Would anyone who voted Labour in 2019 and/or is a member of the Labour party care to explain something to me?
Why did you think that it was a good idea to have Jeremy Corbyn as your leader? Why? Honestly why?
Please explain it to me. Day after day we have posters on here droning on and on about the way the Tory governmet is performing. So why didn't you choose a leader who would have at least a gnats chance of becoming PM? Why choose Jeremy Corbyn? Honestly - why?
Then you see the light of day and choose Sir Keir Starmer. Fine. Then why is your support so half hearted? He has got the right first name, hasn't he? What's wrong?
Two questions then.
1. Why Jeremy Corbyn?
2. What's wrong with Keir Starmer?
|
I voted Labour out of pure self interest. Mrs O'Reliant was caught in the pension trap, having missed hers by six months when the age was raised. Corbyn promised all or most of the lost payments back if he got in. Whether he would have or not is another matter, but worth a punt.
Was it a selfish reason to vote for someone? Yes, but that's what 95% of the population do every election.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Thu 16 Mar 23 at 20:15
|
I am not a Labour party member as will become obvious from the following.
Keir seems to me to be decent and well intentioned. But he is a politician. In a recent interview - "I did not enter politics to spend decades in opposition". I understand and sympathise with his views - but evidently the desire for electoral success dominates.
So do I trust him as a politician - no. Do I wholly trust the Tories - no. They both place power above integrity, honesty, transparency etc.
Corbyn was a bizarre choice - the only option left after the other inadequates had been eliminated.
The Tories have screwed up in many ways - Brexit, Boris (flawed but an excellent communicator), Liz Truss (disaster). But in principle the proposition that good (growth, public services etc) comes through enterprise and business seems sound.
Sir Keir and his shadow cabinet are struggling to identify policies that differentiate them from the Tories. Their response to the budget had no insights - merely the predictable too early. too late. too much, too little or "wee thought of it first". Pathetic.
|
>> In a recent interview - "I did not enter politics to spend decades in opposition". I understand and sympathise with his views - but evidently the desire for electoral success dominates.
Stunning level of cognitive bias to interpret that as putting power above honesty. Starmer will have to go some to plumb the depths of dishonesty explored by Johnson and others in his party.
@Duncan
Corbyn was a freak result. There has always been a firebrand left wing in Labour, and what happened in 2015 was a bit of a hijack with an influx of mainly young £3 members. I wasn't a fan of JC, he never focused on the right things for me, but the fact is he nearly won the 2017 GE and might have won but for a very determined smear campaign by the Daily Mail et al.
In the 2020 leadership election the leading candidates were Starmer and Long Bailey. RLB was the Corbyn continuity candidate and whilst Nandy probably had much more support than her vote share indicated, I think she lost out to the very polarised attitudes to RLB and Starmer was the candidate most likely to beat her which boosted his vote.
FWIW, I think Starmer is fundamentally honest and I don't believe he wants power for its own sake in the way that Johnson does. There is however in my view a necessary level of calculation in his conduct of the leadership. There is no doubt IMO he has adjusted course to starboard in an attempt to navigate a path between more or less socialist policies and the need to garner enough votes to secure most of the "red wall" constituencies that went to the Conservatives to "get Brexit done". This is partly why Starmer not only refuses to campaign on rejoin but also rejects joining the customs union or single market. The red wallers are too Brexity.
The consequence of this delicate manoeuvring is that he has two lots of grumblers to contend with. Labour members were mostly Remainers, who aren't satisfied with his anti-customs-union-and-single-market position. His stated intention of having better relations with the EU and making Brexit work properly also stops just short of explicitly saying he wants a high level of alignment particularly on goods. But, importantly, he knows that these members, and supporters who think like them, will still vote Labour regardless, in the main. So he can afford to let them moan a bit. There is also the disappointed left wing of the party who still hate him for dumping Corbyn, but unlike the red wallers they definitely aren't going to vote Conservative either so they can moan as well.
The real problem underlying all this is base populism, and the skill and cynicism of the current breed of Tories in exploiting ignorance and prejudice. Johnson kicked out the best ones.
I think Starmer is playing it pretty well. Labour can't get anything done while it remains out of office. It's not playing particularly well with parts of the membership but pandering to them would risk alienating voters he needs, and who arguably need him.
You did ask.
|
>> You did ask.
>>
Thank you.
It's a bit late now, I will have a read in daylight tomorrow, if I am not going out on my bike.
|
>> Corbyn was a freak result. There has always been a firebrand left wing in Labour,
>> and what happened in 2015 was a bit of a hijack with an influx of
>> mainly young £3 members. I wasn't a fan of JC, he never focused on the
>> right things for me, but the fact is he nearly won the 2017 GE and
>> might have won but for a very determined smear campaign by the Daily Mail et
>> al.
Corbyn should not have been on the ballot paper at all.
Following the 'wrong Miliband' SNAFU in 2010 the party moved to one member one vote and also made it much easier to get a vote with the £3 membership thing. Corbyn was struggling to get sufficient MP nominations. However, a few people who may well not have fully understood he actually had a chance of winning though the left deserved a place on the slate.
No doubt they expected him to founder with all hands as Ms Abbott had done before.
Instead he was elected.
At the time I was not a member having left over rightward drift under Blair.
Had I been I would have seriously considered Corbyn. He seemed at the time, and does now to be a serious and comitted man. You can argue whether he sailed too close to (eg) Irish Republicanism but his rationale of jaw jaw was, given what happened before and after almost incontrovertible.
In the end I'd probably have held my nose and voted for Yvette Cooper or Andy Burnham.
A colleague of mine pointed out that had Ted Heath been on the slate at least one candidate was to his right!!
As Manatee says he came very close to seeing May off in 2017.
|
>> As Manatee says he came very close to seeing May off in 2017.
Alas "Jaw Jaw does not rhyme with "Special Military Operation"". Putin sees talk as a weakness.
The fact he couldn't beat one (at the time but now massively eclipsed by Truss) of the seemingly most ineffectual leaders is not an achievement.
|
>> Would anyone who voted Labour in 2019 and/or is a member of the Labour party
>> care to explain something to me?
>>
>> Why did you think that it was a good idea to have Jeremy Corbyn as
>> your leader? Why? Honestly why?
>>
...playing the BBC impartiality card, can any member of the Conservative Party, given, even then the clear knowledge of his character, explain why they thought it was a good idea to have Boris as their leader (and de facto, PM)?
(Brexit never was, nor still isn't, a good reason).
|
|
The answer to both those questions is that unfortunatley the majority of the population are not very bright, rather gullible and easily led and shouldnt really be allowed to vote :-)
|
Or, more to the point, when we vote it isn't for the leader. Well, not in my case.
I vote for the party with the agenda which I think best. Not necessarily for me personally, and anyway, no one party fits everything I would like to see.
It's unfortunate that both parties were saddled with pretty crap leaders at the same time (imo).
|
>> The answer to both those questions is that unfortunatley the majority of the population are
>> not very bright, rather gullible and easily led and shouldnt really be allowed to vote
This is of course quite right. But the only thing more dangerous than allowing the not very bright to vote is denying them the right.
Their disenfranchisement would make them easy prey for whomsoever chose to completely disrupt society. Putin would not need to invade, merely foment violent opposition.
|
So do it discretely.
Claim due to massive fraud, everyone needs ID to vote…..
|
>> everyone needs ID to vote…..
Only if you physically turn up at a polling station.
|
>> So do it discretely.
>>
>> Claim due to massive fraud, everyone needs ID to vote…..
>>
Or, you could give everyone a speiling test?
|
Interesting factoid. A higher level of education correlates with a greater likelihood of voting Labour or LibDem, and a lower likelihood of voting conservative. Just saying.
yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/10/31/2019-general-election-demographics-dividing-britai
|
A lower level of education then correlates with voting Tory.
More Tory prospective MPs have been born with silver spoons, Eton and Oxbridge education, etc
Conclusions - either:
- thickos respect money and social position to do what is right for them, or
- the educated have sufficient wealth to be detached from the realities of poverty
Or perhaps statistics are the root of all evil. Select the data that supports the proposition you are trying to sell.
|
>Interesting factoid.
Good Glub!
Have education standards declined so much in the last 40yrs?
|
|
Probably related to fewer people getting degrees decades ago.
|
Don't normally contribute to political threads....
Maybe bcause the well educated are results of left wing swing in education?
|
Have education standards declined so much in the last 40yrs?
Undoubtedly.
|
|
A myriad of Humanities and liberal arts (non-specific), Sociology and Social Policy, Media Studies & politcal degrees.
|
>> A myriad of Humanities and liberal arts (non-specific), Sociology and Social Policy, Media Studies &
>> politcal degrees.
>>
I had that impression but its not as many as you might think. Far more study medicine and subjects related to medicine. Some interesting stats here.
www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/what-study
|
Labour Party Members - Robin O'Reliant
