So what we have learnt here is that you have no defence for calling people who are a) on benefits and b) members of political parties “abnormal” and therefore you wish to come back at me with lines such as
This makes a mockery of the entire concept of this website. This website is designed for political discussion and opinion. What you have displayed here is that you are incapable of continuing with this discussion in a political way where we hear each other’s opinions and you have just resorted to insults as you know you are wrong. (This is exactly what Corbyn wanted to change in politics, especially in PMQs, because this dismissal through insulting prevents progression).
Were you never told that swearing shows a lack of vocabulary. Not to mention it lowers the tone and takes away from what could be a real debate about real issues.
They’ll be no need to pick up pieces, the people will be sick to death by then of Tory party cuts and I predict labour will make improvements in 2020. The Tory party on the other hand may stand just as divided come the end of the year as labour were no matter how the EU referendum goes as half the party will not be happy with the outcome.
Oh good, so in short utter bollocks… I cant find historical prices either however I struggle to believe that they were ever £60… I also cant find any evidence to support the idea that since 2005 the fee has been reduced.
I have looked and if you bothered to read my previous post I included them, I was not trying to make a point on the £1 boom, more point out that while your bouncing around a £60 Tory fee, that the Labour £1 fee is restricted to certain small groups, not everyone and shouldnt be treated as such. I also asked to compare apples with apples…
I accept that the £1 students had a role to play in increasing Labour membership (Trade Unionists pay aprox £2 a month = £24 a year) However according to this Article Labour memeber ship increase over 2015 is disproportionately wealthy inner-city home owners who would pay the £3.92 a month rate.
However during the leadership election Harriet Harman implemented a one off voter fee of £3 to try and get the wider public involved. Most people who voted for Corbyn were using this which gave them the same voting power as anybody in the party irrespective of their membership fee.
That depends on whether or not you follow a trustee or delegate model of how an MP should act. For most of recent history, MPs have been expected to act in accord with the trustee model for about a century now, and it’s also the model I personally prefer. The role of MPs, the Opposition, and the Government, is to take a mandate that they have received from their voters and to act broadly in line with the views of their voters, but still remain autonomous. They are not their to express every single view of their electorate, but rather to govern. I wouldn’t mind if Corbyn expressing people’s views actually helped him to scrutinise the government’s legislation in an effective manner, but that simply hasn’t happened. The Tories are only having changes of policy as a result of internal debate, not external opposition.
In a majority parliament this always has to be the case. The opposition may be effective in criticising policy but the government does not have to listen to the opposition as long as they have a strong grip over their own party: any change has to be the result of internal debate.
Unless Corbyn can provide a clear and coherent alternative to the Tories economic policy or there’s a huge financial crisis which makes the Tories seem incompetent there is an incredibly slim chance Labour will win. We aren’t trusted on the economy and that is the number one priority for any electorate. The Tories are divided, yes, but a divided Tory party is still more trusted to deal with the economy than a united Labour party under Corbyn and it is going to take serious work to change that.
Not necessarily. Internal debate can be spurned into motion via external forces, which is the point of an opposition. Take the example of the vote on whether or not to engage in airstrikes in Syria in the last parliament. Sure, the Conservatives were in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, but if it wasn’t for Miliband’s excellent usage of the opposition benches I doubt Cameron’s motion would have been struck down. It’s not as though this was an issue where the entire Labour Party was unified.
Personal attacks say more about you and show that you’re losing the debate. Implying that people are Stalinist’s, calling them “Irrelevant” and “Outdated” Just shows that your argument has no substance…shame that I found myself agreeing with you in a different discussion earlier. Your bigotry goes against everything that a free debate stands for.
No, the horrendous numbers of the Labour Party today are down to the fact that the Labour Party itself is horrendous. Their policies are horrendous, their leaders are dreadful and their history (especially McDonnell) is even more dreadful.
Don’t pretend that Labour would be anywhere near 35% if only the PLP was behind Corbyn. I know people who have switched to Lib Dem / UKIP >SINCE< the 2015 GE and would never bother to switch back to Corbyn. That’s before the ‘coup’.
No that’s not how it works. The reason that Labour took the lead is because the Conservatives had a budget. That’s what happens every time the opposing time has a budget in parliament. It’s what has happened over the past century.
Yes, as I’ve said, you’re referring to the polls after 1982. The website you’ve linked contains polls from 1983 onwards, I’ve explained why this happened, you shouldn’t cherry-pick information in such a way. Coming onto your next point, People don’t vote for divided parties…that’s a fact…when you lose a general election, chances are you have a vast electoral mountain to climb, Labour was beginning to close the Conservative lead and was hugely set back by the coup. But you seem to be relying on polls to show the popularity of a party, while they’re useful, they clearly don’t predict election results do they? Just look at your own photos showing that Labour were ahead by a huge margin in 2012. I.e. just because Labour is behind now…doesn’t mean they cant win in 2020.