Corbyn

[fishtank]

You equate Corbyn with socialism.
Corbyn isn't socialism, Corbyn is a fraudulent fantasist.
He isn't offering a viable alternative, he's offering nothing because he couldn't implement his policies even if he could find a way into power, he knows it, the political establishment know it and apart from a minority of his followers the voting public know it.

If you don't that's your problem, you'll have your epithany in 2020 if the Labour party survives that long.

[jetblack]

Corbyn isn't socialism,

Of course he is - what are you talking about. Its because he is that he is the mosted hated figure (for the establishment) since Maradonna scored with his hand. And cos he's hated for them, he's has to be hated for us too

.. he's offering nothing because he couldn't implement his policies even if he could find a way into power,

Your argument is a closed loop - there is no way out of it - but you personally consent to it (or rather, you peddle it to me) because, truth be told, the system is working very nicely as it is for Fishtank, thankyou very much. You have been commandeered.
But it aint working that well for a lot of us mate . Forget about the electability red herring for one moment - do you, Fishtank, believe in the policies, by and large, that are being put forward by the current Labour Party leadership ? Did RM work very well in public ownership for several hundred years or not ?
Yes or no.
Then we can take it from there. I posted JC's 10 point plan upthread.

Yeah or nay ?

[dvbuk55]

Of course I'm a socialist jet, I'm just not left wing, like the majority of labour but not Corbyn supporters. I would hate to see the labour party destroyed for the sake of one mans misguided vision of what the difference between socialism and communism is. You haven't yet answered the question about his electability jet, red herring doesn't cut it. Ask yourself this jet - how would Jezza pay for his socialist manifesto, like all manifesto promises they dematerialise when the piper has to be paid.

[britwrit]

Eh. When the alternative is Owen Smith - he of the reedy voice, who became a "radical" after working as a lobbyist for big pharma - it's really not much of a choice at all.

[dvbuk55]

Eh. When the alternative is Owen Smith - he of the reedy voice, who became a "radical" after working as a lobbyist for big pharma - it's really not much of a choice at all.

I've said in the past Smith is not the answer but he is the choice of the 170 PLP and therefore has a chance of uniting the party. Jezza will divide and fragment the party, any normal person would have resigned, which indicates his personal ambition over the party. Talking left wing policies to the converted won't make it happen he would have to persuade those who don't support the left wing of the party to accept him and they won't. Eagle would not have been my choice either but there doesn't seem to be any big hitters coming forward, if there are any, they are keeping their heads below the parapet. This is surely the worst scenario for labour in my lifetime with the Tories 14% ahead of labour, Theresa should call an election and put an end to this farce.

[baldrick]

I've said in the past Smith is not the answer but he is the choice of the 170 PLP and therefore has a chance of uniting the party.

Smith wouldn't unite the party if he were to be elected. The majority who elected Corbyn leader last year and those who have since joined because he was elected are not going to accept Smith just because 170 out of touch MPs supported him. They will either continue to press for more progressive policies and representatives, or become disillusioned and drop out of any real activity.
The plp should accept whoever is elected, just as they should have done first time round. That is party democracy. The mps do not own the party, it belongs to the members.
The only reason that some people claim that Corbyn is 'unelectable' is because the media, supported by the coup mps keep repeating that mantra. I think it was Goebbels who said that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it. You have to ask yourself why the Tory supporting media keep repeating this.

[dvbuk55]

I've said in the past Smith is not the answer but he is the choice of the 170 PLP and therefore has a chance of uniting the party.

Smith wouldn't unite the party if he were to be elected. The majority who elected Corbyn leader last year and those who have since joined because he was elected are not going to accept Smith just because 170 out of touch MPs supported him. They will either continue to press for more progressive policies and representatives, or become disillusioned and drop out of any real activity.
The plp should accept whoever is elected, just as they should have done first time round. That is party democracy. The mps do not own the party, it belongs to the members.
The only reason that some people claim that Corbyn is 'unelectable' is because the media, supported by the coup mps keep repeating that mantra. I think it was Goebbels who said that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it. You have to ask yourself why the Tory supporting media keep repeating this.

I didn't say Smith would unite the party I said he had a chance, he has the support of 170 MPs and Corbyn has 40 at best so who do you think has the best chance? I would say it's the 40 corbynistas who are out of touch with the modern political scene by supporting an old and outdated basis for a manifesto. If he wins I hope the 172 MPs do breakaway and form a realistic opposition that may eventually be electable something Corbyn can't do with just 40 supporters and no hope of being elected. His CLP supporters aren't going to get him into number 10. You guys are like the Nigel Farage supporters prior to the last election, setting your stall out to support someone who is by no means a real politician despite being an MP for 30 years. Has he ever been in a labour cabinet or shadow cabinet in all those 30 years, the answer is NO and yet you believe he could be Prime Minister

[Tman]

You have to ask yourself why the Tory supporting media keep repeating this.

That would be obvious. More to the point, you have to ask why "traditional" Labour party supporters would rather stay at home and watch TV than put an X next to this idiot's name?

[fishtank]

The Labour party does not belong to its members, that's a ridiculous proposition when you have around 500,000 members and are seeking a mandate to govern around 25 million potential voters. That smacks of "its my ball and you'll play by my rules".

It would be laughable to say that the Tory party belongs to Tory party members, a bunch of right wing octogenarians with double barreled names wearing twinsets and pearls. People who join parties are not representative of that party's support base unless your plan is to reduce that support base down to members only.

We are a parliamentary democracy, 170 democratically elected MPs have stated the have no confidence in the man whose job it is to lead them, that is a situation that won't go away no matter how much Corbyn digs his heels in, Labour are heading for electoral oblivion in 2020 and we'll all pay the price of 5 years of Tory rule with a huge majority, what then?

[Tman]

You keep asking Jet the same questions but he has no valid response. He's a cult follower in every sense, in that whatever question is asked, the reply is always much the same...because Corbyn/James Jones/Charles Manson/L Ron Hubbard/some distorted view of JC says it's so.."

I wonder if the Light of Enlightenment shines from jet's eyes whenever he sees or hears The Great One speak?
A real world labour party supporter would want the old feller put out to grass to enable the party to move on...but clearly not to those who think he has some sort of charisma lost to the rest of us.

[jetblack]

The Labour party does not belong to its members

Of course it does. And I think that the reason that you have seen a surge in membership over recent weeks is that people are finally waking up to this fact. You can make a difference with the Labour Party. Its your party, the peoples party. And the people are taking it back from the gravy trainers.

It would be laughable to say that the Tory party belongs to Tory party members,

That would be laughable, yes. The Labour Party and its constitution has been framed over the years on the principles of participatory democracy. The tory party has no such ideals in place. Its really governed, internally, by men in suits. You only have to look at the recent shenanigans around their leadership "election" - very fishy indeed (no pun intended). But nobody cares with the tories who is running the show so long as they get your tax bill down ie. naked self interest.

170 democratically elected MPs have stated the have no confidence in the man whose job it is to lead them

Those 170 - their time has come and gone.
They are meant to be serving US - not Michael Foster and his millions.

do you, Fishtank, believe in the policies, by and large, that are being put forward by the current Labour Party leadership ? Did RM work very well in public ownership for several hundred years or not ?
Yes or no.

[dvbuk55]

Those 170 - their time has come and gone. They are meant to be serving US - not Michael Foster and his millions.

Any chance you could explain that little ditty jet? 172 versus 40 not great odds for the messiah: win, lose or draw those 170 will topple the ragged general sooner or later. The best way to get rid of him and his IRA supporting sidekick is to hold a general election and the people will see what an electoral disaster the man is. As to what people find attractive about him, I think it's the beard, he manages to keep some of his breakfast in there for later in the day.

[jetblack]

Those 170 - their time has come and gone. They are meant to be serving US - not Michael Foster and his millions.

Any chance you could explain that little ditty jet?

I could - but I can't be bothered. Its Friday night.
Plus - I've explained it in plain english numerous times now.

DVB - didn't you say somewhere that you are a member of the Labour Party - I'll not go into the absurdity of a Labour Party member having no affinity for socialist policies (which you have already stated in this thread)?
My point is, if you are indeed a member of the Labour Party, then have your say and cast your vote.

All the rest is hot air.

ps. and once the vote is counted have the good grace to accept the democratic outcome - which the traitors in the PLP have hitherto failed to do. Rise above it mate. Be the better man.

[dvbuk55]

I could - but I can't be bothered. Its Friday night.
Plus - I've explained it in plain english numerous times now.

DVB - didn't you say somewhere that you are a member of the Labour Party - I'll not go into the absurdity of a Labour Party member having no affinity for socialist policies (which you have already stated in this thread)?
My point is, if you are indeed a member of the Labour Party, then have your say and cast your vote.

All the rest is hot air.

I was a member and Corbyn became the leader and his philosophy is not the same as mine and I am no longer a member.

As for the 172 versus the 40, I look at it rather like a football match or a military exercise, which I probably know more about than football in truth. Now a unit of 40 could with the right tactics defeat a unit of 170+ however if those 40 are using outdated tactics designed for 1918 against the 170+ with modern tactics more adapted to the 21st century then it's goodnight Vienna and remember The Alamo.

As for accepting Corbyn as an acceptable leader of the Labour Party well no I couldn't in all conscience.

[britwrit]

It was the PLP who ditched Blair in favor of Gordon Brown. Then they made Miliband's life miserable for three years with their constant demands and threats to defenestrate him. Then they were the ones who couldn't mount a coup and blew the biggest chance Labour had in years to take advantage of the Tories.

It's not like they're geniuses, so let's stop pretending they are. Otherwise, they'd have come up with a better candidate than Smith (....and a better cause than We don't want to lose our jobs!)