Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Why is Corbyn different? His background isn't too different to others who 'got jobs aiding them getting to Westminster': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn

Aside from the two year stint in Jamaica it reads a lot like a typical Labour MP CV. Working their way up from official positions within the Union. Hell he was elected a councillor at 25 years old and became an MP at 34.

I will grant you that he has never seemed to interested in claiming much further and has stuck to his principles as a result. I don't think this is quite as commendable as everyone makes it out to be either. He has rebelled constantly throughout his career and whilst this too makes him out to be a honest politician it also shows a reluctance to cooperate or work with others. Party politics and Government requires the ability to do politics, form alliances with a broad group of people, make concessions to strike deals and present a united front.

How on earth is Corbyn going to lead this party once the hype dies down? He has said he expects the loyalty of the Parliamentary Party, a lot of whom don't like his politics, despite the fact he has never shown any to his predecessors.

There is a role for ideologues like Corbyn in politics but I would suggest that it isn't as leader of one of the two main parties.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Nope. He's a very naughty boy right pita :D.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

I disagree with your view that Labour have to follow Conservative policies to get elected. What they need to have is an appropriate balance between the need to encourage wealth creation and the need to look after those who are unable to cope in modern Britain.

Labour just cannot seem to get the balance right. Until they come up with a workable economic strategy and a better understanding of how important it is to direct appropriate levels of resources into appropriate means of helping our own less fortunate, they will be a long time in the wilderness.

The Corbyn route will just leave us even more unable to help those who need it because there will be no money to support them.

In both the 1979 and 2010 elections, a helpful Labour chappie told the incoming Administration that there was no money left. What does that tell you about Labour's vision?

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

You just don't get it, the public is sick of party politics, sick of these clones that say nothing and do even less, sick of their shyster deals and ways, how much attention would this contest have got if Corbyn wasn't involved? I hope this is the start of a revolution in politics, they keep saying politics needs to reconnect with the people, it can start by having interesting, principled people at the heart of it, not these Blair clones that'd sell out their mothers and others peoples childrens blood for a bag of cash and a whiff of power.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

There is an element of truth in your post but it is a bit like comparing the sublime with the ridiculous!

Most of us are fed up with politically correct language and the hectoring party politics, but to suggest that economically illiterate policies and Michael Foot policies are the answer is like living in some fairy tale world that only exists in immature imaginations.

If any politician really wants to tackle poverty in this country, the first thing they need to understand is the need to create wealth and then direct it wisely.

Unfortunately, Left wing politicians seem to be hell bent on following the politics of envy, and all that will lead to is bail outs from the IMF and heartbreaking scenes on TV such as we have seen happening in Greece.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

I haven't said anything on his competence, just that I quite like him and politics could do with more people like him in it. Interesting that you mention his economic ideas though seeing as a whole heap of economists are backing him and his ideas are strangely in tune with the IMF's austerity thinking :shocked:


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...es-corbynomics

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Well we'll see if the public go for him at the General Election. I don't actually think the public care that much until an election is actually upon us and usually just go about their lives without worrying about the internal dynamics of a leadership election.

What I would say though is that their voting patten suggests that they don't much like socialism. Ed Miliband was perceived as being left-wing and got trounced. Time and time again Labour have been punished for this wild swings to the left so I don't see what will be different this time. All of that is without the position Corbyn takes on the Falklands or NATO.

None of this addresses my point though. How will Corbyn be able to win an Election or even make much of an influence? How is he going to unite the party behind him. People may be sick of party politics but that is still the system we have and the biggest backbench rebel in the Labour party is now expecting the loyalty of the Parliamentary Party when he himself was incapable of doing the same.

As for the coming revolution in politics. I remember having the same discussions about UKIP a few months ago. The revolution is always coming it just turns out not to reach anyone outside of the echo-chamber of the Internet and campaigning groups.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

If he wasn't involved no one would be interested, how much interest did the lib dem leadership contest garner in the press

Ed was a geek who couldn't get his message across, people had to rely on perception as he didn't tell them it properly or concisely

He's already having an influence, Burnham said the other day he'd have as part of his team if he won

That'd be UKIP that got millions of votes, I bet Dave, Tony, Nick and their ilk wished they didn't reach anyone outside of the internet, their day is coming to an end fast.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Yes, that 1 UKIP Parliamentary seat, along with the 1 Green seat, has them quaking in their shoes..... ;)

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Interested doesn't translate to electoral success. People are interested in spectacular car crashes. Everyone is following this because it seems crazy that Labour will appoint someone as leader who seems unelectable to the population at large.


Foot? Kinnock? Labour has only really achieved modern success when they've gone for a centrist platform. The Unions appointed Ed Miliband and his dalliance with moving Labour to the left failed in a pretty brutal fashion. Even if we assume this wasn't because of the platform itself but a lack of confidence in the leader how is this going to work with Corbyn? He doesn't appear to come across as a safe pair of hands.

I mean more as party leader. He is clearly having an influence on the party given that he is poised to win the contest. However how will he get the support of his MPs?

What is he going to do when this hype and energy dies down and he has to be at PMQs facing the PM?

What will he do when people bring up Northern Ireland where he wants a United Ireland?

What will he do when people bring up the Falklands with which he wants to share sovereignty with Argentina?

What will he do when the press properly goes after him on the connections to Islamic hate preachers, anti-Semites and the IRA?

This is a guy who has had no senior position in party, has no history of being able to do the type of dealing making and politics required, hasn't got his Parliamentary party behind him and has no end of interesting things in his past for the Tories and the press to go after him with.

Maybe I am wrong and the stright-talking image will carry him on but at the moment I can't see him surviving until the next election let alone winning it.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

That's why I think David Cameron won the election as convincingly as he did. Not because people like him, or agree with his policies, but because the two main opposition leaders (at the time Nick Clegg and Ed Milliband) totally failed to communicate any alternatives. Either party could have come up with a solution to the countrys economic problems that would have ensured prosperity for all, but we wouldn't have know as they totally failed to communicate anything resembling a policy. Especially as the previous government has spent a surprising amount of the last five years seemingly victimising the poor, while helping the rich to get richer.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

you seem to have been brought into the myth that labour were spending out of control.

prior to the bank bailout they had a lower deficit than the previous tory government had. All the money went to the banks.

The bank situation was a global problem, but the UK was especially affected due to our softy approach to banks and dependency on the financial sector.

This bank bailout the tories supported, which funny enough I pointed out in the post you replied to.

---------- Post added at 10:36 ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 ----------

By wealth creation do you mean looking after the desires of the rich and then having a false belief the wealth trickles down?

In a society with no tax and welfare e.g. where nature is left to do its course we will have what we had in medieval times, lords in a castle and slaves tendering to their fields etc. In that sort of society of course the weak are left to die as there is nothing to take care of them.

---------- Post added at 10:37 ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 ----------

of course the anti democratic voting system has kept the status quo intact.

In a PR system the greens and UKIP would have dozens of seats between them.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Bank bailouts are NOT included in any debt or deficit figures.
Deficit 1997 £5.7bn, 2007(ie before any bank issues) £40.9bn, jumping to £100.8bn a year later and £153.5bn in 2009. And that had been going on for a few years before, starting in 2001. Why over £200bn in borrowing before 2008, when the economy is supposedly doing so well? We are now looking at paying out in the years to come, well over £50bn each year just in debt interest.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

What killed Labour was how thin and precarious the tax base was, not their spending so much.

That did grow counter-cyclically though, and for sure a bunch of it wasn't efficient.

The big crime was, rather than rebalancing the economy, splurging the City cash. Labour were really bad for industry and their spending plans hugely dependent on the banking sector. So when that went belly up....

Certainly the accusations that they were spending out of control are unfair. Likewise anyone saying that Labour weren't disastrous for the economy is being somewhat disingenuous. Labour's economic plans were geared for electoral gain and the difficult decisions were avoided.

Alongside that there was a big streak of, oddly, corporatism. The gold was sold at rock-bottom prices to prop up the financial sector.

Slower and more sustainable growth, both economically and in spending, would've been preferable. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

What has how allegedly precarious the tax base was, got to do with excessive spending via borrowing as early as 2001? It wasn't precarious back then was it? How many ten of billions are being paid out EACH YEAR in debt interest to pay for their pre-2008 splurge? That is money being removed from the economy and from sustainable public spending.

Borrowing around £40bn a year for several years BEFORE 2008, means that it was hardly a one-off surprise.

If somebody gets a big pay increase, works a lot of overtime and gets bonuses and STILL has to borrow to fund their lifestyle, they are not doing as well as they make out and should cut back on their spending.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Like I said before, until now Corbyn's been able to get away with his brand of minority guff which the usual suspects lap up with alacrity. If he becomes leader all that is going to change and he's going to be exposed for the dinosaur he is. He's enjoyed relative anonymity until now and rather like an ineffectual opposition, such as the Tories post 1997, he's been able to say/do things without consequences. That's all going to change and his words past and present start to have serious consequences for him and his party.

I wish him well in destroying the Labour Party and hope that out of its ashes will come a credible opposition willing to take on board life's economic realities and detached from outdated left wing dogma.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

That you compare a private individual's finances to those of a country is a pretty good indication this mightn't be a fruitful conversation.

EDIT: Probably a waste but a little light reading for you. Might be educational if you feel the need to learn a little. Alternatively if thinking the economy is like a personal bank account appeals do as you please. If you could find the personal bank account where you pay yourself interest on a large part of your overdraft that'd be awesome.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

I think that says more about our voting system and the contempt our leaders hold for voters than anything else

Interested is a good start for me, they weren't interested in any other leadership contests


Time will tell, I quite like the idea of clear distinctions between the parties, this constant fighting over the central ground and throwing in a few ideological tweaks here and there hasn't got us very far.


It'll be good to see them put on the spot to, see whether they have the courage of their convictions, I think most will fail the challenge

It doesn't have to carry him to victory just as it didn't with Farage what it does is get people interested and will create change which is something I'm sure we all agree is desperately needed in Westminster

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Agree re Voting System, not sure how it reflects contempt on behalf of leaders, since the UK electorate had a chance to to change the voting system, and didn't....

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

but the single alternative choice they had on offer was a bad one as far as I remember

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Because they could've changed it or come up with a decent system that reflects voters choices, Dave is one of the worst for banging on about voter apathy and reconnecting with the electorate but when push came to shove he couldn't bring himself to break up the status quo as it benefits his party to much, they know that eventually we'll be sick of the other mob and they'll get a go again..

Exactly it was the worst option to offer imo

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

We're not going to get another chance of reforming the voting system for a while now. The best chance was that referendum or maybe had the predicted hung parliament occurred. Now neither the Conservatives or Labour want it and the Liberal Democrats are nowhere. It's not going to happen for a long, long time.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

That's what they want you to think, fact they don't want people reminding of is that we are in charge not them, they make the rules because of us not in spite of us and if enough of us kick up a fuss for long enough things will change.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Labour leadership contest: Party now fears infiltration by BNP supporters

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10470069.html


the politics of desperation ?

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Unfortunately electoral reform doesn't seem to inspire the electorate and there isn't a mainstream party capable of winning an election that will change it. Even St Corbyn of Islington doesn't have much to say on the subject.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

sadly there is people out there who seem to believe FPTP is great, a guy on another thread said that today.

Damien is right tho, we wont get a chance of change for a long while now. I bet the lib dems are regretting a watered down compromise from the tories now.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Well FPTP does have advantages. It's one of the ways of ensuring a direct representative for a constituency in Parliament. You obviously have a party you vote for but in this system you also have someone who is your MP and can represent the constituency itself in Westminster. It's rarely needed but there can be times when someone is in a odd situation that requires intervention from their MP. A lot of people value that direct link.

There are other reasons too. One of them is it allows for Independent runs based on local issues which wouldn't be possible in a pure PR system where a party would need a broad vote across the country rather than getting support based on, for example, a local campaign about a closure of a hospital or school.

In fact in a pure PR system then you don't elect a person at all. Everyone would have to vote for a party and run under that party's banner. People moan about career politicians but this is the ultimate career politician's system. Representatives are not selected based on their character or local appeal but from approved party lists which are drawn up by the party itself.

Theoretically that also gives them less legitimacy to rebel against the party whip as no one elected them, they elected their party. Zac Goldsmith for example would have legitimate reason to rebel against a whipped Tory vote on Heathrow because although his party may want it his constituents do not.

Finally it also is designed to return a strong Government. I.E It usually gives a extra amount of seats to the party with the larger voter share so that they can command a majority. Some PR systems try to work this in by giving a 'bonus' amount of seats to whoever won the most seats.

I think FFTP no longer works with the fragmented party support we have now. Those advantages above don't outweigh the drawbacks of people not getting who they voted for but it's not as if FFTP is completely flawed.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

A couple more elections with millions of peoples votes counting for nothing will inspire the mainstream parties to change it, government will be even more lacking in legitimacy if we have results like this again.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Damien makes good points and why I support the continuation of the current system. I want to elect a person not a party.

Most PR systems you end up with the least unpopular not necessarily the most popular.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

I think he made one exceptional point

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

FPTP was great when there were no real parties. It might be improved a bit by open primaries but in our multiple party system it's undemocratic.

Perhaps an FPTP chamber and a PR one would be better if there are people really attached to the idea that most of their representatives don't vote with the party the overwhelming majority of the time regardless of the opinion of their constituents, and that most people have no idea who they are voting for as they don't look past the party.

FPTP just doesn't work when there are more than two options.

Another point - there's no need to go with pure list-based PR. What's wrong with STV or, worst case, AV? You're still voting for the candidate, not the party, and the result is more representative of the views of the constituency as a whole?

EDIT: It should be noted that, as I recall, the three main parties elect their own leader by STV. The Mayor of London is elected by STV. People appear capable of writing numbers in boxes in those elections, I'm sure they can manage it in general ones :)

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Wales and Scotland have a system that works quite well. You have two votes, one for your local constituency Assembly Member/Socttish Parliament Member as per usual, and another for the regional list, which is decided by party, and the regional list seats are assigned by how well those parties did in the constituency election.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Indeed. The electorate only have themselves to blame sometimes and they are easily led. At the beginning of that referendum campaign opinion was in favour of AV. However they were told to vote how to vote over the weeks by self-interested politcians and their buddies in the media. Like donkeys, they obeyed.

Same thing will happen with the EU referendum. Governments only hold referendums when they are assured of the result. Nearly came a cropper with the Scotland vote, but again the muppets were easily led on the day.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Isn't FPTP with only two options the same as PR?

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Not really. FPTP totally disregards "losing" votes, so coming second by one vote in a constituency counts the same as coming in behind the monster raving loonies. This is why the Lib Dems (and latterly UKIP)are such big supporters of PR, as all those votes in constituencies where they didn't win count towards their seat total in PR.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

There is PR systems that address this issue of voting for an individual..

I dont know about least popular, under PR the tories would still have won the last election.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34060453

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Considering the PCS union is not affiliated to Labour and that the PCS wanted to run candidates against Labour then it's no real surprise.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Indeed.

They would, however, have not been able to form a majority and hence had to seek a coalition with other parties.

Interesting. A party that receives 1/3rd of the vote having to seek an accommodation with other parties so that they can represent 1/2 of the vote or more.

That kinda sounds representative, doesn't it? :dunce:

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

googled for my old posts on tbb and plusnet forums, but found the media who copied me :p

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gene...ach-party.html

looks democratic right :)

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Meaningless statistic, as no voting system works that way, even any of the PR systems.