What is the point of Labour ?

[pandarilla]

It's truly a disgrace that Labour are such a fucking omishambles. 
History will not judge them, their idiot student socialist ideology, or their inability to lay a glove on the worst government in UK history, kindly. 
A shower of utter fuckwits.
 

Student socialist ideology?

Are you labelling all socialist policies as immature?

I'm also not a fan of this accusation that a party has been an ineffective opposition. It's massively overstated as essentially it's the media choosing where the emphasis should be.

If the BBC and co decide one point is justified then it becomes justified. If they disagree then in many respects it disappears.

There is literally no easy option for labour on brexit. Their voting base is split down the middle and the they know it.

[Tibbermoresaint]

14 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Student socialist ideology?

Are you labelling all socialist policies as immature?

I'm also not a fan of this accusation that a party has been an ineffective opposition. It's massively overstated as essentially it's the media choosing where the emphasis should be.

If the BBC and co decide one point is justified then it becomes justified. If they disagree then in many respects it disappears.

There is literally no easy option for labour on brexit. Their voting base is split down the middle and the they know it.

Of course. It's the media's fault. What else could it be?

[pandarilla]

Of course. It's the media's fault. What else could it be?

He's not a great leader by any stretch, and I sometimes wish he would show some more oomph (so to speak).

But the media onslaught against him has been incredibly obvious. I'd have more respect for someone who acknowledged it and was fine with it, than someone who denies its existence.

[Tibbermoresaint]

13 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

He's not a great leader by any stretch, and I sometimes wish he would show some more oomph (so to speak).

But the media onslaught against him has been incredibly obvious. I'd have more respect for someone who acknowledged it and was fine with it, than someone who denies its existence.

You're missing the point. The media isn't the problem. Labour in general, and Corbyn in particular, is.

[pandarilla]

You're missing the point. The media isn't the problem. Labour in general, and Corbyn in particular, is.

What kind of labour party would you prefer? One that was run by a blair-like leader?

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

41 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Student socialist ideology?

Are you labelling all socialist policies as immature?

 

No, not at all.

But in the UK in 2019, it's a fact that Labour will not gain power by coming across as a party that is happy to be a protest movement wrapped up in 1970's left-wing mindset.

 

[Tibbermoresaint]

3 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

10 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

You're missing the point. The media isn't the problem. Labour in general, and Corbyn in particular, is.

What kind of labour party would you prefer? One that was run by a blair-like leader?

A Labour party that is an effective opposition and is in a position to take over as a competent government. If it can't be that then what is its purpose?

[pandarilla]

No, not at all.
But in the UK in 2019, it's a fact that Labour will not gain power by coming across as a party that is happy to be a protest movement wrapped up in 1970's left-wing mindset.
 

A Labour party that is an effective opposition and is in a position to take over as a competent government. If it can't be that then what is its purpose?

So a more centrist labour party?

He's left wing, and he's being constantly attacked from all angles of the media. I agree with a lot of his ideas and views - but don't particularly like his style.

I don't think there's a more charismatic socialist in the Labour party though.

And I'm more than fed up with the centrist chancers and their vague promises.

[Detournement]

Any Labour leadership that offers a left platform will be demonised by the media and sabotaged by the right wingers in the PLP.

The solution to that isn't to give up because the public perception of the party doesn't fit some PR ideal of media approved competence. They need to keep on fighting for socialist principles and prepare to make a case directly to voters whenever an election is called.  

[Tibbermoresaint]

Just now, pandarilla said:

So a more centrist labour party?

He's left wing, and he's being constantly attacked from all angles of the media. I agree with a lot of his ideas and views - but don't particularly like his style.

I don't think there's a more charismatic socialist in the Labour party though.

And I'm more than fed up with the centrist chancers and their vague promises.

If a more centrist Labour party has more chance of governing than a more leftist one then yes. A more-socialist-than-thou party in permanent enfeebled opposition is pointless.

[Tibbermoresaint]

Just now, Detournement said:

Any Labour leadership that offers a left platform will be demonised by the media and sabotaged by the right wingers in the PLP.

The solution to that isn't to give up because the public perception of the party doesn't fit some PR ideal of media approved competence. They need to keep on fighting for socialist principles and prepare to make a case directly to voters whenever an election is called.  

After 120 or so years is it not obvious that the voters aren't interested in a socialist government? 

[BawWatchin]

3 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

If a more centrist Labour party has more chance of governing than a more leftist one then yes. A more-socialist-than-thou party in permanent enfeebled opposition is pointless.

Almost as pointless as a Labour Party who can get into government by essentially being the Conservative Party.

Almost.

[pandarilla]

After 120 or so years is it not obvious that the voters aren't interested in a socialist government? 

The 1945-51 did a not bad job.

[BawWatchin]

5 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

After 120 or so years is it not obvious that the voters aren't interested in a socialist government? 

You're missing the point. Different parties are supposed to offer different things. If they all went with what they thought the public actually wanted right here and now, they would all be offering the same thing. Making the purpose of elections completely redundant. We'd be as well just having one political party and no elections.

Edited June 27, 2019 by BawWatchin

[Tibbermoresaint]

1 minute ago, BawWatchin said:

Almost as pointless as a Labour Party who can get into government by essentially being the Conservative Party.

Almost.

So the Labour Party is pointless whatever it is or does?

[Tibbermoresaint]

1 minute ago, pandarilla said:

6 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

After 120 or so years is it not obvious that the voters aren't interested in a socialist government? 

The 1945-51 did a not bad job.

Sure. But that was 70 years ago.

1 minute ago, BawWatchin said:

You're missing the point. Different parties are supposed to offer different things. If they all went with what the thought the public actually wanted right here and now, they would all be offering the same thing. Making the purpose of elections completely redundant. We'd be as well just having one political party and no elections.

The purpose of political parties is being in power. Being radical but unelectable is pointless.

[BawWatchin]

Just now, Tibbermoresaint said:

The purpose of political parties is being in power. Being radical but unelectable is pointless.

If the only purpose is to be in power. Then what difference does it make whether they're red, blue, yellow, purple or orange? If Labour have to be the Conservatives in order to replace the Conservatives, then they're not really replacing anything at all.

[Tibbermoresaint]

1 minute ago, BawWatchin said:

If the only purpose is to be in power. Then what difference does it make whether they're red, blue, yellow, purple or orange? If Labour have to be the Conservatives in order to replace the Conservatives, then they're not really replacing anything at all.

If that's what the voters want what's the problem?

[BawWatchin]

1 minute ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

If that's what the voters want what's the problem?

Then they've already got it.

[Tibbermoresaint]

1 minute ago, BawWatchin said:

Then they've already got it.

Yes.