Dawn of War Codex

170~ to 40 vote of no confidence for Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party. Ouch.

But good riddance. He can't possibly not resign after this.

Swiftsabre wrote:170~ to 40 vote of no confidence for Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party. Ouch.

But good riddance. He can't possibly not resign after this.

Of all the politicians you want Jeremy to resign? Its no wonder what's going with this country. Rather have that pig fucker thrown out of the parliament who started this shown in the first place. The blonde wig rat can follow as well.

Corbyn is nothing but a liability. I can respect the man for sticking to his values but in the end he's not adaptable and too stubborn. He is unelectable.

So Boris is out, that just leaves Theresa May and Gove-in-the-Garden to head the race, alongside a few minor players. I might just die before finishing this sentence, but I think I'd want Theresa to win.

So regarding the above meme, the Conservative leadership race set to last eleven weeks lasted... 2.

Welcome aboard the only survivor of the Exterminatus of Brexit: Theresa May.

What a time to be alive.

Been meaning to ask you Swift, why do you think JC is unelectable and a liability? Or more pertinently, how is he less electable than Owen Smith or Angela Eagle?

Codex wrote:Been meaning to ask you Swift, why do you think JC is unelectable and a liability? Or more pertinently, how is he less electable than Owen Smith or Angela Eagle?

JC himself is unelectable relative to the other two because of the fact that he's got a tarnished reputation by now. His constant poor dressing. Terrible performance with the brexit referendum and in PMQs and in pretty much all of his speeches. The man is just terrible. His ideology might be nice for the appropriate hippies that love his socialism however that is not enough for one to be a leader!

He needs to look the part, speak the part and play the part. He's far too apathetic about how comes across, and he's too egotistical to compromise his own ideals for the sake of the 'political game', case in point - brexit.

He could have built up a huge fragment of those 48% of remain voters if he had just been a bit more convincing (and said idc to his ego). Instead he had to be little Mr Tyrant and next general election labour will end up losing votes to both the liberals (who are the countries only remaining fully remain party bar the SNP), and UKIP.

Labour in general though are doomed unless they can persuade the electorate that they are more blairite since that's what they want. The 'austerity is necessary' propaganda has been spread for too long now - people don't want the nice, nice, idealists in power. They want the politicians that they perceive to be fiscally prudent - the tories, or perhaps a blariite. In addition they are sick of immigrants, especially Muslim, South-asian immigrants. They want people who will be judicially tough too and definitely not overly PC. The uber left wing likes of Eagle and Corbyn (I dare say I know little about Mr Smith) are not going to cut it even if they were charismatic leaders (which lesbian, looks-permanently-tired lady is not either).

A key contender I'd like as leader of labour would be Mr Chuka Umunna, however he thought about standing last time and I believe he stood down because he knew it would only tarnish his reputation being an opposition leader that failed drastically - which he knew labour would due to the political climate. I think the next general election will be no different so I doubt many Blairites would stand. I mean, we have already seen labour try their own game with the vote of no confidence to try and oust the socialists - this was done by mostly Blairites as they knew keeping a Corbyn cabinet would make them lose the next GE (and the chilcot report was coming up which JC used to tarnish Blair, good job m8). But it backfired, Corbyn took it on the chin and sacked them all and replaced them with socialists with no experience and no publicity. It's a disaster for labour. Especially since we know the unions are just as dogmatic as JC and will egotistically press for him constantly even though they know it will make them lose the election...

My family have been labour supporters for all their live. My dad in particular essentially habitually votes labour because he thinks "the tories are out against the working class", yet he actually is considering voting liberal in the next GE just because he dislikes JC so much.

Oh, and recently with his opposition to trident (where I think 60% of his MPs rebelled against him, lol, good leader). Once again JC proves himself utterly out of the touch with the electorate AND his MPs.

You compare this with Mrs May who has been running around trying to bring the whole country together. Being tough on things like Trident. Making visiting Scotland and calming down the SNP a priority. Reaching out to the working class and telling them she wants to help them AND embracing brexit (a very working class ideology). She dresses better. She carries herself better. She speaks better. She has an actual fucking clue of what she is doing and she plays the 'political game' well. The disparity is huge.

It's amazing how my perception is completely different to yours. Let's start with Theresa May. Yeah, she plays the political game better, but she's also a disingenuous bitch whose voting record proves that she's all talk about helping the poor while she will probably preside over another period of the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer (that's basically Tory all over). Where's the value in bringing the country together if the status quo just gets worse? In the end, it's all a show, I hate the fact she's PM and the fact that she's got a veneer and the backing of the right wing press barons disgusts me. Whereas the media are constantly smearing JC... which they would do... why? I think it's because they fear his influence. If he's actually unelectable, why not leave Labour to rot under his unelectable leadership?

Re: Trident. So, um, Trident is a good thing now? Why do we need nuclear capabilities? At best, it's a £50+ billion epeen money sink, at worst it's over £200 billion. We're never gonna use them, most of the warfare we get involved in is asymmetrical against stuff like ISIS and guerrillas, which we're not going to nuke (for obvious reasons). So basically we're using it as a deterrent against, who, Russia and China? I don't think even they're mad enough to fire the first nuke, and even then the USA has enough nukes to blow the whole world up many times over for the sake of world peace. Meanwhile, we're underfunding the actual armed forces, sending them in with subpar equipment, making the armed forces less professional i.e. more territorial army in reserve and less standing army. These are the guys who ACTUALLY do the heavy lifting against insurgency and missions abroad, not some cold war era relic. And I should make clear I'm not pro-armed forces, I just believe that if we do send our troops in, we should ensure they are properly equipped. Not to mention that money could go elsewhere.

Re: Labour are doomed. Are you serious? Austerity has been thoroughly debunked. It's a lie that squeezes the poorest most and redistributes the wealth upwards, as always. The very fact that austerity tends to cause economies to contract more quickly than the deficit is reduced, combined with debts being owed in USD means that as the pound weakens, the debt as a percentage of GDP can increase due to austerity. At best, it's hamstringing the economy and stretching public services to breaking point, all so the Tories can go on some kind of ideological rampage through the poorest areas. It's so easy to blame immigrants and external factors for the ever widening wealth gap due to Tory policy. I think it was a huge mistake of Milliband's not to challenge the austerity policy and simply offer austerity-lite as their own economic policy... great opposition strategy there! Why doesn't Labour actually fight against austerity and try to convince people that there's a better way than actively making the poorest poorer?

Secondly, you can't say definitively that people want a Blairite again. The very fact that there's been a surge of Labour members joining up in order to try to support JC's leadership campaign means at least the membership is split. And the fact that JC won in a landslide last time certainly means there are some grassroots socialist movements in the Labour party. This is why I think the Labour party are split: you have a largely Blairite faction which was behind the attempted coup, with some members supporting the Blairites, but also a very politically active membership supporting JC, who want a truly left leaning socialist party to represent their views. In fact, I think if anything I can definitively say that the membership is split between wanting just another Blairite, and someone who is genuinely left wing who will do things like reinvest into the NHS, renationalise the national rail (which is a fucking joke), and apply pressure on the banks to not be so irresponsible with everyone's money.

I should make clear at this point I've not been a Labour member, nor have I voted Labour in the past. I've been thoroughly disillusioned with the political process for some years, and voted Lib Dem in the past to support the Lib Dem MP we had at the time, who seemed like a genuine and decent guy and always responded to my concerns when I raised them. That's awesome. That's how local government should work. But the bigger picture has pissed me off for some time, and there was no way I was convinced that Milliband who do a better job than the Tories, despite the fact I hate the way the Tories are academising schools, and people like Theresa May introduced anti-immigrant legislation as Home Secretary. You know what, I'll just list the guys I hate, you can google stuff if you don't know: Iain Duncan Smith, Theresa May, Michael Gove, Nicky Morgan, etc etc

But I've actually been quite impressed by JC in the last month or so. Okay first I find it hilarious when Labour MPs criticise his campaigning for Remain. Firstly, Angela Eagle praises him two weeks prior to the coup that he was running an itinerary that would make a younger man collapse from exhaustion, then after the coup she questioned whether his heart was in it and secretly wanted to lose. 180 degree turn? Mega backstab? The Blairites, who constitute a large part of the PLP, want JC out because of his ideas. So they preplanned this coup... in the most inept way ever. Yet they were so confident it would go through they even TOLD a reporter that they wanted to do it... 10 days before the referendum result even came about!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... litz-afte/

So they preplan a coup and look for any reason to start it, when in reality they should be attacking the Tories for bringing about the referendum and largely causing the Leave result. Instead of taking the Tories down, they go for JC when that could've happened at ANY point after the Tories were shat on. How is that strategically sound?! How does that not reek of desperation and total ineptitude?

And it's total idiocy to blame JC for the referendum result. a) Islington voted for Remain, b) 2/3rds of Labour voters voted Remain, those figures are much better than the Tory figures, and many of your coup plotting Labour MPs.

Finally, JC's manner. I think the trend is that people are sick of the establishment, they're so disillusioned. I don't think it's a coincidence that recently we've had the rise of JC, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Even though they don't have the same views, they have the straight-talking, I'm being honest, I'm not a traditional politician thing going for them, and people are responding to it. A lot of the disillusioned people don't want a traditional politician who they perceive will simply continue and/or exacerbate the status quo, they want change, and they want it soon. They feel so let down and left behind by this capitalist free market powerhouse that exists in both countries. It's just that occasionally their anger is misdirected and not aimed at the people who got us into this mess in the first place.

Thus, I think that his lack of political acumen is double edged. For a lot of the politically active grassroots membership support that JC receives, his poor dressing and lack of smooth talking is just what they're looking for.

Besides, he ALREADY compromised his ideals for the political game. In the debate, he argued that there are pros and cons to being the EU, which there are. But he's already the most eurosceptic Labour leader for a while, yet he figured that it was overall in our best interests to remain for now. That's compromising your ideals to do what you think is pragmatically best, which is just fine in my book.

Also, how can you claim that he's out of touch with his electorate? If anything I think it's the PLP which is out of touch with its electorate. Like here's a fun quote from the preplanned coup Independent article:

"Despite the private attacks, most Labour MPs are unsure about how –or if – Mr Corbyn can be toppled given his continued support among party members."

I'll leave most of my points to PM because I can't be arsed to wall this.

I am not a Tory twat, I like the stance Corbyn takes but I think both that he's doing it wrong, and the country isn't ready. I advocate a New Labour approach because whilst a lot of people might brush it off as being dead and gone and all for show, the third way approach proved for thirteen years it was electable and could be pragmatic. It suffered a lot from divisions within the party but that seems to be a Labour problem in general.

But Corbyn is so uncompromising. He was a eurosceptic but when in came to the referendum he sort of went whispered "vote remain". If people want a leader who is down to earth, with the people, then he could have done the decent thing of standing alongside David Cameron and showing some by-partisanship. I think a lot of people would have seen that as a respectable old days value and Corbyn would not be where he is now, being blamed for not doing enough to keep us in.

Theresa May is certainly a liar. I saw the way she voted and what she said, and that saddens me. But what we do know about her is she is an uncompromising pragmatist. If she works how she did in the Home office, she'll upset people, but she'll get things done. She's already appeasing the SNP (which are a trainwreck waiting to happen if they get independence) and we need them on our side for trident. And yes, we don't really need trident as long as we are butt buddies with the US, but renewing it is always the most cautious approach, and we cannot afford to be too rash. It's been a while since a massive war, and the way the world is changing around us, one may or may not erupt. Good to prepare. And also, since the Brexiters have not delievered on their "350 million a week to the NHS" thing, then we might as well appropriate the money for something that will actually happen.

She has delivered an interesting cabinet too. Boris will be out early, he's just... Gove and Morgan not being in made me want to celebrate, shame to see Jeremy Cunt didn't get fired. The others, I don't know. Liam Fox is a bit of a dick 'ead, but I know little about the others.

My ideal way of seeing through government in Britain is like so. I do like the socialist stance Corbyn takes, but he's seen a lot as a stubborn maverick. Angela Eagle and Owen Smith can't win vs Corbyn, especially not if the leadership rules about new members continues. But the general public will not elect Corbyn.

- Third way leader appointed who leads Labour to a more central-left view, putting forward credible policies that are pragmatic, and might upset some people who want a more traditional Labour party, but Labour socialist parties that start out as such fuck themselves over fast.
- This helps to restore faith that party is a credible contender to Tories, and maybe captures the more left leaning Tory voters.
- Use the charisma and pragmatism that drives the Third Way parties to keep power for 2-3 terms, whilst easing in more socialist policies.
- When people tire of the Third Way leader, that's when you can shift the power to a more socialist minded leader and cabinet.

This however is hugely idealistic and would likey never work due to the way Labour keeps breaking down. If the party needs smart people in nice suits with all the charisma and willingness to adapt to what is a predominantly right wing country, then that's the way they should approach the voters.

Re: Trident

A massive war hasn't happened for a while, good to prepare? Okay so what future situation are we looking forward to getting some utility out of them? I mean this isn't just maintenance, we're paying for new submarines, hence the hefty price tag over the length of its life. Honestly it's a travesty that members of the government had no idea how much the project would actually cost, so they basically voted on a blank cheque to go on this project, which I believe will give almost no value for money. Dozens of jobs, sure, and a teeny bit of economic stimulation sure, but it's hardly going to give any returns unless it gives some kind of strategic or military edge.

So we have a PM who has said that she'd gladly press the button and slaughter thousands upon thousands of innocent lives just to get the objective achieved. So I suppose there's that military edge. Not exactly what we're looking for though is it? Secondly, the threat of MAD can be achieved without Trident- according to wiki we have 150 operational warheads. France has 300, Russia and the US have around 1750 each. So Trident isn't necessary because there's always the ICBM route and the good old bomb delivery route. Having nuclear submarines is only necessary if you want to do sneaky strikes at a far away country outside of normal range, or because you want to strike at the heartlands of your foe. And remember, these weapons are non-discriminatory.

Let's consider the nuclear deterrent role. So let's say China, Russia, PRK are the main threats in the future. Again, we have nukes without trident, so the deterrent role is filled anyway by our 100+ warheads and the US's casual 1750. There's hardly any extra deterrent value from nuclear submarines.

That might as well spend the 350 million argument is not inspiring. Can you seriously not think of a better use for all those billions? Plus we're talking nukes here, I'd be happy to see that money evaporate into a black hole than having more nuclear proliferation, but that's just me I guess. But let me make another argument instead... How many houses, schools, hospitals and infrastructure could the equivalent amount of money buy? If we take a moderate estimate of 100 billion pounds? I wonder...

Plus Trident has a negative effect on our relations with Scotland. There's already been talk about Scottish Independence if we try to take them out of the EU against our will, and now we're keeping nukes near Glasgow, one of their major population centres, when the SNP unilaterally voted against Trident, and we're leaving it on their doorstep. Is that going to curry favour with the Scots, or alienate and further compromise the union?

Re: election prospects. I can definitely get behind a pragmatic approach, and having read quite a few more comments from Labour voters on yougov etc I get that people are worried that since Corbyn is radical, unelectable, not charming to other voters, doesn't represent the fiscal responsibility that people want, like when Obama was talking about the government needs to tighten its belt because households were doing it too... So many Labour voters are concerned that with JC at the helm we're doomed to many parliaments of pure Tory majority and the continuation of their terrible policies. And I can definitely empathise with that... That prospect terrifies me too.

However, there are many problems with the Blairite electable into a socialist government approach, and in fact they are many of the problems we face right now:

1. The right-wing press barons do a lot of propaganda, trying to manipulate public opinion. I don't doubt that many people have been turned off JC by the misreporting and constant negativity about JC from the press. But that's just spin. They hate and fear ther influence of a socialist movement headed by JC, so will do anything to strip it down. Even if you tried to ease into socialism mediated by a Blairite electable, when you try to install a more socialist leader the right wing press barons will still be there, blocking the socialist leader, kinda what is happening now. Meanwhile your Blairite has been baron approved, and is more likely to be pandering or at least trying to manage the barons and the banks than trying to instigate social change.

2. The Labour party is split. There's still a lot Blairites in the party, whom obviously have some membership support. But the same can be said of Corbyn with a lot of grassroots movements going on. As more people have become disillusioned with ther status quo, you have the Blairite supporters whose primary concern is to be electable and being more central, whilst the disillusioned want social change. This split would not disappear tomorrow if JC ceased to exist tomorrow. Many people want a genuinely left-leaning party to represent them in these times of hardship, and the Blairites aren't that opposition. Their policies are Tory-lite, they've supported austerity in the past, they have allowed the dismantling of many industries and public services in opposition while not holding the Tories to account. Would it not have been better to take an anti-austerity tack while in opposition, ridiculing Osborne's either economic illiteracy or wilful deceit of the people?

Regardless, though, the problem of a split by its nature goes both ways. Getting rid of the Blairites from the party won't suddenly put Labour in power, but it would make the Labour party more consistent and bring the PLP into line with its constituent's views. Getting rid of JC might make the party more electable (might being the operative word), but then you have all those new Labour members who will be turned off from participating after joining up, due this whole farce of a coup. I do find it amazing that when the Tory party decided to implode on itself in spectactular fashion, the Labour party decided it could one up them and make this farce. There have been efforts to stifle their ability to vote in the upcoming leadership election, unless they pay a 25 quid fee which is the most ridiculous thing I have heard, and also trying to get JC to resign (undemocratically through a preplanned coup to pressure him) and then trying to undemocratically keep JC off the ballot, when he had such a large mandate but 9 months before. How do you think you're going to a) keep these new members or b) get these new members politically active and voting Labour in the next GE if the coup plotting Blairites behave like the backstabbing coup-plotting "do whatever it take to get rid of JC, even prioritising it over opposing the Tories" bastards?

The problem then is that I really don't find the coup plotters electable or credible at all. Their strategy was inept, their timing was terrible, they're perfectly happy to say one thing and do a U-turn but weeks later, and pat each other on the back for pulling the wool over the public's eyes. Yeah, no thank you.

So this is the way I see it. In your idealised world, the socialist leader would just sweep in and win the day when the time is right. But in the meantime, the next Blairite leader has just placed more of his Blairite buddies into safe Labour seats. This trend continues. Oh look, problem recurs with next Socialist leader. Getting rid of JC whilst claiming this is the best hope for a socialist government in the long run is the just putting off the problem for later. You're still going to have the problem of idealogical purity because so many of the PLP are Blairites, and that's not going to change with Blairites in charge!

And here's another way I see things differently. You said that JC should've shown bipartisan support for ther Remain campaign. I would've hated to see that. A) I dislike tribalism. Just because I vote the same as you doesn't mean I should blindly follow you into battle, defend your views and methods no matter how crude or poor they are, and insult the other side in a mudflinging match. The whole debate itself was a farce, and although the Leave side were totally dishonest, the Remain side did not cover itself with glory with its fearmongering tactics, which were immediately picked up on by everyone. JC was the only one who tried to argue both sides of the point, as the complex issue that it actually was, talking to people like adults. Now that isn't the best debating tactic, because apparently fear mongering and project hate is the way to get votes, but it means he's principled and I can respect that. B) though and probably more importantly, the whole thing was so farcical I think giving Cameron that kind of support would've brought JC down to their mudslinging levels, and damage his credibility with his core support, even though some guys might appreciate old days values. And don't tell me that JC's lack of bipartisan support got him into this situation, the article I linked earlier shows that the coup was preplanned and I think it's a fair assumption the plotters would've been looking for any excuse to start it. It's only a matter of time until they find a trigger, even if they had to set up one through a racist comment or whatever.

3. The problem is systemic, it's not to do with Corbyn. This is probably the most important point and is a culmination of what came before. What with right wing barons, the Labour party split and the fact that many of our problems were created by the government and passed off as other things...

Ok how do I mean by that? I mean Austerity broke down our economies (tightening the belt because economies work the same way as household funds amirite?), I mean the governments haven't protected the poorest areas or our industries properly, people have felt let down by free market top down globalised capitalism, when other people get visibily richer while they spiral into poverty, so much so they want to kick the establishment back in the teeth. When I say governments, I don't just mean Tory, I mean Tory, Labour, Democrat, Republican, and so on. What I said above applies just as much to the US as the UK and I imagine other countries as well. This is the reason you had some of the strongest leave vote regions being the poorest, in acts of wilful self harm, voting to effectively have their billions of EU funding cut off which the Tory government is never going to replace. People are pissed off, and when enough people get pissed off enough, then you get the rise of real extremist parties. If people think that JC is radical now, then wait till you see what happens when the wealth inequality gap becomes unsustainable. Probably violent revolution with the extreme right and the extreme left clashing. Woohoo.

So this is how I see it. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer, people getting more pissed off and disillusioned by the day such that a man as distasteful and appalling as Donald Trump might even become "Leader of the Free World". Riiiight. And as we continue to switch from Tory to Blairite and back, and toss JC aside, and continue to have systemic biases against socialist leaders, good luck getting the social change that you crave, without it devolving into extremist revolution first. Because guess what, the Tories are the Tories, and the Blairites care so much about electability they think the best way to appear electable is to ape whatever good ideas the Tories have, even if they're terrible ideas like austerity which does billions of pounds of damage and hurts millions of people that they purport to represent, which in turn further exacerbates the ever widening wealth inequality.

In conclusion, this is the wall which explains why I think trying to change the system from within through moderate means is pretty doomed to fail, unless all the press barons die tomorrow and the PLP stop being kniving little shits. If you want real social change, that means actively campaigning, spreading the word, actively countering the effect of propaganda by explaining yours and JC's views in detail, showing up the terrible effects of Tory policy', criticising them in the public arena, joining rallies, joining your trade Union, getting involved in your CLP. It's basically the same way you try to counter the ill effects of radically anti-science creationists. You take their views and their actions, you show them for what they are, and you iron out misconceptions and myths about science/socialism so people don't actually believe the propaganda that science has no consensus/ anyone left of centre is a communist/ JC is totally unelectable.

I mean, if the mainstream press didn't run a smear campaign to discredit JC, don't you think the electorate might find him more electable?

P.S. I have no qualms with walls of text

Interesting points. I'll say something later regarding this, no time now.

No problem dude. Catch you soon

Codex wrote:It's amazing how my perception is completely different to yours. Let's start with Theresa May. Yeah, she plays the political game better, but she's also a disingenuous bitch whose voting record proves that she's all talk about helping the poor while she will probably preside over another period of the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer (that's basically Tory all over). Where's the value in bringing the country together if the status quo just gets worse? In the end, it's all a show, I hate the fact she's PM and the fact that she's got a veneer and the backing of the right wing press barons disgusts me. Whereas the media are constantly smearing JC... which they would do... why? I think it's because they fear his influence. If he's actually unelectable, why not leave Labour to rot under his unelectable leadership?

Firstly note bold - now now, let's try and at least be somewhat subtle with our biases haha. I'm almost certain no tory politician gets into politics so they can make the rich richer and put down the poor further... If you follow any individual one through there lives (many of which are actually working class too) you should be able to see that. That's nearly as bad a conspiracy theory as Bush doing 911! The government isn't systematically out to get you. And Thatcher didn't close the mines because she wanted northern bastards to die.

Anyway, I'm not sure our perception is too different actually. I'll say first that the primary reason for perceived differences is that I'm talking about Jeremy Corbyn's electability. Which is not the same as how good his ideology is for running a country. Granted, I think it would be dire, but I don't really think that influences what I said in my last post. That post was about whether he would get elected, i.e. what do people think of him and will they vote for him - that is quite independent from what I think of him. I shall leave discussions on trident until the end. But again, regardless of whether Trident is good or not the vast majority of people, I imagine (I dunno if there have been reliable recent polls on this, but just from anecdote and MP ballsyness I assume it is most) want trident to be renewed so to openly oppose it, especially when 60% of your MPs disagree with you as a leader doesn't look good and isn't going to get you votes - it doesn't matter whether he is right or not about the issue for this is democracy.

Codex wrote:" Let's start with Theresa May. Yeah, she plays the political game better, but she's also a disingenuous bitch whose voting record proves that she's all talk about helping the poor while she will probably preside over another period of the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer (that's basically Tory all over). Where's the value in bringing the country together if the status quo just gets worse? In the end, it's all a show, I hate the fact she's PM and the fact that she's got a veneer and the backing of the right wing press barons disgusts me. Whereas the media are constantly smearing JC... which they would do... why? I think it's because they fear his influence. If he's actually unelectable, why not leave Labour to rot under his unelectable leadership?"

I don't disagree that she's disingenuous, yet I think she will to some extent compromise on her own personal beliefs to try and go through with a more populist government because primarily, it will ensure she gets elected next term, which really is the answer to the bold question. And secondly, perhaps optimistically of me to think, but, she thinks it is most important now for the culture of our country for there to be unity even if that means abandoning key policies she'd otherwise like. They smear JC because he goes against the status quo. Just like they smeared UKIP incessantly despite them and JC's labour being on the exact opposite side of the economic spectrum. I think they will continue to go against him forever until he gets lib-dem small, which he isn't, same with UKIP. The media are a nuisance, but so are the status quo in general. The fact we lost the AV referendum so badly was just shocking and it was all down to propaganda... Anyway, that's a tangent for another time...

Codex wrote:Re: Labour are doomed. Are you serious? Austerity has been thoroughly debunked. It's a lie that squeezes the poorest most and redistributes the wealth upwards, as always. The very fact that austerity tends to cause economies to contract more quickly than the deficit is reduced, combined with debts being owed in USD means that as the pound weakens, the debt as a percentage of GDP can increase due to austerity. At best, it's hamstringing the economy and stretching public services to breaking point, all so the Tories can go on some kind of ideological rampage through the poorest areas. It's so easy to blame immigrants and external factors for the ever widening wealth gap due to Tory policy. I think it was a huge mistake of Milliband's not to challenge the austerity policy and simply offer austerity-lite as their own economic policy... great opposition strategy there! Why doesn't Labour actually fight against austerity and try to convince people that there's a better way than actively making the poorest poorer?

Secondly, you can't say definitively that people want a Blairite again. The very fact that there's been a surge of Labour members joining up in order to try to support JC's leadership campaign means at least the membership is split. And the fact that JC won in a landslide last time certainly means there are some grassroots socialist movements in the Labour party. This is why I think the Labour party are split: you have a largely Blairite faction which was behind the attempted coup, with some members supporting the Blairites, but also a very politically active membership supporting JC, who want a truly left leaning socialist party to represent their views. In fact, I think if anything I can definitively say that the membership is split between wanting just another Blairite, and someone who is genuinely left wing who will do things like reinvest into the NHS, renationalise the national rail (which is a fucking joke), and apply pressure on the banks to not be so irresponsible with everyone's money.

Secondly, you can't say definitively that people want a Blairite again. The very fact that there's been a surge of Labour members joining up in order to try to support JC's leadership campaign means at least the membership is split. And the fact that JC won in a landslide last time certainly means there are some grassroots socialist movements in the Labour party. This is why I think the Labour party are split: you have a largely Blairite faction which was behind the attempted coup, with some members supporting the Blairites, but also a very politically active membership supporting JC, who want a truly left leaning socialist party to represent their views. In fact, I think if anything I can definitively say that the membership is split between wanting just another Blairite, and someone who is genuinely left wing who will do things like reinvest into the NHS, renationalise the national rail (which is a fucking joke), and apply pressure on the banks to not be so irresponsible with everyone's money.

I should make clear at this point I've not been a Labour member, nor have I voted Labour in the past. I've been thoroughly disillusioned with the political process for some years, and voted Lib Dem in the past to support the Lib Dem MP we had at the time, who seemed like a genuine and decent guy and always responded to my concerns when I raised them. That's awesome. That's how local government should work. But the bigger picture has pissed me off for some time, and there was no way I was convinced that Milliband who do a better job than the Tories, despite the fact I hate the way the Tories are academising schools, and people like Theresa May introduced anti-immigrant legislation as Home Secretary. You know what, I'll just list the guys I hate, you can google stuff if you don't know: Iain Duncan Smith, Theresa May, Michael Gove, Nicky Morgan, etc etc

Well, I wouldn't go as far to say debunked. This is not a gender wage gap based on discrimination haha. However the ferocity with which it has been used by Osborne in this instance has no doubt been... Unadvantageous to our economy. However that was not my point. My point was that there has been constant spin and rhetoric about 'austerity' and 'balancing the books' and 'fiscal prudency'. And for right or wrong the tories are seen as the guys who will get our economy fixed no matter what. And labour are too busy fiddling around with internal feuds, making cheap gags and acting like little children (quite akin to the red haired SJW sorts that proclaim such affinity with labour) with their protests and naivety. I'd say that's how a damn lot of people view labour. Yes, working class people and tat's why the tories get voted in. Osborne has only pushed that even further in his own regime. Honestly, he never shut up about 'balancing the budget' and that's just silly. It never has been that important. Man needs to calm down. But he didn't... And that was for a reason. It was to tarnish the sort of labour that is like JC. And I think it has. There is of course no definitive proof to this, but that's an issue common to a lot of parts of politics...

Indeed labour itself now has perhaps even a majority of its members who prefer the hardcore socialist labourites. The real labour to be in charge. However, that is not enough to win a general election. Labour need to take seats from the tories and from UKIP - regaining a few of their strongholds lost in the last GE will not be enough for a majority wing. My argument that 'people' want a blairite government is based on the fact that I think many current UKIP and tory voters would swing to labour if there was a more blairite appeal there. That's the crutch. It's gaining that outside of labour support right now that labour NEED. Because they don't have enough internally. I think society on the whole has gone a little more right wing these days... So labour and JC being socialist, real left wing... Not very electable. Besides, the real socialists love the EU and so long as they aren't old men who want the death penalty they're actually best off voting lib dems! They are equally socialist with their economic policy if not more, but obviously, more liberal with their social policy while alos being the only party that is indisputably 'remain' with regards to the EU... Lib-dems just did the best they ever done in council elections and while council elections don't often transfer to general ones, I think that's telling tbh.

Oh and I'd rather not go over the pros and cons of individual tory politicians haha

Codex wrote:But I've actually been quite impressed by JC in the last month or so. Okay first I find it hilarious when Labour MPs criticise his campaigning for Remain. Firstly, Angela Eagle praises him two weeks prior to the coup that he was running an itinerary that would make a younger man collapse from exhaustion, then after the coup she questioned whether his heart was in it and secretly wanted to lose. 180 degree turn? Mega backstab? The Blairites, who constitute a large part of the PLP, want JC out because of his ideas. So they preplanned this coup... in the most inept way ever. Yet they were so confident it would go through they even TOLD a reporter that they wanted to do it... 10 days before the referendum result even came about!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... litz-afte/

So they preplan a coup and look for any reason to start it, when in reality they should be attacking the Tories for bringing about the referendum and largely causing the Leave result. Instead of taking the Tories down, they go for JC when that could've happened at ANY point after the Tories were shat on. How is that strategically sound?! How does that not reek of desperation and total ineptitude?

And it's total idiocy to blame JC for the referendum result. a) Islington voted for Remain, b) 2/3rds of Labour voters voted Remain, those figures are much better than the Tory figures, and many of your coup plotting Labour MPs.

Finally, JC's manner. I think the trend is that people are sick of the establishment, they're so disillusioned. I don't think it's a coincidence that recently we've had the rise of JC, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Even though they don't have the same views, they have the straight-talking, I'm being honest, I'm not a traditional politician thing going for them, and people are responding to it. A lot of the disillusioned people don't want a traditional politician who they perceive will simply continue and/or exacerbate the status quo, they want change, and they want it soon. They feel so let down and left behind by this capitalist free market powerhouse that exists in both countries. It's just that occasionally their anger is misdirected and not aimed at the people who got us into this mess in the first place.

Thus, I think that his lack of political acumen is double edged. For a lot of the politically active grassroots membership support that JC receives, his poor dressing and lack of smooth talking is just what they're looking for.

Angela Eagle is a typical, non-innovative, dead end politician who has no charismatic appeal, copy/pasted views, that sucks clits and dicks in order to try and get some career progression. She's an opportunistic rat and I have no idea why labour permitted her to be the primary candidate standing against JC. I just do not get it. Fortunately she's now stood down from that race, but it just makes labour seem even more pathetic...

Regarding the coup to topple JC, yeah, it was a thing and JC has mostly ignored it. He isn't getting thrown out yet, but I highly doubt swing voters will go to him in this instance. It just makes him look like a terrible leader. The thing is, if we had a blairite governemnt all the grassroot labour voters aren't gonna suddenly run away and vote tory, I highly doubt they'd vote liberal and even then a labour/liberal government might be interesting... Yet that would be the thing - you'd end up with a non-tory government perhaps because enough tory swing voters would vote labour instead. So blairite or socialist labour keep most of the labour core votes as ultimately most voters just vote for 'their party' anyway and the unions will always support labour no matter what.

The same criticism applies when discussing his manner too. If his mannerism were gaining labour a unique subset of voters, fine, go for it. But I really do not think they are. At best they are just fervouring up some habitual labour voters to jeer even harder at the 'oh, look, it's Boris the buffoon again!' jokes...

Concerning the referendum. One need not have been the sole contributory factor to the outcome to have been a large contributory factor...

You cannot possibly tell me that JC offered a more convincing argument for remaining in the EU than the Eton-brigade of Cameron, Osbourne et al did.

Compared to everyone else's vigour in the debates and total one-sidedness he just come across as an indecisive fool. Again, for better or worse...

Torpid wrote:Firstly note bold - now now, let's try and at least be somewhat subtle with our biases haha. I'm almost certain no tory politician gets into politics so they can make the rich richer and put down the poor further... If you follow any individual one through there lives (many of which are actually working class too) you should be able to see that. That's nearly as bad a conspiracy theory as Bush doing 911! The government isn't systematically out to get you. And Thatcher didn't close the mines because she wanted northern bastards to die.

I didn't say that. Don't get ahead of yourself: just because I'm passionate and I hate the Tories doesn't mean I think they intentionally want to fuck people over. I said they were going on an ideological rampage. To give an example of Tory tendencies I refer to: apply neoliberal concepts, allow the free market to become more free than ever i.e. deregulate everything, austerity up the arse, privatise everything. These have very similar results each time, culminating in the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer.

Torpid wrote:But again, regardless of whether Trident is good or not the vast majority of people, I imagine (I dunno if there have been reliable recent polls on this, but just from anecdote and MP ballsyness I assume it is most) want trident to be renewed so to openly oppose it, especially when 60% of your MPs disagree with you as a leader doesn't look good and isn't going to get you votes - it doesn't matter whether he is right or not about the issue for this is democracy.

How is allowing an open vote on something like Trident undemocratic exactly? I would need to see evidence that the Labour membership want Trident to continue to be convinced that he should've asked the Party to vote unanimously in favour of Trident.

Torpid wrote:I don't disagree that she's disingenuous, yet I think she will to some extent compromise on her own personal beliefs to try and go through with a more populist government because primarily, it will ensure she gets elected next term, which really is the answer to the bold question. And secondly, perhaps optimistically of me to think, but, she thinks it is most important now for the culture of our country for there to be unity even if that means abandoning key policies she'd otherwise like. They smear JC because he goes against the status quo. Just like they smeared UKIP incessantly despite them and JC's labour being on the exact opposite side of the economic spectrum. I think they will continue to go against him forever until he gets lib-dem small, which he isn't, same with UKIP. The media are a nuisance, but so are the status quo in general.

So we're in agreement that the establishment/status quo want to suppress JC because he is a threat to their interests? Basically? And sure, I can appreciate that unity is a good idea right now, but it remains to be seen. We'll see what policies she presides over and what her voting record will say whilst PM, because that will give much more information than words coming out of her mouth.

Torpid wrote:Well, I wouldn't go as far to say debunked. This is not a gender wage gap based on discrimination haha.

http://ei.marketwatch.com//Multimedia/2 ... 15c588dfa6

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fan ... /ostry.htm

Even the IMF which has been a fierce champion of neoliberalism in the past found in their own study that Austerity doesn't work.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng- ... y-delusion

Paul Krugman who is a respected economist.

Torpid wrote:And for right or wrong the tories are seen as the guys who will get our economy fixed no matter what. And labour are too busy fiddling around with internal feuds, making cheap gags and acting like little children (quite akin to the red haired SJW sorts that proclaim such affinity with labour) with their protests and naivety. I'd say that's how a damn lot of people view labour. Yes, working class people and tat's why the tories get voted in. Osborne has only pushed that even further in his own regime. Honestly, he never shut up about 'balancing the budget' and that's just silly. It never has been that important. Man needs to calm down. But he didn't... And that was for a reason. It was to tarnish the sort of labour that is like JC. And I think it has. There is of course no definitive proof to this, but that's an issue common to a lot of parts of politics...

Yes, this definitely happens, but you know, to blame JC for their internal bickering making them look like a joke is not his fault. And as I say, I'm not a Labour voter, I'm not even a Corbyn supporter, but I can see when there's spin and there's misreporting of his views and the media are out to get him, they call him a communist for having pretty left of centre ideas. I mean case in point, when I was at school I was right of centre, at university pretty much dead on centre, and now I'm left leaning. I look at Corbyn's (real) policies and I agree with most of them. According to the hyped press that makes me a communist.

But this is what I'm saying. You and Swift claim to like socialist policies and want some of them enacted, but want someone electable to mediate that. But the problem is that you're always going to have trouble implementing them so long as the press makes that side of things sound radical and extreme. And although I feel like you're right that there's a growing right wing in this country, I also feel that (as with all difficult times) there's going to be a continuing surge on the left. That's just what happens, politics ceases to be stable centre and more and more disillusioned people try to find the answers on the fringes c.f. Weimar Republic. But I do fear that if the right wing press barons have their way, they can keep pushing the political discussion further and further right, until words like socialist becomes synonymous with commie, and, like in America, a dirty word.

So if we want there to be social change, we actually need to campaign and educate people. Like did you know that unions can only go on strike over pay and conditions? Even though the teachers in the NUS wanted to strike because of forced academisation, they could not strike over that, because it's a political point. Which is ridiculous. How then do we fight back against the Tories? Unions have systematically had their powers reduced over the decades, it's not like Labour re-empowered them during the Blair years. If we just accept our due and try to support an electable Blairite we're not going to get the change we want anyway. Schools will still get academised/privatised into terrible sponsor's hands. The NHS will alienate doctors whom we desperately need, meanwhile we're leaving the EU so that will reduce our access to many potential nurses and doctors. But again, this comes down to countering disinformation with information, and enlightening people to see past spin, check sources, question what they read. There's a reason that the first thing a repressive regime does is burn all the books. So if you do actually care about social change, get out there and make a difference. Don't think for a second that your armchair wisdom and pedantry is going to save the day.

And don't campaign for a Blairite who will not instigate any social change.

Indeed labour itself now has perhaps even a majority of its members who prefer the hardcore socialist labourites. The real labour to be in charge. However, that is not enough to win a general election. Labour need to take seats from the tories and from UKIP - regaining a few of their strongholds lost in the last GE will not be enough for a majority wing. My argument that 'people' want a blairite government is based on the fact that I think many current UKIP and tory voters would swing to labour if there was a more blairite appeal there. That's the crutch. It's gaining that outside of labour support right now that labour NEED. Because they don't have enough internally. I think society on the whole has gone a little more right wing these days... So labour and JC being socialist, real left wing... Not very electable. Besides, the real socialists love the EU and so long as they aren't old men who want the death penalty they're actually best off voting lib dems! They are equally socialist with their economic policy if not more, but obviously, more liberal with their social policy while alos being the only party that is indisputably 'remain' with regards to the EU... Lib-dems just did the best they ever done in council elections and while council elections don't often transfer to general ones, I think that's telling tbh.

Okay NOW we're getting to the core and the real meat of it. Still doesn't explain why your dad hates JC's guts so much, but whatever, I'll take it. Ok so what you're saying is not that the Labour membership want a Blairite, but the country would accept one. That seems fair. But again, you've been playing the Tory's game following Tory tunes for so long. Austerity wasn't challenged. Their referendum debacle wasn't challenged. The Blairites have seemed awfully quiet since the Tories came into power. And until they actually show up some of the Tory's failings the Tories will happily stay in power.

I mean for crying out loud Iain Duncan Smith passed some emergency legislation to get himself off the hook for his dodgy dealings whilst the Pensions minister. And the Labour shadow minister did nothing about it. I don't see how you can argue that getting rid of JC and instating a Blairite will suddenly mean a Labour win is possible. I think it's just as likely that people back JC, create an effective opposition, and actually challenge what the Tories are doing on a daily basis? Wouldn't that make Labour, as the ONLY OTHER MAJOR PARTY, more electable than the economically inept Tories who are ravaging our system with their ideological cuts?! Literally, leader aside. If people actually understood that austerity doesn't work, that the reason that Osborne had to keep extending austerity is because is suppresses growth rather than enables it, that the main part of the poorest people's problems was Tory policy and not immigrants or whatever, etc etc, that people wouldn't get so sick of Tory rule that they would vote for the opposition? I mean, how rich do you have to be to outright benefit from the economy contracting, public services slashed, infrastructure neglected, school places running out, hospitals overburdened, councils having to make do with an ever diminishing budget, etc, etc, etc... The 1%? The 0.5%?

It's all good and well saying that we need to swing XYZ voters, the left leaning Tory voters, and Kippers who are ultra disillusioned who are actually voting for an extreme right fringe party whereas the voters themselves probably self-identify as quite central. But this is founded upon the assumption that what we need is more of the same, suave, smooth talking, dressed up politician who can appeal to the masses as more attractive than Theresa May. Well, no, you can make the opponents look so bad that a lot of people flock to their opponents or indeed the other major party. Case in point, I think the Tories were very smart to use the ploy that a vote for Labour is actually a vote for the SNP, because Milliband refused to reject the possibility of a Labour-SNP coalition, and people were scared enough for having the SNP in coalition that many flocked away from voting Labour. Imagine what swing would occur if people understood the full extent of damage Tory policies are doing.

Finally, politics isn't exactly a zero sum game. People die and don't vote anymore, you have young people coming in to form the electorate, but most importantly you have a large proportion of the electorate who DON'T vote. If for some reason tomorrow every single potential voter who didn't vote at the previous GE voted Labour, they'd probably win. I mean, that's a third of the electorate that didn't show up on election day. So it's a bit disingenuous to present it as a zero sum game. If a party reinvigorated by JC is on the streets campaigning and recruiting, not every single vote to win a GE needs to be a vote taken off another party. But yes, you're largely right.

I think the point is the worse the situation gets, the less control the more central parties are going to have anyway. Might as well try to effect a change to the status quo before that happens. Look at the turnout for Brexit. It was incredible, especially during a period of purported voter malaise. I think times and changing, and political precedent may not be the most useful indicator of the future... keep your ear close to the ground,

Angela Eagle is a typical, non-innovative, dead end politician who has no charismatic appeal, copy/pasted views, that sucks clits and dicks in order to try and get some career progression. She's an opportunistic rat and I have no idea why labour permitted her to be the primary candidate standing against JC. I just do not get it. Fortunately she's now stood down from that race, but it just makes labour seem even more pathetic...

Yeah well, this was one of the finest that the PLP could muster. Really makes inspires you to think that there's a great alternative to vote for.

The same criticism applies when discussing his manner too. If his mannerism were gaining labour a unique subset of voters, fine, go for it. But I really do not think they are. At best they are just fervouring up some habitual labour voters to jeer even harder at the 'oh, look, it's Boris the buffoon again!' jokes...

Tell that to the Republicans and Trump. Trump isn't tapping into a unique subset of voters, he's just resonating with more of the same kind of voters, while alienating Blacks, Mexicans, Women, Muslims etc etc etc. And I think it would be hubris to say now that we should sit here thinking we're safe, there's no WAY he'll become President come November. Right?... Right? (Please reassure me that would make me so much happier)

Torpid wrote:Compared to everyone else's vigour in the debates and total one-sidedness he just come across as an indecisive fool. Again, for better or worse...

You cannot possibly tell me that JC offered a more convincing argument for remaining in the EU than the Eton-brigade of Cameron, Osbourne et al did.

Vigour can be replaced with spin at any point. I think of him as balanced, you see an indecisive fool. Different viewpoints huh. And he didn't offer a more convincing argument, he provided a pros and cons approach to the debate like a rational human being. Unlike Cameron+ Osborne who screamed that we were all gonna suffer and that the economy was going to fail and austerity would go on forever and nooooooooooo

Guess what. Telling people who feel like they've been left behind by the establishment that we were all gonna suffer and the economy was gonna die is not convincing. a) You're telling them you know better, which insults them when they are feeling the pain every day. b) You strip away credibility from the countless experts who actually weighed in on the subject, who unfortunately for them get lumped in with the fearmongering politicians. c) If they've already been left behind by the establishment, they feel like they have nothing to lose, and they want to hurt the establishment and give it a massive fuck you, even if it's just taking a stand. d) Some of them actually believe that getting out of the EU will improve their lives because no more immigrants competing for their jobs, taking their benefits, pushing back against the endless globalisation, even if only temporarily. If people feel like this, the last thing they want is for some snotty nosed bastards to talk down to them and tell them they know better. The last thing they want is to feel patronised.

So yeah, I do think that the tack that Cameron and Osborne et al took was disastrous. They assumed that with the weight of fear mongering and experts and foreign contingents would be enough, and that Leave would never have enough time to gather a head of steam to overtake Remain. That was foolish and resulted from hubris. In fact, the short campaign probably played into the hands of the Leave campaign more, since all their arguments basically boiled down to: Simple problem, simple solution. With no plan on how to make any of this happen. In the end, in my mind it's clear that JC had much less to do with the Leave result, and it was pretty much Tories through and through. Of course he could've been more passionate and campaign solely for Remain but as I said that would involve getting on the Tribalism bandwagon.

P.S, It's a good thing I have a good relation with my boss, I've literally gotten away with spending 3 hours today writing these posts. Admittedly the first post was on a severely delayed train on the way to work, but still...

Ugh, so much text, why can't you just argue like Americans and call each other fascists already?

Oddnerd, go away you fascist.

Satisfied?

I like your arguments, Codex, they're genuinely challenging and I do agree a lot with your logic. My problem though is that we cannot expect everyone to up it and read stuff, get clued up, disregard the walls of propaganda etc. I think a Blairite would be good just to restore power because it's a compromise. There is no way we can get people to change themselves without compromise, and a Blairite will compromise in order to win. Corbyn may well be down to earth, nice guy, sensible, and whilst that is nice, it means he loses the political game because a lot of people want someone to look up to and Corbyn is not providing a clear image of himself.

I think that the Blairite stance is also fundamentally flawed too. For a start there is certain stigma around the "Blair" sticker. 'Blair? Blair? Th-th-that bloody WAR CRIMINAL!?' Blair was the guy who went to war despite having been so successful in all his previous ones. Blair was the guy who raised tuition fees which were then raised hugely by the Tories. Blair was the guy who people got bored of despite the incredible excitement surrounding him during his first and second election. He did some silly stuff, but he did a lot to keep things under control too. Now I get this is to be expected, but there's more to him than meets the eye.

I do not believe the centrist viewpoint is one that should last in government, it's a very useful stance to appeal to voters all over but in the end will have more limited interest in changing things the longer it lasts, see the third term of New Labour. I suggest a centrist leader into a socialist one because the way you see it, people will have to up it and change now. I'd love it if they did, and it frustrates me that people nurture these archaic views on society that are promoted by the Mail and such wank rags, but they won't, because in the end, politics is a mess and people are busy, so I see that they won't change just like that, and need someone to hold their hand toward socialism.

Another issue is like you highlighted: Blairites will plot and backstab. They are never happy with the same leader all the time yet a change to the status quo means a threat. This is a problem, and not one I'd know how to fix. But then again, I did say this was an ideal situation, and the ideal people rarely crop up.

We can campaign, and I probably should, but the rest of the public need motivation, inspiration, something to pull them away from their voting habits, promote change. That's what Blair did, he shook the foundations and got a majority of about 160 seats. Twice! If that popularity can be reached once, we can do it again. But now Blair would be the wrong guy. Someone like Umunna would possibly be that guy who people could trust, and I could trust to know when it's time to go. Blair was not that guy, he wanted in and he never wanted to leave. The Blairites need to be less narcissistic and I think they could be a real force for good.

But I'm feeling refreshed. My viewpoints have been soundly challenged, though I still don't think your way will adequately change the masses if the masses cannot and will not see it, so this is why I believe in the popular Blairite way, not because I'm an egotist, but because it's the only way I see people restore trust in socialist Labour. I'd still like to hear how you would approach it though. Challenge me, take my opinion and twist it round, enlighten me! I am enjoying having a really stimulating debate, genuinely.

I could write and essay after some more research on the pros and cons of New Labour and the Third Way, but I think my walls are long enough already without that.

I think if there's any political motto I'd have, it's that 'everything is politics, but nothing has to be.'

[EDIT]: Oddnerd ya damn yankee fascist.

Codex wrote:Oddnerd, go away you fascist.

Satisfied?

That's more like it

Swiftsabre wrote:I like your arguments, Codex, they're genuinely challenging and I do agree a lot with your logic. My problem though is that we cannot expect everyone to up it and read stuff, get clued up, disregard the walls of propaganda etc. I think a Blairite would be good just to restore power because it's a compromise. There is no way we can get people to change themselves without compromise, and a Blairite will compromise in order to win. Corbyn may well be down to earth, nice guy, sensible, and whilst that is nice, it means he loses the political game because a lot of people want someone to look up to and Corbyn is not providing a clear image of himself.

I think that the Blairite stance is also fundamentally flawed too. For a start there is certain stigma around the "Blair" sticker. 'Blair? Blair? Th-th-that bloody WAR CRIMINAL!?' Blair was the guy who went to war despite having been so successful in all his previous ones. Blair was the guy who raised tuition fees which were then raised hugely by the Tories. Blair was the guy who people got bored of despite the incredible excitement surrounding him during his first and second election. He did some silly stuff, but he did a lot to keep things under control too. Now I get this is to be expected, but there's more to him than meets the eye.

I do not believe the centrist viewpoint is one that should last in government, it's a very useful stance to appeal to voters all over but in the end will have more limited interest in changing things the longer it lasts, see the third term of New Labour. I suggest a centrist leader into a socialist one because the way you see it, people will have to up it and change now. I'd love it if they did, and it frustrates me that people nurture these archaic views on society that are promoted by the Mail and such wank rags, but they won't, because in the end, politics is a mess and people are busy, so I see that they won't change just like that, and need someone to hold their hand toward socialism.

Its kinda depressing we live in a society of twats and idiots, that cant see, hear or speak. Im still surprised in this day and age that people get information from shit like Daily Mail or Sun and BBC. I cant believe that the country went so downhill in just 2 decades, all thanks to poor education and following american mainstream to the point of where the only thing that people today think about is to show off and look uninterested in anything, because it looks cool.
Maybe we just should do exams for a right to vote so that we can get actually smart people to vote for something that affects the whole country instead of getting the blind and ignorant sheep that follow fear mongers and populists out of their own stupidity. They do exams for drivers license for the safety of the people around yet the most dumbest prick alive can influence the way a country can run.