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 |
"Labour mps blame corbyn but do the mps still represent those that elected them? I am taking about the public voting out when the mps said to remain." Many of the people who voted in the referendum probably have never voted in a general election and whose to say wether it was all labour voters who voted brexit ..none of our Politicians really represent the people ..only there own views and ends .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour mps blame corbyn but do the mps still represent those that elected them? I am taking about the public voting out when the mps said to remain." I think it's quite clear that Labour no longer represents it's voters. They ignored voters concerns in 2010 with Browns bigot comments. And again with Miliband in 2015. Ukip are stealing their vote because they are taking their concerns seriously x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thought so.. Sunderland is a labour area and voted 66% to leave " But it isn't just Labour who are guilty of that. Look at the leave remain split in Parliament. It's not representative at all x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour mps blame corbyn but do the mps still represent those that elected them? I am taking about the public voting out when the mps said to remain. I think it's quite clear that Labour no longer represents it's voters. They ignored voters concerns in 2010 with Browns bigot comments. And again with Miliband in 2015. Ukip are stealing their vote because they are taking their concerns seriously x" I think you summed it up pretty well there. Nigel Farage did an interview on BBC news the other day, he said it looks like there are 3 Labour parties at the moment.... 1. Corbyn the leader, his loyal sidekick John McDonnell and their hard left momentum followers. 2. The parliamentary Labour party, all those in Westminster who want Corbyn out, mainly Blairites. 3. The Labour voters out in the rest of the country, who are looking more like Ukip voters now since many of them voted Leave, Corbyn doesn't represent their views and the PLP don't represent their views either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour mps blame corbyn but do the mps still represent those that elected them? I am taking about the public voting out when the mps said to remain. I think it's quite clear that Labour no longer represents it's voters. They ignored voters concerns in 2010 with Browns bigot comments. And again with Miliband in 2015. Ukip are stealing their vote because they are taking their concerns seriously x" Ukip supported by Arron banks Quoted after the referendum as saying you don't win by promoting facts hardly a party of the people is it ..any way Arron banks is looking for a new political project to replace ukip and is unlikely to include farage ..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No they don"t. They despise them  "you may laugh but this is why we will soon see the back of the whole rotten party  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour mps blame corbyn but do the mps still represent those that elected them? I am taking about the public voting out when the mps said to remain. I think it's quite clear that Labour no longer represents it's voters. They ignored voters concerns in 2010 with Browns bigot comments. And again with Miliband in 2015. Ukip are stealing their vote because they are taking their concerns seriously x"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour mps blame corbyn but do the mps still represent those that elected them? I am taking about the public voting out when the mps said to remain." Labour represents the trade unions who are a bunch of luddites. The only thing luddites do is drive up the cost of living which hurts the working class most of all. I believe the Lib Dems are the most balanced party for the working class interest, even though they are fucking invisible at the moment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour mps blame corbyn but do the mps still represent those that elected them? I am taking about the public voting out when the mps said to remain. Labour represents the trade unions who are a bunch of luddites. The only thing luddites do is drive up the cost of living which hurts the working class most of all. I believe the Lib Dems are the most balanced party for the working class interest, even though they are fucking invisible at the moment. " Fear not they will rise from the ashes as the party of reason | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour mps blame corbyn but do the mps still represent those that elected them? I am taking about the public voting out when the mps said to remain. Labour represents the trade unions who are a bunch of luddites. The only thing luddites do is drive up the cost of living which hurts the working class most of all. I believe the Lib Dems are the most balanced party for the working class interest, even though they are fucking invisible at the moment. Fear not they will rise from the ashes as the party of reason " I do hope so, there's a bunch of playa haters out there who want to rewrite history by distilling years of events into a sentence like "oh the Lib Dems f'ed up on tuition fees" or the entire Blair premiership was bad because of Iraq. That's bollocks. The coalition government was considerably better than the current one and who is the independent variable there? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour represents the trade unions who are a bunch of luddites. The only thing luddites do is drive up the cost of living which hurts the working class most of all. I believe the Lib Dems are the most balanced party for the working class interest, even though they are fucking invisible at the moment. " I understand what you are saying about the unions and the Labour Party. The unions are a special interest group, and are only interested in themselves. However I do feel that they are a necessary evil and with our imminent departure from the EU resulting in the loss of EU inspired worker protection they will become even more necessary in the near future. I do not know enough about the Lib Dems to comment, but I will admit I have never considered them a viable political option. Maybe you would like to expand what you have said and maybe explain why you did not mention the Greens? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour represents the trade unions who are a bunch of luddites. The only thing luddites do is drive up the cost of living which hurts the working class most of all. I believe the Lib Dems are the most balanced party for the working class interest, even though they are fucking invisible at the moment. I understand what you are saying about the unions and the Labour Party. The unions are a special interest group, and are only interested in themselves. However I do feel that they are a necessary evil and with our imminent departure from the EU resulting in the loss of EU inspired worker protection they will become even more necessary in the near future. I do not know enough about the Lib Dems to comment, but I will admit I have never considered them a viable political option. Maybe you would like to expand what you have said and maybe explain why you did not mention the Greens?" In my opinion trade unions are still fighting a battle they've already won. Workers rights are stronger in the UK than they are in the EU (e.g. annual leave, maternity leave etc)! In other words, the UK has already set higher standards than the EU so leaving it has no real impact. I think trade unions are not into deminishing returns and obsolete. The Greens previous leader was an absolute moron and embarrassed herself whenever the subject of funding their lofty ideas came up. Therefore I can't give them any credibility until they can explain how they would fund anything. Lib Dems seem to be the only party that actually care about the world outside London and think about funding their ideas properly instead of the Green / Labour money grows on trees / let's borrow till we die mentality. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour mps blame corbyn but do the mps still represent those that elected them? I am taking about the public voting out when the mps said to remain. I think it's quite clear that Labour no longer represents it's voters. They ignored voters concerns in 2010 with Browns bigot comments. And again with Miliband in 2015. Ukip are stealing their vote because they are taking their concerns seriously x I think you summed it up pretty well there. Nigel Farage did an interview on BBC news the other day, he said it looks like there are 3 Labour parties at the moment.... 1. Corbyn the leader, his loyal sidekick John McDonnell and their hard left momentum followers. 2. The parliamentary Labour party, all those in Westminster who want Corbyn out, mainly Blairites. 3. The Labour voters out in the rest of the country, who are looking more like Ukip voters now since many of them voted Leave, Corbyn doesn't represent their views and the PLP don't represent their views either. " Labour are very similar to every other party at this time, where they have fully lost touch with the public, they bicker within themselves and the results are that the public draw away from them, they are sick fed up of internal squabble. This is just as bad in Scotland where they have put Kezia Dugdale in position as Leader. This in turn is taking a number of labour voters away as they consider her as a "silly wee lassy". . Labour needs "STRONG" leaders if it wishes to regain public support, I cannot see one strong leader that can bring back public support at this time. . The only party I see that actually consults with the public and their voters are the SNP at this moment, whether people like them or not, they do keep in touch with the Scottish people, something that has been missing in Westminster politics for a long time. . When the public are not consulted with, eventually they take action and the whole world now see's the results of that action as they voted leave. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour mps blame corbyn but do the mps still represent those that elected them? I am taking about the public voting out when the mps said to remain. I think it's quite clear that Labour no longer represents it's voters. They ignored voters concerns in 2010 with Browns bigot comments. And again with Miliband in 2015. Ukip are stealing their vote because they are taking their concerns seriously x I think you summed it up pretty well there. Nigel Farage did an interview on BBC news the other day, he said it looks like there are 3 Labour parties at the moment.... 1. Corbyn the leader, his loyal sidekick John McDonnell and their hard left momentum followers. 2. The parliamentary Labour party, all those in Westminster who want Corbyn out, mainly Blairites. 3. The Labour voters out in the rest of the country, who are looking more like Ukip voters now since many of them voted Leave, Corbyn doesn't represent their views and the PLP don't represent their views either. Labour are very similar to every other party at this time, where they have fully lost touch with the public, they bicker within themselves and the results are that the public draw away from them, they are sick fed up of internal squabble. This is just as bad in Scotland where they have put Kezia Dugdale in position as Leader. This in turn is taking a number of labour voters away as they consider her as a "silly wee lassy". . Labour needs "STRONG" leaders if it wishes to regain public support, I cannot see one strong leader that can bring back public support at this time. . The only party I see that actually consults with the public and their voters are the SNP at this moment, whether people like them or not, they do keep in touch with the Scottish people, something that has been missing in Westminster politics for a long time. . When the public are not consulted with, eventually they take action and the whole world now see's the results of that action as they voted leave." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour mps blame corbyn but do the mps still represent those that elected them? I am taking about the public voting out when the mps said to remain." No. It is full of champagne socialists mostly in London/South so the vote has led me to believe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's a war going in in Labour between the MP's and the party membership. It's being prtrayed as the political elite (MP's) against the working class members but surprisingly that isn't actually the case. A study of Labour party members has shown that those who signed up during and after the leadership election are overwhelmingly (78%) middle class. These new members are also the ones who are most supportive of Corbyn. According to the study the majority have never attended a party meeting and don't do any party work in terms of going door to door, telephone canvassing etc. The most that many of them have done is retweet something positive about Labour or sign an online petition. They've been dubbed 'clcktavists' rather than activists. All of this leads to wider questions. Does the new expanded party membership represent working class voters? Do MP's represent them? " Your question is nonsensical. The membership don't 'represent' any group, they are the party. The job of MPs is to present the policies the membership favour to the electorate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The "job" of MMP's is to represent their constituents - all of them - in parliament" That's partly right, but really it's just semantics. The party selects MPs. The MPs present the direction and policies of the party to the constituency voters. If the voters support those views in sufficient numbers, then they become constituents of that MP. It is silly to say that an MP should represent the views of all constituents, as to do so, all constituents would have to hold the same views. As they clearly don't, that point is nonsensical. And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP. The best result for the Labour Party would be for those MPs who feel they cannot support him to resign from the party and stand as independents. There is no place for people who put their own aims above the will of the membership. We'll be a better and stronger party for a return to principles over politicking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The "job" of MMP's is to represent their constituents - all of them - in parliament That's partly right, but really it's just semantics. The party selects MPs. The MPs present the direction and policies of the party to the constituency voters. If the voters support those views in sufficient numbers, then they become constituents of that MP. It is silly to say that an MP should represent the views of all constituents, as to do so, all constituents would have to hold the same views. As they clearly don't, that point is nonsensical. And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP. The best result for the Labour Party would be for those MPs who feel they cannot support him to resign from the party and stand as independents. There is no place for people who put their own aims above the will of the membership. We'll be a better and stronger party for a return to principles over politicking." That not really true now is it, the MPs were elected under so very different policies from the Milliband regime. That's what people voted for, Corbyn comes in with his whacky ideas that only the £3 club and a bunch of trade unions voted for and wonders why the MPs aren't interested... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The "job" of MMP's is to represent their constituents - all of them - in parliament That's partly right, but really it's just semantics. The party selects MPs. The MPs present the direction and policies of the party to the constituency voters. If the voters support those views in sufficient numbers, then they become constituents of that MP. It is silly to say that an MP should represent the views of all constituents, as to do so, all constituents would have to hold the same views. As they clearly don't, that point is nonsensical. And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP. The best result for the Labour Party would be for those MPs who feel they cannot support him to resign from the party and stand as independents. There is no place for people who put their own aims above the will of the membership. We'll be a better and stronger party for a return to principles over politicking. That not really true now is it, the MPs were elected under so very different policies from the Milliband regime. That's what people voted for, Corbyn comes in with his whacky ideas that only the £3 club and a bunch of trade unions voted for and wonders why the MPs aren't interested... " Can you list the policies that were so very different under Miliband? And the 'whacky' ideas that the party members voted for? I'd be interested to see how different they are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's a war going in in Labour between the MP's and the party membership. It's being prtrayed as the political elite (MP's) against the working class members but surprisingly that isn't actually the case. A study of Labour party members has shown that those who signed up during and after the leadership election are overwhelmingly (78%) middle class. These new members are also the ones who are most supportive of Corbyn. According to the study the majority have never attended a party meeting and don't do any party work in terms of going door to door, telephone canvassing etc. The most that many of them have done is retweet something positive about Labour or sign an online petition. They've been dubbed 'clcktavists' rather than activists. All of this leads to wider questions. Does the new expanded party membership represent working class voters? Do MP's represent them? Your question is nonsensical. The membership don't 'represent' any group, they are the party. The job of MPs is to present the policies the membership favour to the electorate." I think you need to re-read what the actual thread is about. There's a little clue in the title 'Does the Labour Party represent the working class' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The "job" of MMP's is to represent their constituents - all of them - in parliament That's partly right, but really it's just semantics. The party selects MPs. The MPs present the direction and policies of the party to the constituency voters. If the voters support those views in sufficient numbers, then they become constituents of that MP. It is silly to say that an MP should represent the views of all constituents, as to do so, all constituents would have to hold the same views. As they clearly don't, that point is nonsensical. And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP. The best result for the Labour Party would be for those MPs who feel they cannot support him to resign from the party and stand as independents. There is no place for people who put their own aims above the will of the membership. We'll be a better and stronger party for a return to principles over politicking." why can you not see the difference between Labour Party members and Labour voters/constituents? I live in a strong Labour area and don't know one person who would vote Labour while Corbyn is in power or think he is anything other than a prick | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP" Where are getting this information from? I'm not aware of any poll of constituents in Labour areas showing this? Or are you confused and mean Labour party members (which is a different thing altogether) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's a war going in in Labour between the MP's and the party membership. It's being prtrayed as the political elite (MP's) against the working class members but surprisingly that isn't actually the case. A study of Labour party members has shown that those who signed up during and after the leadership election are overwhelmingly (78%) middle class. These new members are also the ones who are most supportive of Corbyn. According to the study the majority have never attended a party meeting and don't do any party work in terms of going door to door, telephone canvassing etc. The most that many of them have done is retweet something positive about Labour or sign an online petition. They've been dubbed 'clcktavists' rather than activists. All of this leads to wider questions. Does the new expanded party membership represent working class voters? Do MP's represent them? Your question is nonsensical. The membership don't 'represent' any group, they are the party. The job of MPs is to present the policies the membership favour to the electorate. I think you need to re-read what the actual thread is about. There's a little clue in the title 'Does the Labour Party represent the working class'" I'm answering you, and what you wrote, not the title of the thread.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The "job" of MMP's is to represent their constituents - all of them - in parliament That's partly right, but really it's just semantics. The party selects MPs. The MPs present the direction and policies of the party to the constituency voters. If the voters support those views in sufficient numbers, then they become constituents of that MP. It is silly to say that an MP should represent the views of all constituents, as to do so, all constituents would have to hold the same views. As they clearly don't, that point is nonsensical. And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP. The best result for the Labour Party would be for those MPs who feel they cannot support him to resign from the party and stand as independents. There is no place for people who put their own aims above the will of the membership. We'll be a better and stronger party for a return to principles over politicking. why can you not see the difference between Labour Party members and Labour voters/constituents? I live in a strong Labour area and don't know one person who would vote Labour while Corbyn is in power or think he is anything other than a prick" You are highly unreliable in terms of being able to representing your own views with any consistency, I'm not really concerned with what the 'people' you 'know' think. Labour has has had electoral success after electoral success after Corbyn, and that is all the proof required. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The "job" of MMP's is to represent their constituents - all of them - in parliament That's partly right, but really it's just semantics. The party selects MPs. The MPs present the direction and policies of the party to the constituency voters. If the voters support those views in sufficient numbers, then they become constituents of that MP. It is silly to say that an MP should represent the views of all constituents, as to do so, all constituents would have to hold the same views. As they clearly don't, that point is nonsensical. And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP. The best result for the Labour Party would be for those MPs who feel they cannot support him to resign from the party and stand as independents. There is no place for people who put their own aims above the will of the membership. We'll be a better and stronger party for a return to principles over politicking. why can you not see the difference between Labour Party members and Labour voters/constituents? I live in a strong Labour area and don't know one person who would vote Labour while Corbyn is in power or think he is anything other than a prick You are highly unreliable in terms of being able to representing your own views with any consistency, I'm not really concerned with what the 'people' you 'know' think. Labour has has had electoral success after electoral success after Corbyn, and that is all the proof required." Lol! You do stretch the English language to its limits in order to fit your ideology sometimes! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP Where are getting this information from? I'm not aware of any poll of constituents in Labour areas showing this? Or are you confused and mean Labour party members (which is a different thing altogether)" It's based on election results. Anyone who tries to measure political opinions through polls is a fool. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's a war going in in Labour between the MP's and the party membership. It's being prtrayed as the political elite (MP's) against the working class members but surprisingly that isn't actually the case. A study of Labour party members has shown that those who signed up during and after the leadership election are overwhelmingly (78%) middle class. These new members are also the ones who are most supportive of Corbyn. According to the study the majority have never attended a party meeting and don't do any party work in terms of going door to door, telephone canvassing etc. The most that many of them have done is retweet something positive about Labour or sign an online petition. They've been dubbed 'clcktavists' rather than activists. All of this leads to wider questions. Does the new expanded party membership represent working class voters? Do MP's represent them? Your question is nonsensical. The membership don't 'represent' any group, they are the party. The job of MPs is to present the policies the membership favour to the electorate. I think you need to re-read what the actual thread is about. There's a little clue in the title 'Does the Labour Party represent the working class' I'm answering you, and what you wrote, not the title of the thread. "What I wrote was adressing the title. Ultimately who is best representing the views of working class voters, it is the new middle class members who've joined to support Corbyn or the MP's who were voted in by the electorate? Or is it neither? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The "job" of MMP's is to represent their constituents - all of them - in parliament That's partly right, but really it's just semantics. The party selects MPs. The MPs present the direction and policies of the party to the constituency voters. If the voters support those views in sufficient numbers, then they become constituents of that MP. It is silly to say that an MP should represent the views of all constituents, as to do so, all constituents would have to hold the same views. As they clearly don't, that point is nonsensical. And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP. The best result for the Labour Party would be for those MPs who feel they cannot support him to resign from the party and stand as independents. There is no place for people who put their own aims above the will of the membership. We'll be a better and stronger party for a return to principles over politicking. why can you not see the difference between Labour Party members and Labour voters/constituents? I live in a strong Labour area and don't know one person who would vote Labour while Corbyn is in power or think he is anything other than a prick You are highly unreliable in terms of being able to representing your own views with any consistency, I'm not really concerned with what the 'people' you 'know' think. Labour has has had electoral success after electoral success after Corbyn, and that is all the proof required. Lol! You do stretch the English language to its limits in order to fit your ideology sometimes! " You are free to try to prove me wrong, of course.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The "job" of MMP's is to represent their constituents - all of them - in parliament That's partly right, but really it's just semantics. The party selects MPs. The MPs present the direction and policies of the party to the constituency voters. If the voters support those views in sufficient numbers, then they become constituents of that MP. It is silly to say that an MP should represent the views of all constituents, as to do so, all constituents would have to hold the same views. As they clearly don't, that point is nonsensical. And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP. The best result for the Labour Party would be for those MPs who feel they cannot support him to resign from the party and stand as independents. There is no place for people who put their own aims above the will of the membership. We'll be a better and stronger party for a return to principles over politicking." No - in a parliamentary democracy you vote for the person you feel best represents your constituency. Parties are only broad groupings of people who come together within parliament to vote together. They agree - not the party members - the broad framework of the party. There are questions about whether local parties should be able to deselect their sitting representatives but right now 80% of the representatives have starkly said that they don't want their "Leader". As a democrat - in the British sense of the word not the various misrepresentations that are being used - you should support them whether you agree with them or not. Personally, I think Jeremy's stance has lost the Labour Party the best chance in generations to vote in an electable leader on the left wing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP Where are getting this information from? I'm not aware of any poll of constituents in Labour areas showing this? Or are you confused and mean Labour party members (which is a different thing altogether) It's based on election results. Anyone who tries to measure political opinions through polls is a fool." No, you're just making it up. You have no idea whatsoever what the electorate think about Corbyn. He hasn't faced a general election yet. We've had the local elections where people were voting for their local councillors and that was a rather underwhelming result for Labour. When the best that could be said about it was 'It wasn't as bad as expected' then something is far wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's a war going in in Labour between the MP's and the party membership. It's being prtrayed as the political elite (MP's) against the working class members but surprisingly that isn't actually the case. A study of Labour party members has shown that those who signed up during and after the leadership election are overwhelmingly (78%) middle class. These new members are also the ones who are most supportive of Corbyn. According to the study the majority have never attended a party meeting and don't do any party work in terms of going door to door, telephone canvassing etc. The most that many of them have done is retweet something positive about Labour or sign an online petition. They've been dubbed 'clcktavists' rather than activists. All of this leads to wider questions. Does the new expanded party membership represent working class voters? Do MP's represent them? Your question is nonsensical. The membership don't 'represent' any group, they are the party. The job of MPs is to present the policies the membership favour to the electorate. I think you need to re-read what the actual thread is about. There's a little clue in the title 'Does the Labour Party represent the working class' I'm answering you, and what you wrote, not the title of the thread.
What I wrote was adressing the title. Ultimately who is best representing the views of working class voters, it is the new middle class members who've joined to support Corbyn or the MP's who were voted in by the electorate? Or is it neither?"Once again, that's a nonsensical question, as you fail to see that the members are the electorate. They aren't two different groups - one is a subset of the other. Where are you getting your statistics of the class make up of the new membership from, by the way? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP Where are getting this information from? I'm not aware of any poll of constituents in Labour areas showing this? Or are you confused and mean Labour party members (which is a different thing altogether) It's based on election results. Anyone who tries to measure political opinions through polls is a fool. No, you're just making it up. You have no idea whatsoever what the electorate think about Corbyn. He hasn't faced a general election yet. We've had the local elections where people were voting for their local councillors and that was a rather underwhelming result for Labour. When the best that could be said about it was 'It wasn't as bad as expected' then something is far wrong." The council elections were a good result for Labour, if you base it on the results themselves, rather than the media's mathematical failures in understanding the electoral possibilities. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP Where are getting this information from? I'm not aware of any poll of constituents in Labour areas showing this? Or are you confused and mean Labour party members (which is a different thing altogether) It's based on election results. Anyone who tries to measure political opinions through polls is a fool. No, you're just making it up. You have no idea whatsoever what the electorate think about Corbyn. He hasn't faced a general election yet. We've had the local elections where people were voting for their local councillors and that was a rather underwhelming result for Labour. When the best that could be said about it was 'It wasn't as bad as expected' then something is far wrong. The council elections were a good result for Labour, if you base it on the results themselves, rather than the media's mathematical failures in understanding the electoral possibilities." Or if you lower the bar enough... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Out local Momentum are all over social media crowing about how Jeremy got 76% of the "Youth Vote" to vote remain. They don't mention that only 34% bothered to vote "I guess they're taking the same approach as the people who think the YouGov poll claiming that only 50% of the membership would vote for Corbyn in a leadership election is significant - but fail to observe that poll was of 775 people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP Where are getting this information from? I'm not aware of any poll of constituents in Labour areas showing this? Or are you confused and mean Labour party members (which is a different thing altogether) It's based on election results. Anyone who tries to measure political opinions through polls is a fool. No, you're just making it up. You have no idea whatsoever what the electorate think about Corbyn. He hasn't faced a general election yet. We've had the local elections where people were voting for their local councillors and that was a rather underwhelming result for Labour. When the best that could be said about it was 'It wasn't as bad as expected' then something is far wrong. The council elections were a good result for Labour, if you base it on the results themselves, rather than the media's mathematical failures in understanding the electoral possibilities." pmsl | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP Where are getting this information from? I'm not aware of any poll of constituents in Labour areas showing this? Or are you confused and mean Labour party members (which is a different thing altogether) It's based on election results. Anyone who tries to measure political opinions through polls is a fool. No, you're just making it up. You have no idea whatsoever what the electorate think about Corbyn. He hasn't faced a general election yet. We've had the local elections where people were voting for their local councillors and that was a rather underwhelming result for Labour. When the best that could be said about it was 'It wasn't as bad as expected' then something is far wrong. The council elections were a good result for Labour, if you base it on the results themselves, rather than the media's mathematical failures in understanding the electoral possibilities. Or if you lower the bar enough..." Unlike some, I'm not in the bar lowering business. Liam Fox. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's a war going in in Labour between the MP's and the party membership. It's being prtrayed as the political elite (MP's) against the working class members but surprisingly that isn't actually the case. A study of Labour party members has shown that those who signed up during and after the leadership election are overwhelmingly (78%) middle class. These new members are also the ones who are most supportive of Corbyn. According to the study the majority have never attended a party meeting and don't do any party work in terms of going door to door, telephone canvassing etc. The most that many of them have done is retweet something positive about Labour or sign an online petition. They've been dubbed 'clcktavists' rather than activists. All of this leads to wider questions. Does the new expanded party membership represent working class voters? Do MP's represent them? Your question is nonsensical. The membership don't 'represent' any group, they are the party. The job of MPs is to present the policies the membership favour to the electorate. I think you need to re-read what the actual thread is about. There's a little clue in the title 'Does the Labour Party represent the working class' I'm answering you, and what you wrote, not the title of the thread.
What I wrote was adressing the title. Ultimately who is best representing the views of working class voters, it is the new middle class members who've joined to support Corbyn or the MP's who were voted in by the electorate? Or is it neither?
Once again, that's a nonsensical question, as you fail to see that the members are the electorate. They aren't two different groups - one is a subset of the other.
Where are you getting your statistics of the class make up of the new membership from, by the way?"Members are the electorate??? Lol, the members are a tiny percentage of the Labour voting electorate. As for the statistics, they're from a QMU study. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's a war going in in Labour between the MP's and the party membership. It's being prtrayed as the political elite (MP's) against the working class members but surprisingly that isn't actually the case. A study of Labour party members has shown that those who signed up during and after the leadership election are overwhelmingly (78%) middle class. These new members are also the ones who are most supportive of Corbyn. According to the study the majority have never attended a party meeting and don't do any party work in terms of going door to door, telephone canvassing etc. The most that many of them have done is retweet something positive about Labour or sign an online petition. They've been dubbed 'clcktavists' rather than activists. All of this leads to wider questions. Does the new expanded party membership represent working class voters? Do MP's represent them? Your question is nonsensical. The membership don't 'represent' any group, they are the party. The job of MPs is to present the policies the membership favour to the electorate. I think you need to re-read what the actual thread is about. There's a little clue in the title 'Does the Labour Party represent the working class' I'm answering you, and what you wrote, not the title of the thread.
What I wrote was adressing the title. Ultimately who is best representing the views of working class voters, it is the new middle class members who've joined to support Corbyn or the MP's who were voted in by the electorate? Or is it neither?
Once again, that's a nonsensical question, as you fail to see that the members are the electorate. They aren't two different groups - one is a subset of the other.
Where are you getting your statistics of the class make up of the new membership from, by the way?"so roughly what percentage are the members? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The "job" of MMP's is to represent their constituents - all of them - in parliament That's partly right, but really it's just semantics. The party selects MPs. The MPs present the direction and policies of the party to the constituency voters. If the voters support those views in sufficient numbers, then they become constituents of that MP. It is silly to say that an MP should represent the views of all constituents, as to do so, all constituents would have to hold the same views. As they clearly don't, that point is nonsensical. And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP. The best result for the Labour Party would be for those MPs who feel they cannot support him to resign from the party and stand as independents. There is no place for people who put their own aims above the will of the membership. We'll be a better and stronger party for a return to principles over politicking. No - in a parliamentary democracy you vote for the person you feel best represents your constituency. Parties are only broad groupings of people who come together within parliament to vote together. They agree - not the party members - the broad framework of the party. There are questions about whether local parties should be able to deselect their sitting representatives but right now 80% of the representatives have starkly said that they don't want their "Leader". As a democrat - in the British sense of the word not the various misrepresentations that are being used - you should support them whether you agree with them or not. Personally, I think Jeremy's stance has lost the Labour Party the best chance in generations to vote in an electable leader on the left wing." I couldn't disagree more, of course. Your first paragraph hasn't unpicked my point that you are replying to at all, by the way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's a war going in in Labour between the MP's and the party membership. It's being prtrayed as the political elite (MP's) against the working class members but surprisingly that isn't actually the case. A study of Labour party members has shown that those who signed up during and after the leadership election are overwhelmingly (78%) middle class. These new members are also the ones who are most supportive of Corbyn. According to the study the majority have never attended a party meeting and don't do any party work in terms of going door to door, telephone canvassing etc. The most that many of them have done is retweet something positive about Labour or sign an online petition. They've been dubbed 'clcktavists' rather than activists. All of this leads to wider questions. Does the new expanded party membership represent working class voters? Do MP's represent them? Your question is nonsensical. The membership don't 'represent' any group, they are the party. The job of MPs is to present the policies the membership favour to the electorate. I think you need to re-read what the actual thread is about. There's a little clue in the title 'Does the Labour Party represent the working class' I'm answering you, and what you wrote, not the title of the thread.
What I wrote was adressing the title. Ultimately who is best representing the views of working class voters, it is the new middle class members who've joined to support Corbyn or the MP's who were voted in by the electorate? Or is it neither?
Once again, that's a nonsensical question, as you fail to see that the members are the electorate. They aren't two different groups - one is a subset of the other.
Where are you getting your statistics of the class make up of the new membership from, by the way?
Members are the electorate??? Lol, the members are a tiny percentage of the Labour voting electorate.
As for the statistics, they're from a QMU study."Okay, so you think that the members are not in the electorate? Do you want to rethink that a bit? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The "job" of MMP's is to represent their constituents - all of them - in parliament That's partly right, but really it's just semantics. The party selects MPs. The MPs present the direction and policies of the party to the constituency voters. If the voters support those views in sufficient numbers, then they become constituents of that MP. It is silly to say that an MP should represent the views of all constituents, as to do so, all constituents would have to hold the same views. As they clearly don't, that point is nonsensical. And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP. The best result for the Labour Party would be for those MPs who feel they cannot support him to resign from the party and stand as independents. There is no place for people who put their own aims above the will of the membership. We'll be a better and stronger party for a return to principles over politicking. why can you not see the difference between Labour Party members and Labour voters/constituents? I live in a strong Labour area and don't know one person who would vote Labour while Corbyn is in power or think he is anything other than a prick You are highly unreliable in terms of being able to representing your own views with any consistency, I'm not really concerned with what the 'people' you 'know' think. Labour has has had electoral success after electoral success after Corbyn, and that is all the proof required. Lol! You do stretch the English language to its limits in order to fit your ideology sometimes! You are free to try to prove me wrong, of course. "Do you remember that time when you were wrong about Ken Livingstone and how he didn't mean what he said in his comments. Then he came out and clarified that he meant exactly what he said but you disappeared from the forums about that time? That's what I imagine will happen the day after Corbyn stands as leader in a general election - if he ever does. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's a war going in in Labour between the MP's and the party membership. It's being prtrayed as the political elite (MP's) against the working class members but surprisingly that isn't actually the case. A study of Labour party members has shown that those who signed up during and after the leadership election are overwhelmingly (78%) middle class. These new members are also the ones who are most supportive of Corbyn. According to the study the majority have never attended a party meeting and don't do any party work in terms of going door to door, telephone canvassing etc. The most that many of them have done is retweet something positive about Labour or sign an online petition. They've been dubbed 'clcktavists' rather than activists. All of this leads to wider questions. Does the new expanded party membership represent working class voters? Do MP's represent them? Your question is nonsensical. The membership don't 'represent' any group, they are the party. The job of MPs is to present the policies the membership favour to the electorate. I think you need to re-read what the actual thread is about. There's a little clue in the title 'Does the Labour Party represent the working class' I'm answering you, and what you wrote, not the title of the thread.
What I wrote was adressing the title. Ultimately who is best representing the views of working class voters, it is the new middle class members who've joined to support Corbyn or the MP's who were voted in by the electorate? Or is it neither?
Once again, that's a nonsensical question, as you fail to see that the members are the electorate. They aren't two different groups - one is a subset of the other.
Where are you getting your statistics of the class make up of the new membership from, by the way?
so roughly what percentage are the members?"Do you mean of the electorate? That's variable. But to give you an idea, the current membership represents around 5% of the total 2015 Labour vote. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The "job" of MMP's is to represent their constituents - all of them - in parliament That's partly right, but really it's just semantics. The party selects MPs. The MPs present the direction and policies of the party to the constituency voters. If the voters support those views in sufficient numbers, then they become constituents of that MP. It is silly to say that an MP should represent the views of all constituents, as to do so, all constituents would have to hold the same views. As they clearly don't, that point is nonsensical. And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP. The best result for the Labour Party would be for those MPs who feel they cannot support him to resign from the party and stand as independents. There is no place for people who put their own aims above the will of the membership. We'll be a better and stronger party for a return to principles over politicking. why can you not see the difference between Labour Party members and Labour voters/constituents? I live in a strong Labour area and don't know one person who would vote Labour while Corbyn is in power or think he is anything other than a prick You are highly unreliable in terms of being able to representing your own views with any consistency, I'm not really concerned with what the 'people' you 'know' think. Labour has has had electoral success after electoral success after Corbyn, and that is all the proof required. Lol! You do stretch the English language to its limits in order to fit your ideology sometimes! You are free to try to prove me wrong, of course.
Do you remember that time when you were wrong about Ken Livingstone and how he didn't mean what he said in his comments. Then he came out and clarified that he meant exactly what he said but you disappeared from the forums about that time?
That's what I imagine will happen the day after Corbyn stands as leader in a general election - if he ever does. "So, rather than admit you are wrong, you have chosen to construct an elaborate private fantasy that I might be basing my posting on the forums around what Ken Livingstone says? It's starting to become clear why you might seriously believe disgraced former minister Liam Fox is a competent person, at least! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The "job" of MMP's is to represent their constituents - all of them - in parliament That's partly right, but really it's just semantics. The party selects MPs. The MPs present the direction and policies of the party to the constituency voters. If the voters support those views in sufficient numbers, then they become constituents of that MP. It is silly to say that an MP should represent the views of all constituents, as to do so, all constituents would have to hold the same views. As they clearly don't, that point is nonsensical. And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP. The best result for the Labour Party would be for those MPs who feel they cannot support him to resign from the party and stand as independents. There is no place for people who put their own aims above the will of the membership. We'll be a better and stronger party for a return to principles over politicking. why can you not see the difference between Labour Party members and Labour voters/constituents? I live in a strong Labour area and don't know one person who would vote Labour while Corbyn is in power or think he is anything other than a prick You are highly unreliable in terms of being able to representing your own views with any consistency, I'm not really concerned with what the 'people' you 'know' think. Labour has has had electoral success after electoral success after Corbyn, and that is all the proof required. Lol! You do stretch the English language to its limits in order to fit your ideology sometimes! You are free to try to prove me wrong, of course.
Do you remember that time when you were wrong about Ken Livingstone and how he didn't mean what he said in his comments. Then he came out and clarified that he meant exactly what he said but you disappeared from the forums about that time?
That's what I imagine will happen the day after Corbyn stands as leader in a general election - if he ever does.
So, rather than admit you are wrong, you have chosen to construct an elaborate private fantasy that I might be basing my posting on the forums around what Ken Livingstone says?
It's starting to become clear why you might seriously believe disgraced former minister Liam Fox is a competent person, at least! "I'm just using it as an example of how reasoning with an ideologue is a pointless strategy. Of course if you really believe what you are saying then go place a bet on it right now because the odds are definately generous | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The "job" of MMP's is to represent their constituents - all of them - in parliament That's partly right, but really it's just semantics. The party selects MPs. The MPs present the direction and policies of the party to the constituency voters. If the voters support those views in sufficient numbers, then they become constituents of that MP. It is silly to say that an MP should represent the views of all constituents, as to do so, all constituents would have to hold the same views. As they clearly don't, that point is nonsensical. And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP. The best result for the Labour Party would be for those MPs who feel they cannot support him to resign from the party and stand as independents. There is no place for people who put their own aims above the will of the membership. We'll be a better and stronger party for a return to principles over politicking. why can you not see the difference between Labour Party members and Labour voters/constituents? I live in a strong Labour area and don't know one person who would vote Labour while Corbyn is in power or think he is anything other than a prick You are highly unreliable in terms of being able to representing your own views with any consistency, I'm not really concerned with what the 'people' you 'know' think. Labour has has had electoral success after electoral success after Corbyn, and that is all the proof required. Lol! You do stretch the English language to its limits in order to fit your ideology sometimes! You are free to try to prove me wrong, of course.
Do you remember that time when you were wrong about Ken Livingstone and how he didn't mean what he said in his comments. Then he came out and clarified that he meant exactly what he said but you disappeared from the forums about that time?
That's what I imagine will happen the day after Corbyn stands as leader in a general election - if he ever does.
So, rather than admit you are wrong, you have chosen to construct an elaborate private fantasy that I might be basing my posting on the forums around what Ken Livingstone says?
It's starting to become clear why you might seriously believe disgraced former minister Liam Fox is a competent person, at least!
I'm just using it as an example of how reasoning with an ideologue is a pointless strategy.
Of course if you really believe what you are saying then go place a bet on it right now because the odds are definately generous "The odds on what? Asking a bookies to accept a bet on 'what I'm saying' would result in confused looks all round. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's a war going in in Labour between the MP's and the party membership. It's being prtrayed as the political elite (MP's) against the working class members but surprisingly that isn't actually the case. A study of Labour party members has shown that those who signed up during and after the leadership election are overwhelmingly (78%) middle class. These new members are also the ones who are most supportive of Corbyn. According to the study the majority have never attended a party meeting and don't do any party work in terms of going door to door, telephone canvassing etc. The most that many of them have done is retweet something positive about Labour or sign an online petition. They've been dubbed 'clcktavists' rather than activists. All of this leads to wider questions. Does the new expanded party membership represent working class voters? Do MP's represent them? Your question is nonsensical. The membership don't 'represent' any group, they are the party. The job of MPs is to present the policies the membership favour to the electorate. I think you need to re-read what the actual thread is about. There's a little clue in the title 'Does the Labour Party represent the working class' I'm answering you, and what you wrote, not the title of the thread.
What I wrote was adressing the title. Ultimately who is best representing the views of working class voters, it is the new middle class members who've joined to support Corbyn or the MP's who were voted in by the electorate? Or is it neither?
Once again, that's a nonsensical question, as you fail to see that the members are the electorate. They aren't two different groups - one is a subset of the other.
Where are you getting your statistics of the class make up of the new membership from, by the way?
Members are the electorate??? Lol, the members are a tiny percentage of the Labour voting electorate.
As for the statistics, they're from a QMU study.
Okay, so you think that the members are not in the electorate? Do you want to rethink that a bit? "As I posted before, the members are a small % of the electorate. Your claim was that the electorate support Corbyn's leadership. You have no evidence of that whatsoever. As you've proven incapable of having a logical discussion on the subject and are resorting to posting nonsense I'm afraid I'm out. I'll leave it to others to continue pointing out were you're wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm just using it as an example of how reasoning with an ideologue is a pointless strategy. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The "job" of MMP's is to represent their constituents - all of them - in parliament That's partly right, but really it's just semantics. The party selects MPs. The MPs present the direction and policies of the party to the constituency voters. If the voters support those views in sufficient numbers, then they become constituents of that MP. It is silly to say that an MP should represent the views of all constituents, as to do so, all constituents would have to hold the same views. As they clearly don't, that point is nonsensical. And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP. The best result for the Labour Party would be for those MPs who feel they cannot support him to resign from the party and stand as independents. There is no place for people who put their own aims above the will of the membership. We'll be a better and stronger party for a return to principles over politicking. why can you not see the difference between Labour Party members and Labour voters/constituents? I live in a strong Labour area and don't know one person who would vote Labour while Corbyn is in power or think he is anything other than a prick You are highly unreliable in terms of being able to representing your own views with any consistency, I'm not really concerned with what the 'people' you 'know' think. Labour has has had electoral success after electoral success after Corbyn, and that is all the proof required. Lol! You do stretch the English language to its limits in order to fit your ideology sometimes! You are free to try to prove me wrong, of course.
Do you remember that time when you were wrong about Ken Livingstone and how he didn't mean what he said in his comments. Then he came out and clarified that he meant exactly what he said but you disappeared from the forums about that time?
That's what I imagine will happen the day after Corbyn stands as leader in a general election - if he ever does.
So, rather than admit you are wrong, you have chosen to construct an elaborate private fantasy that I might be basing my posting on the forums around what Ken Livingstone says?
It's starting to become clear why you might seriously believe disgraced former minister Liam Fox is a competent person, at least!
I'm just using it as an example of how reasoning with an ideologue is a pointless strategy.
Of course if you really believe what you are saying then go place a bet on it right now because the odds are definately generous
The odds on what? Asking a bookies to accept a bet on 'what I'm saying' would result in confused looks all round."Go place a bet that Corbyn will win a general election, when he does you'll be rolling in wonga | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's a war going in in Labour between the MP's and the party membership. It's being prtrayed as the political elite (MP's) against the working class members but surprisingly that isn't actually the case. A study of Labour party members has shown that those who signed up during and after the leadership election are overwhelmingly (78%) middle class. These new members are also the ones who are most supportive of Corbyn. According to the study the majority have never attended a party meeting and don't do any party work in terms of going door to door, telephone canvassing etc. The most that many of them have done is retweet something positive about Labour or sign an online petition. They've been dubbed 'clcktavists' rather than activists. All of this leads to wider questions. Does the new expanded party membership represent working class voters? Do MP's represent them? Your question is nonsensical. The membership don't 'represent' any group, they are the party. The job of MPs is to present the policies the membership favour to the electorate. I think you need to re-read what the actual thread is about. There's a little clue in the title 'Does the Labour Party represent the working class' I'm answering you, and what you wrote, not the title of the thread.
What I wrote was adressing the title. Ultimately who is best representing the views of working class voters, it is the new middle class members who've joined to support Corbyn or the MP's who were voted in by the electorate? Or is it neither?
Once again, that's a nonsensical question, as you fail to see that the members are the electorate. They aren't two different groups - one is a subset of the other.
Where are you getting your statistics of the class make up of the new membership from, by the way?
Members are the electorate??? Lol, the members are a tiny percentage of the Labour voting electorate.
As for the statistics, they're from a QMU study.
Okay, so you think that the members are not in the electorate? Do you want to rethink that a bit?
As I posted before, the members are a small % of the electorate. Your claim was that the electorate support Corbyn's leadership. You have no evidence of that whatsoever.
As you've proven incapable of having a logical discussion on the subject and are resorting to posting nonsense I'm afraid I'm out. I'll leave it to others to continue pointing out were you're wrong. "You've even misunderstood your own words! That takes some doing. On that basis, you are probably better off retiring, yes. And rather than nothing, I offered as proof Labour's electoral results under Corbyn's leadership. If you have proof that he isn't popular with the electorate, actual proof, then I'm all ears. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The "job" of MMP's is to represent their constituents - all of them - in parliament That's partly right, but really it's just semantics. The party selects MPs. The MPs present the direction and policies of the party to the constituency voters. If the voters support those views in sufficient numbers, then they become constituents of that MP. It is silly to say that an MP should represent the views of all constituents, as to do so, all constituents would have to hold the same views. As they clearly don't, that point is nonsensical. And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP. The best result for the Labour Party would be for those MPs who feel they cannot support him to resign from the party and stand as independents. There is no place for people who put their own aims above the will of the membership. We'll be a better and stronger party for a return to principles over politicking. why can you not see the difference between Labour Party members and Labour voters/constituents? I live in a strong Labour area and don't know one person who would vote Labour while Corbyn is in power or think he is anything other than a prick You are highly unreliable in terms of being able to representing your own views with any consistency, I'm not really concerned with what the 'people' you 'know' think. Labour has has had electoral success after electoral success after Corbyn, and that is all the proof required. Lol! You do stretch the English language to its limits in order to fit your ideology sometimes! You are free to try to prove me wrong, of course.
Do you remember that time when you were wrong about Ken Livingstone and how he didn't mean what he said in his comments. Then he came out and clarified that he meant exactly what he said but you disappeared from the forums about that time?
That's what I imagine will happen the day after Corbyn stands as leader in a general election - if he ever does.
So, rather than admit you are wrong, you have chosen to construct an elaborate private fantasy that I might be basing my posting on the forums around what Ken Livingstone says?
It's starting to become clear why you might seriously believe disgraced former minister Liam Fox is a competent person, at least!
I'm just using it as an example of how reasoning with an ideologue is a pointless strategy.
Of course if you really believe what you are saying then go place a bet on it right now because the odds are definately generous
The odds on what? Asking a bookies to accept a bet on 'what I'm saying' would result in confused looks all round.
Go place a bet that Corbyn will win a general election, when he does you'll be rolling in wonga "Okay! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's a war going in in Labour between the MP's and the party membership. It's being prtrayed as the political elite (MP's) against the working class members but surprisingly that isn't actually the case. A study of Labour party members has shown that those who signed up during and after the leadership election are overwhelmingly (78%) middle class. These new members are also the ones who are most supportive of Corbyn. According to the study the majority have never attended a party meeting and don't do any party work in terms of going door to door, telephone canvassing etc. The most that many of them have done is retweet something positive about Labour or sign an online petition. They've been dubbed 'clcktavists' rather than activists. All of this leads to wider questions. Does the new expanded party membership represent working class voters? Do MP's represent them? Your question is nonsensical. The membership don't 'represent' any group, they are the party. The job of MPs is to present the policies the membership favour to the electorate. I think you need to re-read what the actual thread is about. There's a little clue in the title 'Does the Labour Party represent the working class' I'm answering you, and what you wrote, not the title of the thread.
What I wrote was adressing the title. Ultimately who is best representing the views of working class voters, it is the new middle class members who've joined to support Corbyn or the MP's who were voted in by the electorate? Or is it neither?
Once again, that's a nonsensical question, as you fail to see that the members are the electorate. They aren't two different groups - one is a subset of the other.
Where are you getting your statistics of the class make up of the new membership from, by the way?
so roughly what percentage are the members?
Do you mean of the electorate?
That's variable. But to give you an idea, the current membership represents around 5% of the total 2015 Labour vote."pretty insignificant then | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The "job" of MMP's is to represent their constituents - all of them - in parliament That's partly right, but really it's just semantics. The party selects MPs. The MPs present the direction and policies of the party to the constituency voters. If the voters support those views in sufficient numbers, then they become constituents of that MP. It is silly to say that an MP should represent the views of all constituents, as to do so, all constituents would have to hold the same views. As they clearly don't, that point is nonsensical. And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP. The best result for the Labour Party would be for those MPs who feel they cannot support him to resign from the party and stand as independents. There is no place for people who put their own aims above the will of the membership. We'll be a better and stronger party for a return to principles over politicking. why can you not see the difference between Labour Party members and Labour voters/constituents? I live in a strong Labour area and don't know one person who would vote Labour while Corbyn is in power or think he is anything other than a prick You are highly unreliable in terms of being able to representing your own views with any consistency, I'm not really concerned with what the 'people' you 'know' think. Labour has has had electoral success after electoral success after Corbyn, and that is all the proof required. Lol! You do stretch the English language to its limits in order to fit your ideology sometimes! You are free to try to prove me wrong, of course.
Do you remember that time when you were wrong about Ken Livingstone and how he didn't mean what he said in his comments. Then he came out and clarified that he meant exactly what he said but you disappeared from the forums about that time?
That's what I imagine will happen the day after Corbyn stands as leader in a general election - if he ever does.
So, rather than admit you are wrong, you have chosen to construct an elaborate private fantasy that I might be basing my posting on the forums around what Ken Livingstone says?
It's starting to become clear why you might seriously believe disgraced former minister Liam Fox is a competent person, at least!
I'm just using it as an example of how reasoning with an ideologue is a pointless strategy.
Of course if you really believe what you are saying then go place a bet on it right now because the odds are definately generous
The odds on what? Asking a bookies to accept a bet on 'what I'm saying' would result in confused looks all round.
Go place a bet that Corbyn will win a general election, when he does you'll be rolling in wonga
Okay! "Interviewer to Ed Milliband: "do you want to be prime minster?" Ed Milliband: "hell yeah" Interviewer to Jeremy Corbyn: "do you actually want to be prime minister?" Jeremy Corbyn: "I want to change the labour party" Spot the difference... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's a war going in in Labour between the MP's and the party membership. It's being prtrayed as the political elite (MP's) against the working class members but surprisingly that isn't actually the case. A study of Labour party members has shown that those who signed up during and after the leadership election are overwhelmingly (78%) middle class. These new members are also the ones who are most supportive of Corbyn. According to the study the majority have never attended a party meeting and don't do any party work in terms of going door to door, telephone canvassing etc. The most that many of them have done is retweet something positive about Labour or sign an online petition. They've been dubbed 'clcktavists' rather than activists. All of this leads to wider questions. Does the new expanded party membership represent working class voters? Do MP's represent them? Your question is nonsensical. The membership don't 'represent' any group, they are the party. The job of MPs is to present the policies the membership favour to the electorate. I think you need to re-read what the actual thread is about. There's a little clue in the title 'Does the Labour Party represent the working class' I'm answering you, and what you wrote, not the title of the thread.
What I wrote was adressing the title. Ultimately who is best representing the views of working class voters, it is the new middle class members who've joined to support Corbyn or the MP's who were voted in by the electorate? Or is it neither?
Once again, that's a nonsensical question, as you fail to see that the members are the electorate. They aren't two different groups - one is a subset of the other.
Where are you getting your statistics of the class make up of the new membership from, by the way?
so roughly what percentage are the members?
Do you mean of the electorate?
That's variable. But to give you an idea, the current membership represents around 5% of the total 2015 Labour vote.
pretty insignificant then"Compared to what? Every other political party in this country dreams of a membership level that high. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's a war going in in Labour between the MP's and the party membership. It's being prtrayed as the political elite (MP's) against the working class members but surprisingly that isn't actually the case. A study of Labour party members has shown that those who signed up during and after the leadership election are overwhelmingly (78%) middle class. These new members are also the ones who are most supportive of Corbyn. According to the study the majority have never attended a party meeting and don't do any party work in terms of going door to door, telephone canvassing etc. The most that many of them have done is retweet something positive about Labour or sign an online petition. They've been dubbed 'clcktavists' rather than activists. All of this leads to wider questions. Does the new expanded party membership represent working class voters? Do MP's represent them? Your question is nonsensical. The membership don't 'represent' any group, they are the party. The job of MPs is to present the policies the membership favour to the electorate. I think you need to re-read what the actual thread is about. There's a little clue in the title 'Does the Labour Party represent the working class' I'm answering you, and what you wrote, not the title of the thread.
What I wrote was adressing the title. Ultimately who is best representing the views of working class voters, it is the new middle class members who've joined to support Corbyn or the MP's who were voted in by the electorate? Or is it neither?
Once again, that's a nonsensical question, as you fail to see that the members are the electorate. They aren't two different groups - one is a subset of the other.
Where are you getting your statistics of the class make up of the new membership from, by the way?
so roughly what percentage are the members?
Do you mean of the electorate?
That's variable. But to give you an idea, the current membership represents around 5% of the total 2015 Labour vote.
pretty insignificant then
Compared to what?
Every other political party in this country dreams of a membership level that high. "Every other political party dreams of winning as many elections as the Tories have | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's a war going in in Labour between the MP's and the party membership. It's being prtrayed as the political elite (MP's) against the working class members but surprisingly that isn't actually the case. A study of Labour party members has shown that those who signed up during and after the leadership election are overwhelmingly (78%) middle class. These new members are also the ones who are most supportive of Corbyn. According to the study the majority have never attended a party meeting and don't do any party work in terms of going door to door, telephone canvassing etc. The most that many of them have done is retweet something positive about Labour or sign an online petition. They've been dubbed 'clcktavists' rather than activists. All of this leads to wider questions. Does the new expanded party membership represent working class voters? Do MP's represent them? Your question is nonsensical. The membership don't 'represent' any group, they are the party. The job of MPs is to present the policies the membership favour to the electorate. I think you need to re-read what the actual thread is about. There's a little clue in the title 'Does the Labour Party represent the working class' I'm answering you, and what you wrote, not the title of the thread.
What I wrote was adressing the title. Ultimately who is best representing the views of working class voters, it is the new middle class members who've joined to support Corbyn or the MP's who were voted in by the electorate? Or is it neither?
Once again, that's a nonsensical question, as you fail to see that the members are the electorate. They aren't two different groups - one is a subset of the other.
Where are you getting your statistics of the class make up of the new membership from, by the way?
so roughly what percentage are the members?
Do you mean of the electorate?
That's variable. But to give you an idea, the current membership represents around 5% of the total 2015 Labour vote.
pretty insignificant then
Compared to what?
Every other political party in this country dreams of a membership level that high.
Every other political party dreams of winning as many elections as the Tories have "Based on their rapidly declining membership, it's not a record they are going to be keeping in perpetuity!
Got any other irrelevant observations to make? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" That's variable. But to give you an idea, the current membership represents around 5% of the total 2015 Labour vote. pretty insignificant then Compared to what? Every other political party in this country dreams of a membership level that high.
Every other political party dreams of winning as many elections as the Tories have
Based on their rapidly declining membership, it's not a record they are going to be keeping in perpetuity!
Got any other irrelevant observations to make? "No, but I have a question; how do you reconcile the strength of your beliefs with the general populations widespread rejection of them? In other words do you think the masses are too stupid to understand what's really going on you think we're in a state of change and they are gradually coming round / other? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst it's evisent that many working class voters voted leave, and many have also looked to Ukip at previous elections, there is no telling how things will go now. The Labour Party is currently in disarray but will come out fighting. The "Working class" has never voted as a bloc anyway, and is more diverse and divided than ever at present - but one thing I believe passionately is that Ukip don't have the answers for any class of people." Aye, my family had this debate as they both started as traditional working class, mixed european background in post war britain, mostly in mining and steel towns. Both my parents worked hard to pull themselves up in the NHS, and even though I don't feel working class in the traditional sense, I know they are and have been. And my parents know that working class is now big and broad in what it comes under. Both voted leave, yet neither would ever vote UKIP in a general election as they have voiced. Both currently believe the Corbyn is Labour's best bet unless they come up with another non-blairite who was eurosceptic or vote leave. As it stands both would vote for Jeremy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst it's evisent that many working class voters voted leave, and many have also looked to Ukip at previous elections, there is no telling how things will go now. The Labour Party is currently in disarray but will come out fighting. The "Working class" has never voted as a bloc anyway, and is more diverse and divided than ever at present - but one thing I believe passionately is that Ukip don't have the answers for any class of people. Aye, my family had this debate as they both started as traditional working class, mixed european background in post war britain, mostly in mining and steel towns. Both my parents worked hard to pull themselves up in the NHS, and even though I don't feel working class in the traditional sense, I know they are and have been. And my parents know that working class is now big and broad in what it comes under. Both voted leave, yet neither would ever vote UKIP in a general election as they have voiced. Both currently believe the Corbyn is Labour's best bet unless they come up with another non-blairite who was eurosceptic or vote leave. As it stands both would vote for Jeremy." It's funny how labour supporters are the only ones who think being a Blairite is a bad thing!! How could it possibly harm your election chances to follow in the Philosophy of your most successful leader ever? You understand that he's the only Labour leader to ever win 3 elections right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And we are currently facing a situation in the Labour Party where a large number of MPs are ignoring the views of their constituents which is overwhelmingly to support Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, in favour of supporting the views of colleagues in the PLP Has come to the conclusion the polls tend to support the elite and seek to guide/steer the weak minded. Where are getting this information from? I'm not aware of any poll of constituents in Labour areas showing this? Or are you confused and mean Labour party members (which is a different thing altogether) It's based on election results. Anyone who tries to measure political opinions through polls is a fool." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst it's evisent that many working class voters voted leave, and many have also looked to Ukip at previous elections, there is no telling how things will go now. The Labour Party is currently in disarray but will come out fighting. The "Working class" has never voted as a bloc anyway, and is more diverse and divided than ever at present - but one thing I believe passionately is that Ukip don't have the answers for any class of people. Aye, my family had this debate as they both started as traditional working class, mixed european background in post war britain, mostly in mining and steel towns. Both my parents worked hard to pull themselves up in the NHS, and even though I don't feel working class in the traditional sense, I know they are and have been. And my parents know that working class is now big and broad in what it comes under. Both voted leave, yet neither would ever vote UKIP in a general election as they have voiced. Both currently believe the Corbyn is Labour's best bet unless they come up with another non-blairite who was eurosceptic or vote leave. As it stands both would vote for Jeremy. It's funny how labour supporters are the only ones who think being a Blairite is a bad thing!! How could it possibly harm your election chances to follow in the Philosophy of your most successful leader ever? You understand that he's the only Labour leader to ever win 3 elections right? " Personally I don't mind many Blairites, I mean Blair cocked up a few times but overall he was effective - and lets face it, if you're an effective and good politician you are either loved in one area of the electorate, or people work out that effectiveness as a leader/niche area beats how much you adore somebody. My issue with the Blairites is that they do seem distant from the people they are meant to represent in areas which seem to have been forgotten in a modernising country, if they have a plan to bring those voters back into voting, or to stop them from drifting to UKIP, then fair enough, I'd love to read the manifesto and I'd vote accordingly. The problem is, they don't seem to have that plan. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst it's evisent that many working class voters voted leave, and many have also looked to Ukip at previous elections, there is no telling how things will go now. The Labour Party is currently in disarray but will come out fighting. The "Working class" has never voted as a bloc anyway, and is more diverse and divided than ever at present - but one thing I believe passionately is that Ukip don't have the answers for any class of people. Aye, my family had this debate as they both started as traditional working class, mixed european background in post war britain, mostly in mining and steel towns. Both my parents worked hard to pull themselves up in the NHS, and even though I don't feel working class in the traditional sense, I know they are and have been. And my parents know that working class is now big and broad in what it comes under. Both voted leave, yet neither would ever vote UKIP in a general election as they have voiced. Both currently believe the Corbyn is Labour's best bet unless they come up with another non-blairite who was eurosceptic or vote leave. As it stands both would vote for Jeremy. It's funny how labour supporters are the only ones who think being a Blairite is a bad thing!! How could it possibly harm your election chances to follow in the Philosophy of your most successful leader ever? You understand that he's the only Labour leader to ever win 3 elections right? Personally I don't mind many Blairites, I mean Blair cocked up a few times but overall he was effective - and lets face it, if you're an effective and good politician you are either loved in one area of the electorate, or people work out that effectiveness as a leader/niche area beats how much you adore somebody. My issue with the Blairites is that they do seem distant from the people they are meant to represent in areas which seem to have been forgotten in a modernising country, if they have a plan to bring those voters back into voting, or to stop them from drifting to UKIP, then fair enough, I'd love to read the manifesto and I'd vote accordingly. The problem is, they don't seem to have that plan. " You make a fair point but I don't see serious solutions from the anti-blairites either. If we may speak plainly, we have a bunch of people whose skills have been made obsolete by technology and they are either unemployed or under employed. Now that's a very real problem but all we hear from the looney left is, let's just force employers to pay them more which doesn't address the underlying producivity and skills issue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we may speak plainly, we have a bunch of people whose skills have been made obsolete by technology and they are either unemployed or under employed. Now that's a very real problem but all we hear from the looney left is, let's just force employers to pay them more which doesn't address the underlying producivity and skills issue. " I would take issue with your assertion that we have a bunch of people whose skills have been made obsolete by technology. Apart from typewriter mechanics I would be hard put to name a skill that has been truly made obsolete by technology. However many skills have been rendered useless by the financial industry buying up the industries that used those skills and exporting them China for a quick buck, leading to the Chinese economy growing at a rate of 10% for so many years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
