Jeremy Corbyn should be hanged

[ellal]

Yes its true, Ellal isnt happy we have a monarchy and dont have a written constitution.

Maybe you could tell us how FPTP is democratic?

Or that an unelected member of an immigrant family masquerading as a head of state can dissolve the ruling body of a so-called democratic country?

And btw...

Is this the action of a citizen or a subject?

 

[Vinty]

most people seem to be unable to think for themselves, whenever i see or here anything i always question it..the BBC have also become nothing but a propaganda machine, Venezuela, Russia, Syria, Iraq and now Iran..everything you get told about these places, you have to go to independent news sources for an alternative view, then form your own opinion.
As for Corbyn, whether you like him or not, he is one of the very few people that want to help the working class, but unfortunately the working class have turned on him after a daily diet of anti Corbyn material, even the Tory plants in the Labour party feed out the daily sh1t about him

You should have included the BBCs coverage of Hong Kong.

 

[banjodeano]

You should have included the BBCs coverage of Hong Kong.

i should have also mentioned Yemen, how the BBC barely mention the genocide that is being committed, and when they do, they dont seem too keen to mention that we are providing the weapons involved and also making a fortune out of other peoples suffering

 

[fillyboy]

Is this the action of a citizen or a subject?

The action of a gentleman imco.

 

[banjodeano]

The action of a gentleman imco.

a gentleman doesn't burn £50 notes in front of beggars, or trash a restaurant and then toss the waiter some money for the damage, or refer to Muslim women as letter box's....a gentleman my arse

 

[Notch7]

Maybe you could tell us how FPTP is democratic?

I didnt say it was.

I said, and gave examples of countries that are republics with a written constitution arent more democratic.

Funny how you avoided answering.

No 'democratic' system is democratic -including the EU.

Is this the action of a citizen or a subject

Who cares. Theres only a difference in your warped mind, its time to get over yourself.

 

[Notch7]

e discussed this in another thread, you never responded to my post, i guessed you couldnt argue your case

You are conflating two different groups in your claim as regards democracy in regards to Labour.

You are claiming because the members have voted for JC that means Labour is more democratic.

However party members are more radical than the average voter so involving them in internal decision making has shifted the Labour parties ideological profile to the extremes and away from the views that a majority of Labour voters represent. What that does is to diminish the capacity of the party to perform their representative functions.

A party can be internally democratic or electorally successful but not both at the same time.

The above situation can be seen to be true within Labour because the activist group momentum was heavily involved in using social media to bring in young radical members. These new members arent typical of the voters from Labour heartlands.

In addition, Corbyn surrounds himseld with idealogical advisors as part of his team. For example Andrew Murray, ex communist party member and Russia sympathiser. Seamus Milne, Andrew Sinclair and others.

At the same time Corbyn turns his back on people like Frank Field, Sarah Champion, Chukka Ummuna etc

I understand that Corbyn is now in his position by virtue of his success in the last election, but that was unusual because his success was due to May being the worst leader ever, a person that does not have a likeable personality. She went to the country based on a legacy of polls that were based on Cameron. Also she was a new leader and that gave her poll bounce, so she was in her honeymoon period.

If you look at Corbyns results in the election, he may of got plenty of of votes, but his conversion rate of seats was pretty poor.

Corbyn is now a spent force, because he is generally considered hard left, a Marxist, a socislist. That means he wont attract the many voters that are centrist or disaffected Tory.

 

[ellal]

The action of a gentleman imco.

So would bow before our unelected 'head of state'?

Or do you 'know your place'?

If so you do realise that by doing so you acknowledge that you are her subject, don't you?

 

[EFLImpudence]

You are claiming because the members have voted for JC that means Labour is more democratic.

That's how it works.
Surely the Conservatives narrowing the choice to two before letting the members vote is less democratic.

However party members are more radical than the average voter so involving them in internal decision making has shifted the Labour parties ideological profile to the extremes and away from the views that a majority of Labour voters represent.

I suppose that makes sense when regarding those who voted Labour the election before last.
However, that was not what the Labour Party was traditionally supposed to be.
If you are saying parties are not allowed to change, then the problem was Blair pretending to be Labour; not Corbyn.

A party can be internally democratic or electorally successful but not both at the same time.

It depends whether you value principles or just lie to win.

The above situation can be seen to be true within Labour because the activist group momentum was heavily involved in using social media to bring in young radical members. These new members arent typical of the voters from Labour heartlands.

Then they won't win.

In addition, Corbyn surrounds himseld with idealogical advisors as part of his team. For example Andrew Murray, ex communist party member and Russia sympathiser. Seamus Milne, Andrew Sinclair and others.

Have you seen who Johnson is surrounding himself with?

At the same time Corbyn turns his back on people like Frank Field, Sarah Champion, Chukka Ummuna etc

Is that not allowed?
How many socialists are there in the Tory party?

I understand that Corbyn is now in his position by virtue of his success in the last election, but that was unusual because his success was due to May being the worst leader ever, a person that does not have a likeable personality. She went to the country based on a legacy of polls that were based on Cameron. Also she was a new leader and that gave her poll bounce, so she was in her honeymoon period.
If you look at Corbyns results in the election, he may of got plenty of of votes, but his conversion rate of seats was pretty poor.
Corbyn is now a spent force, because he is generally considered hard left, a Marxist, a socislist. That means he wont attract the many voters that are centrist or disaffected Tory.

Why then, are you worried about him?

If Stalin or Hitler started a party in the UK, would you complain he had no chance of winning even though you did not want him to?

 

[ellal]

Who cares.

Those who don't believe that any person is better or worse than themself, simply because of an accident of birth!

But since you it appears do not care, then by default you accept that others are better than you...

Therefore you are willing to 'subject yourself' to others without even realising it

 

[Notch7]

That's how it works

You need to read the rest rather than take it out of context.

It was in context to this:

However party members are more radical than the average voter so involving them in internal decision making has shifted the Labour parties ideological profile to the extremes and away from the views that a majority of Labour voters represent. What that does is to diminish the capacity of the party to perform their representative functions.

A party can be internally democratic or electorally successful but not both at the same time

Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/jeremy-corbyn-should-be-hanged.526472/page-2#ixzz5v5OnDY00

Surely the Conservatives narrowing the choice to two before letting the members vote is less democratic

See above.

Regarding the Conservatives, sure thats not democratic either -but that needs to be discussed in context with the Tories, not as a justification for the Labour situation.

suppose that makes sense when regarding those who voted Labour the election before last.
However, that was not what the Labour Party was traditionally supposed to be.
If you are saying parties are not allowed to change, then the problem was Blair pretending to be Labour; not Corbyn

Corbyn and his closest advisors are Idealogues. Andrew Murray for example ex communist party member and public school background. He and his ideas arent working class.

Momentum is a middle class activist movement. It does not represent traditional working class values.
The worrying truth is that Momentum is actually a middle-class movement exploiting the alienation now felt by university graduates, the public sector, remainers and metropolitan voters https://www.totalpolitics.com/artic...mentum-–-according-theresa-may’s-policy-chief

Mr Corbyn is in fact presiding over the takeover of the party by three groups: ethnic minorities, particularly Muslims; public-sector professionals; and frustrated millennials, most of them the university-educated children of the salaried middle class, who can’t get their feet on the property ladder. The latest membership figures show that 77% of party members are middle-class

IPSOS Mori estimates that, in the June 2017 general election, 73% of ethnic-minority voters voted Labour compared with 39% of ethnically white voters. Thirteen of the party’s 20 best performances were in heavily Muslim areas. Labour’s best chance of holding onto the Midlands lies in mobilising the Muslim vote, rather than in appealing to Jaguar LandRover workers https://www.economist.com/bagehots-...er-the-party-of-the-traditional-working-class


If your argument Corbyn is changing the Labour party values back towards the traditional working class voters, then that doesnt hold true.

In any case, my argument is not what Corbyn represents, it is the fact the party members that voted for him are not representative of the traditional Labour voter.

It depends whether you value principles or just lie to win

I dont understand. Corbyn could be a leader of a party that embraces moderate and harder left values. That way it would make irself electable.

Instead Corbyn has created a party within a party.

Have you seen who Johnson is surrounding himself with

Yes, which makes a good case for having a strong opposition not a weak one.

Is that not allowed?
How many socialists are there in the Tory party

Take Frank Field: look at his campaigns, he has been an ardent campaigner agaanst inequality. He was a valuable member of Labour and hardly a Tory.

Sarah Champion played a key role in the Rochdale abuse case - again a valuable MP, hardly a Tory.

Chuka Ummuna: Chuka Umunna knows something is up: ‘we are a deeply divided country … and our politics is broken’.1 But the reader of What are Progressives For? will come away with a strange picture of just what broke British politics. Umunna is clear that Brexit is a ‘symptom, not a cause’,2 and he certainly has a long list of other symptoms including inequality, homelessness, the productivity gap, crime, and child poverty. Surprisingly, Umunna identifies division in the political parties as the ultimate source of Britain’s problems http://www.renewal.org.uk/blog/politics-for-the-twentieth-century-chuka-umunnas-third-way

So Chuka Umunna is deeply concerned about poverty, inequality. Do you think those values lie with Labour or Tory?

Those that simply think these are Blairites or red Tories are not looking at the people and what they represent.

Why then, are you worried about him

Am I not allowed to discuss the Labour party.

Your point here seems rather a strange one.

 

[Notch7]

Those who don't believe that any person is better or worse than themself, simply because of an accident of birth!

But since you it appears do not care, then by default you accept that others are better than you...

Therefore you are willing to 'subject yourself' to others without even realising it

Load of carp.

You real have a hang up about nothing.

Let it go, its eating you up

 

[banjodeano]

You are conflating two different groups in your claim as regards democracy in regards to Labour.

You are claiming because the members have voted for JC that means Labour is more democratic.

However party members are more radical than the average voter so involving them in internal decision making has shifted the Labour parties ideological profile to the extremes and away from the views that a majority of Labour voters represent. What that does is to diminish the capacity of the party to perform their representative functions.

A party can be internally democratic or electorally successful but not both at the same time.

The above situation can be seen to be true within Labour because the activist group momentum was heavily involved in using social media to bring in young radical members. These new members arent typical of the voters from Labour heartlands.

In addition, Corbyn surrounds himseld with idealogical advisors as part of his team. For example Andrew Murray, ex communist party member and Russia sympathiser. Seamus Milne, Andrew Sinclair and others.

At the same time Corbyn turns his back on people like Frank Field, Sarah Champion, Chukka Ummuna etc

I understand that Corbyn is now in his position by virtue of his success in the last election, but that was unusual because his success was due to May being the worst leader ever, a person that does not have a likeable personality. She went to the country based on a legacy of polls that were based on Cameron. Also she was a new leader and that gave her poll bounce, so she was in her honeymoon period.

If you look at Corbyns results in the election, he may of got plenty of of votes, but his conversion rate of seats was pretty poor.

Corbyn is now a spent force, because he is generally considered hard left, a Marxist, a socislist. That means he wont attract the many voters that are centrist or disaffected Tory.

You are talking nonsense again, you are mixing things up by talking about labour members and labour voters....forget labour voters, we are talking about labour party membership, a membership that has doubled because of Corbyn, now standing at half a million, now if people dont want to vote for Corbyn then that is fine, but that has diddly squat to do with whether the labour party is now democratic or not...
So let me ask you a question...

Do you not think that the party membership should say who represents them? or do you think they should be ignored as in the past and be dictated to who represents them? the membership IS THE PARTY, not the other way round, the MP's are not the party..
As for Chukka and the rest, they were never in the right party to start with , they are Blue Tories, and the party is better off without them, i just wish they would take Watson with them, he is the enemy within

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, it's like people who used to complain that the unions had too much influence in the Labour Party.

 

[banjodeano]

Yes, it's like people who used to complain that the unions had too much influence in the Labour Party.

Yes what?