|
Post by MrBenn on Sept 11, 2024 22:38:07 GMT
.. . Stop trying to goad me. I'm not. I know what I observed and I know the obvious conclusion and have presented it as such. This is a debate forum, you should expect to see some views and facts you don't like. But the anti personnel comments you have posted are not constructive. And I refuted it. Because your obvious conclusion is simplistic and anything but. And I said why. I am not a simpleton. But we are never going to get anywhere. We never do when we disagree. You and I seem to wind each other up and generate more heat than light. And everyone else shoots off and leaves us to it. You seem to have a mannerism when we disagree that goads me even though I acknowledge that that is not your intent. And I have reflected upon both why that might be and upon the nature of my own responses to you because there is obviously an ongoing problem in our personal dynamic. I think there is a subtext to our exchanges that each of us is convinced the other is being stupid or saying something stupid, and we each pick up that vibe from each other. There is little mutual respect for each other when we disagree because of this. Zany and I disagree sometimes in heated ways but even when we do I think the majority of the time we retain mutual respect for each other, often respecting where each other is coming from even when we disagree. Not always, I sometimes let myself down but am usually ready to apologise later That seems to be lacking between us unless we are on the same side of the argument as with Grenfell. So for now I suggest we agree to differ. It might in any case be time for me to depart for a few days because I need to focus my energies on real life stuff going on. I don't have much energy for further discord here right now. So perhaps we can both reflect a little before we go hammer and tongs at each other again I think I could do with a temporary self banning button for three days every now and again, lol. I suffer from an inability to walk away when I need to, like a scratch I have to itch. I struggle with that. And I need to walk away now for a bit. The best way I can be helped right now is for no one to say anything to me for a couple of days so there is no scratch to itch. When I come back feel free to resume this or any other debate where we left off if you wish. And apologies if I had behaved unreasonably.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,596
|
Post by Steve on Sept 11, 2024 22:44:25 GMT
. . So for now I suggest we agree to differ. . . On this point definitely But please continue to challenge any post I make you feel is wrong. Such is the essence of debate.
|
|
borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Sept 12, 2024 8:12:46 GMT
No apology for posting awkward truths. If Corbyn felt 'New Labour' wasn't for him they why did he stand 4 times under a new Labour manifesto only to vote against them? Because he remained true to what Labour had always been before the coming of New Labour. And New Labour was never the entire Labour party. If it were Corbyn would never have become leader for a time. New Labour themselves were the hijackers. No apology for posting awkward truths. Or do you think anyone who disagrees with Blairism should be witch hunted out of the party? It's obvious they really do think that, they think anyone who doesn't 100% believe in the party's manifesto and stands on it should be hunted out the party, without realising that would equally apply to all the right-wing Labour MPs who stood on Corbyn's election manifesto
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,596
|
Post by Steve on Sept 12, 2024 9:02:46 GMT
Not at all.
But if your disbelief in a manifesto leads you to vote over 400 times against the party that won with it then it does suggest you should never have stood using it
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 12, 2024 9:08:14 GMT
Not at all. But if your disbelief in a manifesto leads you to vote over 400 times against the party that won with it then it does suggest you should never have stood using it Its a wonder Corbyn didn't split from New Labour and form The Labour Party. If he believed he represented the majority of people in the country.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,596
|
Post by Steve on Sept 12, 2024 9:12:07 GMT
Not at all. But if your disbelief in a manifesto leads you to vote over 400 times against the party that won with it then it does suggest you should never have stood using it Its a wonder Corbyn didn't split from New Labour and form The Labour Party. If he believed he represented the majority of people in the country. On what we saw in July he would likely have won Islington over and over had he done so.
|
|
|
Post by MrBenn on Sept 12, 2024 10:27:00 GMT
Not at all. But if your disbelief in a manifesto leads you to vote over 400 times against the party that won with it then it does suggest you should never have stood using it Its a wonder Corbyn didn't split from New Labour and form The Labour Party. If he believed he represented the majority of people in the country. He believed with very good reason that he represented the majority of the party members and of the people in his own constituency. Which is all that really matters under our electoral system. And I do not recall him claiming to represent the majority of the people any more than any other politician ever does. For the many not the few is the closest he came to it. In whatever misguided fashion you might think he went about it, in his own mind I am pretty sure he saw. himself as a champion of the poor, the weak, the downtrodden, the exploited, and the oppressed everywhere, albeit withing the framework if an ideological rigidity that coloured a lot of his perceptions. I suspect that subconsciously at least he still perceived a class struggle in almost Victorian dimensions. He was a well meaning, essentially honest but highly flawed man. A good constituency MP who would fight for any constituent who was getting a shitty deal from those in authority with passion and commitment, but not really best suited for a leadership role. And he saw himself as a staunch Labour man, and when he joined he was a typical Labour party member. In time it was the party who moved away from him, not the other way round, but he saw no reason to accept this as permanent. Thinking he should have left because he disagreed with the majority of Labour MPS is nonsense as an argument, because the same argument implies that most of the centrists should have left when he was leader. I wish a few more of them had. Anyway, I have broken my own decision to stay away for a few days because have woken in a calmer frame of mind this morning but am not hanging around for long.
|
|
|
Post by MrBenn on Sept 12, 2024 10:33:04 GMT
Not at all. But if your disbelief in a manifesto leads you to vote over 400 times against the party that won with it then it does suggest you should never have stood using it So putting honesty and integrity above toeing the party line makes you unfit for the Labour party? That itself speaks volumes about the sort of party you want Labour to be now your own preferred people are in charge. I bet you didnt think that when Corbyn was in charge. Felling better today, hence my decision to respond, but am rather busy so cannot hang around.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,596
|
Post by Steve on Sept 12, 2024 12:00:24 GMT
No because I didn't say it makes him unfit to be a member of the Labour party. But if he wants to be a Labour MP then . . . .
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 12, 2024 16:05:18 GMT
Its a wonder Corbyn didn't split from New Labour and form The Labour Party. If he believed he represented the majority of people in the country. He believed with very good reason that he represented the majority of the party members and of the people in his own constituency. Which is all that really matters under our electoral system. And I do not recall him claiming to represent the majority of the people any more than any other politician ever does. For the many not the few is the closest he came to it. In whatever misguided fashion you might think he went about it, in his own mind I am pretty sure he saw. himself as a champion of the poor, the weak, the downtrodden, the exploited, and the oppressed everywhere, albeit withing the framework if an ideological rigidity that coloured a lot of his perceptions. I suspect that subconsciously at least he still perceived a class struggle in almost Victorian dimensions. He was a well meaning, essentially honest but highly flawed man. A good constituency MP who would fight for any constituent who was getting a shitty deal from those in authority with passion and commitment, but not really best suited for a leadership role. And he saw himself as a staunch Labour man, and when he joined he was a typical Labour party member. In time it was the party who moved away from him, not the other way round, but he saw no reason to accept this as permanent. Thinking he should have left because he disagreed with the majority of Labour MPS is nonsense as an argument, because the same argument implies that most of the centrists should have left when he was leader. I wish a few more of them had. Anyway, I have broken my own decision to stay away for a few days because have woken in a calmer frame of mind this morning but am not hanging around for long. I'm absolutely certain Corbyn really does care for the poor and oppressed, the problem he inherited was a belief among the voting public that socialism doesn't work. It ought to work but flawed humans wreck it each time. Always we think we deserve more than we get however much more that is. Doesn't matter if we're a billionaire or a factory worker, we all believe we deserve money money for less effort. Its not greed as such, because its a genuine belief, but it destroys any chance socialism has of working. This is important to understand because it means Labour lead by people like Corbyn will never get elected, the only chance you have of doing any good is to vote for centre left party. That people believe will care for the downtrodden but not allow that human greed to bankrupt the country. On to the point about Corbyn leading the "Labour Party" against the "New Labour Party" You have stated several times that Corbyn did better than Starmer in vote numbers, surely this indicates that were he to form his own party from well known labour members with a party name recognisable by the public then he would get elected. If Starmer has lied to majority of labour members and is not offering what they want, surely they would leave in droves to join Corbyn's Labour party and take the majority of voters with them? I reality I do not believe any of that would happen, but it is a logical conclusion to your claims.
|
|
borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Sept 12, 2024 16:08:08 GMT
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,596
|
Post by Steve on Sept 12, 2024 16:51:16 GMT
I don't know the fact of the matter on that article but on the principle, yes if an official of the party then deliberately works for its electoral detriment then yes they have to be shown the door.
|
|
|
Post by MrBenn on Sept 12, 2024 21:01:01 GMT
He believed with very good reason that he represented the majority of the party members and of the people in his own constituency. Which is all that really matters under our electoral system. And I do not recall him claiming to represent the majority of the people any more than any other politician ever does. For the many not the few is the closest he came to it. In whatever misguided fashion you might think he went about it, in his own mind I am pretty sure he saw. himself as a champion of the poor, the weak, the downtrodden, the exploited, and the oppressed everywhere, albeit withing the framework if an ideological rigidity that coloured a lot of his perceptions. I suspect that subconsciously at least he still perceived a class struggle in almost Victorian dimensions. He was a well meaning, essentially honest but highly flawed man. A good constituency MP who would fight for any constituent who was getting a shitty deal from those in authority with passion and commitment, but not really best suited for a leadership role. And he saw himself as a staunch Labour man, and when he joined he was a typical Labour party member. In time it was the party who moved away from him, not the other way round, but he saw no reason to accept this as permanent. Thinking he should have left because he disagreed with the majority of Labour MPS is nonsense as an argument, because the same argument implies that most of the centrists should have left when he was leader. I wish a few more of them had. Anyway, I have broken my own decision to stay away for a few days because have woken in a calmer frame of mind this morning but am not hanging around for long. I'm absolutely certain Corbyn really does care for the poor and oppressed, the problem he inherited was a belief among the voting public that socialism doesn't work. It ought to work but flawed humans wreck it each time. Always we think we deserve more than we get however much more that is. Doesn't matter if we're a billionaire or a factory worker, we all believe we deserve money money for less effort. Its not greed as such, because its a genuine belief, but it destroys any chance socialism has of working. This is important to understand because it means Labour lead by people like Corbyn will never get elected, the only chance you have of doing any good is to vote for centre left party. That people believe will care for the downtrodden but not allow that human greed to bankrupt the country. On to the point about Corbyn leading the "Labour Party" against the "New Labour Party" You have stated several times that Corbyn did better than Starmer in vote numbers, surely this indicates that were he to form his own party from well known labour members with a party name recognisable by the public then he would get elected.If Starmer has lied to majority of labour members and is not offering what they want, surely they would leave in droves to join Corbyn's Labour party and take the majority of voters with them? I reality I do not believe any of that would happen, but it is a logical conclusion to your claims. The problem with that sentence I have highlighted is several fold. The large number of voters Labour had under Corbyn would still have included significant numbers who vote Labour no matter what, and wouldn't for any other party regardless of who was in charge of it. Then there will have been those more enthused by the fairly moderate 2017 policy agenda as I was rather than by Corbyn himself. Most of it was more social democratic than socialist. And then there is the FPTP system by which it is widely assumed that any new party has no chance so few waste their votes on it so this assumption inevitably becomes self fulfilling. How long did it take for Farage to make any kind of electoral breakthrough in parliament? It has taken until now. And even then only a mere 5 MPs. And the Greens? It was an age before they got their first solitary MP, and only now have they broken out of that, but still only a mere 4. An electoral breakthrough under our system takes decades if it happens at all, and as soon as they begin to represent a credible threat, rather than any actual breakthrough, their threat only serves to influence the main parties in order to head them off. Indeed the last time any new insurgent party successfully supplanted an existing party and got into government, it was the Labour party itself. And they had massive backing from the unions right from the start and a ready appeal to a much more industrialised working class. And the party they supplanted - the Liberals - disastrously split into two warring camps. And in spite of all those advantages, it was a quarter of a century before Labour got a whiff of power and even then only as a minority government for two very short periods. It was nearly half a century before they gained power as a majority government. At Corbyn's age he does not realistically have enough politically active years left to build a new political force fast enough to change anything under our current system Corbyn is making the best of the situation he is in only because he was forced out, characteristically for saying what he really thought and refusing to bullshit and lie his way out of it, as most others would have. It is far easier and more effective in this country under our system to fight for your beliefs from inside a party than from outside of it. This is why both main parties have often been untenably broad churches. FPTP makes this so.....under a more representative system, the kind of party that Corbyn and his supporters would support would quickly establish itself on the left whilst the populist faragist types would do so on the right. The Greens would also become a force to be reckoned with. Do away with FPTP, and the party system would realign itself. Whatever they call themselves, there would be a party of the left, the Greens, a left of centre party, a right of centre party and a hard right party.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 12, 2024 21:18:19 GMT
I'm absolutely certain Corbyn really does care for the poor and oppressed, the problem he inherited was a belief among the voting public that socialism doesn't work. It ought to work but flawed humans wreck it each time. Always we think we deserve more than we get however much more that is. Doesn't matter if we're a billionaire or a factory worker, we all believe we deserve money money for less effort. Its not greed as such, because its a genuine belief, but it destroys any chance socialism has of working. This is important to understand because it means Labour lead by people like Corbyn will never get elected, the only chance you have of doing any good is to vote for centre left party. That people believe will care for the downtrodden but not allow that human greed to bankrupt the country. On to the point about Corbyn leading the "Labour Party" against the "New Labour Party" You have stated several times that Corbyn did better than Starmer in vote numbers, surely this indicates that were he to form his own party from well known labour members with a party name recognisable by the public then he would get elected.If Starmer has lied to majority of labour members and is not offering what they want, surely they would leave in droves to join Corbyn's Labour party and take the majority of voters with them? I reality I do not believe any of that would happen, but it is a logical conclusion to your claims. The problem with that sentence I have highlighted is several fold. The large number of voters Labour had under Corbyn would still have included significant numbers who vote Labour no matter what, and wouldn't for any other party regardless of who was in charge of it. Then there will have been those more enthused by the fairly moderate 2017 policy agenda as I was rather than by Corbyn himself. Most of it was more social democratic than socialist. And then there is the FPTP system by which it is widely assumed that any new party has no chance so few waste their votes on it so this assumption inevitably becomes self fulfilling. How long did it take for Farage to make any kind of electoral breakthrough in parliament? It has taken until now. And even then only a mere 5 MPs. And the Greens? It was an age before they got their first solitary MP, and only now have they broken out of that, but still only a mere 4. An electoral breakthrough under our system takes decades if it happens at all, and as soon as they begin to represent a credible threat, rather than any actual breakthrough, their threat only serves to influence the main parties in order to head them off. Indeed the last time any new insurgent party successfully supplanted an existing party and got into government, it was the Labour party itself. And they had massive backing from the unions right from the start and a ready appeal to a much more industrialised working class. And the party they supplanted - the Liberals - disastrously split into two warring camps. And in spite of all those advantages, it was a quarter of a century before Labour got a whiff of power and even then only as a minority government for two very short periods. It was nearly half a century before they gained power as a majority government. At Corbyn's age he does not realistically have enough politically active years left to build a new political force fast enough to change anything under our current system Corbyn is making the best of the situation he is in only because he was forced out, characteristically for saying what he really thought and refusing to bullshit and lie his way out of it, as most others would have. It is far easier and more effective in this country under our system to fight for your beliefs from inside a party than from outside of it. This is why both main parties have often been untenably broad churches. FPTP makes this so.....under a more representative system, the kind of party that Corbyn and his supporters would support would quickly establish itself on the left whilst the populist faragist types would do so on the right. The Greens would also become a force to be reckoned with. Do away with FPTP, and the party system would realign itself. Whatever they call themselves, there would be a party of the left, the Greens, a left of centre party, a right of centre party and a hard right party. But Benn, my whole point was that this would not be a new unknown and untested party. This would be the Labour party splitting into new and old. Where you think old represents more people and would attract more members than new.
|
|
borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Sept 14, 2024 22:40:30 GMT
|
|