The Politics Thread

[Bruce Rioja]

[ but insisting that he's particularly prone to "my way is the only way" in any unusual way isn't one of them!........... he's pilloried for NOT allowing people who openly dissent from his leadership in his cabinet?

Which is it to be then? It can't be both.

[thebish]

The membership voted overwhelmingly to move away from Blairite - new Labour policies. It surely makes sense that the shadow cabinet reflects that wish?

'tis a difficult bind... he was more convincingly elected than just about any party leader i can remember - but NOT by the MPs...

but there's nowt he can do about that - he has to work with MPs - a majority of whom don't want him - in a party where he was overwhelmingly elected with a very clear message and platform.

he's in a very difficult place - having to take account of the people who elected him - but having to work with those who most assuredly didn't and are looking for any reason to diminish him and eventually ditch him...

under Blair, the parliamentary labour party - the MPs - WERE effectivel the labour party - the members didn't really count and had no say over policy.. in fact - many claim that MPs didn't either - nor even the cabinet - it was just Tony and a few close advisors who decided policy and strategy.

of course that makes for what sounds like a very clear message - but it leads to a disaffected party membership which rapidly erodes at local level - and pretty soon you end up getting wiped out cos you have no actual campaigners and local party workers to put your posters up when the next election comes...

and that's the opposite of what Corbyn is trying to achieve... I doubt he'll succeed - the odds are stacked very much against him.. but I entirely applaud what he is trying to do.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

If I'd been born in the 1890s in Russia I'd have applauded what Stalin was trying to achieve. The trouble is the means of achieving it tend to dominate the eventual horrified hindsight.

[BWFC_Insane]

The membership voted overwhelmingly to move away from Blairite - new Labour policies. It surely makes sense that the shadow cabinet reflects that wish?

Don't be so sensible. Tis politics!

Aye, he's only been in charge 3 or 4 months. You'd think they'd back him for a while, wait for a few polls or local elections before burning the entire thing down like they seem to be doing now.

Perhaps the genuinely find it very difficult to be in a party that is speaking politically at times a different language to that which they believe in?

I think it goes beyond simple self preservation in SOME cases.

If Cameron left his job tomorrow and the Tories elected a real pro-European leader who reneged on the referendum promise (obviously not happening, but just a what if) the anti-EU Tory backbenchers would be in open rebellion. It wouldn't necessarily be because they thought they were in serious danger of losing their seats or losing power necessarily.

Part of leading one of the two main parties is finding the balance between being credible and sincere and also keeping the party reasonably united.

[thebish]

[ but insisting that he's particularly prone to "my way is the only way" in any unusual way isn't one of them!........... he's pilloried for NOT allowing people who openly dissent from his leadership in his cabinet?

Which is it to be then? It can't be both.

I think - with the hand he was dealt - he is still making a very good attempt to work with a cabinet where people hold very differing views. I think the Hobo's claim that Corbyn will only work with those who think the same as him is unfounded. I said this at the outset - I think it is simply grown-up to realise that every political party is a coalition of sorts - and to pretend everyone thinks and believes the same thing all the time is just lunacy - yet that seems to have become the gold-standard idea for how any party leadership should present itself - even when it is patently untrue and nobody actually believes it - yet ministers still get interviewed spouting bollox that you KNOW they don't believe. i find it refreshing to see the attempt made to build a broad-tent cabinet in the labour party.. it's refreshing - but it will always lead to sparks and controversy - and that will always get blown out of all proportion...

what do you think?

[thebish]

If I'd been born in the 1890s in Russia I'd have applauded what Stalin was trying to achieve. The trouble is the means of achieving it tend to dominate the eventual horrified hindsight.

I'll wait with bated breath for Corbyn's genocidal murdering spree....

[Prufrock]

The membership voted overwhelmingly to move away from Blairite - new Labour policies. It surely makes sense that the shadow cabinet reflects that wish?

'tis a difficult bind... he was more convincingly elected than just about any party leader i can remember - but NOT by the MPs...

but there's nowt he can do about that - he has to work with MPs - a majority of whom don't want him - in a party where he was overwhelmingly elected with a very clear message and platform.

he's in a very difficult place - having to take account of the people who elected him - but having to work with those who most assuredly didn't and are looking for any reason to diminish him and eventually ditch him...

under Blair, the parliamentary labour party - the MPs - WERE effectivel the labour party - the members didn't really count and had no say over policy.. in fact - many claim that MPs didn't either - nor even the cabinet - it was just Tony and a few close advisors who decided policy and strategy.

of course that makes for what sounds like a very clear message - but it leads to a disaffected party membership which rapidly erodes at local level - and pretty soon you end up getting wiped out cos you have no actual campaigners and local party workers to put your posters up when the next election comes...

and that's the opposite of what Corbyn is trying to achieve... I doubt he'll succeed - the odds are stacked very much against him.. but I entirely applaud what he is trying to do.

I don't disagree with much of that, but it's worth pointing out in defence of the MPs that their duty lies to their constituents who elected them on the basis that the MPs views represent the constituency. Of course it's a little complicated by the idea of party whips, but as a general rule the MPs can't conduct themselves contrary to their own beliefs on the basis that 400,000 members elected the party leader who stands for things incompatible with their own beliefs.

[thebish]

I don't disagree with much of that, but it's worth pointing out in defence of the MPs that their duty lies to their constituents who elected them on the basis that the MPs views represent the constituency. Of course it's a little complicated by the idea of party whips, but as a general rule the MPs can't conduct themselves contrary to their own beliefs on the basis that 400,000 members elected the party leader who stands for things incompatible with their own beliefs.

not really, though... you may SAY that's how it works - but it's not really! They were elected (apart from those few with a huge personal local support - and there are some of those) not on their own beliefs - but on the manifesto put forward by a milliband-led labour party.

your scenario would only really work if all MPs stood as independents - spouting their own beliefs - and then made party coalitions AFTER being elected...

if this were really how it worked - then MPs would be polling their constituents to see how they should vote every week...

the whole system of who represents who and who they "work" for is quite complex/confusing..

MPs - the constituency (in theory) - but most of the time a majority didn't want them - are they representing their views? if so - how? if they are in the cabinet - then they have another responsibility - they represent the party... how do you balance that? and they also have their own ideas!

ooposition leaders - the MPs/cabinet? - the party as a whole?

PMs - their party - their MPS? - the country??

none of it is at all clear (not to me anyway!)

[Lost Leopard Spot]

If I'd been born in the 1890s in Russia I'd have applauded what Stalin was trying to achieve. The trouble is the means of achieving it tend to dominate the eventual horrified hindsight.

I'll wait with bated breath for Corbyn's genocidal murdering spree....

The analogy stands. It'd be a feeble analogy if it didn't evoke horror at the outcome, wouldn't it.
However for your personal perusal I shall distil it down to this: Many Labour supporters support what Corbyn wants to achieve but some of us fear that looking back in say five years time we'll be appalled by what he has done to the party. ( Stalin, by the way, hardly performed a genocidal programme, it was aiming purely at reducing the population to state whereby the state could control all aspects of existence. It wasn't aimed at wiping out entire populations, it just used that as a means of controlling the Soviet state).

[thebish]

meanwhile - George is getting his excuses in early as he looks set to fail to deliver any of his promises about the economy...

apparently a 'dangerous cocktail' of risks is threatening the global economy and our UK economy is "still broken"...

[thebish]

If I'd been born in the 1890s in Russia I'd have applauded what Stalin was trying to achieve. The trouble is the means of achieving it tend to dominate the eventual horrified hindsight.

I'll wait with bated breath for Corbyn's genocidal murdering spree....

The analogy stands. It'd be a feeble analogy if it didn't evoke horror at the outcome, wouldn't it.
However for your personal perusal I shall distil it down to this: Many Labour supporters support what Corbyn wants to achieve but some of us fear that looking back in say five years time we'll be appalled by what he has done to the party. ( Stalin, by the way, hardly performed a genocidal programme, it was aiming purely at reducing the population to state whereby the state could control all aspects of existence. It wasn't aimed at wiping out entire populations, it just used that as a means of controlling the Soviet state).

Hitler.

[BWFC_Insane]

Is it not the case that whether you agree with Corbyn's views or not, he simply isn't a very good leader and lacks the qualities and characteristics required to do the job?

[thebish]

Is it not the case that whether you agree with Corbyn's views or not, he simply isn't a very good leader and lacks the qualities and characteristics required to do the job?

I think it's too early to tell... politics is very difficult to predict sometimes.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

If I'd been born in the 1890s in Russia I'd have applauded what Stalin was trying to achieve. The trouble is the means of achieving it tend to dominate the eventual horrified hindsight.

I'll wait with bated breath for Corbyn's genocidal murdering spree....

The analogy stands. It'd be a feeble analogy if it didn't evoke horror at the outcome, wouldn't it.
However for your personal perusal I shall distil it down to this: Many Labour supporters support what Corbyn wants to achieve but some of us fear that looking back in say five years time we'll be appalled by what he has done to the party. ( Stalin, by the way, hardly performed a genocidal programme, it was aiming purely at reducing the population to state whereby the state could control all aspects of existence. It wasn't aimed at wiping out entire populations, it just used that as a means of controlling the Soviet state).

Hitler.

Now he was a genocidal murderous bastard. That WAS his aim and not just his means. See, aims, means, not necessarily the same thing. Applauding Corbyn's aims doesn't necessarily commit one to applauding his means. But you seem to have embraced both.

[BWFC_Insane]

Is it not the case that whether you agree with Corbyn's views or not, he simply isn't a very good leader and lacks the qualities and characteristics required to do the job?

I think it's too early to tell... politics is very difficult to predict sometimes.

Yes but whilst events can change the entire landscape it won't change that Corbyn isn't very good. as a leader His popularity with the electorate may improve over time if certain things happen, but with that which is within his control I don't believe he can get better.

Obama for example, irrespective of how little has been achieved, will always be a good leader of people. I don't think Corbyn ever will be, sadly.

[thebish]

If I'd been born in the 1890s in Russia I'd have applauded what Stalin was trying to achieve. The trouble is the means of achieving it tend to dominate the eventual horrified hindsight.

I'll wait with bated breath for Corbyn's genocidal murdering spree....

The analogy stands. It'd be a feeble analogy if it didn't evoke horror at the outcome, wouldn't it.
However for your personal perusal I shall distil it down to this: Many Labour supporters support what Corbyn wants to achieve but some of us fear that looking back in say five years time we'll be appalled by what he has done to the party. ( Stalin, by the way, hardly performed a genocidal programme, it was aiming purely at reducing the population to state whereby the state could control all aspects of existence. It wasn't aimed at wiping out entire populations, it just used that as a means of controlling the Soviet state).

Hitler.

Now he was a genocidal murderous bastard. That WAS his aim and not just his means. See, aims, means, not necessarily the same thing. Applauding Corbyn's aims doesn't necessarily commit one to applauding his means. But you seem to have embraced both.

I'm not sure I have discussed "means" at all let alone "embrace" them or "commit" to them.

[thebish]

Is it not the case that whether you agree with Corbyn's views or not, he simply isn't a very good leader and lacks the qualities and characteristics required to do the job?

I think it's too early to tell... politics is very difficult to predict sometimes.

Yes but whilst events can change the entire landscape it won't change that Corbyn isn't very good. as a leader His popularity with the electorate may improve over time if certain things happen, but with that which is within his control I don't believe he can get better.

Obama for example, irrespective of how little has been achieved, will always be a good leader of people. I don't think Corbyn ever will be, sadly.

well - as I said - too early to tell for me...

[Hoboh]

If I'd been born in the 1890s in Russia I'd have applauded what Stalin was trying to achieve. The trouble is the means of achieving it tend to dominate the eventual horrified hindsight.

I'll wait with bated breath for Corbyn's genocidal murdering spree....

It will be suicidal spree, killing off all none Trots!

[Hoboh]

The membership voted overwhelmingly to move away from Blairite - new Labour policies. It surely makes sense that the shadow cabinet reflects that wish?

You mean quite a few people paid their £3 to get a vote to make sure certain Tossers didn't win and Corbyn sneaked in, unfortunately.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'll wait with bated breath for Corbyn's genocidal murdering spree....

The analogy stands. It'd be a feeble analogy if it didn't evoke horror at the outcome, wouldn't it.
However for your personal perusal I shall distil it down to this: Many Labour supporters support what Corbyn wants to achieve but some of us fear that looking back in say five years time we'll be appalled by what he has done to the party. ( Stalin, by the way, hardly performed a genocidal programme, it was aiming purely at reducing the population to state whereby the state could control all aspects of existence. It wasn't aimed at wiping out entire populations, it just used that as a means of controlling the Soviet state).

Hitler.

Now he was a genocidal murderous bastard. That WAS his aim and not just his means. See, aims, means, not necessarily the same thing. Applauding Corbyn's aims doesn't necessarily commit one to applauding his means. But you seem to have embraced both.

I'm not sure I have discussed "means" at all let alone "embrace" them or "commit" to them.

You've openly stated you applaud his aims. Your posts on this very thread, although not explicitly stating such, appear very much (to me) to be validating how Corbyn is tackling his mountain of problems, and therefore, not putting too fine a point on it, embracing how he's going about things.
Or, are you doing the politico thing and claiming two contradictory things at once just to deny a nailed down stance?