Off Topic Political Debate

Amusing - you ask SH how he knows what the traditional Labour voter wants. Can I ask how you know he does not want a continuation of Blairism or a mark 2 Toryism? The last Labour victory was under Blair - they only lost after they ditched him for Brown - then Miliband and now Corbyn. I would vote for a Labour Party that was more Blairite but would never vote for one under Corbyn - and I consider myself non party aligned but middle of the road.

 

Agreed ... but not just Labour

In a better world all elected representatives would meet with their constituents to get their views on important issues..... whatever their party. It rarely happens currently

 

We are not talking about far left infiltrators here. Analyse those who actually voted for Corbyn.....every sector of the Labour Party apart from the parliamentary one. Even restricting the vote only to those longer term members ie. who had been members while Gordon Brown was the leader, Corbyn still has a majority. The problem is not left wing infiltration but that the parliamentary Labour Party had moved too far to the right - without popular support. All of those policies which are contentious with the public, republicanism, defence, Trident etc. are not really 'leftist' issues - on those policies which are 'leftist' ie. renationalization of the railways, national control over energy etc. there he has support amongst the electorate. All we need is for Corbyn to work on his relationship to the media (because there is always a massive difference between what he actually says and what is reported), and to allow MPs as much freedom as he himself was given to actually disagree. Get these together and the Tories will have a real fight on in the next election.....which you well know otherwise you would not be spending most of your time on here belittling him....a policy which can only stem from fear.

 

Totally agree on not just Labour - on Syria the country needs to be considered not party politics.
Shame MPs do not hold more public consultations on issues

 

You mean that Blair managed to avoid going down with a sinking ship by passing the mantle on at the last minute - something which he apparently did as a result of a 'private' arrangement without the party actually having a part in this decision. It was not the party which ditched Blair and replaced him with Brown. Blair had already lost more voters and more members (compared to the 1997 levels) than any other Labour leader in history - and only narrowly avoided being dragged up before a war crimes court in the Hague (which is where he belongs).

 

Oh dear - you keep saying republicanism, defence, Trident etc are not leftish issues - but it is the left that overwhelming supports them in the UK at least which is all we can worry about here.
The PLP has not moved to the right - most of those who oppose Corbyn have not moved but saw a drift to the left initiated by Brown intensified by Miliband and now exaggerated by Corbyn. There is no evidence to show Labour voters - not members Cologne as you are the only person on this board who seems to keep on about them - but voters - do not vote for a Labour party that moves to the left. They rejected left wing Foot, Kinnock etc; they voted for moderate Labour under Blair - 3 times and have rejected Labour since. I think it is a shame as I would like to vote Labour but until Labour understand how to get elected they will be slaves to factions stirred up on the left

 

Oh please- Brown and his cronies conspired against Blair and undermined him until he agreed to go. I suspect if Brown had not replaced him LAbour would have survived in 2010 -it was close even under such a fool as Brown. Lost more voters -explain that - he WON 3 elections and probably would have won a fourth.

I totally agree he should not have gone to war in Iraq - I did not believe the tripe about WMD in 2003 and never have since. Get real about war crimes courts - that is a wish of the left.

 

Personally I like to be behind the wheel with my foot on the throttle and brake so i can avoid or be responsible for the crash Leading with conviction is the right way and I'll give Corbyn his due, in my opinion he is wrong but he is principled and stands by his convictions.

 

Interesting new strand to the discussion you and Yorkie have started here and I wholeheartedly agree. The best MPs are definitely the ones who deal with constituents without their party political hats on. My mum hates her current Labour MP but really liked his conservative predecessor - and she'd vote for a 3 legged horse with an ASBO and a drink problem if it wore a red rosette.
Corbyn's in trouble on Syria - if he does push all MPs to vote against he will have a rebellion on his hands and the points you've raised will definitely play a big part I think.

 

Are you saying that democracy should only reflect the wishes of party members? The democracy in the UK relies on the population having the right to be represented ad not just party members. As somebody already stated on here those who join parties generally are the more opinionated and radical members of society who are very much a minority. The important thing is to have parties that align to the needs of society as a whole and not ideologies to the left or right...

 

It's not yet settled whether Corbyn will give them a free vote on this - from what I have understood he wants them to have time to consult their constituency party members. If MP's are voting in a different way to what their constituency parties want (and these are the people who supported their candidature in the first place) then there is a problem, which Corbyn is right to address. Unfortunately there is not enough time to have a poll of all party members on this.

 

I would like Cologne to answer Leo's point about the only time Labour were elected recently was with Blair's centrist policies. Against this fact when Labour have chosen a more left wing model they always end in defeat.

1,Why?
2. What makes you think this trend can be reversed?

 

No, I am saying that party policy will reflect the wishes of the party members.....is there anything strange in that ?

 

Yes, when the make up of those party members is not reflective of Labour Party `mp's or its voters.

 

The situation in 1997 was that the Tories had been so discredited, not just by their policies but also by corruption, that Labour would have won in 1997 even if they had been lead by a 3 armed dwarf - Labour did not need to go so far to the right to win. Times have also changed - in 1983 (the Foot election) people had not seen the full force of neo liberalist ideology or the banking crisis, had not seen the devastation which was to follow, or the massive increases in disparity between rich and poor, they had not seen a situation in which poxy terraced houses in London were priced out of all proportions - in other words, the time was not right then but it may be now.

 

You obviously think we are on the edge of a socialist revolution but even you must agree it has not started very well!!

 

Nothing strange but do not be surprised if the electorate rejects the line as they have every right to do. The electorate will go and vote for the party that best reflects their needs/views not some party line. It seems to be evident in recent history that the far left viewpoint is not popular in the UK and has poor support within the electorate as a whole, by all means put the option in there and see what happens, foot was 10x the man corbyn is, he was a great mind, great debater with a severe public image problem and where did it get him? The socialist party has been ever present and Corbyn is more akin to that than Labour we shall see what the electorate says in their votes.

 

I liked Foot and even more so Benn. Did not agree with all their policies but they were honourable men of principle - I like that.
Corbyn too appears to be a man of principle and I will admire him for sticking to his principles. But then he must let others stick to theirs. I would bet on his abstentions and 500 votes against his own party he did not consult his constituency.

 

Sorry but I have to disagree totally. In 97 the Conservative party was ripe for defeat due to the after effects of Thatcher, her powerful leadership was followed by what honestly was a wet squib and her centralist controlling nature meant that when she disappeared the structure wasn't there to succeed her, classic powerful manager with no succession plan and it took best part of a decade to sort out. Labour swung a long way right to win to the point where they were further right than the tories at one point. In 83 we had seen the full force of leftist policies, were still sick of the union excesses, fed up of leftist self serving rhetoric (it's about the time of my conversion from left to right caused by marching with the labour student movement and being subjected to their idiocy). The time will never be right for the far left in the UK, the country is too educated to fall for the claptrap of rob the workers to feed the lazy sports direct jeremy kyle generation..

 

Totally agree. I liked Benn, Foot and Thatcher as principled people and did not agree fully with any of them but respected them for what they were. I cannot stick Blair, didn't like Major and my jury is still out on Cameron though from what I've seen so far he's sticking by his word and to me represents the face of the real and carinfg conservative party rather than the stereotype of "doing it to make my buddies rich" which frankly is wearing very thin.