The Labour Party leadership election

[Amethyst24]

Make leader, male deputy, male candidate for London Mayor. I fucking despair, I really do. I've been going on about this on social media and I can't seem to make myself shut up about it, it makes me so incredibly angry.

I think it was on another thread where I'd suggested a reading of " A Very British Coup" by Chris Mullens, for the poo that will come his way. Seems a good time for it.
Maybe I'm over-identifying with JC a bit, what with being white able-bodied socialist male of a certain age with a chance, bit of an iconoclast who likes to get around by , so perhaps ignoring other bits.
But they don't come along often.

I was rather taken by your question Are you actually a genuine Labour Party member, or supporter, as you don't appear to behave like either.

I think it was addressed to the OP but could have applied to me. Corbyn's usp was his lack of loyalty - why should he expect loyalty now?

What is a " genuine Labour party supporter or member"? Like the vast majority of the PLP I disagree with him on various significant issues. He was "principled" when he didn't agree with the party- you might afford the same courtesy to others.

I don't particularly care much about the women issue except Angela Eagle in preference for McDonnell.

" Whether or not Corbyn will be successful, time will tell, but I heard one berating him earlier because he wasn't planning on trying to change PMQ on day one!"

Yes, they are just desperate to try and trip him up and find mud to sling. Have you seen this BBC interview though? He's onto them and is playing quite well, in my view. Just sticks quietly to his guns and it doesn't half show the media up for the trivial sensationalists they are.

I'm very happy with the way things are shaping up!

Nah, I think that was at you, Lass!

Agree with your response.

I thought it was at me, too, Yonic. And I would have responded as Lass did although maybe not as eloquently

Just caught up with this. Crumbs! some trawling back going on there, for a purpose!
My comment was directed at Amethyst, not Lass, sorry Yonic but you were mistaken.
The question of 'loyalty' was about Amethyst linking to a ToryGraph hatchet job on Labour within hours of it's announcement of leader, and it's overwhelming choice of JC, with a crystal clear authority. Clearly Amethyst doesn't agree with this choice and chooses to summon up a Tory outlet to throw rubbish at the new leader - pretty poor behaviour for a Party member. She states she is resigning from the Party, so that's probs. best all round.

But digging this up from Sunday evening, is slightly feeble? Amethyst responded at the time iirc re reading beyond the D Mirror, but Yonic has posted lots since with no reference to this. But now just sort of catching onto Lass' post tails, for some unexplained reason.

"I think it was addressed to the OP but could have applied to me."

Replying to this from Lass, Pan, the last but one post before mine. Mistaken, but hardly "post tails".

HTH.

helps enormously, cheers.

Perhaps a "Tory outlet" Pan, but the article in question was written by a long-time Labour supporter, who does still vote Labour (or did in the last election anyway).

Here it is, for those who didn't read the original post (which was on another thread in Chat or AIBU, iirc).

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11859233/The-day-the-Labour-Party-died.html

Pan you said Clearly Amethyst doesn't agree with this choice and chooses to summon up a Tory outlet to throw rubbish at the new leader - pretty poor behaviour for a Party member. She states she is resigning from the Party, so that's probs. best all round

You really don't see the irony in criticising Amethyst for poor behaviour in a Party member?

Sole responsibility for protecting the country from the excesses of Conservatism has now been handed to moderate elements within the Conservative Party

Yes a quote from The Telegraph- unfortunately it's a very accurate assessment of what has happened.

And dearie me , hardly the first time in the whole history of posting on Internet forums that there might have been a gap of 24 hours or so in a thread. What is your point exactly? You know it's really none of your business why Yonic picked this thread up again .

Clearly none of Yonic, Amethyst or I agree with you about Corbyn - we are entitled to. And to say so.

I have to say your assertions that to be a "good party member" one has to unquestioningly go along with Corbyn is a little worrying.

ALass... seeing as the Labour party now has more members than all other parties combined, (a predicted) 80% of whom support Corbyn, I would have though that listening to what non-Blairites have to say may work to your advantage.

This is no repeat of "Foot".

I know you and your establishment press bed buddies love to dismiss JC as pie-in-the-sky, but the disruptor has landed.

With a 52% female cabinet

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/sep/14/jeremy-corbyn-labour-shadow-cabinet-statistical-breakdown

.

Thanks, Lass.

The % female cabinet is a positive, yep.

But Corbyn is not the person in the race who had the best chance of becoming the next PM. Just as Ed Miliband wasn't.

Labour Party members are going to vote labour whoever the leader. The electorate in general are not.

Indeed -a point recognised by one Union boss.

Jeremy Corbyn: 'Jury out' on Labour leader, says union boss - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34249357

I am hoping that Corbyn will ultimately prove to be a uniter, not a disruptor. He is only asking for a new balance to be struck and for society/ economy to start working to the best degree for the greatest numbers. Can we agree that it is not doing so now? There are disagreements on exactly how best to proceed, that's all. No need to widen the divisions with mudslinging on either side.

But I'm looking for a unity based on inclusivity, not exclusivity. To work for all you have to listen to all (or as many as possible at least).

lightning Maybe society is working best for the greatest numbers. Inequality may not be fun, but it is better than the majority being poorer, which is what happens in socialist societies.
One reason inequality has grown in this country is the number of rich people moving here, not UK money going to a small number of people. The French 75% tax has driven thousands of French bankers to move here. More UK tax revenue, more money for us, less money for the socialists, but their society becomes more 'equal' at a lower level.
Which would you prefer?

That's a very limited bias laden analysis Carol... Inequality has risen because of wage compression, and the deliberately inflated cost of living in housing, rent and utilities. Annd maybe a few French bankers...

Certainly you are right that wealthy foreign money floods the British economy, but far from being a wonderful huge benefit, this distorts the cost of living for people who actually live here.

You think it is somehow "good" for the economy, that the majority of people in the UK have no disposable income. The Scandinavians and the French do not have this problem, they are not "poorer". The standard of living is much higher in these "socialist" countries and people have a greater wealth of disposable income...

squidzin not according to the guardian

Excellent article carol, thanks. Not sure it helps your argument much though, as moving toward a Norwegian system seems to be the goal and they have a far higher standard of living. High taxes for the rich and lots of state ownership and help, sounds good to me.

Norway and Switzerland came just below Luxembourg, but significantly ahead of Germany

Playswell - I see you ignored the reference to Switzerland. Well known of course for its high rates of tax and state ownership.

That Guardian article covers GDP which is known to only benefit the wealthiest top 10%.

Going by the more reliable global Quality of life index, The UK is wildly behind. 15th behond Scandinavian counries and not far off France.

www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp

Buffy, excellent link. A proper analysis.

That is the study which puts Switzerland (admittedly a very nice place to live ) first and Saudi Arabia (possibly less so) 6th?

Buffy thank-you, I suggest you have a look at this

squidzin That index rates pollution as the most important factor and safety as second - not sure that is what we are discussing.