Question for Labour supporters

[abc]

Barry Sherman was named as one, but you'll have to elaborate on who this procession is, because I have heard little of it. .

So far Labour MPs John Mann, Graham Stringer and Barry Sheerman have called for the leadership contest to be halted and today Simon Danczuk has joined them.

I didnt mean this to become another thread about Corbyn himself (ther is another as has been rather tediously pointed out) but rather whether labour are risking becoming unelectable not because of who they elect as leader but becaise (or if) a section of the party defy their own democratic process by sabotaging an election because it doesnt give the result they want.

 

[Hampster Gull]

I didnt mean this to become another thread about Corbyn himself (ther is another as has been rather tediously pointed out) but rather whether labour are risking becoming unelectable not because of who they elect as leader but becaise (or if) a section of the party defy their own democratic process by sabotaging an election because it doesnt give the result they want.

They will be relected at some point, wether they vote Corbyn in or not and wether some "sabotage" the labour election process or not. Things go in cycles. But a lurch to the hard left will do themselves no favours and will lengthen the period they are not in power. Lessons can be hard to learn

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

So far Labour MPs John Mann, Graham Stringer and Barry Sheerman have called for the leadership contest to be halted and today Simon Danczuk has joined them.

I didnt mean this to become another thread about Corbyn himself (ther is another as has been rather tediously pointed out) but rather whether labour are risking becoming unelectable not because of who they elect as leader but becaise (or if) a section of the party defy their own democratic process by sabotaging an election because it doesnt give the result they want.

I am sure that is right. They are in danger of becoming like the European Union, re-vote until the result suits them.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

So far Labour MPs John Mann, Graham Stringer and Barry Sheerman have called for the leadership contest to be halted and today Simon Danczuk has joined them.

I didnt mean this to become another thread about Corbyn himself (ther is another as has been rather tediously pointed out) but rather whether labour are risking becoming unelectable not because of who they elect as leader but becaise (or if) a section of the party defy their own democratic process by sabotaging an election because it doesnt give the result they want.

Why not use the 100+ Labour Leader thread then?

 

[Castello]

So far Labour MPs John Mann, Graham Stringer and Barry Sheerman have called for the leadership contest to be halted and today Simon Danczuk has joined them.

I didnt mean this to become another thread about Corbyn himself (ther is another as has been rather tediously pointed out) but rather whether labour are risking becoming unelectable not because of who they elect as leader but becaise (or if) a section of the party defy their own democratic process by sabotaging an election because it doesnt give the result they want.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33873722

What I find most disturbing about this position, is that by the Labour parties own figures, they have had around 170.000 new applications either for full membership, as affiliated supporters like myself, or as supporters paying the £3 fee. There have been 1200 applications rejected. This is around 0.8% of those that have applied. Hardly even a trickle. In fact its not much more than those who try to fraudulently vote in a general election.

The red tories have stated that they welcome the green party supporters, its trotskyists theyre worried about. They claim that trotskyist parties are trying to infiltrate.

Firstly this is nonsense. The two main trotskyist parties, The Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party, have both instructed their members not to join. Both their papers have online editions, check for yourselves if you doubt me. Although they may sympathise with JC, they have few enough members as it is to want to lose any to the Labour party. However even if this wasn't the case and every single trotskyist in this country joined, that would be about 15000 people. Less than 10%. Believe me I know them, they have wet dreams about having the numbers attributed to them. (A disturbing thought I know)

The reality is on the worse figures based upon the fertile imaginations of a bunch of mp's watching the political careers flow into the sewers, and removed from reality, less than 10% of those joining could be called infiltrators.

They are willing to deny that the votes of the other 90% have any merit in order to ensure they dont lose control. They will do this in in front of the british electorate and claim to be doing it in the name of party democracy. They will conveniently forget that this system is one they helped put into place. If they try and halt the election, or try and invalidate a Corbyn victory, they will make any party they belong to,Tory, Labour or any new centre party unelectable.

What they fail to understand is that Corbyn rallys are attracting 1000's. A rally in support of them would attract the caretaker, cleaner and a mangy stray dog looking for shelter.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

I am a recently-joined Labour Party member. Although I have huge respect for many of the positions he adopts I don't expect to be actually be voting for JC as I don’t feel that his idea of radical politics closely enough matches mine. However I can’t see that a party led by someone who is clear and honest about the positions they adopt should be considered less electable than a party run by MPs who are prepared to suspend a democratic process when that process isn’t going their way.

 

[BLOCK F]

I am a recently-joined Labour Party member. Although I have huge respect for many of the positions he adopts I don't expect to be actually be voting for JC as I don’t feel that his idea of radical politics closely enough matches mine. However I can’t see that a party led by someone who is clear and honest about the positions they adopt should be considered less electable than a party run by MPs who are prepared to suspend a democratic process when that process isn’t going their way.

He may be clear and honest about the position he adopts, but that doesn't mean to say that his 'position' will be either realistic or acceptable to the majority of the Labour voters in the country, let alone to the rest of the population. I assume that the M.P.'s who want to halt the 'democratic process' are shit scared that a) they will lose their seats and b.) Labour may well become unelectable for one hell of a long time, if Corbyn wins.
Anyway, it looks to me that Labour are in the shit and halting the democratic process may be seen as rather less damaging to the party than having Corbyn as a leader.
As a Tory voter, I find it quite incredible that having had the Leftie likes of Foot, Kinnock and Milliband rejected by the electorate , the party appear to think that someone even more to the Left is the answer to their problems.
Bonkers.

 

[glasfryn]

think the tories have their own problems to think about
another 25k unemployed
selling off banks at a loss
imigrants getting into the country and nobody to stop them
and a definite swing to the left
dave has his worry beads out already

and nobody to blame

Oh and do any of the tories think that a straight contest between boris or gideon who cannot add up to save his life and anyone will win them the next election
now that is bonkers

 

[Gwylan]

Anyway, it looks to me that Labour are in the shit and halting the democratic process may be seen as rather less damaging to the party than having Corbyn as a leader.
As a Tory voter, I find it quite incredible that having had the Leftie likes of Foot, Kinnock and Milliband rejected by the electorate , the party appear to think that someone even more to the Left is the answer to their problems.

I think it would electoral suicide for Labour to cancel the election: how could they ever be trusted as a democratic party again? And what authority would a new leader have? He or she would face jibes for five years that the Labour party didn't want you, so why should the electorate?

Kinnock and Milliband leftie? Are you sure? And while Corbyn is to the left of them, he's more centrist than the Foot-era government: 50 years ago, he'd have been pretty mainstream Labour, he's scarcely a raging militant

 

[BLOCK F]

think the tories have their own problems to think about
another 25k unemployed
selling off banks at a loss
imigrants getting into the country and nobody to stop them
and a definite swing to the left
dave has his worry beads out already

and nobody to blame

Oh and do any of the tories think that a straight contest between boris or gideon who cannot add up to save his life and anyone will win them the next election
now that is bonkers

Glassers, I can only wonder at the faith you have in your Messiah.
Keep taking the tablets or whatever else maintains your delusions that Corbyn will lead us all into the promised land and be hailed as a saviour from all that is bad.

 

[BLOCK F]

I think it would electoral suicide for Labour to cancel the election: how could they ever be trusted as a democratic party again? And what authority would a new leader have? He or she would face jibes for five years that the Labour party didn't want you, so why should the electorate?

Kinnock and Milliband leftie? Are you sure? And while Corbyn is to the left of them, he's more centrist than the Foot-era government: 50 years ago, he'd have been pretty mainstream Labour, he's scarcely a raging militant

Yes, I do consider Kinnock and Milliband to be Lefties.
As I said, Labour are in the shit. If they halt the democratic process they are in the shit and if they vote Corbyn as leader they are in the shit.
Whilst you ask and talk about leader authority, Corbyn has never been one to respect the leadership of his party and quite frankly, there are a number of commentators who reckon he'd have a hard job of filling his front bench positions, let alone have any authority over his footsoldiers.
Finally, the time for a mainstream party a la Labour of 50 odd years ago, has passed.

 

[alfredmizen]

I'm surprised neither this or the actual Corbyn thread has made any reference to JC's interview with Stephen Nolan on Radio Ulster/5 Live.

JC refused to denounce the actions of the IRA, causing a right old tizzy on the phone lines.
It nicely coincided with the post AMEX drive home.
I actually thought JC came out of it well, although a little surprised he didn't take bait and say he was against terrorism.


'Oddly' nobody was prepared to link the current state of the planet with not listening to terrorists.

probably because he's not.

 

[glasfryn]

Glassers, I can only wonder at the faith you have in your Messiah.
Keep taking the tablets or whatever else maintains your delusions that Corbyn will lead us all into the promised land and be hailed as a saviour from all that is bad.

definitely not my Messiah, but better that the muppets that are there now, their policies are beginning to go a bit pair shaped and come apart at the seams.
it will be interesting to see how many tory voters think that gideon or even boris are fit to run the party let alone the country in 5 years .........if they last that long

 

[BLOCK F]

definitely not my Messiah, but better that the muppets that are there now, their policies are beginning to go a bit pair shaped and come apart at the seams.
it will be interesting to see how many tory voters think that gideon or even boris are fit to run the party let alone the country in 5 years .........if they last that long

Don't agree that policies are going a bit pear shaped.
I could see Osborne as PM, but would rather see Cameron staying on if all is going well. I wouldn't want Boris to be anywhere near being PM.,personally.
On the other side, I just don't know.........not Corbyn or Burnham, would prefer Cooper. Kendall won't win this time, but I quite fancy her!

 

[Gwylan]

Whilst you ask and talk about leader authority, Corbyn has never been one to respect the leadership of his party and quite frankly, there are a number of commentators who reckon he'd have a hard job of filling his front bench positions, let alone have any authority over his footsoldiers.
Finally, the time for a mainstream party a la Labour of 50 odd years ago, has passed.

Yes, Corbyn (who has voted against Labour 500 times) is a strange choice as leader but I can't see him being there for long. I see Corbyn's role as shifting the party leftwards, ready for someone younger. I believe that whoever is leader will lose next time round by 2025 will be a different matter.

Why do you think the time for Labour has passed? These things come in waves: Callaghan and Healey moved the party rightwards in the 70s because they believed the policies of the 40s no longer applied (Foot took it briefly leftwards but right-wingers such as Kinnock, Blair and Brown moved it back again). Why should it not move left again? The world of 2025 is going to look very different: to say that political parties will all stay the same is just wrong - they will shift with the times

 

[abc]

I can’t see that a party led by someone who is clear and honest about the positions they adopt should be considered less electable than a party run by MPs who are prepared to suspend a democratic process when that process isn’t going their way.

Personally I dont think Corbyn is unelectable come a general election, not least because he is, as you say, 'clear and honest' but if the Labour Party election is suspended then that surely makes the labour party as a whole unelectable?

But thinking over some of the previous posts, perhaps it would mean the only option for Labour at a General election would be Corbyn. If the election was suspended he would be seen as the victim of the undemocratic labour 'establishment'. If he he then won a new election and led the party at the General Election he would be seen as the 'conqueror' of the undemocratic forces and his 'clear and honest' image would have been strengthened even further.

Perhaps Corbyn will end up being unstoppable in 5 years time?!

 

[BLOCK F]

Yes, Corbyn (who has voted against Labour 500 times) is a strange choice as leader but I can't see him being there for long. I see Corbyn's role as shifting the party leftwards, ready for someone younger. I believe that whoever is leader will lose next time round by 2025 will be a different matter.

Why do you think the time for Labour has passed? These things come in waves: Callaghan and Healey moved the party rightwards in the 70s because they believed the policies of the 40s no longer applied (Foot took it briefly leftwards but right-wingers such as Kinnock, Blair and Brown moved it back again). Why should it not move left again? The world of 2025 is going to look very different: to say that political parties will all stay the same is just wrong - they will shift with the times

Hi Gwylan, I don't think the time for Labour has passed, I just think that the time for a Labour Party of 50 odd years ago has passed.

 

[BLOCK F]

Personally I dont think Corbyn is unelectable come a general election, not least because he is, as you say, 'clear and honest' but if the Labour Party election is suspended then that surely makes the labour party as a whole unelectable?

But thinking over some of the previous posts, perhaps it would mean the only option for Labour at a General election would be Corbyn. If the election was suspended he would be seen as the victim of the undemocratic labour 'establishment'. If he he then won a new election and led the party at the General Election he would be seen as the 'conqueror' of the undemocratic forces and his 'clear and honest' image would have been strengthened even further.

Perhaps Corbyn will end up being unstoppable in 5 years time?!

Just because Corbyn is seen to be clear and honest, that does not mean he isn't wrong. Someone who believes the moon is made out of blue cheese may genuinely believe that is the case..............doesn't make his beliefs correct or acceptable to the majority though.