Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

Meanwhile, this backs up what I said about the last election:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-41952976/tony-blair-labour-should-be-20-points-ahead-in-polls
i.e. if JC and his merry socialist crew hadn't been running Labour, the party might be in power now. Useless...

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Milliband versus Cameron would be a step up from the current shower.

Alas, I must agree.
But for all the faults with the current government, Corbyn's Labour party is not the answer.
What makes people his policies that were thought risible 12 months ago, sensible now?

Indeed. A what-have-we-got-to-lose attitude?

If that is the basis and thought process of how you arrive at your voting intention, that is up to you. Each vote is equally valid however much/little thought goes into it. See the referendum result for confirmation of this.

Was just reading about that Adlai Stevenson quote: having just been told that every thinking person would vote for him he is supposed to have replied, "That's not enough madam, I need a majority."

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Meanwhile, this backs up what I said about the last election:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-41952976/tony-blair-labour-should-be-20-points-ahead-in-polls
i.e. if JC and his merry socialist crew hadn't been running Labour, the party might be in power now. Useless...

Quite agree, although that's pretty damning of TM, too.

To answer your earlier question about the LDs, Farron was not the right choice and since then, Cable seems determined to keep as low a profile as possible. I suspect there's also a lot of people voting Labour or Conservative to 'keep out' the other rather than as a positive endorsement.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Meanwhile, this backs up what I said about the last election:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-41952976/tony-blair-labour-should-be-20-points-ahead-in-polls
i.e. if JC and his merry socialist crew hadn't been running Labour, the party might be in power now. Useless...

yeah and Saddam has WMD.... is Blair a credible source? no.

JC has taken a party that was comprehensively stuffed in 2015 and at the very least put them in with a fighting chance at the next GE, energised the younger voter & is offering a real alternative to the same old failed policies of both Tory and Labour Gov's for god knows how long.....
and dont the give the pat ans of these younger voters need to grow up, Labour scored highly in the 35 to 45 age grp too.

So, given how terrible you view JC, the real Q is why arent the Tories in power with an 18 seat majority.... oh hang on...lol!

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

So, given how terrible you view JC, the real Q is why arent the Tories in power

Err....

shortfall

Mamba, can you clarify your position on the importance (or otherwise) the unions have to the Labour party. You appeared to liken union influence as similar to that which the CBI may have on the Conservatives.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

So, given how terrible you view JC, the real Q is why arent the Tories in power

Err....

Hoo hoo hoo ho... your re not funny! made me smile though.

mamba80

Shortfall wrote:

Mamba, can you clarify your position on the importance (or otherwise) the unions have to the Labour party. You appeared to liken union influence as similar to that which the CBI may have on the Conservatives.

Tony blair/GBrown was in power for over a decade, yet they were pretty much a centre left Tory gov in terms of policy, the unions had little influence over Labour, revoked no thatcher anti strike laws... Miliband didnt promise any of that either.
even when they introduced the min wage, it was at such a low rate to appease the CBI..... the tories were dead against it.

where as..... and look at my previous link up thread....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng ... x-avoiders

So, yeah, i think the CBI has a greater influence over Tory policy than the unions have over the Labour party, esp as they provide almost double the cash to the tory party.... money buys and all that!

rick_chasey

mamba80 wrote:

So, yeah, i think the CBI has a greater influence over Tory policy than the unions have over the Labour party, esp as they provide almost double the cash to the tory party.... money buys and all that!

Imagine it's a little different currently given the makeup of the current shadow cabinet.

mamba80

Rick Chasey wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

So, yeah, i think the CBI has a greater influence over Tory policy than the unions have over the Labour party, esp as they provide almost double the cash to the tory party.... money buys and all that!

Imagine it's a little different currently given the makeup of the current shadow cabinet.

We live in very odd times......... :?

shortfall

mamba80 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Mamba, can you clarify your position on the importance (or otherwise) the unions have to the Labour party. You appeared to liken union influence as similar to that which the CBI may have on the Conservatives.

Tony blair/GBrown was in power for over a decade, yet they were pretty much a centre left Tory gov in terms of policy, the unions had little influence over Labour, revoked no thatcher anti strike laws... Miliband didnt promise any of that either.
even when they introduced the min wage, it was at such a low rate to appease the CBI..... the tories were dead against it.

where as..... and look at my previous link up thread....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng ... x-avoiders

So, yeah, i think the CBI has a greater influence over Tory policy than the unions have over the Labour party, esp as they provide almost double the cash to the tory party.... money buys and all that!

Well I don't want to get into a philosophical debate about the nature of Blairism but Labour haven't been in office since 2010 so we best stick to what's happening now. The fact is the unions bankroll Labour and still hold massive sway in the party. The Momentum movement is hugely influential in Corbyn's Labour and the unions campaign constantly amongst their members for the selection of preferred candidates. Len McCluskey doesn't hand £2.4 million of Unite members money over every year for nothing. I'm sure the Tories are similarly in hoc to dodgy billionaires and hedge funds and frame their policies accordingly but the idea that Union influence is dwindling is nonsense. Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnel owe their jobs to the union barons surely?

pblakeney

Shortfall wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Mamba, can you clarify your position on the importance (or otherwise) the unions have to the Labour party. You appeared to liken union influence as similar to that which the CBI may have on the Conservatives.

Tony blair/GBrown was in power for over a decade, yet they were pretty much a centre left Tory gov in terms of policy, the unions had little influence over Labour, revoked no thatcher anti strike laws... Miliband didnt promise any of that either.
even when they introduced the min wage, it was at such a low rate to appease the CBI..... the tories were dead against it.

where as..... and look at my previous link up thread....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng ... x-avoiders

So, yeah, i think the CBI has a greater influence over Tory policy than the unions have over the Labour party, esp as they provide almost double the cash to the tory party.... money buys and all that!

Well I don't want to get into a philosophical debate about the nature of Blairism but Labour haven't been in office since 2010 so we best stick to what's happening now. The fact is the unions bankroll Labour and still hold massive sway in the party. The Momentum movement is hugely influential in Corbyn's Labour and the unions campaign constantly amongst their members for the selection of preferred candidates. Len McCluskey doesn't hand £2.4 million of Unite members money over every year for nothing. I'm sure the Tories are similarly in hoc to dodgy billionaires and hedge funds and frame their policies accordingly but the idea that Union influence is trivial is laughable. Jeremy Corbyn owes his job to the union barons surely?

The original point was that the unions and CBI were similar in influence. (As I read it).
Well done for confirming that point.

shortfall

PBlakeney wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Mamba, can you clarify your position on the importance (or otherwise) the unions have to the Labour party. You appeared to liken union influence as similar to that which the CBI may have on the Conservatives.

Tony blair/GBrown was in power for over a decade, yet they were pretty much a centre left Tory gov in terms of policy, the unions had little influence over Labour, revoked no thatcher anti strike laws... Miliband didnt promise any of that either.
even when they introduced the min wage, it was at such a low rate to appease the CBI..... the tories were dead against it.

where as..... and look at my previous link up thread....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng ... x-avoiders

So, yeah, i think the CBI has a greater influence over Tory policy than the unions have over the Labour party, esp as they provide almost double the cash to the tory party.... money buys and all that!

Well I don't want to get into a philosophical debate about the nature of Blairism but Labour haven't been in office since 2010 so we best stick to what's happening now. The fact is the unions bankroll Labour and still hold massive sway in the party. The Momentum movement is hugely influential in Corbyn's Labour and the unions campaign constantly amongst their members for the selection of preferred candidates. Len McCluskey doesn't hand £2.4 million of Unite members money over every year for nothing. I'm sure the Tories are similarly in hoc to dodgy billionaires and hedge funds and frame their policies accordingly but the idea that Union influence is trivial is laughable. Jeremy Corbyn owes his job to the union barons surely?

The original point was that the unions and CBI were similar in influence. (As I read it).
Well done for confirming that point.

I'm no apologist for the Tories but union influence on Labour is surely on a different scale?

mamba80

As you say the Tories are in hock to business, not just dodgy billionaires etc.

Unite etc handed over millions to Blair and got what?

Having been in a union (MSF and then GMB) in the 2000's, they are absolutely p1ss weak and the term Union Barons rightly belongs in the 70s but its right that Labour promise to reduce some of the anti union laws we ve got, we can see what happens in some non unionised work places.

Corbyn won in a vote of the general membership, one member one vote, its not like in the old days when the unions shoe horned in x y or z. jeez even Stevo voted for Corbyn and i dont think anyone would accuse him of being a union baron or anything to do with Momentum, which isnt really that left wing at all, with 31k members, corbyn got 313k votes.

http://www.peoplesmomentum.com/about

If i genuinely thought the unions controlled Labour to the extent you r suggesting, i d have nothing to do with Labour, no single grouping should have that level of control on a democratic party.

pblakeney

Shortfall wrote:

I'm no apologist for the Tories but union influence on Labour is surely on a different scale?

None of us will have exact figures on influence. How could we?
I am neutral, neither one nor the other having voted for both.
I consider the union influence to be more on voting, UCI more on policy. Which is more powerful?

rick_chasey

Issue isn’t TU support.

That’s entirely predictable and sensible.

The increasing obviousness of anti-sentimism parts of the party is an actual issue.

mamba80

Rick Chasey wrote:

Issue isn’t TU support.

That’s entirely predictable and sensible.

The increasing obviousness of anti-sentimism parts of the party is an actual issue.

i understood they d got some robust new rules on this, follow their own inquiry and the 'commons one.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

If i genuinely thought the unions controlled Labour to the extent you r suggesting, i d have nothing to do with Labour, no single grouping should have that level of control on a democratic party.

Time to rejoin the Conservatives then

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

If i genuinely thought the unions controlled Labour to the extent you r suggesting, i d have nothing to do with Labour, no single grouping should have that level of control on a democratic party.

Time to rejoin the Conservatives then

Well, in all seriousness, if they got back to the centre ground, showed some real leadership on Brexit ie abandon it as its bad for UK Plc, then maybe.
But so long as they ve twunts like gove, well actually he isnt that bad but BJ leadsom May then no way.

i hate doing call out.....

shortfall

mamba80 wrote:

As you say the Tories are in hock to business, not just dodgy billionaires etc.

Unite etc handed over millions to Blair and got what?
.

Presumably they got more of what they wanted than if the Tories were in power. And now in Corbyn and McDonnel they've got EXACTLY what they've always wanted.

mamba80

Shortfall wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

As you say the Tories are in hock to business, not just dodgy billionaires etc.

Unite etc handed over millions to Blair and got what?
.

Presumably they got more of what they wanted than if the Tories were in power. And now in Corbyn and McDonnel they've got EXACTLY what they've always wanted.

hey? the Tories ARE in power!

what exactly do you think the Unions want then that you are sooo against?

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/labou ... mployment/

shortfall

mamba80 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

As you say the Tories are in hock to business, not just dodgy billionaires etc.

Unite etc handed over millions to Blair and got what?
.

Presumably they got more of what they wanted than if the Tories were in power. And now in Corbyn and McDonnel they've got EXACTLY what they've always wanted.

hey? the Tories ARE in power!

what exactly do you think the Unions want then that you are sooo against?

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/labou ... mployment/

Hang on. Where have I said in against unions? 20 years of my working life were spent as a union member. I think unions play a valuable role in protecting workers rights and conditions and also in wider society. I am not anti union. I don't have a problem with unions bank rolling the Labour party either. The reason I got into this particular debate however was because you appeared to be diminishing the huge financial support they give to Labour and the amount of influence they have on policy, candidate selection and the direction of travel of the party, all of which are absolutely collosal. Labour doesn't exist without the unions and it's worth remembering that their influence isn't always benign. I'm sure 5 years of a Corbyn government will disabuse you of the idea that the current Labour Party are the answer to the country's problems.

mamba80

Shortfall wrote:

Hang on. Where have I said in against unions? 20 years of my working life were spent as a union member. I think unions play a valuable role in protecting workers rights and conditions and also in wider society. I am not anti union. I don't have a problem with unions bank rolling the Labour party either. The reason I got into this particular debate however was because you appeared to be diminishing the huge financial support they give to Labour and the amount of influence they have on policy, candidate selection and the direction of travel of the party, all of which are absolutely collosal. Labour doesn't exist without the unions and it's worth remembering that their influence isn't always benign. I'm sure 5 years of a Corbyn government will disabuse you of the idea that the current Labour Party are the answer to the country's problems.

I thought i asked what policies the unions have got Labour to support, that you are sooo against. not that your anti union, which clearly your re not.

i dont dispute that the unions do all you suggest, i do not believe their influence is as much as you think, the unions have no alternative, they are diametrically opposed to the very name tory! not so business, they ll support whoever gives them the best return on their investment and they expect a healthy return!

As for JC, no he wont fix the UKs problems, however, if we keep doing the same thing, we ll get the same results, the tories are offering nothing more than back stabbing mayhem, JC is different and deserves a chance.

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

[
As for JC, no he wont fix the UKs problems, however, if we keep doing the same thing, we ll get the same results, the tories are offering nothing more than back stabbing mayhem, JC is different and deserves a chance.

That seems a little optimistic given the pressure from Momentum to change MP selection rules, the better to remove those not of what they perceive to be pure socialist thought.

shortfall

i dont dispute that the unions do all you suggest, i do not believe their influence is as much as you think

Really? I've got this bridge I want to sell you then. What do you think would happen to Labour without union money? Why do you think the unions give them it?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So while we have a deputy PM who watches porn at work, a former defence minister who can’t tell the difference between harassment and flirting, a foreign secretary who is so loose lipped he actually worsens prison sentences for Brits abroad by lying, and a minister who lies about meeting foreign leaders in an official capacity without letting the foreign office know being replaced by someone who made bare face lies about turkey joining the EU, we have a Labour Party who literally can’t shut down the increasingly virulent anti-semitism and actually chooses candidates who are openly anti-Semitic.

https://twitter.com/dannythefink/status ... 9680775168

I mean, why is anyone voting for either of these sh!tbag parties?



Ffs.

If so then you also have to ask yourself why people aren't voting Lib Dem.

Still down at 7% I see:
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

Ok. I’ll ask that.

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

[
As for JC, no he wont fix the UKs problems, however, if we keep doing the same thing, we ll get the same results, the tories are offering nothing more than back stabbing mayhem, JC is different and deserves a chance.

That seems a little optimistic given the pressure from Momentum to change MP selection rules, the better to remove those not of what they perceive to be pure socialist thought.

No point having closet tories in the Labour party!!!

Seriously, so a small section of the labour party membership want local members to have a bigger say in MP selection at the next GE? ...why not? why should labour lib or Tory central drop in a well known leadership supporting candidate?

Unless there is clear blue water water parties, then what exactly is the point of changing your vote? its the convergence of Lib and Tory policies that has led to the decline of the libdems and did for Miliband too.... people want want change, they are fcuked off with the same tired policies, that have totally failed this countries young people esp.

mamba80

Shortfall wrote:

[quote="mamba80"



i dont dispute that the unions do all you suggest, i do not believe their influence is as much as you think/quote]

Really? I've got this bridge I want to sell you then. What do you think would happen to Labour without union money? Why do you think the unions give them it?

[/quote]

yeah well your argument falls down because the unions carried on supporting Labour even in the Blair years, as i said earlier, they ve really no choice, its in their DNA.... if May defected to Labour (not an impossibility) Unite would still send in their millions....

do you mean the Millau bridge? a fine example of capitalist and socialist co-op.

shortfall

mamba80 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

[quote="mamba80"



i dont dispute that the unions do all you suggest, i do not believe their influence is as much as you think/quote]

Really? I've got this bridge I want to sell you then. What do you think would happen to Labour without union money? Why do you think the unions give them it?

yeah well your argument falls down because the unions carried on supporting Labour even in the Blair years, as i said earlier, they ve really no choice, its in their DNA.... if May defected to Labour (not an impossibility) Unite would still send in their millions....

do you mean the Millau bridge? a fine example of capitalist and socialist co-op.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

The unions supported Blair because they still got more of what they wanted than they would have done under the Tories. State spending increased significantly under New Labour and the NHS in particular saw vast increases in spending.

Back to 2017. The union Barons now have a real stranglehold on Labour and the reason that Corbyn and McDonnel are at the head of the party is directly as a result of union campaigning and pressure through their own structures and via Momentum. Once again, this is entirely reasonable, after all the unions created the Labour Party and they keep it alive with donations and campaigning. There's also a very real chance that they will win power in the near future so to play down their importance seems to me to ignore what is glaringly obvious. I am no fan of the Conservatives and didnt vote for them but to pretend the Marxist policies espoused by Corbyn are the answer to our ills is frankly dangerous in my opinion. Unfortunately there's every chance that soon we're about to discover how damaging they will be.

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

[
As for JC, no he wont fix the UKs problems, however, if we keep doing the same thing, we ll get the same results, the tories are offering nothing more than back stabbing mayhem, JC is different and deserves a chance.

That seems a little optimistic given the pressure from Momentum to change MP selection rules, the better to remove those not of what they perceive to be pure socialist thought.

No point having closet tories in the Labour party!!!

Seriously, so a small section of the labour party membership want local members to have a bigger say in MP selection at the next GE? ...why not? why should labour lib or Tory central drop in a well known leadership supporting candidate?

Unless there is clear blue water water parties, then what exactly is the point of changing your vote? its the convergence of Lib and Tory policies that has led to the decline of the libdems and did for Miliband too.... people want want change, they are fcuked off with the same tired policies, that have totally failed this countries young people esp.

That you are referring to them as closet Tories says a lot. We're not talking about local members having a say, but deselecting standing MPs. Apparently party members are more equal than the electorate itself.