say it again, who would vote for a party that has its own back stabbing MP's  plotting its downfall and saying the party is unelectable? they tried their best to get the Tories into power, the look on Stephen Kinnocks face when the 2017 counting took place, told you all that you needed to know

[melthebell 863]

35 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

They were already unelectable long before Corbyn came along, people despised the party over what Blair stood for...

 

Really?  its lefty talk again isnt it? not sense

How long was blair in power for?

How long before then was there a lefty labour government?

How many times has there been a lefty labour government since?

 

Again you are blinding yourself and deluding yourself.

 

The labour left is a protest party NOT a government in waiting. And a help to the tories

[andyofborg 11]

15 hours ago, banjodeano said:

 

Its a shame Corbyn was never given a chance, i think some of his policies were quite good, although i would admit a peoples bank is quite left, but what a brilliant idea, all the profits go back into the country, not into a billionaires pocket, and wasnt he talking about taking over the stranglehold that pharmaceutical  companies have over us, making our own medicines? and nationalising our railways that are owned by foreign governments....

I will be the first to admit that he was never a natural born leader, but his policies were great for the working classes, its a shame they didnt see beyond the media head lines

Most parties have policies which are quite good, but we dont have a la carte politics where you choose the policies you like, maybe we should.  Policies only form part of the offering and no matter how good they are if the rest is lacking you wont win. 

[sheffbag 227]

1 hour ago, banjodeano said:

They were already unelectable long before Corbyn came along, people despised the party over what Blair stood for...

I have said it once and i will say it again, who would vote for a party that has its own back stabbing MP's  plotting its downfall and saying the party is unelectable? they tried their best to get the Tories into power, the look on Stephen Kinnocks face when the 2017 counting took place, told you all that you needed to know

1979 - Tory majority 43 beating James Callaghan

1983 - Tory majority 144 beating Micheal Foot

1987 - Tory majority 102 beating Neil Kinnock

1992 - Tory majority 21 beating Neil Kinnock

 

So if "people despised the party over what Blair did" then whats your excuse for the 20 years prior to Blair when the country rejected Labour who had leaders in the same mould as Corbyn?

 

Its not the party's own MP's that cause the election, its the voters and the UK electorate have consistently rejected a Socialist based Labour leadership for 50 years now (based on the date of the next scheduled election and the last Labour victory discounting Blair). All this despite, as Anna claims, having the biggest political party in Europe prior to the last election.

 

If the Labour MP's were so backstabbing then why did so many people "rush to join" the Labour party and then not vote for them. Thats like buying a ticket for the cinema then thinking "one of the actors is badmouthing the lead so i wont go watch the film"

 

So based on your theory will you be voting Labour at the next election with Starmer at the helm?

 

Edited June 28, 2020 by sheffbag

[tinfoilhat 11]

9 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

1979 - Tory majority 43 beating James Callaghan

1983 - Tory majority 144 beating Micheal Foot

1987 - Tory majority 102 beating Neil Kinnock

1992 - Tory majority 21 beating Neil Kinnock

 

So if "people despised the party over what Blair did" then whats your excuse for the 20 years prior to Blair when the country rejected Labour who had leaders in the same mould as Corbyn?

 

Its not the party's own MP's that cause the election, its the voters and the UK electorate have consistently rejected a Socialist based Labour leadership for 50 years now (based on the date of the next scheduled election and the last Labour victory discounting Blair). All this despite, as Anna claims, having the biggest political party in Europe prior to the last election.

 

If the Labour MP's were so backstabbing then why did so many people "rush to join" the Labour party and then not vote for them. Thats like buying a ticket for the cinema then thinking "one of the actors is badmouthing the lead so i wont go watch the film"

 

So based on your theory will you be voting Labour at the next election with Starmer at the helm?

 

Of course he will. It's not like corbyn didn't offer unconditional to previous Labour PMs.  Right?

[ECCOnoob 1,040]

1 hour ago, sheffbag said:

1979 - Tory majority 43 beating James Callaghan

1983 - Tory majority 144 beating Micheal Foot

1987 - Tory majority 102 beating Neil Kinnock

1992 - Tory majority 21 beating Neil Kinnock

 

So if "people despised the party over what Blair did" then whats your excuse for the 20 years prior to Blair when the country rejected Labour who had leaders in the same mould as Corbyn?

 

Its not the party's own MP's that cause the election, its the voters and the UK electorate have consistently rejected a Socialist based Labour leadership for 50 years now (based on the date of the next scheduled election and the last Labour victory discounting Blair). All this despite, as Anna claims, having the biggest political party in Europe prior to the last election.

 

If the Labour MP's were so backstabbing then why did so many people "rush to join" the Labour party and then not vote for them. Thats like buying a ticket for the cinema then thinking "one of the actors is badmouthing the lead so i wont go watch the film"

 

So based on your theory will you be voting Labour at the next election with Starmer at the helm?

 

Just to add a quick addendum to your post.  I have just had a quick look at everyone's favourite unreliable encyclopaedia source.

 

Since the 1920s to the date of the next scheduled election there has been a conservative prime minister ruling this country for 61 years compared to merely 36 years of a labour one.

 

That of course includes a Tory continuing to remain a prime minister during the wartime and 2010 to 2015 coalitions.

 

If this was a business meeting the figures would speak for themselves as to what the wider public prefer and what the business would need to do to attract them and get their numbers up.

 

Elections are pretty much the same and I find it quite amusing when the hardcore grassroots corbynistas 'proper' labour would rather self harm than win elections. 

Edited June 28, 2020 by ECCOnoob

[banjodeano 31]

47 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

1979 - Tory majority 43 beating James Callaghan

1983 - Tory majority 144 beating Micheal Foot

1987 - Tory majority 102 beating Neil Kinnock

1992 - Tory majority 21 beating Neil Kinnock

 

So if "people despised the party over what Blair did" then whats your excuse for the 20 years prior to Blair when the country rejected Labour who had leaders in the same mould as Corbyn?

 

Its not the party's own MP's that cause the election, its the voters and the UK electorate have consistently rejected a Socialist based Labour leadership for 50 years now (based on the date of the next scheduled election and the last Labour victory discounting Blair). All this despite, as Anna claims, having the biggest political party in Europe prior to the last election.

 

If the Labour MP's were so backstabbing then why did so many people "rush to join" the Labour party and then not vote for them. Thats like buying a ticket for the cinema then thinking "one of the actors is badmouthing the lead so i wont go watch the film"

 

So based on your theory will you be voting Labour at the next election with Starmer at the helm?

 

not really sure what point you are trying to make, it was beyond doubt that the certain prominent labour politicions in the party were trying their  best to undermine the party....

would i vote for a party led by Starmer,? i very much doubt it

41 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Of course he will. It's not like corbyn didn't offer unconditional to previous Labour PMs.  Right?

wrong...

[melthebell 863]

3 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

not really sure what point you are trying to make, it was beyond doubt that the certain prominent labour politicions in the party were trying their  best to undermine the party....

would i vote for a party led by Starmer,? i very much doubt it

wrong...

so again, factionalism wins the day and allows the tories yet more years in government, its nonsense pure nonsense, you hate the opposite part of the labour membership more than the tories, obviously

[ECCOnoob 1,040]

1 minute ago, melthebell said:

so again, factionalism wins the day and allows the tories yet more years in government, its nonsense pure nonsense, you hate the opposite part of the labour membership more than the tories, obviously

It's amazing isn't it. 

 

As I have said in my post earlier some people are so ingrained in their 'roots' and so deluded as to their perception with the wider public - they would continually self harm rather than strategically adapt and diversify so they can win elections. 

[banjodeano 31]

1 minute ago, melthebell said:

so again, factionalism wins the day and allows the tories yet more years in government, its nonsense pure nonsense, you hate the opposite part of the labour membership more than the tories, obviously

I think i dislike them on equal terms, but at least with the tories you know who the enemy is..

so what do you think of the leaked report that showed top party members were deliberately using fake  anti semitism as a weapon to make sure the party was unelectable?

[melthebell 863]

4 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

I think i dislike them on equal terms, but at least with the tories you know who the enemy is..

so what do you think of the leaked report that showed top party members were deliberately using fake  anti semitism as a weapon to make sure the party was unelectable?

what i think is...i wont be voting labour the next election like i have the last two (tactically, as i thought it was the best way to get the tories out), obviously it isnt , as BOTH factions are that busy fighting each other and leaving the worst tory governments in living memory free to do whatever they want.