|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: UK General Election June 8th 2017
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That is true. On the other hand, Corbyn has showed vague signs of being willing to learn.
Vague to the point of vanishing. And this article is written by a would-be friend.
quote:
May's time as Prime Minister has equally not shown ability to work with colleagues
Er...ability to work with colleagues? He's managed to anger even those who were trying to work with him. Many of those MPs who supported the no confidence motion started out as supporters!
The main problem appears to be his lack of competence as a leader.
Corbyn tried to accommodate many others of a different shade of opinion (ie, Blairites) in his shadow cabinet) but they either refused or threw their toys out of the pram. In short, they got in a snit about losing the leadership contest. None of that is Jeremy Corbyn's problem.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That is true. On the other hand, Corbyn has showed vague signs of being willing to learn.
Vague to the point of vanishing. And this article is written by a would-be friend.
The two articles you link to were written nearly a year ago. I believe them. I'm referring to Corbyn's behaviour since the leadership contest, which if you exclude Corbyn's lamentable handling of the Brexit bill, has shown marginal signs of improvement. Not much improvement, but his chief competitor is Theresa May, and I really don't think May's any better.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Corbyn tried to accommodate many others of a different shade of opinion (ie, Blairites) in his shadow cabinet) but they either refused or threw their toys out of the pram. In short, they got in a snit about losing the leadership contest. None of that is Jeremy Corbyn's problem.
If by 'tried to accommodate' you mean he appointed them to cabinet positions and then entirely ignored them, making policy in their areas of responsibility off the cuff without consultation, then sure. There are too many accounts from people who tried to work with him to that effect.
They launched a no confidence vote and leadership contest after the Brexit vote when Corbyn was as conspicuous by his absence as May was. I think Corbyn's leadership of the parliamentary party during the Brexit bill shows their lack of confidence was amply justified.
[ 27. May 2017, 21:16: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That is true. On the other hand, Corbyn has showed vague signs of being willing to learn.
Vague to the point of vanishing. And this article is written by a would-be friend.
quote:
May's time as Prime Minister has equally not shown ability to work with colleagues
Er...ability to work with colleagues? He's managed to anger even those who were trying to work with him. Many of those MPs who supported the no confidence motion started out as supporters!
The main problem appears to be his lack of competence as a leader.
Corbyn tried to accommodate many others of a different shade of opinion (ie, Blairites) in his shadow cabinet) but they either refused or threw their toys out of the pram. In short, they got in a snit about losing the leadership contest. None of that is Jeremy Corbyn's problem.
I suspect some of that was over ideological differences, and in large part because they bought into the idea of him being an electoral disaster. Those that believed that then did their damndest to oust him, and failed.
Like any other political party, if he wins they will fall into line behind him.
Conversely, if May wins but decreases the Tory majority - her party will throw her under a bus. If the Lib Dems show no improvement, Farron will disappear. If the Labour vote tanks in the way predicted, then Corbyn will lose his position. If he loses but improves Labour's showing over the last election, then he will probably stay in post long enough for an MP with similar policy priorities to bid for the leadership.
If he wins, my guess would be that he'd resign 4 years into a five year term as prime minister - because of his age.
That is politics.
[ 27. May 2017, 21:21: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
FWIW, my opinion of Mr Corbyn has improved since the manifesto was published.
My objections to him have always been twofold. Firstly there is the competency issue, which hasn't gone away. But my other objection is that it is very, very easy to say 'austerity is bad'. Pretty much everyone agrees that austerity is bad, that's why it's called austerity and not Glorious Liberation From The Shackles Of The State. Even the Tories - whatever their private opinions - tend to present it as a necessary evil thrust upon them by Labour mismanagement, rather than a positive good in itself. Calling out the evils of austerity is not, in my view, an impressive achievement.
The manifesto is, at least, an attempt to set out an alternative. One can argue over the figures in their costings* but at least they present them, which is more than can be said for the government.
* The £4bn margin of error to allow for uncertainty and behavioural change looks cautious until you realise that overall public expenditure at present is £772bn. In effect this margin of error is claiming a budget forecast accuracy of around 99.5%!
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think the leadership question is also an issue, to an extent, of culture change. People have got used to presidential style party leadership - where the leader largely dictates and also fronts and takes credit for any big initiative.
Himself Corbyn has said this about leadership: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/29/jeremy-corbyn-gets-personal-in-one-off-campaign-speech Others have said this about 'strong' leadership http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39748185
Corbyn has campaigned much of his career, participating in movements that bring diverse groups together - whose agendas overlap only in some parts of their common cause. He is used to arguing for a given position, coping if it is not wholly adopted, and building consensus.
If you are not a labour member you may not realise that the entire membership were consulted, in a necessarily limited way, on the contents of the manifesto. We were asked to rank priorities etc.
In addition, the previous year or more the argument for, for example, rail nationalisation - has been made often enough and well enough to permeate the national discourse. Now appearing in the manifesto it has public support.
I think you can argue that organising policy reviews, consultation and building consensus on policy within the party and the public is a form of leadership. And it is an important form of leadership.
Corbyn is by no means perfect, but to talk about his period as leader as if he has been doing nothing is to miss quite substantial issues - including the massive growth in the size of the party itself.
You may think that matters to party insiders only - but it makes a big practical difference. There is finance through the membership fees. But also engagement in campaigning, I have been canvassing for my local MP this election, we are regularly getting 20 or more folk turning up to canvass - today it was nearly 40. These are the people who will make personal contact with voters, and at the moment - Labour has many more of them than the other parties. (Like me, many of them are doing this for the first time this election.). I am convinced that this goes some way to explaining the reduction in the gap in the polls.
[ 27. May 2017, 21:38: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
* The £4bn margin of error to allow for uncertainty and behavioural change looks cautious until you realise that overall public expenditure at present is £772bn. In effect this margin of error is claiming a budget forecast accuracy of around 99.5%!
But they are only planning to change the tax take by 48 billion, so they are allowing a little under 10% for people changing their tax arrangements in response to those specific changes. Which I think is a reasonable margin of error.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Corbyn tried to accommodate many others of a different shade of opinion (ie, Blairites) in his shadow cabinet) but they either refused or threw their toys out of the pram. In short, they got in a snit about losing the leadership contest. None of that is Jeremy Corbyn's problem.
No, this isn't about the Blairites.
I'm talking about the people who actually tried to make it work with Corbyn, but couldn't, because of his incompetence. Please read the two earlier linked articles for examples; there are many more.
The problem came entirely from Corbyn.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think the leadership question is also an issue, to an extent, of culture change...the entire membership were consulted...
Crowdsourcing and that is original, but that's not the thing. Corbyn has given us overwhelming evidence that he's a poor manager. Only 17% of his MPs supported him in the confidence vote. That's appalling- and for many/most of them, basic competence is the main issue.
He'd be overwhelmed as PM.
quote:
He is used to arguing for a given position, coping if it is not wholly adopted, and building consensus.
So...what will actually happen to Trident if he's elected PM? The leader of the Labour Party is trying to undermine his own party policy as hard as he can.
quote:
...the massive growth in the size of the party itself.
Yes, the membership has increased. But 38% of them don't want him. They'd rather have a nobody called Owen Smith, who ran with very similar policies, so they're not the issue. Again, it's basic leadership skills.
quote:
I am convinced that this goes some way to explaining the reduction in the gap in the polls.
I think the narrowing of the polls is mainly down to the appalling Tory campaign. If Milliband were running Labour, he'd be a shoe-in for PM by now.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Yes, the membership has increased. But 38% of them don't want him. They'd rather have a nobody called Owen Smith, who ran with very similar policies, so they're not the issue. Again, it's basic leadership skills.
Owen Smith believes whatever he's paid to believe on any given day. That's why most Labour members preferred and continue to prefer Jeremy Corbyn. The 17% of the PLP who supported him is still higher than the number who nominated him and wanted him to win, so in terms of support from the PLP it's actually an improvement. They hate him because, as a number of them have said outright, they'd prefer to see the tories in power than a left wing Labour government.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Trident will be replaced because that is the party's policy. That is, we're committed to a continuous at sea deterrent. He said the role of the nuclear deterrent will be reviewed, that would include the standard operational procedures for it, where the replacement is bought from, how many warheads we retain etc.
Re why the PLP opposed him, I stand by my original analysis - I think allegations of incompetence were used as an attack strategy because it was known he and his policy positions were popular with the membership - so they had little else to use as a basis for a campaign.
I don't think he'd be overwhelmed as pm, he has grown into his current role. I challenge you to put forward 'evidence' of his incompetence that is not matched in scope by the Tory PM and cabinet.
Cameron (and for that matter May) lost the referendum, far fewer of Tory voters voted remain than Labour or SNP (their proportions were very similar). Hammond pulled a U-turn days after his first budget, May pulled a U-turn on a manifesto pledge within 4 days of launch. As regards infighting - did you watch the Tory leadership contest ?
[ 28. May 2017, 19:17: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Owen Smith believes whatever he's paid to believe on any given day.
Last summer you said Jo Cox hadn't had a shred of conscience so pardon me for not being persuaded.
quote:
They hate him because, as a number of them have said outright, they'd prefer to see the tories in power than a left wing Labour government.
I've seen Corbyn-supporters saying that they hope the Tories wipe out the Blairites. I haven't seen so much of the other.
It's true Blair said that one should vote for candidates who oppose Brexit whether Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green or even if they're Tory. Which a) he has a point since Brexit is not going to advance any agenda other than the Daily Mail; b) the Tory bit is purely theoretical unless you're in Rushcliffe.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
If the Tories are returned with a comfortable majority the infighting will probably begin. The degree to which Britain is involved with Europe messed with Tory unity once and there is no reason to believe it won't do so again.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
As the spartans would say: "If."
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think the leadership question is also an issue, to an extent, of culture change...the entire membership were consulted...
Crowdsourcing and that is original, but that's not the thing. Corbyn has given us overwhelming evidence that he's a poor manager. Only 17% of his MPs supported him in the confidence vote. That's appalling- and for many/most of them, basic competence is the main issue.
He'd be overwhelmed as PM.
quote:
He is used to arguing for a given position, coping if it is not wholly adopted, and building consensus.
Which is why he voted against the Party whip so often.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Last summer you said Jo Cox hadn't had a shred of conscience so pardon me for not being persuaded.
I don't recall saying that, but please feel free to provide a link.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Gee D not coping would be throwing a tantrum and trying to start a new party. Like the sdlp split.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Labour certainly is closing the gap on today's figures. Care to think about a world where Trump is US president and Corbyn UK Prime Minister?
Following on, I am hearing May is performing rather badly as time goes on. Is this wishful thinking by the left-leaning press I read, e.g.
quote:
Theresa May has collapsed as the dynamic, presidential leader she was being lined up as. The fall has been rapid and stark. May looked wholly in command two weeks ago; now she looks imperious and irritable, as if the whole idea of an ELECTION against JEREMY CORBYN is an absurd thing to have to do at all, much less actually compete in.
(article behind paywall)
[ 29. May 2017, 06:42: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Labour certainly is closing the gap on today's figures. Care to think about a world where Trump is US president and Corbyn UK Prime Minister?
Following on, I am hearing May is performing rather badly as time goes on. Is this wishful thinking by the left-leaning press I read, e.g.
quote:
Theresa May has collapsed as the dynamic, presidential leader she was being lined up as. The fall has been rapid and stark. May looked wholly in command two weeks ago; now she looks imperious and irritable, as if the whole idea of an ELECTION against JEREMY CORBYN is an absurd thing to have to do at all, much less actually compete in.
(article behind paywall)
Probably to some extent, there's clearly a difference between the right and left wing press.
But a month ago a large section of the left wing press were only reporting voters in tears going "I'd like to vote labour, but I've heard Teresa's strong and stable". So either it's part of an elaborate ploy to create a (false) narrative of change, they were hoping to really boost the Lib Dems and given up on that, or there's something changed in their reading of the situation.
And it's not just the leftish press, (what leftist paper's behind a paywall?), but the businessy right wing papers are going a bit more mixed. (E.g. in the telegraph headlines you still have "Jeremy Corbyn has long hated Britain"*, but also (the more defensive) "Teresa May isn't attacking pensioners but welfarism", "Labour narrows gap as women voters surge".)
*This article isn't behind the paywall (and actually also turns out to be brutal towards May, but from the right)
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
But they are only planning to change the tax take by 48 billion, so they are allowing a little under 10% for people changing their tax arrangements in response to those specific changes. Which I think is a reasonable margin of error.
You are correct, I had misread 'uncertainty' as referring to uncertainty in the economy as a whole.
quote:
Re why the PLP opposed him, I stand by my original analysis - I think allegations of incompetence were used as an attack strategy because it was known he and his policy positions were popular with the membership
And I stand by my original response to this analysis. If those allegations of incompetence are in fact true - and abundant evidence was presented from multiple sources at the time - then they don't somehow become less true just because the people making those allegations had mixed motives for doing so.
I agree with Dafyd that Mr Corbyn does seem to have improved. I understand both Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell sent themselves on leadership courses, which would imply that they themselves accept there was some truth behind the allegations.
quote:
I challenge you to put forward 'evidence' of his incompetence that is not matched in scope by the Tory PM and cabinet.
This is a bit like one of those fundamentalist cults where if you question the leadership, it must be because you're a bad witness who doesn't love Jesus. Why should Mrs May's incompetence be used as the baseline by which Labour leaders are judged?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
I challenge you to put forward 'evidence' of his incompetence that is not matched in scope by the Tory PM and cabinet.
This is a bit like one of those fundamentalist cults where if you question the leadership, it must be because you're a bad witness who doesn't love Jesus. Why should Mrs May's incompetence be used as the baseline by which Labour leaders are judged?
You cult example would be true in normal times, but at the moment we have an election on - so Doublethink's question is valid - because at the end of the day you have only have a choice between one or the other.
Furthermore, if you want to advance the leadership course attendance as indication that there were problems working with the cabinet - the fact that they seem to have recognized them and tried to address them seems to be a better approach to criticism than cloistering oneself and only listening to an inner circle of two while bleeting 'strong and stable'.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Why should Mrs May's incompetence be used as the baseline by which Labour leaders are judged?
Because if you live in England and don't live in a constituency where the Greens or the Lib Dems have a fighting chance and you don't vote for Corbyn then May will get in. Khan, to pick a random example, may or may not be more competent than Corbyn, but he's not going to get in no matter what happens.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Last summer you said Jo Cox hadn't had a shred of conscience so pardon me for not being persuaded.
I don't recall saying that, but please feel free to provide a link.
You said apropos of Jones that he didn't oppose the Tory welfare cuts which anyone with a shred of conscience would have done.
Cox voted exactly the same way as Jones, so if it's true of Jones it's true of Cox too.
That said, it's not true. They did oppose the welfare cuts as did the rest of the Labour Party. The claim they didn't is a smear. (Unless you think voting for an amendment doesn't count as opposing? If you think amendments don't count then do you think Corbyn actively supported May in refusing to protect EU nationals resident in Britain.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
at the end of the day you have only have a choice between one or the other.
I live in a safe Labour seat.
betjemaniac made a good point last time round, that 'wasted' votes in safe seats are still valuable in establishing the legitimacy or otherwise of the winner in the minds of the electorate. But if my vote is of purely symbolic value, there is no reason why it particularly has to be for Labour rather than the Lib-Dems.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
betjemaniac made a good point last time round, that 'wasted' votes in safe seats are still valuable in establishing the legitimacy or otherwise of the winner in the minds of the electorate. But if my vote is of purely symbolic value, there is no reason why it particularly has to be for Labour rather than the Lib-Dems.
Sure, though in general this principle works at multiple levels (national as well as party).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You said apropos of Jones that he didn't oppose the Tory welfare cuts which anyone with a shred of conscience would have done.
Cox voted exactly the same way as Jones, so if it's true of Jones it's true of Cox too.
That said, it's not true. They did oppose the welfare cuts as did the rest of the Labour Party. The claim they didn't is a smear. (Unless you think voting for an amendment doesn't count as opposing? If you think amendments don't count then do you think Corbyn actively supported May in refusing to protect EU nationals resident in Britain.)
Still no link. And who is Jones?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Anyone following "Battle for No 10" on channel 4.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Still no link. And who is Jones?
Smith. My mistake. No link because the Ship's archives are rotten. Found it.
I misremembered. You said 'ounce of conscience' not 'shred of conscience'.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
betjemaniac made a good point last time round, that 'wasted' votes in safe seats are still valuable in establishing the legitimacy or otherwise of the winner in the minds of the electorate. But if my vote is of purely symbolic value, there is no reason why it particularly has to be for Labour rather than the Lib-Dems.
Sure, though in general this principle works at multiple levels (national as well as party).
The other aspect to comparing Mr Corbyn's competence to Mrs May's is what happens after the election.
If the current polls are correct, and Labour loses but by a Milibandesque rather than a Footlike proportion, then prima facie that would suggest that Mr Corbyn's incompetence has been overstated or that he has improved, and that he is taking the party in a worthwhile direction that deserves to be pursued.
If, however, we say that Mrs May is monumentally incompetent, and Mr Corbyn still failed to defeat her, then, on the face of it at least, we are back into 'Mr Corbyn is monumentally incompetent' territory.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If, however, we say that Mrs May is monumentally incompetent, and Mr Corbyn still failed to defeat her, then, on the face of it at least, we are back into 'Mr Corbyn is monumentally incompetent' territory.
Not necessarily. There is a link on the Trump thread which suggests people are loathe to change, even when they do not like what they have.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The 17% of the PLP who supported him is still higher than the number who nominated him and wanted him to win, so in terms of support from the PLP it's actually an improvement.
1) They were voting for a sitting leader rather than electing a new leader.
2) He got 16% at his original nomination, so 17% isn't a meaningful improvement.
3) If he can only get 17% of his party MPs to support him, that is by any stretch of the imagination an appalling result. Many of those were prepared to give him a go at the start. If he can't even get his MPs to support him, he's not going to cope with running the country.
quote:
They hate him because, as a number of them have said outright, they'd prefer to see the tories in power than a left wing Labour government.
Like them, my views aren't on the ballot paper this time round.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think allegations of incompetence were used as an attack strategy because it was known he and his policy positions were popular with the membership - so they had little else to use as a basis for a campaign.
I don't think he'd be overwhelmed as pm, he has grown into his current role. I challenge you to put forward 'evidence' of his incompetence that is not matched in scope by the Tory PM and cabinet.
Many of the 83% who didn't support him didn't start with an attack strategy, or any strategy apart from trying to make it work.
I've already given two links which make the point clearly enough; he's incompetent. A simple Google of “Corbyn incompetent” gives so many others that I hardly know where to begin.
Here's the top link for example.
All three of my links are from people who tried to support him, but because of his poor leadership qualities, gave up. To repeat, If he can't even get his MPs to support him, he's not fit to run the country.
quote:
Hammond pulled a U-turn days after his first budget, May pulled a U-turn on a manifesto pledge within 4 days of launch.
If the Tories did a U-turn on social care, Corbyn's driving with the handbrake on over Trident.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the current polls are correct, and Labour loses but by a Milibandesque rather than a Footlike proportion, then prima facie that would suggest that Mr Corbyn's incompetence has been overstated or that he has improved, and that he is taking the party in a worthwhile direction that deserves to be pursued.
Far from it. It could more likely suggest that fewer voters want the continued destruction of the social reforms that had been an agreed base to UK politics for over a half century.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
If the Tories did a U-turn on social care, Corbyn's driving with the handbrake on over Trident.
The difference being that Tory social care (and other) policies are killing people. Whereas Trident is a massive investment that could be better spent stopping people from being killed, but is instead squandered on a system that no sane human being would ever use.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the current polls are correct, and Labour loses but by a Milibandesque rather than a Footlike proportion, then prima facie that would suggest that Mr Corbyn's incompetence has been overstated or that he has improved, and that he is taking the party in a worthwhile direction that deserves to be pursued.
Far from it. It could more likely suggest that fewer voters want the continued destruction of the social reforms that had been an agreed base to UK politics for over a half century.
I think that amounts to saying that Corbyn is taking the party in a worthwhile direction that deserves to be pursued.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think that amounts to saying that Corbyn is taking the party in a worthwhile direction that deserves to be pursued.
I don't think you can tell either way. There's a lot of clear blue (and red) water between Mrs. May and Mr. Corbyn. The election will tell us something about how much people prefer Mr. Corbyn to Mrs. May, or vice versa, but says very little about how they would rank some hypothetical Blairite or Brownite of reasonable competence against either.
If Corbyn does shockingly badly, it might suggest the wider public don't want what he's selling. If he wins, then he's won, and that's that. If he loses Milibandly, I don't think you have any way of telling whether a competent Blairite would have done better or worse - but I have no doubt that each wing of the party would claim a Milibandesque result as a vindication for their particular position.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Dafyd, no - it's a vote against the Tories not one for Corbyn.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Still no link. And who is Jones?
Smith. My mistake. No link because the Ship's archives are rotten. Found it.
I misremembered. You said 'ounce of conscience' not 'shred of conscience'.
So it amounts to you being desperate enough to try and twist me using a slightly over-broad brush when talking about Owen Smith a year ago into a direct attack on Jo Cox? Ffs...
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
In the interview transcript Mr Corbyn denies any involvement with the publication beyond being a reader and a contributor.
.. within a particular time frame as explicitly specified by the interviewer. I mean if we are bringing up things that happened in the early 80s you can dig up videos of Thatcher giving rousing speeches to the Mujahadin, presumably she didn't continue her support for them when they were seen as radicals a few years later.
Meanwhile the charge sheet on the other side is rather more serious, the Home Office while May was its head, facilitated the two way traffic of Islamic radicals between the UK and Libya (where they received training from the UK government and were further radicalised):
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/sorted-mi5-how-uk-government-sent-british-libyans-fight-gaddafi-1219906488
[Also reported on by Peter Oborne on the Mail, if the source above is too partisan in your eyes]
[ 30. May 2017, 09:21: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
So it amounts to you being desperate enough to try and twist me using a slightly over-broad brush when talking about Owen Smith a year ago into a direct attack on Jo Cox? Ffs...
'Slightly over-broad brush' - that's a weasel euphemism if I've ever heard one.
You picked a charge that applied to all or the majority of Corbyn's critics and you conveniently forgot or hoped we'd forget that Cox was one of them.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
JC was really bad on Women's Hour (Radio 4) this morning. The failure on costs was embarrassing, and may well have done some real damage. Disappointing in view of what had seemed to me to be a significant improvement in his public appearance.
Here is a link.
[ 30. May 2017, 18:34: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You picked a charge that applied to all or the majority of Corbyn's critics and you conveniently forgot or hoped we'd forget that Cox was one of them.
You know what, if you want to accuse me of something, come out and say it. In hell if you need to. Otherwise explain why you feel the need to dig up and argue about a year old post. From what I recall a year after the fact, it didn't occur to me that Jo Cox was one of those who trotted obediently into the lobbies on the welfare vote. For all that she said and did some nice things I wouldn't have wanted her as Labour party leader either.
[ 30. May 2017, 20:20: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
JC was really bad on Women's Hour (Radio 4) this morning. The failure on costs was embarrassing, and may well have done some real damage.
Matt in the Telegraph is often on fire, but today particularly so.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
If the Tories did a U-turn on social care, Corbyn's driving with the handbrake on over Trident.
The difference being that Tory social care (and other) policies are killing people. Whereas Trident is a massive investment that could be better spent stopping people from being killed, but is instead squandered on a system that no sane human being would ever use.
Hang on a minute. The Tory U-turn on social care was all about at what point someone pays for their existing care. No OAPs were ever going to die in the making, or unmaking, of this policy.
On the other hand, renewing Trident, paying masses and masses of money just to be able to kill innocent civilians, is Labour party policy. Muddleheaded is the new normal for them.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
Meanwhile, not only does Diane Abbott not have a clue about how much their police officer commitment will cost, but Jeremy Corbyn seems unaware that his decision to unfreeze benefits hasn't been costed (at £3bn), and he doesn't seem to know how much his childcare policy will cost.
One might get the impression that Labour rather like telling people about all the money they want to spend on things, but 'How we're going to pay for it all' isn't seen as a priority.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
seems unaware that his decision to unfreeze benefits hasn't been costed (at £3bn), and he doesn't seem to know how much his childcare policy will cost.
The article you linked to states that it is in fact costed, and tbh, I didn't see this level of fuss over the conservatives claim that a child's breakfast would cost 6p to provide.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
seems unaware that his decision to unfreeze benefits hasn't been costed (at £3bn), and he doesn't seem to know how much his childcare policy will cost.
The article you linked to states that it is in fact costed, and tbh, I didn't see this level of fuss over the conservatives claim that a child's breakfast would cost 6p to provide.
As mentioned on BBC's The News Quiz, the 6p figure was based on the cost of a breakfast in the (heavily subsided) Houses of Parliament restaurants. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I didn't see this level of fuss over the conservatives claim that a child's breakfast would cost 6p to provide.
You could just about get a small bowl of off-brand cornflakes for that, or a couple of slices of cheap bread and marge.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The 17% of the PLP who supported him is still higher than the number who nominated him and wanted him to win, so in terms of support from the PLP it's actually an improvement.
1) They were voting for a sitting leader rather than electing a new leader.
2) He got 16% at his original nomination, so 17% isn't a meaningful improvement.
3) If he can only get 17% of his party MPs to support him, that is by any stretch of the imagination an appalling result. Many of those were prepared to give him a go at the start. If he can't even get his MPs to support him, he's not going to cope with running the country.
quote:
They hate him because, as a number of them have said outright, they'd prefer to see the tories in power than a left wing Labour government.
Like them, my views aren't on the ballot paper this time round.
Swings and roundabouts. First time in years that mine have been.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
If the Tories did a U-turn on social care, Corbyn's driving with the handbrake on over Trident.
The difference being that Tory social care (and other) policies are killing people. Whereas Trident is a massive investment that could be better spent stopping people from being killed, but is instead squandered on a system that no sane human being would ever use.
Hang on a minute. The Tory U-turn on social care was all about at what point someone pays for their existing care. No OAPs were ever going to die in the making, or unmaking, of this policy.
The suicide rate has gone up for a reason.
And I absolutely guarantee you, that if their care change comes in, we will see some elderly people committing suicide because they worry about being a burden to their family. Just as there will be people who decline care they actually need.
[ 31. May 2017, 06:58: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
