Jeremy Corbyn

[Johnnytheboy]

Smollet said:

I honestly don't think they do want to win an election. They just want to be left wing militants who can moan endlessly yet never be in a position to change what they whinge about as it requires making difficult decisions and actually having some sort of coherent workable policies.

That's what I don't understand.

The ultimate goal appears to be highest placed loser.

[SplatSpeed]

it's wonderful news we should all rejoice left and right

the left get the man they want and the right get to win the next election with a landslide

everyone is happy

lets all feel the love

[Smollet]

Johnnytheboy said:

That's what I don't understand.

The ultimate goal appears to be highest placed loser.

They can then claim the moral high ground which is very important to them even if their morals in getting there is pretty despicable.

[NoddyonNitrous]

Smollet said:

I honestly don't think they do want to win an election. They just want to be left wing militants who can moan endlessly yet never be in a position to change what they whinge about as it requires making difficult decisions and actually having some sort of coherent workable policies.

Similar situation to where we are with the SNP in Scotland - they still behave like an opposition party even though they've been in power for over 9 years - abrasive, divisive, name calling apportioning blame to everybody but themselves etc.
Being in power exposes the lack of talent and political practicality.

[AstonZagato]

Smollet said:

Johnnytheboy said:

What I'm trying to tease out is whether winning general elections is important to supporters of Corbyn.

Either:

1. it is, and they are deluded on his chances of winning, or

2. it isn't and they don't understand what representative democracy is.

I honestly don't think they do want to win an election. They just want to be left wing militants who can moan endlessly yet never be in a position to change what they whinge about as it requires making difficult decisions and actually having some sort of coherent workable policies.

The left at work, making important decisions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55fqjw2J1vI

[Andy Zarse]

AstonZagato said:

Smollet said:

Johnnytheboy said:

What I'm trying to tease out is whether winning general elections is important to supporters of Corbyn.

Either:

1. it is, and they are deluded on his chances of winning, or

2. it isn't and they don't understand what representative democracy is.

I honestly don't think they do want to win an election. They just want to be left wing militants who can moan endlessly yet never be in a position to change what they whinge about as it requires making difficult decisions and actually having some sort of coherent workable policies.

The left at work, making important decisions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55fqjw2J1vI

Plus ca change... I honestly believe it really is like this in the Labour Party.

[VolvoT5]

Now he appears to want secret SAS missions to be voted on by MPs before they can go ahead.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/01/je...

[Johnnytheboy]

VolvoT5 said:

Now he appears to want secret SAS missions to be voted on by MPs before they can go ahead.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/01/je...

He's either hopelessly naive, or hopelessly thick.

[alock]

Johnnytheboy said:

What I'm trying to tease out is whether winning general elections is important to supporters of Corbyn.

Either:

1. it is, and they are deluded on his chances of winning, or

2. it isn't and they don't understand what representative democracy is.

I think it's the same as it was for lots of LibDem supporters after the 2010 election. The reality is that the LibDems were in a position of power for the first time. They had the deputy prime minister and several cabinet ministers. They negotiated a more than fair deal based on the fact they had fewer than 20% of the coalition MPs. They managed to get several of the big LibDem policies on the table and they had to make some compromises to do this. They were punished for this by their voters.

Labour now have the same problem. They either become an ideological opposition party or they compromise on some policies to get others implemented.

[johnxjsc1985]

maybe Labour under Corbyn could ask for members only to vote for them in the next G.E. they wouldn't want ordinary people voting for them would they.

[Cobnapint]

Johnnytheboy said:

VolvoT5 said:

Now he appears to want secret SAS missions to be voted on by MPs before they can go ahead.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/01/je...

He's either hopelessly naive, or hopelessly thick.

Is the prick working for the Russians or what?

[Johnnytheboy]

alock said:

Johnnytheboy said:

What I'm trying to tease out is whether winning general elections is important to supporters of Corbyn.

Either:

1. it is, and they are deluded on his chances of winning, or

2. it isn't and they don't understand what representative democracy is.

I think it's the same as it was for lots of LibDem supporters after the 2010 election. The reality is that the LibDems were in a position of power for the first time. They had the deputy prime minister and several cabinet ministers. They negotiated a more than fair deal based on the fact they had fewer than 20% of the coalition MPs. They managed to get several of the big LibDem policies on the table and they had to make some compromises to do this. They were punished for this by their voters.

Labour now have the same problem. They either become an ideological opposition party or they compromise on some policies to get others implemented.

My take on the Great Lib Dem Collapse was that their voters were either:

1. not wanting to vote for a winner (as bizarre as my point 2 above), or

2. Only wanting the Lib Dems to form a coalition with Labour. In which case why not just vote Labour?

JawKnee will be getting up shortly, and may be able to explain all this.

[P5BNij]

Johnnytheboy said:

VolvoT5 said:

Now he appears to want secret SAS missions to be voted on by MPs before they can go ahead.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/01/je...

He's either hopelessly naive, or hopelessly thick.

Replace hopelessly with wilfully and you're much closer to the mark.

[Cobnapint]

Johnnytheboy said:

JawKnee will be getting up shortly, and may be able to explain all this.

[williamp]

zarjaz1991 said:

I'm no fan of Blair but this is inescapable. If it was so bad, why did people keep voting for it?

Part of that answer lies in who the tory leader was at the time. William hague, IDS, Michael Howard. Hardly inspiring people.

[AAGR]

Do the phrases 'wilfully naive' and 'hopelessly thick' apply to certain Corbyn-supporters in this thread ?

[technodup]

It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

SAS missions debated in Parliament? Jesus wept.

What an utter fknugget.

[zarjaz1991]

alock said:

I think it's the same as it was for lots of LibDem supporters after the 2010 election. The reality is that the LibDems were in a position of power for the first time. They had the deputy prime minister and several cabinet ministers. They negotiated a more than fair deal based on the fact they had fewer than 20% of the coalition MPs. They managed to get several of the big LibDem policies on the table and they had to make some compromises to do this. They were punished for this by their voters.

Labour now have the same problem. They either become an ideological opposition party or they compromise on some policies to get others implemented.

I've long felt this about the Lib Dems.

Look behind the hyped media headlines and the Lib Dems did a pretty decent job in government. They got many of their flagship manifesto committments through, and they reigned in the worst Tory excesses.

Nick Clegg made one horrendous mistake, and that was over tuition fees. He should have just said "we'd love to stick to this, but the reality is we're in a coalition and there have to be compromises'. Instead he stuck to his guns, only to then completely u-turn, and I think he got punished for that.

Had there been the ability to vote for 'a continuation of the coalition' in 2015, I'd have done that. I thought it was working well.

Now the Lib Dems are a complete non-entity again, and Clegg is unfairly ridiculed over one mistake. I suspect history may judge Clegg in a better light. I hope so.

[Johnnytheboy]

zarjaz1991 said:

I've long felt this about the Lib Dems.

...

Now the Lib Dems are a complete non-entity again, and Clegg is unfairly ridiculed over one mistake. I suspect history may judge Clegg in a better light. I hope so.

TBH I've always believed that the nature of their voters meant that the first time they had to significantly bend towards Tory policy in government they'd face electoral oblivion.

In other words, if it hadn't been tuition fees, it would have been the next thing.

[zarjaz1991]

williamp said:

Part of that answer lies in who the tory leader was at the time. William hague, IDS, Michael Howard. Hardly inspiring people.

True, but I never saw Cameron as being particularly inspiring. I think he was just noticeably better than those you mention.