Jeremy Corbyn

[6inchcup]

Not really funny - pretty pathetic actually

WHY is it pathetic,just because you say so?,they made the rules,i joined my local labour group,no problem no questions asked to any degree of interigation,asked for my forms and voted a week later,what i find strange now is how one of the contestants (its a game ) is telling the 2 women to stand down so he can win and stop CORBYN from winning,very democratic and not sexist in any way.

 

[SocketRocket]

Not personally no, but that isn't a reason for maintaining an electoral system which disproportionately disadvantages smaller parties.

There is a huge anomaly between the number of votes cast for each party and the number of seats attained. Conservatives received only 3x as many votes as UKIP, but returned 330x more seats

The way to nullify parties like UKIP is to win back voters on issues instead of a rigged voting system. I don't like their policies, but if 4 million people do then in a democracy their views should be represented.

Maybe it's a problem because the Torys won but would be OK if Labour had?

 

[Hacker Khan]

From reading (an admittedly right leaning Sunday paper) is seems the hard left are joining/using the voting system to their advantage rather than a few tory boys joining just to get Corbyn elected as the leader.

It seems that the heart of the matter is if the party wants to gain power or if they want a leader who most closely represents traditional hard line labour values. It would be nice if you could combine both, and may be there is a candidate out there that could do this better. But if Corbyn is elected then Labour will be mostly unelectable at a general election in a lot of seats. You saw how a lot of voters panicked at the last minute in the last election when they thought about their wallets, so imagine what fear the Tories would spread if Corbyn was the leader.

There is a great danger that Labour could tear themselves apart here, which would mean the tory boys would swing even further to the right knowing they had no credible opposition, leading to an even more fractured society. But I know a few on here would see that as the promised land....

 

[Ethan]

Not personally no, but that isn't a reason for maintaining an electoral system which disproportionately disadvantages smaller parties.

There is a huge anomaly between the number of votes cast for each party and the number of seats attained. Conservatives received only 3x as many votes as UKIP, but returned 330x more seats

The way to nullify parties like UKIP is to win back voters on issues instead of a rigged voting system. I don't like their policies, but if 4 million people do then in a democracy their views should be represented.

There are other issues with the electoral system and constituency structure. Essentially it is designed to maintain a large degree of inter tai so that there isn't too much change. Many seats are pretty safe, one way or the other, and will probably remain so over decades. My own constituency, Wokingham, is exactly like that. John Redwood is as safe as houses, and even increased his majority this year - he is a bit UKIPpy at the edges. But he does;t bother campaigning, doesn't even send leaflets as far as I can tell. He could strangle kittens in the town square and still get returned. I hate the guy and wouldn't vote for him unless the alternative was Farage, so my vote doesn't really matter.

And the Tories plan to gerrymander more constituencies this parliament, so it will get worse.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/115...aries-top-Conservative-government-agenda.html

This seems profoundly undemocratic to me. I would like to see quite the opposite. Constituency boundaries should be changed to impose a greater degree of uncertainty in every constituency, so that votes matter and are usually important throughout the UK.

And the Government's proposals for unions should also apply. No election is valid unless 40$ of the eligible voters vote for the candidate. Likewise the national share of the vote and the Government.

Is it more important that the RMT get a valid vote for one day's strike than we get a valid Government for 5 years?

 

[jp5]

Maybe it's a problem because the Torys won but would be OK if Labour had?

Why would you think that?

The Labour voting figures were nearly as out of line as the Conservatives, with 2.5x more votes than UKIP but 232x more seats.

Anyone relatively perceptive can see that the current system could be improved upon, government could be more representative and therefore more democratic. Except if one's view is clouded by partisan allegiances I guess.

 

[jp5]

Is it more important that the RMT get a valid vote for one day's strike than we get a valid Government for 5 years?

The difference being that the people the vote affects don't get the chance to vote in the case of the RMT, but do get to vote for a Government.

But apart from that agree with everything you say. It can only be better for democracy if people feel they are represented, even if that means 60 UKIP MPs.

 

[FairwayDodger]

John Redwood is as safe as houses <snip> He could strangle kittens in the town square and still get returned.

He only does that in private.

 

[MegaSteve]

Going back to Jeremy... Just watched his interview on Andrew Marr show from yesterday... Thought he interviewed well... Largely unknown outside of London I guess... Can't say I've seen too much of him on national TV until recently...


Confirmed which way I'll be voting....

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Going back to Jeremy... Just watched his interview on Andrew Marr show from yesterday... Thought he interviewed well... Largely unknown outside of London I guess... Can't say I've seen too much of him on national TV until recently...


Confirmed which way I'll be voting....

It was quite refreshing watching Corbyn and Salmond on the Andrew Marr show.
Two politicians who actually answered questions intelligently, quite unnerved Marr I thought, never seen him so quiet.

 

[jp5]

It was quite refreshing watching Corbyn and Salmond on the Andrew Marr show.
Two politicians who actually answered questions intelligently, quite unnerved Marr I thought, never seen him so quiet.

Refreshing indeed, many politicians could learn a lot from Corbyn. Then again, it's much simpler when you're working from your own principles rather than those most likely to get you elected!

 

[SocketRocket]

Why would you think that?

The Labour voting figures were nearly as out of line as the Conservatives, with 2.5x more votes than UKIP but 232x more seats.

Anyone relatively perceptive can see that the current system could be improved upon, government could be more representative and therefore more democratic. Except if one's view is clouded by partisan allegiances I guess.

My point was that people tend to want to change the voting system when their party of preference loses but are content if they win.

 

[SocketRocket]

Refreshing indeed, many politicians could learn a lot from Corbyn. Then again, it's much simpler when you're working from your own principles rather than those most likely to get you elected!

No amount of naval gazing will make Corbyn electable as a Prime Minister and we all know it!

 

[Ethan]

No amount of naval gazing will make Corbyn electable as a Prime Minister and we all know it!

What about some RAF gazing?

 

[FairwayDodger]

No amount of naval gazing will make Corbyn electable as a Prime Minister and we all know it!

Oh come on, SR, a few months examining your conscience and you never know......

 

[MegaSteve]

Five more years of having their wallets/purses emptied by Osborne might actually persuade those that normally can't be asked to actually give a ....

Don't believe I'll be around to see it though and as I've said before.... For ordinary working chaps/chapesses it matters not a jot who's in charge they are in for a screwing...

 

[jp5]

My point was that people tend to want to change the voting system when their party of preference loses but are content if they win.

Is it incomprehensible that some people may desire changes for the collective good, that will negatively affect their own interests?

 

[Hacker Khan]

Is it incomprehensible that some people may desire changes for the collective good, that will negatively affect their own interests?

If you are a tory then yes

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Me and my Mrs are both inclined to sign up and vote for Corbyn as when he talks about compassion we get the feeling that he understands what the word really means - the current lot in power certainly haven't a clue what it means - and actually give the impression that they don't care.

Now whether Corbyn as Labour leader would ever be able to lead a Labour Party to kick the current shower out I don't know - but our country is knackered unless we get some politicians telling us that compassion and 'the other guy' are important if we are not going to implode as a fearful, resentful, angry and selfish country - a country we are well on the way to becoming at the moment.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

WHY is it pathetic,just because you say so?,they made the rules,i joined my local labour group,no problem no questions asked to any degree of interigation,asked for my forms and voted a week later,what i find strange now is how one of the contestants (its a game ) is telling the 2 women to stand down so he can win and stop CORBYN from winning,very democratic and not sexist in any way.

It's rather pathetic that you feel it a hoot to do it, when you seem to have little interest in advancing the cause or general policy objectives of the Labour Party. Rather you'd rather it was holed below the waterline by it choosing Corbyn - which may or may not be the outcome were that to happen.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If you are a tory then yes

oooh - that sort of talk about folk who might vote Tory didn't go down well in the lead up to the election - don't you know that conservatives are misunderstood and that caring and compassionate are core values - and it's not all about self.