Join the Labour Party and save your country!

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

No need for a referendum on the death penalty as I can't see it becoming a problem in the future. EU membership was going to become a bigger and bigger problem.
Remember, the EU referendum was designed to head off the Brexiters as a Remain vote was expected. As I said earlier, Remainers would have been better pushing for an earlier vote instead of sticking their heads in the sand.
Why should you oppose another referendum? You have been whining for 2 years what a bad idea they are.

as i said, anything to bring us back from this disaster, however we both know it will never happen.

as for heading off the brexitiers? we also both know that this vote has split the nation, for a generation at least, any win for the remainers would have also been a close call, we d just have a split in the other direction.
Face facts, the vote was called for internal tory politics ie to "head off the brexitiers" and in doing so, the Tories have put our economy at risk, in a way that dwarfs anything Labour ever did.

You ve also changed your tune, the return of the death penalty is favoured by a majority in this country, are you saying their wishes should be ignored ?

ballysmate

Changed my tune? I have said that there is no need for a referendum on the death penalty, but if there was one it wouldn't bother me much. I may be concerned though about people like yourself who would claim that they were unable to understand the question and what they were voting for.
Totally different from the EU vote as I cannot envisage any party arbitrarily triggering A50 without such a mandate. You would not have expected Alex Salmon to have declared independence without a referendum would you?
Yes the vote split the nation. Because it was held too late. If the Europhiles had held the vote some years back, UKIP would have withered on the vine.

mamba80

as i said in reply to Stev the eco turmoil the Tories will bring us to over Brexit dwarfs anything Labour ever did... you need to ask why no other Gov ever gave into the anti eu sentiment that as the link i post shows as been around since 1973, that vote split the UK too, referendums do because they are binary in their nature and should be avoided (unless we have one to undo the mess we r in now)

that vote should have settled the issue but didnt and if we had a vote in the 80s or 90s or whenever, it would make no difference at all, your living in dreamland and should at least admit DC is a weak wishy washy leader, just as i can agree with you Miliband was, as was Kinnock but tories seem incapable of ever criticising their party of choice.

ballysmate

From your link Mamba



The opinion polls seem to be at odds to what happens in the real world don't they? Looking at this we expected a remain win. You may wish to rethink the credence you put into such polls considering the Tory victory, Brexit and Trump result.

You also say

Brexit.... bought about for no other reason than to save the Tory party from tearing itself apart, and before Bally pops up and says public pressure/ukip etc - rubbish! ukip had no MPs and leaving the EU didnt figure in voters top 10 concerns in 2010.

So in 2010 we could have has a referendum with UKIP being very marginalised, only attracting 3% (919,000 votes) and have a more assured chance of success of a remain vote.
Cameron should have called a referendum then, putting the thing to bed for decades or perhaps for ever, but didn't. But hang on, he couldn't could he? He was in coalition with the Libdems who would not countenance it.
The chance was lost, UKIP support grew and the rest is, as they say, history.

BTW if we get another vote and the result is to remain, do we have a best of 3. Or if the Brexit result is repeated, is it a best of 5?

mamba80

yes the opinion pols get things wrong but Trump and Brexit, were all within the margin of error weren't they? indeed Clinton won the popular vote by some 10million! but you ve shown no evidence that any earlier EU vote would have settled the matter have you? its just your opinion.
as i said, it was to appease the tory party, almost every commentator agrees.

Even May has said today that the brexit vote was that people are very concerned that society doesnt work for them and they feel left out.... so we fcuk the economy for them???? how is leaving the eu going to change that?

Today she boasts of removing the stigma of mental health etc and increasing spending..... but she was part of a Gov that cut mental health services by 8% ..... the tories are full of rhetoric only, she isnt even promising any more ring fenced money.

ballysmate

es the opinion pols get things wrong but Trump and Brexit, were all within the margin of error weren't they? indeed Clinton won the popular vote by some 10million! but you ve shown no evidence that any earlier EU vote would have settled the matter have you? its just your opinion.
as i said, it was to appease the tory party, almost every commentator agrees.

Well apart from the UKIP vote going from 900,000 to 4 and a half million in 5 years...
400% increase. No evidence there, no sirree...

Edit Mea culpa It only increased to 4 million.

kingstongraham

Ballysmate wrote:

BTW if we get another vote and the result is to remain, do we have a best of 3. Or if the Brexit result is repeated, is it a best of 5?

Have one every couple of years, make it best of 31.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

es the opinion pols get things wrong but Trump and Brexit, were all within the margin of error weren't they? indeed Clinton won the popular vote by some 10million! but you ve shown no evidence that any earlier EU vote would have settled the matter have you? its just your opinion.
as i said, it was to appease the tory party, almost every commentator agrees.

Well apart from the UKIP vote going from 900,000 to 4 and a half million in 5 years...
400% increase. No evidence there, no sirree...

Edit Mea culpa It only increased to 4 million.

its a country of 65million, about 46 million allowed to vote Bally, how many of those 4m would have been included in earlier Polls? but voted for other parties or not at all, so try again, the graph clearly shows opinions on eu membership ebbed and flowed over many years, prob dependant on if the 'express/mail ran a story on MEPs salaries or bent cucumbers.

Go on, get that brain of yours working...... and admit your wrong.

meursault

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

meursault wrote:

I was alluding to the class of professional politicians, rather than literally a career politician. There's a difference between the likes of Corbyn, active campaigner, rebel and the self serving careerist that typifies todays mp's. Corbyn has never (so far) been bought by the bosses, and has a (reformist) socialist manifesto. That in itself is anti establishment, so a long way from the Tory 2nd XI of Blairs new labour.

Is this Momentum Bingo? We had 'MSM' a few times, so I just need 'metropolitan elite' for a full house.

Outside of the Labour Party, Corbyn's support just isn't that great, so it's no surprise that publications which seek a slightly broader readership are more critical. What Corbyn supporters seem to fail to accept is that individual socialist fervour is not a substitute for actually persuading the majority of people outside the party who wouldn't automatically vote Labour. If austerity is the evil that you say, then to stand any chance of it being changed Labour needs to get a lot more votes than those of the ~600,000 members.

You know you're dealing with the hard left when they use phrases like 'Tory 2nd XI' or 'Tories with red rosettes' when referring to the Blarite wing of Labour

Indeed!

I think the 'swing' (is that a bingo!?) from the LP membership and the wider potential electorate support, is away from neo liberal New Labour, and back to what the party was founded on and for. Originally founded because the Tories and Liberals of the day did not represent working class people. Why would the vast majority of people vote for candidates that support big business and not fight for the needs of ordinary people? Blair's moronic grin worked for a while, but that time is gone.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

es the opinion pols get things wrong but Trump and Brexit, were all within the margin of error weren't they? indeed Clinton won the popular vote by some 10million! but you ve shown no evidence that any earlier EU vote would have settled the matter have you? its just your opinion.
as i said, it was to appease the tory party, almost every commentator agrees.

Well apart from the UKIP vote going from 900,000 to 4 and a half million in 5 years...
400% increase. No evidence there, no sirree...

Edit Mea culpa It only increased to 4 million.

its a country of 65million, about 46 million allowed to vote Bally, how many of those 4m would have been included in earlier Polls? but voted for other parties or not at all, so try again, the graph clearly shows opinions on eu membership ebbed and flowed over many years, prob dependant on if the 'express/mail ran a story on MEPs salaries or bent cucumbers.

Go on, get that brain of yours working...... and admit your wrong.

Well if you can't accept UKIP going from 3% to 12%(900,000 votes to 4million) in 5 years is a trend, I really am at a bit of a loss. Perhaps you are one of the people George Carlin warned me about arguing with. You seem to have me beaten hands down on experience. :?

Stevo_666

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

meursault wrote:

I was alluding to the class of professional politicians, rather than literally a career politician. There's a difference between the likes of Corbyn, active campaigner, rebel and the self serving careerist that typifies todays mp's. Corbyn has never (so far) been bought by the bosses, and has a (reformist) socialist manifesto. That in itself is anti establishment, so a long way from the Tory 2nd XI of Blairs new labour.

Is this Momentum Bingo? We had 'MSM' a few times, so I just need 'metropolitan elite' for a full house.

Outside of the Labour Party, Corbyn's support just isn't that great, so it's no surprise that publications which seek a slightly broader readership are more critical. What Corbyn supporters seem to fail to accept is that individual socialist fervour is not a substitute for actually persuading the majority of people outside the party who wouldn't automatically vote Labour. If austerity is the evil that you say, then to stand any chance of it being changed Labour needs to get a lot more votes than those of the ~600,000 members.

You know you're dealing with the hard left when they use phrases like 'Tory 2nd XI' or 'Tories with red rosettes' when referring to the Blarite wing of Labour

Indeed!

I think the 'swing' (is that a bingo!?) from the LP membership and the wider potential electorate support, is away from neo liberal New Labour, and back to what the party was founded on and for. Originally founded because the Tories and Liberals of the day did not represent working class people. Why would the vast majority of people vote for candidates that support big business and not fight for the needs of ordinary people? Blair's moronic grin worked for a while, but that time is gone.

Indeed it is gone - a bit like the support for Labour
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

Seriously, Corbyn is just too far left to appeal to enough of the electorate to win Labour a general election. Ironically you slag off Blair, but he got Labour into power - three times in a row. The only way they have a hope of getting back into power is to go back towards the centre ground.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

es the opinion pols get things wrong but Trump and Brexit, were all within the margin of error weren't they? indeed Clinton won the popular vote by some 10million! but you ve shown no evidence that any earlier EU vote would have settled the matter have you? its just your opinion.
as i said, it was to appease the tory party, almost every commentator agrees.

Well apart from the UKIP vote going from 900,000 to 4 and a half million in 5 years...
400% increase. No evidence there, no sirree...

Edit Mea culpa It only increased to 4 million.

its a country of 65million, about 46 million allowed to vote Bally, how many of those 4m would have been included in earlier Polls? but voted for other parties or not at all, so try again, the graph clearly shows opinions on eu membership ebbed and flowed over many years, prob dependant on if the 'express/mail ran a story on MEPs salaries or bent cucumbers.

Go on, get that brain of yours working...... and admit your wrong.

You wbat?

So you are saying that people who now vote UKIP used to vote for other parties and so that somehow doesn't count as a trend? Please tell me I've misunderstood otherwise Bally may have a point

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

es the opinion pols get things wrong but Trump and Brexit, were all within the margin of error weren't they? indeed Clinton won the popular vote by some 10million! but you ve shown no evidence that any earlier EU vote would have settled the matter have you? its just your opinion.
as i said, it was to appease the tory party, almost every commentator agrees.

Well apart from the UKIP vote going from 900,000 to 4 and a half million in 5 years...
400% increase. No evidence there, no sirree...

Edit Mea culpa It only increased to 4 million.

its a country of 65million, about 46 million allowed to vote Bally, how many of those 4m would have been included in earlier Polls? but voted for other parties or not at all, so try again, the graph clearly shows opinions on eu membership ebbed and flowed over many years, prob dependant on if the 'express/mail ran a story on MEPs salaries or bent cucumbers.

Go on, get that brain of yours working...... and admit your wrong.

You wbat?

So you are saying that people who now vote UKIP used to vote for other parties and so that somehow doesn't count as a trend? Please tell me I've misunderstood otherwise Bally may have a point

Graph clearly shows that throughout UKips rise in popularity, overall anti eu sentiment did not rise, therefore the only tend was in support for ukip, a party that is stuck in or around the 12% mark with ONE mp, Farage has failed repeatedly to get a seat, even the Greens managed that break through for their leader.

the graph also shows that on avg if the vote had been called at anytime after the late 90's, the result could have gone either way - we in the uk have remained fairly split on the issue, even though it hasnt been an over riding concern.

if ukip had 10 or 15 mp's then you d have a point but you ve not.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

es the opinion pols get things wrong but Trump and Brexit, were all within the margin of error weren't they? indeed Clinton won the popular vote by some 10million! but you ve shown no evidence that any earlier EU vote would have settled the matter have you? its just your opinion.
as i said, it was to appease the tory party, almost every commentator agrees.

Well apart from the UKIP vote going from 900,000 to 4 and a half million in 5 years...
400% increase. No evidence there, no sirree...

Edit Mea culpa It only increased to 4 million.

its a country of 65million, about 46 million allowed to vote Bally, how many of those 4m would have been included in earlier Polls? but voted for other parties or not at all, so try again, the graph clearly shows opinions on eu membership ebbed and flowed over many years, prob dependant on if the 'express/mail ran a story on MEPs salaries or bent cucumbers.

Go on, get that brain of yours working...... and admit your wrong.

You wbat?

So you are saying that people who now vote UKIP used to vote for other parties and so that somehow doesn't count as a trend? Please tell me I've misunderstood otherwise Bally may have a point

Graph clearly shows that throughout UKips rise in popularity, overall anti eu sentiment did not rise, therefore the only tend was in support for ukip, a party that is stuck in or around the 12% mark with ONE mp, Farage has failed repeatedly to get a seat, even the Greens managed that break through for their leader.

the graph also shows that on avg if the vote had been called at anytime after the late 90's, the result could have gone either way - we in the uk have remained fairly split on the issue, even though it hasnt been an over riding concern.

if ukip had 10 or 15 mp's then you d have a point but you ve not.

I haven't made a point, just asked a question.

tangled_metal

The green party had a pathetic leader last GE who kept stumbling in interviews and meetings IIRC. The previous leader was an MP and still is. This lone green MP was put in as leader partly because she was an effective politician with a good chance of becoming an mp back in 2010. Not sure who the current leader is. Did the Aussie woman stay as leader or the mp get the job back?

The reason the greens got an mp was because they put almost all their resources into a constituency with a socialist tendency and an above average level of green activism. Probably the only constituency that possibly return a green mp. UKIP was in the process of trying to expand into an English nationwide party. Previously they focused on a few areas but they took the change in climate regarding politics and single issues like EU to grow i reckon. The trouble is they needed a lot more money. The other issue was they spread thin. Two targets, Tories but mostly liberal democrats in the south west and IIRC south east/east coast but also attempted to grow in the northern Labour heartlands. Believe it or not in some ways UKIP set themselves up well by becoming the second highest vote winners in many constituencies in Labour strongholds. I doubt they'll win many but unless they disintegrate a few more seats could fall. Oh! Wait, they have disintegrated.

Funny thing UKIP is who votes for them? Tories or working class from Labour areas? I don't think being a threat to Tories is as big a deal as made out. They took more votes from libdems i believe. Possibly Labour too.

rjsterry

And I see Corbyn will use his first speech of the year to say that we can be better off outside the EU. Well I suppose everyone thought he was pretty lukewarm on the EU, so no great surprise.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

And I see Corbyn will use his first speech of the year to say that we can be better off outside the EU. Well I suppose everyone thought he was pretty lukewarm on the EU, so no great surprise.

Strange bedfellows etc

Although as I read it he sees the opportunity to beef up employment rights, union rights and selectively prop up favoured industries. Not sure how that equates to 'better off'.

bobmcstuff

He also favours a maximum earnings cap which seems profoundly moronic.

It'll just increase the amount of rich people who buy all their houses etc through trusts and other forms of non-cash payments.

Just let them earn more, tax them fairly and use that money to help poor people (or whatever you want to do with it).

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

And I see Corbyn will use his first speech of the year to say that we can be better off outside the EU. Well I suppose everyone thought he was pretty lukewarm on the EU, so no great surprise.

Strange bedfellows etc

Although as I read it he sees the opportunity to beef up employment rights, union rights and selectively prop up favoured industries. Not sure how that equates to 'better off'.

Who knows, but governments of either flavour have been propping up favoured industries since we've had governments. Just been reading another article about how lopsided the post-2007 recovery has been and the problem with just taking an aggregate figure for the whole country. The article is probably a bit lefty for your tastes, but it is based on an ONS graph showing GDP by region for the last 7 or 8 years. Only London and the South-east are now better off than 2007, and some regions have seen barely any recovery at all.



Ironically, for all the economic criticism of the EU, putting money into regions that weren't seeing the benefits of the general recovery is something that it wasn't too bad at.

Still in some ways, the theme of what Corbyn is saying is not too dissimilar from Theresa May's latest statements, although obviously with different ways of going about it.

rick_chasey

So after Tory austerity we see a near enough threefold increase in admissions to hospital for malnutrition.

May's response? Freeze NHS spending.

Eugh.

coopster_the_1st

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

And I see Corbyn will use his first speech of the year to say that we can be better off outside the EU. Well I suppose everyone thought he was pretty lukewarm on the EU, so no great surprise.

Strange bedfellows etc

Although as I read it he sees the opportunity to beef up employment rights, union rights and selectively prop up favoured industries. Not sure how that equates to 'better off'.

I thought one of Labour's and the unions main arguments against leaving the EU was that we were going to lose a load of employment rights?

Another thing to add to the 'Project Fear' list from the remain camp... :roll:

Stevo_666

Not to be outdone by Francois Hollande's ill conceived 75% tax on high earners, Labour is not looking at what is effectively a 100% tax on earnings above a certain level:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38568116

Pure leftie genius

rolf_f

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

And I see Corbyn will use his first speech of the year to say that we can be better off outside the EU. Well I suppose everyone thought he was pretty lukewarm on the EU, so no great surprise.

Strange bedfellows etc

Although as I read it he sees the opportunity to beef up employment rights, union rights and selectively prop up favoured industries. Not sure how that equates to 'better off'.

I thought one of Labour's and the unions main arguments against leaving the EU was that we were going to lose a load of employment rights?

Another thing to add to the 'Project Fear' list from the remain camp... :roll:

Why would you equate anything that Corbyn says as a) of any importance and b) making any sense? Corbyn is effectively irrelevant whatever side you stand on; his opinion is of no use.

kingstongraham

Rolf F wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

And I see Corbyn will use his first speech of the year to say that we can be better off outside the EU. Well I suppose everyone thought he was pretty lukewarm on the EU, so no great surprise.

Strange bedfellows etc

Although as I read it he sees the opportunity to beef up employment rights, union rights and selectively prop up favoured industries. Not sure how that equates to 'better off'.

I thought one of Labour's and the unions main arguments against leaving the EU was that we were going to lose a load of employment rights?

Another thing to add to the 'Project Fear' list from the remain camp... :roll:

Why would you equate anything that Corbyn says as a) of any importance and b) making any sense? Corbyn is effectively irrelevant whatever side you stand on; his opinion is of no use.

He was right the first time, not now. In order for Labour to take this opportunity to beef up employment rights, they'd have to get power. The pre-referendum argument was surely based on the assumption that this wouldn't happen for a long time.

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

And I see Corbyn will use his first speech of the year to say that we can be better off outside the EU. Well I suppose everyone thought he was pretty lukewarm on the EU, so no great surprise.

Strange bedfellows etc

Although as I read it he sees the opportunity to beef up employment rights, union rights and selectively prop up favoured industries. Not sure how that equates to 'better off'.

I thought one of Labour's and the unions main arguments against leaving the EU was that we were going to lose a load of employment rights?

Another thing to add to the 'Project Fear' list from the remain camp... :roll:

Why would you equate anything that Corbyn says as a) of any importance and b) making any sense? Corbyn is effectively irrelevant whatever side you stand on; his opinion is of no use.

He was right the first time, not now. In order for Labour to take this opportunity to beef up employment rights, they'd have to get power. The pre-referendum argument was surely based on the assumption that this wouldn't happen for a long time.

Corbyn maybe thinks that this boost his vote. Not sure this will really appeal to that many people outside of Labour.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

And I see Corbyn will use his first speech of the year to say that we can be better off outside the EU. Well I suppose everyone thought he was pretty lukewarm on the EU, so no great surprise.

Strange bedfellows etc

Although as I read it he sees the opportunity to beef up employment rights, union rights and selectively prop up favoured industries. Not sure how that equates to 'better off'.

I thought one of Labour's and the unions main arguments against leaving the EU was that we were going to lose a load of employment rights?

Another thing to add to the 'Project Fear' list from the remain camp... :roll:

Why would you equate anything that Corbyn says as a) of any importance and b) making any sense? Corbyn is effectively irrelevant whatever side you stand on; his opinion is of no use.

He was right the first time, not now. In order for Labour to take this opportunity to beef up employment rights, they'd have to get power. The pre-referendum argument was surely based on the assumption that this wouldn't happen for a long time.

Corbyn maybe thinks that this boost his vote. Not sure this will really appeal to that many people outside of Labour.

He does shoot himself in the foot, doesn't he? This maximum wage idea is going to mean that everything else he said about employment rights, etc. will just be lost in the noise. As you say, he's not exactly reaching out.

Stevo_666

Yep, the max wage point will create a lot of noise.

It's a poor idea which will be full of loopholes - I've already thought of a a few - even the French dropped their 75% tax as a bad idea. It raised next to nothing, prompted a genuine threat of exodus of wealth creators: although the final straw (and this could only happen in France) was French footballers threatening to go on strike

meursault

Stevo 666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

meursault wrote:

I was alluding to the class of professional politicians, rather than literally a career politician. There's a difference between the likes of Corbyn, active campaigner, rebel and the self serving careerist that typifies todays mp's. Corbyn has never (so far) been bought by the bosses, and has a (reformist) socialist manifesto. That in itself is anti establishment, so a long way from the Tory 2nd XI of Blairs new labour.

Is this Momentum Bingo? We had 'MSM' a few times, so I just need 'metropolitan elite' for a full house.

Outside of the Labour Party, Corbyn's support just isn't that great, so it's no surprise that publications which seek a slightly broader readership are more critical. What Corbyn supporters seem to fail to accept is that individual socialist fervour is not a substitute for actually persuading the majority of people outside the party who wouldn't automatically vote Labour. If austerity is the evil that you say, then to stand any chance of it being changed Labour needs to get a lot more votes than those of the ~600,000 members.

You know you're dealing with the hard left when they use phrases like 'Tory 2nd XI' or 'Tories with red rosettes' when referring to the Blarite wing of Labour

Indeed!

I think the 'swing' (is that a bingo!?) from the LP membership and the wider potential electorate support, is away from neo liberal New Labour, and back to what the party was founded on and for. Originally founded because the Tories and Liberals of the day did not represent working class people. Why would the vast majority of people vote for candidates that support big business and not fight for the needs of ordinary people? Blair's moronic grin worked for a while, but that time is gone.

Indeed it is gone - a bit like the support for Labour
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

Seriously, Corbyn is just too far left to appeal to enough of the electorate to win Labour a general election. Ironically you slag off Blair, but he got Labour into power - three times in a row. The only way they have a hope of getting back into power is to go back towards the centre ground.

That was then, times have changed.

I remember canvassing the door steps for Militant (insert looney left jokes here...) pre Blair. There was massive support for him and LP because of an ingrained ageing loyal base. We explained how the LP was going to sell out to the bosses and the ruling class, but of course, it fell on deaf ears, drowned out by D:Reams sound track, and de-ideologising (my made up term) and a move towards personality politics and the lies of social democracy. Trickle down economics LOL. An Americanisation of politics ensued, which is of course, how the ruling class want it. No real ordinary people involved, leave it to the pro's. Distract by which man or woman is nicer or not.

The point being, that loyal base has evaporated. Leaving millions of working class people unrepresented in government. Corbyn got the leadership in an anomaly of incompetence by the PLP. He slipped through kind of un-noticed. But now that he is here, confidence in a different ideology to the status quo is growing. Hence the working class are not looking back to new labour, but looking now, for a genuine alternative.

My question is, if the Labour party does not purge the blairites and Corbyn is eventually brought down, what is the next step for the working class?

A new workers party?

bompington

meursault wrote:

My question is, if the Labour party does not purge the blairites and Corbyn is eventually brought down, what is the next step for the working class??

You're not listening. Not to posters on here, not to the voters, not to reality.

There are two answers to your question.

Firstly, "The Working Class" have decided, in large numbers, not to subscribe to an abstract political construct which is chiefly pushed by political types hoping to lord it over a mass of cannon fodder for the advancement of their own ideology (and careers). Not a lot of people wake up in the morning thinking "I'm working class, I am". There's no such thing as a distinct and homogenous tribe called "The Working Class", never mind one that automatically owes loyalty to left-wing politicians just because they say they should.

The simpler answer? They're voting for UKIP.

Jez mon

There might not be an identifiable group of "working class" people these days. But there are a heck of a lot of people who are tired and dissatisfied with the status quo (see the Brexit/UKIP vote). History suggests that dissatisfied people tend to turn to more extreme ends of the political spectrum...So perhaps Corbyn shouldn't be written off too readily.

For all Stevo's talk of "wealth creators" the provinces away from London have had a fairly miserable time since 2008, regardless of the amounts of money being generated in the city.