homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Jeremy Corbyn out? (Page 9)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  37  38  39 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Jeremy Corbyn out?
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:


Needless to say, the challenge was unsuccessful, but it is an example of Jeremy being perfectly happy in the past to cock things up for everyone else, even when they've got a massive mandate (IIRC, Kinnock went *into* the leadership battle against Benn with internal Labour membership approval of over 80%....).

Kinnock had just lost an election badly. Perfectly reasonable to have a debate about whether he's up to the job. History proved he wasn't. If Corbyn loses in 2020 as badly as Kinnock did in 1987 I would think it perfectly reasonable for him to face a leadership challenge.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, he supported Tony Benn's leadership bid in 1988.

Anyway, the analogy doesn't work. Military officers are not elected. Politics is not a suicide mission. If you lose the confidence of the Parliamentary Party in a Parliamentary Democracy your position is not, really, sustainable. There are limited exceptions to this rule, such as UKIP but neither apply to the Government or the Opposition of the day. In my lifetime this has happened to Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, Iain Duncan Smith and Tony Blair. It effectively also happened to Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock, John Major, William Hague, Michael Howard, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, all of whom lost General Elections and would almost certainly have forfeited the confidence of their Parliamentary Parties had they turned up for work the next morning and announced: "bit of a shocker about the result there lads, never mind, eh, some you win, some you lose". The resulting altercation, I think, would have seen a vacancy in the party leadership in fairly short order. The mandate of the party is not the mandate from heaven. It is a mandate to do the job of the Leader of the Opposition. If you can't do the job the decent thing is to knock it on the head and let someone who can do better take over.

[x-posted, obvs.]

[ 05. July 2016, 12:41: Message edited by: Callan ]

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:


Needless to say, the challenge was unsuccessful, but it is an example of Jeremy being perfectly happy in the past to cock things up for everyone else, even when they've got a massive mandate (IIRC, Kinnock went *into* the leadership battle against Benn with internal Labour membership approval of over 80%....).

Kinnock had just lost an election badly. Perfectly reasonable to have a debate about whether he's up to the job. History proved he wasn't. If Corbyn loses in 2020 as badly as Kinnock did in 1987 I would think it perfectly reasonable for him to face a leadership challenge.
Yeah, it's a shame that didn't work out. The obvious conclusion, with hindsight, is that after being roundly thumped by Margaret Thatcher in 1983 and 1987 and Mr Major getting comfortably over the finishing line in 1992 despite the obvious de-merits of the Tories having introduced the Poll Tax is that what the British public were really calling for was a sentimental quasi-Marxist aristocrat leading a party somewhere to the left of Mr Michael Foot.

There was a case for getting rid of Neil Kinnock in 1988 but, alas, Denis Healey didn't want the job.

[ 05. July 2016, 13:08: Message edited by: Callan ]

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Isn't there some provision in the Labor party rules for getting rid of an unwanted leader - aside from simply shouting at him until he self-deports? Surely they can't simply rely on everyone always agreeing on what the "decent" thing to do is?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Isn't there some provision in the Labor party rules for getting rid of an unwanted leader - aside from simply shouting at him until he self-deports? Surely they can't simply rely on everyone always agreeing on what the "decent" thing to do is?

Apparently, at one point, when John Smith was in charge, the rules were changed, and it was suggested that there ought to be an explicit provision that said that if a Party Leader lost the confidence of the Parliamentary Party he had to go. Apparently Smith, who had clearly had a long day at the office and wanted to bugger off home, thought it unnecessary to put in an explicit provision to that effect and, so, technically, it is entirely possible to be Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party despite a no confidence vote from one's MPs.

The only way round it is a formal leadership challenge which the MPs are keen to avoid because there has recently been an influx into the party of enthusiastic young people who think that the best way to convince the British people of the merits of a Labour government is to elect a revolutionary socialist with a dodgy backstory. This is currently going as well as you might expect it to.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

The only way round it is a formal leadership challenge which the MPs are keen to avoid because there has recently been an influx into the party of enthusiastic young people who think that the best way to convince the British people of the merits of a Labour government is to elect a revolutionary socialist with a dodgy backstory. This is currently going as well as you might expect it to.

I tend to disagree - a lot of the ostensibly pro-corbyn/momentum camp aren't as tied to him as an individual so much as they are tied to a particular way in which the party should be run - at least part of what attracted them to join to start with was the thought that they could have an impact.

Similarly, there seems to be an absolute paucity of alternative candidates emerging from the MPs themselves. The synchronized resignations were clearly planned in advance - but for whatever reason any leadership challengers don't seem to fancy their chances at the moment.

I mean, if they were principled they could stand and make a reasoned set of arguments to the membership.

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541

 - Posted      Profile for Rocinante   Email Rocinante   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Both Labour and Tories seem to have completely and utterly lost it post-referendum. The Tories, though, will probably get it together in a few weeks, elect a sensible leader and get on with winning the next general election by whatever means necessary. Labour's travails could well drag on for years, and keep them out of power for decades, if not forever. It's difficult to see how they can avoid a split if Corbyn doesn't step down.

I'm no fan of Norman Tebbit, but he once described Labour as "comrades united in fraternal detestation of each other's guts," which seems very apt at the moment.

Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Isn't there some provision in the Labor party rules for getting rid of an unwanted leader - aside from simply shouting at him until he self-deports? Surely they can't simply rely on everyone always agreeing on what the "decent" thing to do is?

They simply have to come up with a credible opponent and get them 50 nominations from MPs and MEPs. The fact that they keep threatening to do it and haven't yet indicates that they're well aware that the potential candidates are no more credible than the ones they tried to push last year.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It is apparent that Jeremy Corbyn is in a bit of bother scraping together a shadow cabinet. On the one hand I am delighted to see that Paul Flynn, the 81-year old MP for Newport West now has not one, but two frontbench posts, but it does indicate how hard-up Labour is for material.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Trouble is it isn't likely to matter how 'credible' or otherwise anyone is: Momentum haven't been idle since last year's leadership election and have converted many of the £3 "supporters" to full members of the party, so any supposedly credible candidate, however well-backed by MPs, is likely to face a drubbing if Mr Corbyn stands to retain the leadership.

To quote their own website "Momentum is the successor of the Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Leader campaign but it is independent, but supportive of, the Labour Party and Labour leadership.".

In true hard-left-but-Labour tradition, the frontman for Momentum, James Schneider has all the correct working-class credentials in place, having been a pupil at The Dragon in Oxford before going to Winchester (also the alma mater of Seumas Milne, JC's press man), then on to Trinity College Oxford.

Don't expect Momentum to go along with any proposal that leads to JC stepping down from the leadership any time soon: as and when (if?) they do it will be because they're sure they can get him re-elected.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How is momentum institutionally different from progress ?

--------------------
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      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
FYI

http://www.progressonline.org.uk/about-progress/how-progress-is-funded/

http://www.peoplesmomentum.com

[ 05. July 2016, 17:44: 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
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It is apparent that Jeremy Corbyn is in a bit of bother scraping together a shadow cabinet. On the one hand I am delighted to see that Paul Flynn, the 81-year old MP for Newport West now has not one, but two frontbench posts, but it does indicate how hard-up Labour is for material.

I have heard good things about Paul Flynn. I'd just like Corbyn to be the first Labour leader to persuade Dennis Skinner off the back benches. I think he'd make as excellent Shadow First Secretary of State to deputise for Corbyn at PMQs. The tories wouldn't know what had hit them.

[ 05. July 2016, 17:56: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
How is momentum institutionally different from progress ?

According to its website, Progress is funded by Labour Party members. Can the same be said for Momentum?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't know, I am quite, interested how progress came by £400,000.

Momentum encourages people to join the Labour Party, so I would have thought most folk in it are in the party, for one thing, you can't actually vote unless you are a member and it was originally the campaign to get Corbyn elected.

Conversely, I am a full member of the Labour Party,and have been for most of my adult life, I have also been out leafleting with momentum - but I am not a member of momentum. I suspect it cuts both ways.

--------------------
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
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I don't know, I am quite, interested how progress came by £400,000.

Peter Mandelson probably found it behind his sofa.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If you look at your link, Doublethink, you'll see most of it came from Lord Sainsbury (illegally on occasion, as it happens).
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If you look at your link, Doublethink, you'll see most of it came from Lord Sainsbury (illegally on occasion, as it happens).

I'd be interested if you could set out in what ways Lord Sainsbury has broken the law in this matter?

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'd just like Corbyn to be the first Labour leader to persuade Dennis Skinner off the back benches. I think he'd make as excellent Shadow First Secretary of State to deputise for Corbyn at PMQs. The tories wouldn't know what had hit them.

On the contrary, they'd have him for breakfast.

Don't get me wrong. I think Dennis is very good value on the back benches. I also thought his moving tribute to Tony Benn was one of the best back bench speeches in recent years.

But you're talking about a different level of competence in handling PMQs. Jeremy Coorbyn was right to talk about, and exemplify, the need for a more considered, serious style. Dennis would be good entertainment value on the level of confrontational knockabout, would probably land some hefty rhetorical blows. But that's not what Jeremy wants. He'd see it as a backward step.

And the Tories would just lap up the style difference, play on it.

--------------------
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      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If you look at your link, Doublethink, you'll see most of it came from Lord Sainsbury (illegally on occasion, as it happens).

I'd be interested if you could set out in what ways Lord Sainsbury has broken the law in this matter?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26170777

Technically it's Progress that broke the law, as they should have returned the improper donations, rather than Sainsbury (though Sainsbury should have known better too).

Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'd just like Corbyn to be the first Labour leader to persuade Dennis Skinner off the back benches. I think he'd make as excellent Shadow First Secretary of State to deputise for Corbyn at PMQs. The tories wouldn't know what had hit them.

On the contrary, they'd have him for breakfast.

Don't get me wrong. I think Dennis is very good value on the back benches. I also thought his moving tribute to Tony Benn was one of the best back bench speeches in recent years.

But you're talking about a different level of competence in handling PMQs. Jeremy Coorbyn was right to talk about, and exemplify, the need for a more considered, serious style. Dennis would be good entertainment value on the level of confrontational knockabout, would probably land some hefty rhetorical blows. But that's not what Jeremy wants. He'd see it as a backward step.

And the Tories would just lap up the style difference, play on it.

Ah, you're probably right, and that's probably why Corbyn hasn't done it. Would be fun to watch though.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If you look at your link, Doublethink, you'll see most of it came from Lord Sainsbury (illegally on occasion, as it happens).

I'd be interested if you could set out in what ways Lord Sainsbury has broken the law in this matter?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26170777

Technically it's Progress that broke the law, as they should have returned the improper donations, rather than Sainsbury (though Sainsbury should have known better too).

OK. That's good call.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I really don't think anything will happen before Chilcot is published. After that, many things can happen, but I wouldn't bet on any one of them.

I suppose there may be some linkage between the "no confidence" vote and the forthcoming public verdict on Tony Blair and one or two of his minister. Some parts of the press are saying as much. I'm not convinced. Jeremy has been causing increasing dissatisfaction in the PLP for some time now.

I'm just going to put this here now.

I think that when the Chilcott report comes out it will be nothing like as damaging in its condemnation of Tony Blair as people assume and I predict that the word "whitewash" will be used with some frequency when the contents are known.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Corbyn issues a formal apology on behalf of the Labour Party at the dispatch box at PMQs and, in his next breath, indicates that he is stepping down. Personally, I think he shouldn't have stood, shouldn't have been nominated, shouldn't have been elected and has been an unmitigated disaster for the country and the Labour Party but on a personal level, I imagine the last week has been utter hell for him.

1/2 - so you were surprised.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One out of three, actually, Martin.

I thought Chilcot would be damaging to Blair, but I didn't think that it would be so damaging that people wouldn't mind that some of the worst allegations that are made against Blair weren't backed up by the report. I'm more surprised by that than I am by Corbyn remaining in office.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Indeed Callan. Your correcting my 1/2 with a humbler 1/3 is win-win, which makes 3/5. My only blustering excuse was that I was responding to your prophecy on Corbyn, the subject of the thread.

Blair is acknowledging that the intel should have been challenged, but by whom? It's NOT the PM's job to question his experts' expertise. I doubt he ever heard of Curveball. Surely he is completely vindicated? He was let down by MI6, whoever planned the smooth transformation of the Iraq dictatorship to a plural open democratic society after destroying all its institutions and the Army. Surely? For another extant thread maybe.

As for Jeremy, he continues to represent me perfectly.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204

 - Posted      Profile for Chamois   Email Chamois   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And the answer to the question in the title of this thread appears to be "No".
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Indeed Callan. Your correcting my 1/2 with a humbler 1/3 is win-win, which makes 3/5. My only blustering excuse was that I was responding to your prophecy on Corbyn, the subject of the thread.

Blair is acknowledging that the intel should have been challenged, but by whom? It's NOT the PM's job to question his experts' expertise. I doubt he ever heard of Curveball. Surely he is completely vindicated? He was let down by MI6, whoever planned the smooth transformation of the Iraq dictatorship to a plural open democratic society after destroying all its institutions and the Army. Surely? For another extant thread maybe.

As for Jeremy, he continues to represent me perfectly.

If it isn't the PM's job to challenge advice presented to him who should do so? Chilcot has been as damning of MI6 as it has of Blair and my view is that it isn't Blair or MI6 that is responsible for the fiasco that was Gulf II but all of them. Collective responsibility. Cabinet responsibility even. Every damned MP that voted and supported the 2003 invasion must take some of the responsibility, although not to the extent that Blair, his cabinet and the heads of MI6 are.

Of all the involved parties only the Joint Chiefs of Staff come out with any credit: they told Blair that the military resources couldn't be got together in the quantity and to the timescale demanded but they weren't listened to.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I certainly think that it is the job of the PM to challenge intelligence put to him. Spooks are not infallible. It's not the job of the military and the intelligence agencies to put together a case for their preferred course of action and for the PM to nod it through. And I don't think, in this instance, it was the case. Blair wasn't a passive recipient of intelligence.

That said, we are where we are. Whilst I would like a government of National Unity led by Kenneth Clarke, Robin Cook and Charles Kennedy, I fear that death and time has rather ruled that out. I think that it would be better for the country if Prime Minister May was facing Leader of the Opposition Eagle across the dispatch box, rather than Prime Minister Ledsom against Leader of the Opposition Corbyn.

Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.

While strictly true, you've missed out the bit where the British government lies to the people, so that the people think they're voting for Utopia, instead of Hell on Earth.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.

While strictly true, you've missed out the bit where the British government lies to the people, so that the people think they're voting for Utopia, instead of Hell on Earth.
That does happen. But it happens because the electorate don't pay attention. The two biggest fuck ups of my adult life were Iraq and Brexit. The people supported both of them. It's said that if you want to con somebody your ideal mark is someone dishonest. Someone who will be taken in by your promises of something for nothing. Seems to me that whilst a great deal of the blame rests on the Real Hustle, we can't, completely, exonerate the marks.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think a partisan media also has questions to answer.

Have you seen the Sun front page from the time, with Charles Kennedy and a snake on ?

--------------------
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
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think we can all agree that the Sun is totally despicable.

I could have respected them if they had followed Blair's example and defiantly said they stood by what they said at the time. But to vilify Blair's enemies in 2003 and then to vilify Blair in 2016 was contemptible. Beyond, obviously, the position they took in 2003 was contemptible anyway.

I will add, however, that people read the Sun voluntarily and if they believe it they have some responsibility for their opinions. The data that points to the conclusion that everybody responsible for The Sun are a bunch of - insert expletives here now - is out there. If people read it and take it seriously the responsibility for their epic - further epithets as required - is as much on them as it is on The Sun.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree with you.

* Is knocked over by a passing feather *

[ 07. July 2016, 20:44: 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
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm as surprised as you are.

Still, to return to the subject of the thread, it clearly demonstrates that those of us who do not sign up to the Jeremy Corbyn bill of goods are not necessarily Red Tories and Blairites.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And those of us who do, are not necessarily closet communists.

--------------------
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
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.

No they didn't. The public were pretty evenly divided, and firmly against a war without UN backing and very firmly against if there were, in fact, no WMD. People only supported the war after it started.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.

No they didn't. The public were pretty evenly divided, and firmly against a war without UN backing and very firmly against if there were, in fact, no WMD. People only supported the war after it started.
I'd add that once the war started many of those who supported the war were actually doing so to support our armed forces, who were once again sent abroad to do the unpleasant, dangerous and dirty work.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.

No they didn't. The public were pretty evenly divided, and firmly against a war without UN backing and very firmly against if there were, in fact, no WMD. People only supported the war after it started.
YouGov disagree with you 50/42 on the day of the Parliamentary Debate. Data here.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Fascinating. Approval ratings keep bouncing back until May 2004.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.

No they didn't. The public were pretty evenly divided, and firmly against a war without UN backing and very firmly against if there were, in fact, no WMD. People only supported the war after it started.
YouGov disagree with you 50/42 on the day of the Parliamentary Debate. Data here.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/ca/287/Iraq-The-Last-PreWar-Polls.aspx
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/iraq

Plenty of variation with different methodologies and questions. Nothing clear about it.

Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Still, to return to the subject of the thread, it clearly demonstrates that those of us who do not sign up to the Jeremy Corbyn bill of goods are not necessarily Red Tories and Blairites.

OTOH, not everyone who isn't a Red Tory or Blairite is necessarily signing up to Jeremy Corbyn in totality. I just think - seemingly contra most of the PLP - that the age of Blairist style triangulation is dead, and that JC having been voted in, he should be removed via the normal channels of a leadership challenge followed by a vote.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I could have respected them if they had followed Blair's example and defiantly said they stood by what they said at the time. But to vilify Blair's enemies in 2003 and then to vilify Blair in 2016 was contemptible.

Then there's a certain symmetry with the West's vilification of Iraq's enemies throughout the Iran/Iraq war to the point of turning a blind eye to chemical weapon use (albeit not such a blind eye via satellite pictures to identify Iranian targets that were passed to the Baathists) and then subsequent vilification of Saddam in 2003 on the basis that he might have weapons of mass destruction including chemical weapons.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Remember that the opinion polls at the time found a clear majority for action. The British government did what the British people wanted. We get the politicians that we deserve. A sobering thought.

No they didn't. The public were pretty evenly divided, and firmly against a war without UN backing and very firmly against if there were, in fact, no WMD. People only supported the war after it started.
YouGov disagree with you 50/42 on the day of the Parliamentary Debate. Data here.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/ca/287/Iraq-The-Last-PreWar-Polls.aspx
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/iraq

Plenty of variation with different methodologies and questions. Nothing clear about it.

Judging by your second link there was a clear swing to war in the run up to the invasion, but the data is sufficiently ambiguous that I must concede the point.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
... I just think - seemingly contra most of the PLP - that the age of Blairist style triangulation is dead, and that JC having been voted in, he should be removed via the normal channels of a leadership challenge followed by a vote.

I get the impression that part of the problem is that the Labour Party's rulebook doesn't provide an obvious way of forcing a change of leadership.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I get the impression that part of the problem is that the Labour Party's rulebook doesn't provide an obvious way of forcing a change of leadership.

Not quite; any of the MPs could launch a leadership challenge if they had sufficient support from their fellow MPs. Their names would be put on the ballot along with Corbyn's (as current leader) and it would be put to the vote of the entire party.

That's what they are trying to avoid, as they fear they'd lose. What they want him to do is resign first, so that his name wouldn't be on the ballot.

There is some irony that the main carping about Corbyn's electability comes from a bunch of people who don't think they could get elected ahead of him.

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, that's what I find so bizarre.

People are going on and on about how hopeless he is as a leader, yet no one will mount a leadership challenge against him. But if he was as bad as all that then any of the alternatives would beat him easily, wouldn't they?!

You'd also think that the individuals hoping to replace him would put themselves out there a bit more, and try to present a warm, conciliatory face to the party members, rather than just baying for blood. After all, they presumably want to keep hold of the members who joined because of Corbyn rather than driving them away. Or maybe they don't?

It just seems very short-sighted to bully the man in this public way and not expect to suffer for it. After all, standing up for the underdog is part of British culture. Determination in the face of obstacles is a trait that many of us have been raised to admire, whatever party we support.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It just seems very short-sighted to bully the man in this public way and not expect to suffer for it. After all, standing up for the underdog is part of British culture. Determination in the face of obstacles is a trait that many of us have been raised to admire, whatever party we support.

Quite right. Hence the very emphatic backlashes against the treatment of Michael Foot, John Major, and Ed Miliband, who all went on to win conclusive election victories in 1983, 1997 and 2015. The penchant for electorates in choosing likeable Eddie the Eagle figures whose haplessness and good heart make up for any actual discernible talent for the job of Prime Minister is notorious and has stymied the careers of more conventionally able political figures like Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and David Cameron.

If you think the Parliamentary Labour Party are unsympathetic, wait until Corbyn gets to put his credentials to the electorate. Let's just say that The Strange Death Of Liberal England is supposed to be an awful warning, not an instruction manual.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not saying the man would be an excellent PM, or even win an election, but this public hounding for days on end strikes me as totally counter-productive. It's bad PR.

What they should be doing is promoting the people they want to replace him. Tell the members, and the rest of us, why Ms Eagle, Mr Ummuna, Mr Burnham, or whoever, would be an excellent choice. At the moment, we don't have a clue. It's almost as if they think a donkey in a suit and tie would be a better party leader than Mr Corbyn - in which case, we might as well just stick with the Tories!!

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58

 - Posted      Profile for Ariel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, Angela Eagle is now officially up for it.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

If you think the Parliamentary Labour Party are unsympathetic, wait until Corbyn gets to put his credentials to the electorate. Let's just say that The Strange Death Of Liberal England is supposed to be an awful warning, not an instruction manual.

The lesson I took from studying that period of history was that if you cosy up to the tories and make it clear there's no difference between them and you then you will get killed by the electorate who will switch their allegiance to someone genuinely left wing. This is also the lesson of the lib dems in coalition, from the last time the right of the Labour Party threw their toys out the pram.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  37  38  39 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools