Politics

[Rayvin 4970]

I thought she was guaranteed not to run a GE though, CT? Now'd be the fucking time to do it though, with Labour in pieces.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

I thought she was guaranteed not to run a GE though, CT? Now'd be the fucking time to do it though, with Labour in pieces.

Mad if she does imo with all the remainers out there. Anything could happen.

[Meenzer 14136]

They'll always be out there.

[Renton 18049]

Latest polling must be very tempting for May.

 

Why would the labour plp vote for a GE?

[Christmas Tree 4003]

Why would the labour plp vote for a GE?

What are you on about? Who mentioned the PLP.

[NJS 4006]

Why would the labour plp vote for a GE?

It would hasten what they'd see as a path to "reclaim" the party.

[ewerk 26807]

What are you on about? Who mentioned the PLP.

Because without Labour votes she'd be unable to call an election?

[Christmas Tree 4003]

Because without Labour votes she'd be unable to call an election?

Ah right. However I can't see Labour being able to publicly justify not wanting one.

[Renton 18049]

It would hasten what they'd see as a path to "reclaim" the party.

How? It would be a massacre in which many would lose their seats. Mind, why not if they're going to get get deselected by Corbyn's goons anyway I guess.

[NJS 4006]

How? It would be a massacre in which many would lose their seats. Mind, why not if they're going to get get deselected by Corbyn's goons anyway I guess.

Goons with votes rather than being parachuted in by central office.

[Renton 18049]

Goons with votes rather than being parachuted in by central office.

So it's fair that elected MP's with years service are going to be replaced by corbynites then? Well fuck that, if that happens I'm not even going to be voting labour again never mind being a member. There will be millions like me and the party will be finished. Still, I expect momentum and the likes are happy being smugly unelectable and tutting as we face a decade of unchallenged conservative rule.

 

What a great job Corbyn had done.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

Why can't we see we're living in a golden age?

 

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/why-cant-we-see-that-were-living-in-a-golden-age/

[Rayvin 4970]

I think that's one of those 'it's all relative' ones. It's fair unless you consider the last 8 years though. Young people coming into work now are not, I would argue, better off than those who entered work before it. On that basis alone, surely things are getting worse?

[Alex 30783]

Ungrateful bloody proles

[NJS 4006]

So it's fair that elected MP's with years service are going to be replaced by corbynites then? Well fuck that, if that happens I'm not even going to be voting labour again never mind being a member. There will be millions like me and the party will be finished. Still, I expect momentum and the likes are happy being smugly unelectable and tutting as we face a decade of unchallenged conservative rule.

 

What a great job Corbyn had done.

He's only mentioned re-selection as part of boundary changes but I think if there is a disassociation between CLPs and their MP for example as in Eagle's case then it's fair enough.

 

I know there's a case that says they've been elected "personally" but most of the time people vote for parties rather than people.

 

I wouldn't hold it against the MPs who voted as no confidence in him if I was him and wouldn't necessarily hold anything against Smith but Benn, Eagle and the others who orchestrated the whole thing should suffer consequences.

[Rayvin 4970]

He's only mentioned re-selection as part of boundary changes but I think if there is a disassociation between CLPs and their MP for example as in Eagle's case then it's fair enough.

 

I know there's a case that says they've been elected "personally" but most of the time people vote for parties rather than people.

 

I wouldn't hold it against the MPs who voted as no confidence in him if I was him and wouldn't necessarily hold anything against Smith but Benn, Eagle and the others who orchestrated the whole thing should suffer consequences.

 

One way or another the infighting has to stop. Surely we can all agree that one thing worse than a Corbyn led Labour party is a Corbyn led Labour party that is perpetually undermined by its MPs.

[Alex 30783]

He's only mentioned re-selection as part of boundary changes but I think if there is a disassociation between CLPs and their MP for example as in Eagle's case then it's fair enough.

 

I know there's a case that says they've been elected "personally" but most of the time people vote for parties rather than people.

 

I wouldn't hold it against the MPs who voted as no confidence in him if I was him and wouldn't necessarily hold anything against Smith but Benn, Eagle and the others who orchestrated the whole thing should suffer consequences.

I suppose the flip-side of that is nowhere near enough people are going to vote for Corbyn's Labour

[Renton 18049]

Incidentally there's a very interesting podcast form R4 called the Corbyn story. It was in 3 parts, don't know if it is still available. Gives a good insight into the problems faced by the labour party now and how we got in this mess. It does not paint a complimentary picture of Corbyn.

[Alex 30783]

Mind, I've said all along, the MPs shoulder a canny bit of the blame for nominating a bloke they didn't want to win just to appease some members and the Trade Unions.

[Alex 30783]

Incidentally there's a very interesting podcast form R4 called the Corbyn story. It was in 3 parts, don't know if it is still available. Gives a good insight into the problems faced by the labour party now and how we got in this mess. It does not paint a complimentary picture of Corbyn.

It is, Part one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07jyrdn

[Renton 18049]

I think that's one of those 'it's all relative' ones. It's fair unless you consider the last 8 years though. Young people coming into work now are not, I would argue, better off than those who entered work before it. On that basis alone, surely things are getting worse?

Aye, the article completely misses the point that in the last decade we have regressed, and it's looking more like a trend than a blip to me. Just today I received a report from the Economist that has found the liveability index of nearly all the top cities in the world has fallen in the past year. That basically means our quality of life is in decline. Incidentally, Melbourne is the most liveable city, Damascus and Tripoli are the worst.

[NJS 4006]

Mind, I've said all along, the MPs shoulder a canny bit of the blame for nominating a bloke they didn't want to win just to appease some members and the Trade Unions.

The concept of "widening the debate" by including a hard left entry wasn't that bad but being honest I thought Burnham was a realistic option to satisfy the need for that - I didn't expect so much support for a "proper" leftie.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

I think that's one of those 'it's all relative' ones. It's fair unless you consider the last 8 years though. Young people coming into work now are not, I would argue, better off than those who entered work before it. On that basis alone, surely things are getting worse?

 

Aye, take longer life, less death from wars, less world poverty, more people getting fresh drinking water, more illnesses treated etc and concentrate instead on a tiny minority that may or may not be doing better.

 

That approach pretty much sums the articles point.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

Aye, the article completely misses the point that in the last decade we have regressed, and it's looking more like a trend than a blip to me. Just today I received a report from the Economist that has found the liveability index of nearly all the top cities in the world has fallen in the past year. That basically means our quality of life is in decline. Incidentally, Melbourne is the most liveable city, Damascus and Tripoli are the worst.

Again you are doing exactly what the article states. Basically discounting everything good that's going on and worrying about a liveability index.

[Renton 18049]

Again you are doing exactly what the article states. Basically discounting everything good that's going on and worrying about a liveability index.

Because for most of us our focus is on the welfare of our immediate families, not people in the third world. And the point still stands, whilst it's indisputable (and facile) to point out things are much better for the global majority than a century ago, the article says nothing about much more recent history. It says there is less war. Tell that to many millions of people living in the middle east and north Africa, and even the Ukraine in the heart of Europe. Look at the growing inequity in the distribution of wealth as well, has the backdrop to Rio escaped your attention? Look at the atrocities in France and elsewhere.

 

The world is simply not on a good trajectory at present.