Next UK Labour Leader - post Brexit

[Bully Wee Villa]

I don't. Because I have no idea what you are talking about.

[dorlomin]

4 hours ago, Bully Di Villa said:

Wondering what JMO, BerwickMad and the other residents Corbynaphobes thought? Has it won you over at all?

Speeches are easy. Cameron and May have made nice speeches about inequality and doing more for the less well off. 

 

How many SNP voters are going to turn back to Labour and bring Scottish seats with them in 2020? How many people who voted Tory in 2015 are going to hear "£500 billion in borrowing" and rush back to Labour bringing Midlands marginals with them?

 

Two by elections should be coming up, Leigh that will test the kipper\lab vote movement

 

Quote

 

General Election 2015: Leigh^[3][4]

Party        Candidate    Votes       %    ±

LabourAndy Burnham 24,312 53.9+5.8

ConservativeLouisa Townson 10,216 22.6+1.7

UKIPLes Leggett 8,903 19.7+16.3

Liberal Democrat Bill Winlow1,150 2.5 −15.6

TUSCStephen Hall 542 1.2 N/A

Majority 14,096 31.2 +4.1

Turnout45,12359.4−2.6Labour hold

 

Glasgow East that will see if any Lab\SNP movement has happened. (Though it might take a bit of time till McGarry takes the Chiltern 100s). 

 

Quote

 

General Election 2015: Glasgow East^[10][11]

PartyCandidateVotes%±

SNPNatalie McGarry24,116   56.9+32.2

LabourMargaret Curran13,729   32.4−29.2

ConservativeAndrew Morrison2,544    6.0+1.5

UKIPArthur Thackeray^[12]1,105       2.6+2.0

Scottish GreenKim Long^[13]3810.9     N/A

Liberal DemocratsGary McLelland^[14]318      0.7−4.3

Scottish SocialistLiamcLaughlan224       0.5−0.9

Majority10,38724.5

Turnout42,41760.3+8.3

SNP gain from LabourSwing+30.7

 

[NotThePars]

Why is that disgusting? There are some views the populace at large might have which are odious and extremist but because of the way our political system works are unlikely to be adopted. The death penalty, for example, extreme anti-immigration policies as another. What is your obsession with me having 'vile' views? By and large my views are very mainstream social democratic 'guardian reader' views.

Yup. Blindly following the majority opinion in a country, especially in Britain, is just dangerous. I'm all for the Labour Party adopting a much softer tone on immigration and challenging the dominant narrative that immigration is destroying the fabric of this country. If people are told for decades that immigration will damage the country then people will believe it.

[WaffenThinMint]

4 hours ago, jmothecat said:

Why is that disgusting? There are some views the populace at large might have which are odious and extremist but because of the way our political system works are unlikely to be adopted. The death penalty, for example

 

You mean the same populace responsible for campaigning to have the death penalty abolished in the first place via Mrs Van der Elst, etc.

Political respresentatives are not there to be arbeitrary judges on what is odious and extremist in a pluralist society. They are there to govern in accordance with the wishes of the electorate in the interest of the nation as a whole.

[Peppino Impastato]

Jmo as with socialism you literally don't know what social democrat means, imagine arguing that politicians should ignore the views of the populace and claim to be a democrat, you're not a social democrat you're an idiot, you use terms to describe yourself you literally don't know the meaning of. 

 

 

THE death penalty being 'odious' is a matter of opinion not fact and extreme anti immigration views are not mainstream.  You backed up your 'point' with irrelevant examples that don't even apply.

 

 

I talk about your views being disgusting as they are disgusting and the left has been render unelectable since 1994 cause it has been polluted by people with cretinous views like you and berwickmad.   Wafffen summed you up well on the previous page, the arrogance is breathtaking, so far gone you can't even see you're a little gone.

 

 

And, for the 15th time, this is a good example for how disgusting your views are, you told me that you disagreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq until you read some stuff that convinced you it was right.  I asked you what you read, 13 times, you provided nothing.   You're a liar who defends war crimes through sheer tribalism.

[Arsenal till I die]

Labour need to make a big thing about emigration when it comes to free movement. A lot of Labour voters, and potential Labour voters, won't be prepared to stick around in this country when they're 65 if they're denied a retirement. Telling people they're going to live longer is no good if they're going to walk out of the work place 1 day and into the care home the next, where they'll spend their "retirement" for the next 20 years. It doesn't help that Labour went along with the "consensus" (funny, no-one asked me) that the retirement age should be raised during their 2nd term but surely someone like Corbyn should have moved on from that anyway?

 

As for sacking McDonnell, the plotters don't choose Corbyn's team and nor should they.

[pandarilla]

Jmo as with socialism you literally don't know what social democrat means, imagine arguing that politicians should ignore the views of the populace and claim to be a democrat, you're not a social democrat you're an idiot, you use terms to describe yourself you literally don't know the meaning of. 

 

 

THE death penalty being 'odious' is a matter of opinion not fact and extreme anti immigration views are not mainstream.  You backed up your 'point' with irrelevant examples that don't even apply.

 

 

I talk about your views being disgusting as they are disgusting and the left has been render unelectable since 1994 cause it has been polluted by people with cretinous views like you and berwickmad.   Wafffen summed you up well on the previous page, the arrogance is breathtaking, so far gone you can't even see you're a little gone.

 

 

And, for the 15th time, this is a good example for how disgusting your views are, you told me that you disagreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq until you read some stuff that convinced you it was right.  I asked you what you read, 13 times, you provided nothing.   You're a liar who defends war crimes through sheer tribalism.

I'm sorry but this is pish.

Labour introduced some major liberal reforms on homosexuality in the 60s. These were pretty unpopular at the time. And the death penalty point stands up too. Sometimes the masses are wrong.

Jmo is right with this one imo. And if anyone is guilty of tribalism it's you.

[DrewDon]

I read Reeves' comments in the Huffington Post. When speaking about the violent attacks that had been reported in Leeds after the Brexit vote, she appeared to be suggesting that Labour's immigration policy should essentially be reactive to mindless thuggery. Perhaps I'm being unfairly critical as I wasn't at the fringe event that her comments are being reported from, but the crux of her message struck me as irresponsible coming from an elected politician. If those same or similar comments had come from Nigel Farage, for example, I'm sure there would have been condemnation from Labour MPs - and rightly so. 

Miliband's strategy on immigration didn't work. When it came to the crunch, pro-immigration voters thought Labour was doing too much to appease anti-immigration voters; but anti-immigration voters didn't feel that Labour had sufficiently recognised that they had mismanaged immigration under Blair and Brown - and they would repeat the same mistakes under Miliband if voted back into power. Corbyn being unambiguously pro-immigration will please the former group, but likely go down like a cup of cold sick amongst the latter. Regrettably, there has been a failure since around the mid-noughties to make a consistent, positive and progressive case for immigration, and I believe that to be a big part of the reason public opinion is where it is now. 

[dorlomin]

11 minutes ago, DrewDon said:

Regrettably, there has been a failure since around the mid-noughties to make a consistent, positive and progressive case for immigration, and I believe that to be a big part of the reason public opinion is where it is now. 

Look at Trump in the US, Hanson in Australia and Austria being even more right wing that usual. Scotland is pretty unusual in that immigration is so far down the agenda. It helps that big draw cities like London lie outside of it and that its demographics make a strong case for a need for immigrants. But across the western world most parties from the center right leftwards are a mess on the issue. Look at the tories, they desperately need to appeal to Asian origin voters and people who identify with them as friends and so on, but they also need to appeal to the kipper tendency. Merkles CDU in Germany, Sarkozy and Holland in France and so on. In most western countries the economic arguments for immigration are strong but the emotional arguments against it have a strong appeal. 

 

 

[BerwickMad]

I'd love an example of these cretinous views I hold! Haha.

[WaffenThinMint]

2 hours ago, pandarilla said:

Labour introduced some major liberal reforms on homosexuality in the 60s. These were pretty unpopular at the time.

Another moment of rewriting Labour history to make them look like the only "goodies" in politics pish.

Actually Labour - or rather Leo Abse - was simply trying to pass the Private Members bill that Tory Humphrey Berkeley (aka the infamous hoax letter writer Rochester Sneath) had tried to put through since 1965 - with Harold Wilson in power.

Berkeley got the Bill through to a second reading after easily clearing the first by 164 votes to 107 (aided by Enoch Powell speaking on its behalf). However the abrupt decision of Harold Wilson to call a snap general election to increase his majority caused the Bill to be lost. Berkeley lost his seat in the subsequent election (& again, contrary to the myth it was far from unexpected) - he tried later to claim that his promotion of the Bill was what cost him his seat, but the facts are his majority had decreased by 4% in 1964 (smaller than the national swing against the Tories) & by a further 6% in 1966. Thus Abse picked up the bill, resubmitted, & succeeded in getting it past easily (this time with Michael Foot & Enoch Powell speaking in favour), albeit with supporting Labour luminaries such as Roy Jenkins saying that it came under the condition homosexuals were to understand that didn't mean they were to start "flaunting themselves".

I've no idea why you have "major liberal reforms" in the plural, by the way. The Bill excluded Scotland & Northern Ireland (where homosexual activity remained a criminal offence until the 1980s) & at the same time the Sexual Offences act increased the penalties for "gross indecency" to five years imprisonment, specifically aimed at targetting "cottagers" (one of the police's favourite soft targets during the period).

[Bully Wee Villa]

If they were soft, they weren't doing it properly.

It's certainly true that the Bill wouldn't have passed had their been a Tory, rather than a Labour, majority, whether the vote was held before or after 1966.

[WaffenThinMint]

49 minutes ago, Bully Di Villa said:

It's certainly true that the Bill wouldn't have passed had their been a Tory, rather than a Labour, majority, whether the vote was held before or after 1966.

Again, utter bullshit from the Labour The Party Of Endless Virtue fairytale believers.

The Wolfenden Report was commissioned by the Conservative government of Harold Macmillan, lasting from 1954 until 1957 - and that was largely down to the prosecution of Lord Montagu. Only two of the fifteen strong committee were from Labour, & all bar the Proculater Fiscal of Glasgow were in favour of the decriminalisation of homosexuality. Labour only became truly gay friendly in the 1980s, & that was more down to cynical electoral pragmatics as they stared the abyss in the face by 1981 & the arrival of the SDP/Liberal Alliance.

Indeed Abse was to admit later that it took considerable "persuasion" (ie. downright blackmail) to keep the Labour MPs from the mining areas away from the 1967 debates who "permissive society" or not, Joe Meek or not, still saw homosexuality as a "disease" that happened only to poncy middle class public school Tory types: although even the most hidebound realised they stood a good chance of any anti-decriminalisation speech they made being ripped apart by Foot & Powell (perhaps to the cost of their long term careers), which proved a far greater deterrent.

[pandarilla]

Who passed the bill doesn't actually matter to my point though (if you'd just take a second to breathe, and think it through).

The point is that sometimes doing the unpopular is right. Blindly following opinion polls (or wanting your elected officials to do so) is the actions of a cretin.

[John Lambies Doos]

Fuk Labour. Sold Scotland out for years.
SNP might not be perfect but they are the only true Scottish party that will always put Scotland first.
SNP all the way until inevitable independence. Only then shall I inspect the manifesto of others

[Bully Wee Villa]

Again, utter bullshit from the Labour The Party Of Endless Virtue fairytale believers.

The Wolfenden Report was commissioned by the Conservative government of Harold Macmillan, lasting from 1954 until 1957 - and that was largely down to the prosecution of Lord Montagu. Only two of the fifteen strong committee were from Labour, & all bar the Proculater Fiscal of Glasgow were in favour of the decriminalisation of homosexuality. Labour only became truly gay friendly in the 1980s, & that was more down to cynical electoral pragmatics as they stared the abyss in the face by 1981 & the arrival of the SDP/Liberal Alliance.

Indeed Abse was to admit later that it took considerable "persuasion" (ie. downright blackmail) to keep the Labour MPs from the mining areas away from the 1967 debates who "permissive society" or not, Joe Meek or not, still saw homosexuality as a "disease" that happened only to poncy middle class public school Tory types: although even the most hidebound realised they stood a good chance of any anti-decriminalisation speech they made being ripped apart by Foot & Powell (perhaps to the cost of their long term careers), which proved a far greater deterrent.

There's no doubt that lots of MPs would've held backwards views then. But in order for the Bill to pass it needed most Members from the Governing Party to pass it. Which was Labour. The Tories, by contrast, were still being twats as late as the late eighties with the nonsense of Section 28 (abolished by ScotLab in Holyrood and then rUKLab in Westminster).

[BerwickMad]

Fuk Labour. Sold Scotland out for years.
SNP might not be perfect but they are the only true Scottish party that will always put Scotland first.
SNP all the way until inevitable independence. Only then shall I inspect the manifesto of others

Bit too early to be drinking.

[jmothecat]

Fuk Labour. Sold Scotland out for years.
SNP might not be perfect but they are the only true Scottish party that will always put Scotland first.
SNP all the way until inevitable independence. Only then shall I inspect the manifesto of others

If they really wanted to put Scotland first they would reject the notion of independence entirely.

[Bully Wee Villa]

Uh oh.

[Ira Gaines]

They have and stood by the tories and are now actually a more poisonous party. So that's a plan that worked well.