Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Describe what and who you believe to be "extreme left" or how am I to know to whom you are referring. I don't believe there are many within the Labour party who are "extreme left". But then the Labour party is not centre-left, it is quite solidly a Socialist party (if you look at the membership). So are we talking about the Lib-Dems? " I would say extreme left as supporters of the ex leader Jeremy Corbyn as the baseline and further left, generally they would be. Socialism? surely you mean social-democratic. Labour is a social democratic party. Therefore centre left. But anything left of Corbyn is extreme left. Anything right of Boris Johnson though, is extreme right lol. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Extremism on with side is undesirable I can't think of many people who are purely one or the other I'm left wing on some things, right wing on others I'm certainly more libertarian than authoritarian though" So liber-authoritarian then? Like the freedom but need a firm hand, I guess that is where most people in the UK are, practically the centre. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Describe what and who you believe to be "extreme left" or how am I to know to whom you are referring. I don't believe there are many within the Labour party who are "extreme left". But then the Labour party is not centre-left, it is quite solidly a Socialist party (if you look at the membership). So are we talking about the Lib-Dems? I would say extreme left as supporters of the ex leader Jeremy Corbyn as the baseline and further left, generally they would be. Socialism? surely you mean social-democratic. Labour is a social democratic party. Therefore centre left. But anything left of Corbyn is extreme left. Anything right of Boris Johnson though, is extreme right lol. " Then I would say your definitions are wrong, and somewhat prejudiced. Why do you consider public ownership of utilities or our railways as "extreme"? The founding of the party is noted on the website as this: "The Labour Party was created in 1900: a new party for a new century. Its formation was the result of many years of struggle by working class people, trade unionists and socialists, united by the goal of working class voices represented in British Parliament." No where in that history of the party or in other places does it say this has fundamentally changed. So no, when I say socialist, I mean socialist. Considering, that there are other political beliefs that fall to the left of Socialism, how can it ever be extreme, as the definition of extreme means the furthest from the centre. Which on the political left I would assume means the Communist party. So by that measure there are none in the party of the extreme left. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Describe what and who you believe to be "extreme left" or how am I to know to whom you are referring. I don't believe there are many within the Labour party who are "extreme left". But then the Labour party is not centre-left, it is quite solidly a Socialist party (if you look at the membership). So are we talking about the Lib-Dems? I would say extreme left as supporters of the ex leader Jeremy Corbyn as the baseline and further left, generally they would be. Socialism? surely you mean social-democratic. Labour is a social democratic party. Therefore centre left. But anything left of Corbyn is extreme left. Anything right of Boris Johnson though, is extreme right lol. Then I would say your definitions are wrong, and somewhat prejudiced. Why do you consider public ownership of utilities or our railways as "extreme"? The founding of the party is noted on the website as this: "The Labour Party was created in 1900: a new party for a new century. Its formation was the result of many years of struggle by working class people, trade unionists and socialists, united by the goal of working class voices represented in British Parliament." No where in that history of the party or in other places does it say this has fundamentally changed. So no, when I say socialist, I mean socialist. Considering, that there are other political beliefs that fall to the left of Socialism, how can it ever be extreme, as the definition of extreme means the furthest from the centre. Which on the political left I would assume means the Communist party. So by that measure there are none in the party of the extreme left. " More people these days tend to disagree with this view now. Times change, look at the conservatives, they were considered radical, then as time went along they became establishment. The same thing is happening to Labour, from outsider to insider. I think those who want to be radical, they should join a party which is the echo chamber to their views, I don’t think the Labour party is that anymore, it’s no longer a home for them, so the current expulsions are correct. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The wings are all fucked up nowadays anyway, the extreme right has always been anarchism or zero government, extreme left total government (which is why regardless of people's belief the nazi party in its true form was extreme left, with identity politics taken into a very lethal realm), somehow in recent times the extreme left has adopted the tactics of the extreme right of having government and corporations back their anarchist behaviour up when they riot, block roads and create their own little communes. " Extremes touch each another to the point it becomes a blur and they become just as bad. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The wings are all fucked up nowadays anyway, the extreme right has always been anarchism or zero government, extreme left total government (which is why regardless of people's belief the nazi party in its true form was extreme left, with identity politics taken into a very lethal realm), somehow in recent times the extreme left has adopted the tactics of the extreme right of having government and corporations back their anarchist behaviour up when they riot, block roads and create their own little communes. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Describe what and who you believe to be "extreme left" or how am I to know to whom you are referring. I don't believe there are many within the Labour party who are "extreme left". But then the Labour party is not centre-left, it is quite solidly a Socialist party (if you look at the membership). So are we talking about the Lib-Dems? I would say extreme left as supporters of the ex leader Jeremy Corbyn as the baseline and further left, generally they would be. Socialism? surely you mean social-democratic. Labour is a social democratic party. Therefore centre left. But anything left of Corbyn is extreme left. Anything right of Boris Johnson though, is extreme right lol. " BOLLOX | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Describe what and who you believe to be "extreme left" or how am I to know to whom you are referring. I don't believe there are many within the Labour party who are "extreme left". But then the Labour party is not centre-left, it is quite solidly a Socialist party (if you look at the membership). So are we talking about the Lib-Dems? I would say extreme left as supporters of the ex leader Jeremy Corbyn as the baseline and further left, generally they would be. Socialism? surely you mean social-democratic. Labour is a social democratic party. Therefore centre left. But anything left of Corbyn is extreme left. Anything right of Boris Johnson though, is extreme right lol. BOLLOX " Would you care to elaborate on the testy clays, you mentioned? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The wings are all fucked up nowadays anyway, the extreme right has always been anarchism or zero government, extreme left total government (which is why regardless of people's belief the nazi party in its true form was extreme left, with identity politics taken into a very lethal realm), somehow in recent times the extreme left has adopted the tactics of the extreme right of having government and corporations back their anarchist behaviour up when they riot, block roads and create their own little communes. Extremes touch each another to the point it becomes a blur and they become just as bad. " Known as the horseshoe theory, when the two extremes almost touch each other Everyone is taught what happens when the right goes too far but I wonder how many people know about the millions that were killed under communism | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Extremism on with side is undesirable I can't think of many people who are purely one or the other I'm left wing on some things, right wing on others I'm certainly more libertarian than authoritarian though So liber-authoritarian then? Like the freedom but need a firm hand, I guess that is where most people in the UK are, practically the centre. " Not a firm hand as such (unless you ask nice lol) I understand the need for structure and institution I just prefer government power to be minimised and I think people should be naturally wary of government in general. They're just people at the end of the day. Most governments tend to be incompetent at best, corrupt at worst | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The wings are all fucked up nowadays anyway, the extreme right has always been anarchism or zero government, extreme left total government (which is why regardless of people's belief the nazi party in its true form was extreme left, with identity politics taken into a very lethal realm), somehow in recent times the extreme left has adopted the tactics of the extreme right of having government and corporations back their anarchist behaviour up when they riot, block roads and create their own little communes. Extremes touch each another to the point it becomes a blur and they become just as bad. Known as the horseshoe theory, when the two extremes almost touch each other Everyone is taught what happens when the right goes too far but I wonder how many people know about the millions that were killed under communism " Ah, but that's never 'real' communism (TM) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The wings are all fucked up nowadays anyway, the extreme right has always been anarchism or zero government, extreme left total government (which is why regardless of people's belief the nazi party in its true form was extreme left, with identity politics taken into a very lethal realm), somehow in recent times the extreme left has adopted the tactics of the extreme right of having government and corporations back their anarchist behaviour up when they riot, block roads and create their own little communes. Extremes touch each another to the point it becomes a blur and they become just as bad. Known as the horseshoe theory, when the two extremes almost touch each other Everyone is taught what happens when the right goes too far but I wonder how many people know about the millions that were killed under communism Ah, but that's never 'real' communism (TM) " I think once you get into the area of authoritarian dictatorships, the mask they wear is largely irrelevant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The wings are all fucked up nowadays anyway, the extreme right has always been anarchism or zero government, extreme left total government (which is why regardless of people's belief the nazi party in its true form was extreme left, with identity politics taken into a very lethal realm), somehow in recent times the extreme left has adopted the tactics of the extreme right of having government and corporations back their anarchist behaviour up when they riot, block roads and create their own little communes. Extremes touch each another to the point it becomes a blur and they become just as bad. Known as the horseshoe theory, when the two extremes almost touch each other Everyone is taught what happens when the right goes too far but I wonder how many people know about the millions that were killed under communism Ah, but that's never 'real' communism (TM) " Ah yes, the line that is so often trotted out. It should be as repulsive as someone defending Nazism but alas it would seem communism is considered rather acceptable to many who have no idea of the horrors it brings | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The wings are all fucked up nowadays anyway, the extreme right has always been anarchism or zero government, extreme left total government (which is why regardless of people's belief the nazi party in its true form was extreme left, with identity politics taken into a very lethal realm), somehow in recent times the extreme left has adopted the tactics of the extreme right of having government and corporations back their anarchist behaviour up when they riot, block roads and create their own little communes. Extremes touch each another to the point it becomes a blur and they become just as bad. Known as the horseshoe theory, when the two extremes almost touch each other Everyone is taught what happens when the right goes too far but I wonder how many people know about the millions that were killed under communism Ah, but that's never 'real' communism (TM) Ah yes, the line that is so often trotted out. It should be as repulsive as someone defending Nazism but alas it would seem communism is considered rather acceptable to many who have no idea of the horrors it brings " I think, on paper, it is reasonable to defend communism (all are equal), and to condemn Nazis (one race is superior to all others). How that has historically played out, is nothing to do with the concept, and much more to do with human nature, and also the history and society in the places the experiments have been run. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The wings are all fucked up nowadays anyway, the extreme right has always been anarchism or zero government, extreme left total government (which is why regardless of people's belief the nazi party in its true form was extreme left, with identity politics taken into a very lethal realm), somehow in recent times the extreme left has adopted the tactics of the extreme right of having government and corporations back their anarchist behaviour up when they riot, block roads and create their own little communes. Extremes touch each another to the point it becomes a blur and they become just as bad. Known as the horseshoe theory, when the two extremes almost touch each other Everyone is taught what happens when the right goes too far but I wonder how many people know about the millions that were killed under communism Ah, but that's never 'real' communism (TM) Ah yes, the line that is so often trotted out. It should be as repulsive as someone defending Nazism but alas it would seem communism is considered rather acceptable to many who have no idea of the horrors it brings I think, on paper, it is reasonable to defend communism (all are equal), and to condemn Nazis (one race is superior to all others). How that has historically played out, is nothing to do with the concept, and much more to do with human nature, and also the history and society in the places the experiments have been run." Lots of ideas are great on paper. You can judge the theory of communism if you wish to. I'll judge the results | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The wings are all fucked up nowadays anyway, the extreme right has always been anarchism or zero government, extreme left total government (which is why regardless of people's belief the nazi party in its true form was extreme left, with identity politics taken into a very lethal realm), somehow in recent times the extreme left has adopted the tactics of the extreme right of having government and corporations back their anarchist behaviour up when they riot, block roads and create their own little communes. Extremes touch each another to the point it becomes a blur and they become just as bad. Known as the horseshoe theory, when the two extremes almost touch each other Everyone is taught what happens when the right goes too far but I wonder how many people know about the millions that were killed under communism " True that, bad as each another, both extremes imposing their disjointed views of the world, can’t they just let people be? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Extremism in any form is not welcome, if only because it will in some aspect harm one or more groups in society. Millions died on the alter of fascism (I include the Nazis here because the appropriation of the word “socialist” and SOME aspects of that manifesto was for the most part a very successful branding exercise to drive support from the working class). Millions died on the alter of communism (Soviet Union, Cambodia etc). Both are evil, in the most part due to the sociopathic nature of those who gravitated to the top echelons in respective governments. Moderate centrism is the only pragmatic and sensible way forward. Draw the good ideas from left and right." This is the direction the UK should be going in, too long has the UK been pushed by either side, caused all this trouble and strife, the extreme left attack the extreme right and vice versa. Its the people in the middle who are the real victims. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Describe what and who you believe to be "extreme left" or how am I to know to whom you are referring. I don't believe there are many within the Labour party who are "extreme left". But then the Labour party is not centre-left, it is quite solidly a Socialist party (if you look at the membership). So are we talking about the Lib-Dems? I would say extreme left as supporters of the ex leader Jeremy Corbyn as the baseline and further left, generally they would be. Socialism? surely you mean social-democratic. Labour is a social democratic party. Therefore centre left. But anything left of Corbyn is extreme left. Anything right of Boris Johnson though, is extreme right lol. Then I would say your definitions are wrong, and somewhat prejudiced. Why do you consider public ownership of utilities or our railways as "extreme"? The founding of the party is noted on the website as this: "The Labour Party was created in 1900: a new party for a new century. Its formation was the result of many years of struggle by working class people, trade unionists and socialists, united by the goal of working class voices represented in British Parliament." No where in that history of the party or in other places does it say this has fundamentally changed. So no, when I say socialist, I mean socialist. Considering, that there are other political beliefs that fall to the left of Socialism, how can it ever be extreme, as the definition of extreme means the furthest from the centre. Which on the political left I would assume means the Communist party. So by that measure there are none in the party of the extreme left. " It's full of "comrades" of militant tendency/momentum (booing SKS etc) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Describe what and who you believe to be "extreme left" or how am I to know to whom you are referring. I don't believe there are many within the Labour party who are "extreme left". But then the Labour party is not centre-left, it is quite solidly a Socialist party (if you look at the membership). So are we talking about the Lib-Dems? I would say extreme left as supporters of the ex leader Jeremy Corbyn as the baseline and further left, generally they would be. Socialism? surely you mean social-democratic. Labour is a social democratic party. Therefore centre left. But anything left of Corbyn is extreme left. Anything right of Boris Johnson though, is extreme right lol. Then I would say your definitions are wrong, and somewhat prejudiced. Why do you consider public ownership of utilities or our railways as "extreme"? The founding of the party is noted on the website as this: "The Labour Party was created in 1900: a new party for a new century. Its formation was the result of many years of struggle by working class people, trade unionists and socialists, united by the goal of working class voices represented in British Parliament." No where in that history of the party or in other places does it say this has fundamentally changed. So no, when I say socialist, I mean socialist. Considering, that there are other political beliefs that fall to the left of Socialism, how can it ever be extreme, as the definition of extreme means the furthest from the centre. Which on the political left I would assume means the Communist party. So by that measure there are none in the party of the extreme left. It's full of "comrades" of militant tendency/momentum (booing SKS etc)" This is the problem, try convincing someone else otherwise, purge these elements from the party, the time of corbyn and his rabble are over. Proper minded people know they are the enemy within, they are the once making the labour party unelectable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Describe what and who you believe to be "extreme left" or how am I to know to whom you are referring. I don't believe there are many within the Labour party who are "extreme left". But then the Labour party is not centre-left, it is quite solidly a Socialist party (if you look at the membership). So are we talking about the Lib-Dems? I would say extreme left as supporters of the ex leader Jeremy Corbyn as the baseline and further left, generally they would be. Socialism? surely you mean social-democratic. Labour is a social democratic party. Therefore centre left. But anything left of Corbyn is extreme left. Anything right of Boris Johnson though, is extreme right lol. Then I would say your definitions are wrong, and somewhat prejudiced. Why do you consider public ownership of utilities or our railways as "extreme"? The founding of the party is noted on the website as this: "The Labour Party was created in 1900: a new party for a new century. Its formation was the result of many years of struggle by working class people, trade unionists and socialists, united by the goal of working class voices represented in British Parliament." No where in that history of the party or in other places does it say this has fundamentally changed. So no, when I say socialist, I mean socialist. Considering, that there are other political beliefs that fall to the left of Socialism, how can it ever be extreme, as the definition of extreme means the furthest from the centre. Which on the political left I would assume means the Communist party. So by that measure there are none in the party of the extreme left. It's full of "comrades" of militant tendency/momentum (booing SKS etc) This is the problem, try convincing someone else otherwise, purge these elements from the party, the time of corbyn and his rabble are over. Proper minded people know they are the enemy within, they are the once making the labour party unelectable. " Comrade is a traditional form of address within the trade union movement and the Labour party. It means nothing more than acknowledging the other person is also a member. "Unelectable"? Corbyn received more votes in the 2017 GE than any other Labour leader apart from Blair at his height. What did for Corbyn was the collapse in the LibDem vote, and the Labour position on Brexit (which was Starmer's doing). And as I have said many times previously, the actual policies that Labour under Corbyn put forward were very popular, and only slightly to the left of centre. In fact most of the policies are pretty common across the rest of Europe. Fighting for the middle ground with the Torys won't work, because you also have the LibDems in that fight, splitting the vote. Labour needs to offer something better than this, differentiate itself. Let the LibDems take seats from the Torys in the south, and reinstate itself in the places they (marginally, in most cases) lost out on last time. The post-Brexit/Pandemic pain will be quite big by the next election. Especially now Johnson has promised everyone will be on higher wages in a couple of years! To achieve this he either has to attack business even more, or allow more immigration, neither of which are going to sit well with his "base" (I dislike that term, but it has it's uses). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Describe what and who you believe to be "extreme left" or how am I to know to whom you are referring. I don't believe there are many within the Labour party who are "extreme left". But then the Labour party is not centre-left, it is quite solidly a Socialist party (if you look at the membership). So are we talking about the Lib-Dems? I would say extreme left as supporters of the ex leader Jeremy Corbyn as the baseline and further left, generally they would be. Socialism? surely you mean social-democratic. Labour is a social democratic party. Therefore centre left. But anything left of Corbyn is extreme left. Anything right of Boris Johnson though, is extreme right lol. Then I would say your definitions are wrong, and somewhat prejudiced. Why do you consider public ownership of utilities or our railways as "extreme"? The founding of the party is noted on the website as this: "The Labour Party was created in 1900: a new party for a new century. Its formation was the result of many years of struggle by working class people, trade unionists and socialists, united by the goal of working class voices represented in British Parliament." No where in that history of the party or in other places does it say this has fundamentally changed. So no, when I say socialist, I mean socialist. Considering, that there are other political beliefs that fall to the left of Socialism, how can it ever be extreme, as the definition of extreme means the furthest from the centre. Which on the political left I would assume means the Communist party. So by that measure there are none in the party of the extreme left. It's full of "comrades" of militant tendency/momentum (booing SKS etc) This is the problem, try convincing someone else otherwise, purge these elements from the party, the time of corbyn and his rabble are over. Proper minded people know they are the enemy within, they are the once making the labour party unelectable. Comrade is a traditional form of address within the trade union movement and the Labour party. It means nothing more than acknowledging the other person is also a member. "Unelectable"? Corbyn received more votes in the 2017 GE than any other Labour leader apart from Blair at his height. What did for Corbyn was the collapse in the LibDem vote, and the Labour position on Brexit (which was Starmer's doing). And as I have said many times previously, the actual policies that Labour under Corbyn put forward were very popular, and only slightly to the left of centre. In fact most of the policies are pretty common across the rest of Europe. Fighting for the middle ground with the Torys won't work, because you also have the LibDems in that fight, splitting the vote. Labour needs to offer something better than this, differentiate itself. Let the LibDems take seats from the Torys in the south, and reinstate itself in the places they (marginally, in most cases) lost out on last time. The post-Brexit/Pandemic pain will be quite big by the next election. Especially now Johnson has promised everyone will be on higher wages in a couple of years! To achieve this he either has to attack business even more, or allow more immigration, neither of which are going to sit well with his "base" (I dislike that term, but it has it's uses)." The polices for the GE were a wishlist, unobtainable because the question would be who would pay for it? This probably the biggest bugbear that many people have with voting labour, they are perceived as not being trusted with the economy. Corbyn proved that with his cash give away which only drove soft voters away into the arms of the most incompetent prime minister since neville chamberlain. SKS looks serious when he wants to engage with Business and look at current tory spending policies and the wastage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But that's mostly because people don't understand how a nations economy works. The media and even the politicians themselves are always drawing comparisons with household budgets. You have to balance what's coming in, against what's going out. Which is absolute bollocks when you have your own currency and central bank. As has been shown over the last two years. That magic money tree has had one hell of a shaking." Yes people in the UK don’t like this current government spending and wasting money on stupid gimmicks and daft slogans, and with corbyn and his cabal out SKS will bring proper responsible government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But that's mostly because people don't understand how a nations economy works. The media and even the politicians themselves are always drawing comparisons with household budgets. You have to balance what's coming in, against what's going out. Which is absolute bollocks when you have your own currency and central bank. As has been shown over the last two years. That magic money tree has had one hell of a shaking. Yes people in the UK don’t like this current government spending and wasting money on stupid gimmicks and daft slogans, and with corbyn and his cabal out SKS will bring proper responsible government." People seem to be fine with the conservatives giving their friends 100 of millions of taxpayers money in the form of dodgy PPE contracts. There is money. A budget deficit is a good thing (with a competent government). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Describe what and who you believe to be "extreme left" or how am I to know to whom you are referring. I don't believe there are many within the Labour party who are "extreme left". But then the Labour party is not centre-left, it is quite solidly a Socialist party (if you look at the membership). So are we talking about the Lib-Dems? I would say extreme left as supporters of the ex leader Jeremy Corbyn as the baseline and further left, generally they would be. Socialism? surely you mean social-democratic. Labour is a social democratic party. Therefore centre left. But anything left of Corbyn is extreme left. Anything right of Boris Johnson though, is extreme right lol. Then I would say your definitions are wrong, and somewhat prejudiced. Why do you consider public ownership of utilities or our railways as "extreme"? The founding of the party is noted on the website as this: "The Labour Party was created in 1900: a new party for a new century. Its formation was the result of many years of struggle by working class people, trade unionists and socialists, united by the goal of working class voices represented in British Parliament." No where in that history of the party or in other places does it say this has fundamentally changed. So no, when I say socialist, I mean socialist. Considering, that there are other political beliefs that fall to the left of Socialism, how can it ever be extreme, as the definition of extreme means the furthest from the centre. Which on the political left I would assume means the Communist party. So by that measure there are none in the party of the extreme left. It's full of "comrades" of militant tendency/momentum (booing SKS etc) This is the problem, try convincing someone else otherwise, purge these elements from the party, the time of corbyn and his rabble are over. Proper minded people know they are the enemy within, they are the once making the labour party unelectable. Comrade is a traditional form of address within the trade union movement and the Labour party. It means nothing more than acknowledging the other person is also a member. "Unelectable"? Corbyn received more votes in the 2017 GE than any other Labour leader apart from Blair at his height. What did for Corbyn was the collapse in the LibDem vote, and the Labour position on Brexit (which was Starmer's doing). And as I have said many times previously, the actual policies that Labour under Corbyn put forward were very popular, and only slightly to the left of centre. In fact most of the policies are pretty common across the rest of Europe. Fighting for the middle ground with the Torys won't work, because you also have the LibDems in that fight, splitting the vote. Labour needs to offer something better than this, differentiate itself. Let the LibDems take seats from the Torys in the south, and reinstate itself in the places they (marginally, in most cases) lost out on last time. The post-Brexit/Pandemic pain will be quite big by the next election. Especially now Johnson has promised everyone will be on higher wages in a couple of years! To achieve this he either has to attack business even more, or allow more immigration, neither of which are going to sit well with his "base" (I dislike that term, but it has it's uses)." If Corbyn received so many votes in 2017....then why was it Labour's biggest defeat since the 1930's and the loss of so many 'Red Wall' seats in the North and North East?. His shadow chancellor was a self proclaimed Marxist. His main support base was momentum. The majority of whom are the same Liverpool based militant tendency that were thrown out of the party in the 1980's by Neil Kinnock. The current labour party are a party of 2 halves and, if they remain so, will sadly remain unelectable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
