RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Lizard wrote:Yeah but how many is that? I've only a vague idea of the size of your parliament and none of the Conservative majority.

650 seats
330 Conservative MPs
230 Labour MPs

The joys of a FPP system

You're missing a few out there, like the entirety of SNP... The conservative majority is only 11 or so.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Lizard wrote:Yeah but how many is that? I've only a vague idea of the size of your parliament and none of the Conservative majority.

650 seats
330 Conservative MPs
230 Labour MPs

The joys of a FPP system

You're missing a few out there, like the entirety of SNP... The conservative majority is only 11 or so.

I was only attempting to list the top two, but still, in listing there being 650 seats and there being 330 Conservatives I suspect most people can work out the majority even if they didn't already know it to be a narrow one.

If you want the rest, then it's 60 odd SNP (might be 58 or 59), 8 DUP, 8 Lid Dems, 3 or 4 Plaid Cymru, maybe 5 Independents, 1 Green, 1 UKIP, and then I'm overlooking a few but anyone who really wants a breakdown is probably looking it up anyway.

Edit - 4 Sinn Fein, not sure how I forgot that delightful bunch

Ok, thanks. So an anti-Corbyn New Labour Party in alliance with SNP could be a credible opposition force? What's SNP's position on inter-party relations?

Lizard wrote:Ok, thanks. So an anti-Corbyn New Labour Party in alliance with SNP could be a credible opposition force? What's SNP's position on inter-party relations?

Corbyn's Labour policies are the closest of all parties to the SNP's policies, a coalition or at least co-ordination could be workable. But the SNP would not feel the same way about an anti-Corbyn faction.

Zhivago wrote:

Lizard wrote:Ok, thanks. So an anti-Corbyn New Labour Party in alliance with SNP could be a credible opposition force? What's SNP's position on inter-party relations?

Corbyn's Labour policies are the closest of all parties to the SNP's policies, a coalition or at least co-ordination could be workable. But the SNP would not feel the same way about an anti-Corbyn faction.

They are similar in many of their views to Corbyn's Labour, then again they were hardly miles away from Milliband's Labour. The SNP would probably feel very similar about any number of prospective Labour leaders given the choice is hardly Corbyn or Blair.

Whether they'd be credible who knows, but they're certainly not as things stand.

I'd be surprised if the anti Corbyn labour MPs joined with the SNP. The price would be too high, most labour MPs want to win back Scottish seats, not watch Scotland March off to independence.

An alliance withe the liberals though has legs. Even with only 8 MPs, the sheer number of anti Corbyn labour MPs would make them the opposition and they would gain from the constituency level support already in place. A completely new party would have to build the grass roots; I think they would struggle to do that prior to the next general election.

According to Alex Salmond the coup against Corbyn was planned to stop him calling for Blair’s head after Chilcot:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1459 ... ?ref=fbshr

See my post with link on first page.

It may have been a factor, but I think Corbyn's poor performance in the referendum, when he could barely rouse himself to offer pretty tepid support, along with the possibility of an early GE, that startled his critics into action. Frankly the PLP saw a man they couldnt trust and were alarmed at the prospect of him fronting a GE campaign.

Things snowballed after the first resignations and its become clear that even those MP's who have tried to make it work and who are by no means Blairites have no faith in him. One writer today stated that this was more of a riot of despair than a coup.

Corbyn cannot lead the PLP effectively and has shown himself not up to the demands of leading a major political party.

He's just not very good, something that we perhaps should have realised after his 30 odd years as a backbench nonentity.

Zhivago wrote:

Lizard wrote:Ok, thanks. So an anti-Corbyn New Labour Party in alliance with SNP could be a credible opposition force? What's SNP's position on inter-party relations?

Corbyn's Labour policies are the closest of all parties to the SNP's policies, a coalition or at least co-ordination could be workable. But the SNP would not feel the same way about an anti-Corbyn faction.

Too many variables at play to make that a sound prediction. One thing is for sure though, the SNP would not enter a formal coalition with any of them. It would be political suicide in Scotland.

Zhivago wrote: You undermine your credibility by calling them loons.

The biggest irony is that everyone's credibility is undermined by being mainstream. The mainstream are elitist scum.

Did anyone else hear Invertwat explaining Mike Brown to Mac..?.
'You'd love Mike Brown,.....'

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

UGagain wrote:The most surprising thing about this coup is the ineptness of the plotters so far.

If they lose, and it's hard to see it any other way at this point, they've given the party all the reason they need to have mass deselections and hopefully get rid of the Blairites for good.

Happy days.

You think they'll lose?

Almost certainly, Labour party ranks having been bolstered with a lot of lefty loons who want to vote Corbyn, and a lot of Tories, who want to vote for Corbyn. The interesting part is do the Labour MPs then split from the party, or do they wait for the next election when the SNP might emerge as the official opposition considering they'd then have a chance to regain control of the party.

Why hasn't this troll been banned for abuse?

If there's no consistency, it's censorship.

jared_7 wrote:

UGagain wrote:The most surprising thing about this coup is the ineptness of the plotters so far.

If they lose, and it's hard to see it any other way at this point, they've given the party all the reason they need to have mass deselections and hopefully get rid of the Blairites for good.

Happy days.

You think they'll lose?

At this stage it looks like it. The plotters don't have anything to offer the membership. They just don't seem to understand the dynamics of it all.

Sorry I couldn't respond earlier. I was banned.

kk67 wrote:

Zhivago wrote: You undermine your credibility by calling them loons.

The biggest irony is that everyone's credibility is undermined by being mainstream. The mainstream are elitist scum.

Exactly. The mainstream (as defined by the political/media class) has become so extreme that it's repellant to a normal functioning human being.

But to them it's just normal. Waging war, causing poverty and other ways of killing human beings is perfectly rational to these people.

Look at their inane chatter on this board.

I'll give Corbyn he's backtracked and admitted he now regrets the phrasing to allow a comparison to be drawn between ISIS and Israel, and he's even gone a step further and admitted calling Hamas and Hezbollah friends was also regretful. Still looks woefully out of his depth, but if he'd just like to backtrack on most of his policies too then we might be getting somewhere

Digby wrote:I'll give Corbyn he's backtracked and admitted he now regrets the phrasing to allow a comparison to be drawn between ISIS and Israel, and he's even gone a step further and admitted calling Hamas and Hezbollah friends was also regretful. Still looks woefully out of his depth, but if he'd just like to backtrack on most of his policies too then we might be getting somewhere

Who's "we"?

You and your racist paymasters?

And you don't have a degree in economics.

Digby wrote:I'll give Corbyn he's backtracked and admitted he now regrets the phrasing to allow a comparison to be drawn between ISIS and Israel, and he's even gone a step further and admitted calling Hamas and Hezbollah friends was also regretful. Still looks woefully out of his depth, but if he'd just like to backtrack on most of his policies too then we might be getting somewhere

He's just choosing his battles. At least he believes in something. Show me a mainstream politician who genuinely believes in something. Pro tip: you can't.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:I'll give Corbyn he's backtracked and admitted he now regrets the phrasing to allow a comparison to be drawn between ISIS and Israel, and he's even gone a step further and admitted calling Hamas and Hezbollah friends was also regretful. Still looks woefully out of his depth, but if he'd just like to backtrack on most of his policies too then we might be getting somewhere

He's just choosing his battles. At least he believes in something. Show me a mainstream politician who genuinely believes in something. Pro tip: you can't.

We've just had a referendum where very clearly huge numbers of politicians believed in the arguments they were making for their side, except perhaps Boris and interestingly in this commentary Corbyn who both just went with what they thought best for their careers. I do btw now have an image of Corbyn singing along to the R Kelly track I Believe, an early contender for the Labour campaign song

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:I'll give Corbyn he's backtracked and admitted he now regrets the phrasing to allow a comparison to be drawn between ISIS and Israel, and he's even gone a step further and admitted calling Hamas and Hezbollah friends was also regretful. Still looks woefully out of his depth, but if he'd just like to backtrack on most of his policies too then we might be getting somewhere

He's just choosing his battles. At least he believes in something. Show me a mainstream politician who genuinely believes in something. Pro tip: you can't.

Iain Duncan Smith.
Ken Clarke.

In fact there have been plenty of top level politicians who have held sincere beliefs that they have stuck to. They just realize that to get those beliefs they need to compromise in other areas.

Good article here:

On June 30 the Guardian published an article with the headline, “Jeremy Corbyn appears to compare Israeli government to Islamic State.”

Here’s what Corbyn actually said, “Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations.”

The Guardian has since changed the headline to “Jeremy Corbyn launches anti-semitism report amid controversy.” They have also amended the article after they originally quoted Corbyn as saying “Islamic State” instead of “various self-styled Islamic states or organizations.”

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinio ... -0024.html

The Guardian is getting worse and worse, it's incredible. They have an article on how remain failed, which could be interesting. But it only ever refers to Corbyn as a left wing extremist. Which is just wrong.

rowan wrote:Good article here:

On June 30 the Guardian published an article with the headline, “Jeremy Corbyn appears to compare Israeli government to Islamic State.”

Here’s what Corbyn actually said, “Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations.”

The Guardian has since changed the headline to “Jeremy Corbyn launches anti-semitism report amid controversy.” They have also amended the article after they originally quoted Corbyn as saying “Islamic State” instead of “various self-styled Islamic states or organizations.”

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinio ... -0024.html

Just enough wriggle room in his statement to allow it to be taken a number of different ways. Im curious how many self styled islamic states there are, as opposed to actual states.

Stom wrote:The Guardian is getting worse and worse, it's incredible. They have an article on how remain failed, which could be interesting. But it only ever refers to Corbyn as a left wing extremist. Which is just wrong.

By the standards of most Brits he is a lefty loon, and for me at least I'd hoped we'd reached a point wherein Corbyn and those of a similar ilk would be confined to the SWP leaving Labour to go forwards as a Social Democratic party. Sadly instead the inmates have taken over the asylum and we're going to have to waste a lot of time going at least until the next general election it seems until there's a chance for some order to return. And I don't just blame Corbyn for this, but also those in the middle ground and to the right of the Labour party who are allowing us to continue without a credible opposition to the government.

Sandydragon wrote: They just realize that to get those beliefs they need to compromise in other areas.

A failure to acknowledge you'll not get all you want and refusing to accept compromise seems the order of the day now for Labour, they even attacked their own Mayor of London for sharing a platform with the PM during remain, and that wasn't a nobody (well it was) but John McDonnell who led the attack on Khan. Corbyn of course refused to share a platform with the PM, and indeed with former Labour PMs lest his purity be tainted

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:The Guardian is getting worse and worse, it's incredible. They have an article on how remain failed, which could be interesting. But it only ever refers to Corbyn as a left wing extremist. Which is just wrong.

By the standards of most Brits he is a lefty loon, and for me at least I'd hoped we'd reached a point wherein Corbyn and those of a similar ilk would be confined to the SWP leaving Labour to go forwards as a Social Democratic party. Sadly instead the inmates have taken over the asylum and we're going to have to waste a lot of time going at least until the next general election it seems until there's a chance for some order to return. And I don't just blame Corbyn for this, but also those in the middle ground and to the right of the Labour party who are allowing us to continue without a credible opposition to the government.

In what way is he a lunatic?

Most of what he's actually said makes sense, and he is the leader of the UK's only mainstream socialist party...

What do you define as Social Democrat?

Oh, and mods: why is language like this allowed against the left, and not against the right?

On second thoughts, don't bother. You're both rather right wing...