• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would like to think you are right but the Scots voted caviar into power in Scotland and Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party so rule nothing out..........

Aye, but one's a politician who's aware of how to appeal to voters, and the other's an activist who thinks all voters should agree with him to begin with and is somewhat confused about what to do after that, so...


And this reshuffle is turning out to be utterly irrelevant, that's what makes it so funny. That or I've become addicted to the soap drama of politics. 34 hours (and counting!) to sack two ministers and shuffle away Eagle from Defence. Never before has so much been made of so little (barring the fact Labour's defence policy now belongs entirely to unilateralists).


As for the relevance or not of the Labour party... early days but so far most of the polling/voting since Corbyn suggests they're becoming pretty irrelevant. I know a lot was made of the Oldham by-election result looking good, but compared to by-election results early in last Parliament, there was less of a swing for Labour that might have been predicted. Labour gained 7pc in Oldham; they were getting increases of 10-13pc last time round in this position. Could mean nothing mind this far out; but it'd be a pretty big change.
 
Last edited:
I think people somewhat overstate the role of left-right politics when it comes to election chances. e.g. in USA, Bernie Sanders is actually fairly popular amongst Republicans. Won his senator spot with 71% of the vote, when two elections prior it was held by a three-term Republican. I think of Corbyn in a similar way. The measures he supports has wide support across the entire political spectrum. I'll be voting Labour for the first time in the next elections because of Corbyn.

Yeah just a shame his own MP's dont agree with him apart from Abbott and thats because he knobbed her.

Also Left wing politics didnt help the Labour party out in the last election unless you believe they should have gone further left because thats really what people want they just dont know it.
 
Last edited:
I think people somewhat overstate the role of left-right politics when it comes to election chances. e.g. in USA, Bernie Sanders is actually fairly popular amongst Republicans. Won his senator spot with 71% of the vote, when two elections prior it was held by a three-term Republican. I think of Corbyn in a similar way. The measures he supports has wide support across the entire political spectrum. I'll be voting Labour for the first time in the next elections because of Corbyn.

I agree with you until you compare Sanders to Corbyn. If Corbyn had anything like Sanders' ability and popularity, this thread would be incredibly different.

Apparently Bernie's brother is a Green councillor somewhere over here. Maybe we should ask him if he wants a shot at the big time here, can't do worse than some of the chaps on stage...
 
I can't see Corbyn winning an election, but I can see him doing far better than the Tories, and the press they own, braying about.
Where I think he'll do well is non-voters from the last election - most didn't bother because you're voting for the braying Ruperts or the braying Ruperts light. Now there's a genuine second option to the Toffs who are doing everything they can to ruin this country, while lining theirs, and their mates', pockets as best they can.
Not saying Corbyn would do any better, but he's about as far from Cameron as anyone who hates Cameron could want.
Then again, with our voting system you don't vote for who you want to run the country, so it's largely irrelevant anyway.
 
I can't see Corbyn winning an election, but I can see him doing far better than the Tories, and the press they own, braying about.
Where I think he'll do well is non-voters from the last election - most didn't bother because you're voting for the braying Ruperts or the braying Ruperts light. Now there's a genuine second option to the Toffs who are doing everything they can to ruin this country, while lining theirs, and their mates', pockets as best they can.
Not saying Corbyn would do any better, but he's about as far from Cameron as anyone who hates Cameron could want.
Then again, with our voting system you don't vote for who you want to run the country, so it's largely irrelevant anyway.

Right on comrade!
 
Apparently only 25pc of non-voters didn't vote because they believed the parties are all the same. 17pc said their beliefs weren't represented by parties or candidates. 27pc believe their vote won't make a difference - which was me last time round (well that and the night shift), I'm in a safe Labour seat, not a huge deal of point in showing up. Guess you might accept the latter two as being sorta what you're talking about Olyy, might not.

(This is one poll of 2000 people btw, so pinch of salt).

27pc were other, 19pc not interested in politics, 18pc not enough information to choose, 9pc to access to polling station/postal ballot and 3pc just thought Parliament isn't important.

As such, feel too much can be made of the non-voters that Labour hope to attract.
 
Well we have sold them some planes all above board and and some radar stuff. Not sure what else, certainly no firearms.

My problem with the Saudis is the funding they are pumping into mosques in this country. The rise in fundamentalism is down squarely to them.


How would we know?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-escape-scrutiny-failure-reestablish-watchdog

Arms sales from the UK have not been subject to independent scrutiny for more than nine months after the mysterious disappearance of the Commons watchdog on the export of weapons and military equipment.

MPs have begun to raise concerns about the fate of the committee on arms export controls, which was not re-established at the beginning of this parliament last May.

The watchdog ceased its work after its chair Sir John Stanley retired in March following 15 years at the helm. The committee had been instrumental in embarrassing the coalition government over its decision to allow the sale of chemicals that could have been used for nerve agent weapons in Syria.


MPs and campaigners are anxious that there is scrutiny over the government’s decision to continue allowing arms exports to Saudi Arabia when there are human rights concerns about the weapons’ possible use for repression in Yemen.

Amnesty International and Saferworld say more than 100 licences for arms exports to Saudi Arabia have been issued since bombing in Yemen began in March 2015, with a value of £1.75bn in the first half of the year.

However, so far parliament has failed to set up the watchdog – made up of members of the business, foreign affairs, defence and international development committees – allowing the government to grant export licences for weapons with no independent oversight.

Crispin Blunt, the Conservative chair of the foreign affairs committee, said the delays had been because of “bureaucratic complexity”.

More on this topichttps://www.theguardian.com/info/2015/dec/08/daily-email-uk

But one source with knowledge of the process said the committee “seems dead in the water” with little appetite to revive it.




Ann Clwyd, Labour MP for Cynon Valley, who was on the committee for years, called for the watchdog to be established urgently as she expressed suspicions that there were forces who did want arms sales scrutinised.


“There have been more and more delays. I’m very unhappy there hasn’t been anything for at least eight months,” she said, adding that the “global situation regarding conflict and arms transfers, not least as it affects the Middle East and north Africa, makes it vital to have the committees functioning at the earliest possible date”.

Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary, has also been chasing the whereabouts of the committee, and was told by Commons leader Chris Grayling that the house was not responsible for its formation.

The absence has also been criticised by Andrew Smith, from Campaign Against the Arms Trade, who said the group shared Clwyd’s concerns about the lack of scrutiny of arms exports.

He said the work of the committee under Stanley was “very good and very valuable” and was “needed more than ever” given the government’s decision to continue allowing sales of arms to Saudi Arabia despite concerns about their use in Yemen.

Law firm Leigh Day, representing Campaign Against Arms Trade, is considering legal action against the government unless it suspends all licences permitting UK-produced arms to be sent to Saudi Arabia.

The law firm and campaigners said the Department of Business has failed to reassure them that the government was following its own rules when assessing the risk that the goods exported might be used in contravention of international humanitarian law.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes he is a bell end but unfortunately there are many millions of septic tanks that think he's right on man! Americans are terrified of everything, thats why an AR15 is an acceptable form of home protection where as in England we use door locks and some one like him will always be popular because he tells Americans what they want to believe.

You may have something there, but you're over egging the pudding. Trump tells a certain group of Americans what they want to hear. These are the same morons who constantly vote for the same conservatives who keep them working three jobs and living in a double-wide trailer. They are the toothless cousin marriers who think they're Christian because they give 10% of their minimum wage to the most Muslim-bashing church they can find. They are the proponents of small government, so much so that one of them tweeted this week that, if the federal government could get his disability sorted out, he'd have enough money to go and support the domestic terrorists occupying a federal building in Oregon. They are the seriously messed up hicks. And all because, well, dammit, 'Murka.

However, while they're noisy, and they are, there is another America emerging, an antidote to the dumbing down process. It's not Hillary either. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are slowly transforming public opinion, but you won't know it because the same corporate interests control the MSM there as here. Watch that space. Here's my guarantee to you. There is no chance of Donald Trump becoming President because those in the know in the GOP know he's unelectable. He will never get the nomination, because he's absolutely too stupid and too full of hubris to recognise who he's pisssing off. He really is the living proof that lack of intellect is no barrier to success when Daddy has money and teaches you how to use other people's money to make some for yourself.
 
Apparently only 25pc of non-voters didn't vote because they believed the parties are all the same. 17pc said their beliefs weren't represented by parties or candidates. 27pc believe their vote won't make a difference - which was me last time round (well that and the night shift), I'm in a safe Labour seat, not a huge deal of point in showing up. Guess you might accept the latter two as being sorta what you're talking about Olyy, might not.

(This is one poll of 2000 people btw, so pinch of salt).

27pc were other, 19pc not interested in politics, 18pc not enough information to choose, 9pc to access to polling station/postal ballot and 3pc just thought Parliament isn't important.

As such, feel too much can be made of the non-voters that Labour hope to attract.

I can see the 27% about not voting due to won't make a difference.

It's just the way the whole electoral system works.

I'm in a safe seat so generally I can't be asked TBH.

Protest votes to say UKIP have better chances of getting non voters than a big 3/2 party.

Esp with Lib Dem trying to get there left wing voters back.

The left have
Labour
Lib Dem
And Green
All viable options now to vote for add in SNP in Scotland and UKIP is attracting historical Labour voters in the working class.

It's to overcrowded now for the system were in IMO.
 
"The security and well-being of my constituents must always be my first consideration, and I therefore believe my colleague Pat McFadden was right to condemn those who would to any degree absolve Isis [Islamic State] for their actions following the atrocities in Paris."

This was taken from Jonathan Reynolds' resignation letter, and is as good an exapmle of cognitive dissonance as I could imagine. Pat McFadden played right into the hands of the hard of thinking when he compared asking questions about the root causes of the rise of organisation like Daesh and condoning, or 'absolving' them (to use Reynolds' puerile words). Frankly, Labour can will do without career politicians like this, and I'm hopeful that Benn will go too. This smack of throwing the toys from the pram.
 
Shadow Defence Minister Kevan Jones has resigned that's a big one.

So far
Reynolds (Shadow rail minister)
Doughty (Shadow Foreign Office Minister and Front bencher)
Jones (Shadow Defence Minister)
 
"The security and well-being of my constituents must always be my first consideration, and I therefore believe my colleague Pat McFadden was right to condemn those who would to any degree absolve Isis [Islamic State] for their actions following the atrocities in Paris."

This was taken from Jonathan Reynolds' resignation letter, and is as good an exapmle of cognitive dissonance as I could imagine. Pat McFadden played right into the hands of the hard of thinking when he compared asking questions about the root causes of the rise of organisation like Daesh and condoning, or 'absolving' them (to use Reynolds' puerile words). Frankly, Labour can will do without career politicians like this, and I'm hopeful that Benn will go too. This smack of throwing the toys from the pram.

He was referring to Stop the War's article straight after the Paris attacks which did basically absolve Daesh and asked no questions at all. Straight up blaming the west for all of it isn't asking questions.
 
I can't see Corbyn winning an election, but I can see him doing far better than the Tories, and the press they own, braying about.
Where I think he'll do well is non-voters from the last election - most didn't bother because you're voting for the braying Ruperts or the braying Ruperts light. Now there's a genuine second option to the Toffs who are doing everything they can to ruin this country, while lining theirs, and their mates', pockets as best they can.
Not saying Corbyn would do any better, but he's about as far from Cameron as anyone who hates Cameron could want.
Then again, with our voting system you don't vote for who you want to run the country, so it's largely irrelevant anyway.

Corbyn is a joke I can't believe DC's good fortune in having an opposition leader that is more Trotsky than Trotsky he's as out dated and out of touch with reality as black and white TV's and about as much use as a chocolate teapot. He is in fact a relic of the mid sixties and has royally screwed any remaining credibility that Labour had.

- - - Updated - - -

Shadow Defence Minister Kevan Jones has resigned that's a big one.

So far
Reynolds (Shadow rail minister)
Doughty (Shadow Foreign Office Minister and Front bencher)
Jones (Shadow Defence Minister)

I can see a breakaway party being formed by those Labour party members that have reasonable left wing ideals and are sick of their party fast becoming the Joke party of European politics.
 
I agree with you until you compare Sanders to Corbyn. If Corbyn had anything like Sanders' ability and popularity, this thread would be incredibly different.

Apparently Bernie's brother is a Green councillor somewhere over here. Maybe we should ask him if he wants a shot at the big time here, can't do worse than some of the chaps on stage...
You underestimate Corbyn I think. Like Sanders, he has massive grassroots appeal. Like Sanders, although left-wing, his policies have populist appeal. Like Sanders, he appeals a lot to the "internet generation". Like Sanders, he's a very experienced politician. Like Sanders, he's often rebelled against his party.

The biggest dissimilarities have less to do with their politics and more to do with the political processes of their respective countries. Corbyn has to lead his party before the election and therefore has to face the pressures of dissent from within his own party. (Worth saying, he wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with dissent if the make-up of Labour's MPs actually represented the grassroots. There's a New Labour overhang; some of the most experienced Labour MPs had major roles in New Labour. If Corbyn wins the next election, the new intake of Labour MPs will likely shift the party much further left.) Being in the limelight, Corbyn has to deal with much greater negative media attention, whereas Sanders faces more of a media blackout.

Corbyn is a joke I can't believe DC's good fortune in having an opposition leader that is more Trotsky than Trotsky he's as out dated and out of touch with reality as black and white TV's and about as much use as a chocolate teapot. He is in fact a relic of the mid sixties and has royally screwed any remaining credibility that Labour had.

A yougov poll indicates that left-wing policies are actually very popular amongst the public:
  • 60% support renationalisation of the railways (20% oppose)
  • 56% support a 75% top rate of tax on incomes over £1m (31% oppose)
  • 64% support an international convention banning nuclear weapons (21% oppose)
  • 59% support rent control (6.8% oppose)
  • 60% support an actual living wage (31% oppose)
  • 49% support cutting tuition fees (31% oppose)

(see:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news-14-5/the-jeremy-corbyn-policies-that-most-people-actually-agree-with-10407148.html)

Corbyn's policies are evidently electable and in touch with society; I don't think policies are his obstacles.
 
Last edited:
You underestimate Corbyn I think. Like Sanders, he has massive grassroots appeal. Like Sanders, although left-wing, his policies have populist appeal. Like Sanders, he appeals a lot to the "internet generation". Like Sanders, he's a very experienced politician. Like Sanders, he's often rebelled against his party.

The biggest dissimilarities have less to do with their politics and more to do with the political processes of their respective countries. Corbyn has to lead his party before the election and therefore has to face the pressures of dissent from within his own party. (Worth saying, he wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with dissent if the make-up of Labour's MPs actually represented the grassroots. There's a New Labour overhang; some of the most experienced Labour MPs had major roles in New Labour. If Corbyn wins the next election, the new intake of Labour MPs will likely shift the party much further left.) Being in the limelight, Corbyn has to deal with much greater negative media attention, whereas Sanders faces more of a media blackout.

Sanders is, according to one poll, the most electable candidate in the US. There's about 20,000 likes on the Republicans for Sanders facebook page.

Corbyn is, according to most polls, viewed as absolutely appalling. His net score on YouGov for Doing Well or Badly is now -41, plummeting from -20 in late October and -8 in late September. Ipsos-Mori and Opinium have equally gristly numbers on him. I couldn't find a facebook page for Tories in favour of Corbyn by googling. Or any media on his support from the right wing of this country. More people would rather have Osborne for Prime Minister than they would Corbyn.

The biggest dissimilarity between Sanders and Corbyn is not the political process, it's the people themselves. Sanders is simply in a far different calibre of politician and communicator to Corbyn.

Also, point of order - Sanders has spent the greater part of his political career as an Independent. The first Independent to enter the House of Representatives in 40 years. So he can't have rebelled against his party, as he never had one until 2015.

Seriously. If Corbyn was as good as what I know of Sanders, I would be singing a very different tune in this thread.
 
Fair points. I had absolutely no idea Corbyn was that unpopular. My view of his popularity is probably somewhat distorted by those I spend my time with, I guess.

Question is - why is he unpopular? His policies appear to be agreeable, and he hasn't done anything particularly outrageous. I know the media haven't particularly warmed to him and internal fighting doesn't help, but I'm curious as to why people disapprove?
 
Fair points. I had absolutely no idea Corbyn was that unpopular. My view of his popularity is probably somewhat distorted by those I spend my time with, I guess.

Question is - why is he unpopular? His policies appear to be agreeable, and he hasn't done anything particularly outrageous. I know the media haven't particularly warmed to him and internal fighting doesn't help, but I'm curious as to why people disapprove?

Having tried typing this post several times - I'm honestly not sure. And I'm slightly surprised myself. The page I found didn't say why people were responding that way, or if YouGov and others even collect that.

Here's YouGov's Jeremy Corbyn page (which doesn't include the figures I'd found in New Statesman) - scroll down and you can see opinions on him. Go to Cameron's page, people far more positive about Corbyn in general.

https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Jeremy_Corbyn

Not much on his defence issues but a few bits, bit on how far left he is, and a lot on the state of the Labour party is how I'd characterise that.


Obviously, pinch of salt as this is all polls and internet comments.


One thing I would throw out there is - how much have you heard about his policies? Sanders has put his opposition to the hyper-rich and a determination to champion the middle and working classes against them front and centre. You can't escape it. Corbyn's spent most of his time talking about Trident, Syria and so on. It's a lot less popular. I don't know if this is the media being against him or Corbyn prioritising the idealogical fight first.
 
Fair points. I had absolutely no idea Corbyn was that unpopular. My view of his popularity is probably somewhat distorted by those I spend my time with, I guess.

Question is - why is he unpopular? His policies appear to be agreeable, and he hasn't done anything particularly outrageous. I know the media haven't particularly warmed to him and internal fighting doesn't help, but I'm curious as to why people disapprove?

Because he's an activist not a statesman, his heart rules his head which is fine if your a minor back bench MP but utter folly for a party leader. He's famously rebelled against his own party wip a great number of times and is now bullying his way though the parliamentary Labour party trying desperately to surround himself with people that will just agree with him when most don't, and all the time the cuts get deeper and the Tory party carry on without a credible opposition to oppose them. Corbyn appeals to students and middle-class do gooders but to people who live in the real world he's just another left wing apologist who's pally with some pretty horrible people and reminds them of the nutty trade union activists that dragged the country to the brink of collapse 30 years ago
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top