Corbyn's days (very) numbered?
- Thread starter GlennB
- Start date
'Less' is perfectly correct.
" ... this [fewer/less] rule does not correctly describe the most common usage of today or the past and in fact arose as an incorrect generalization of a personal preference expressed by a grammarian in 1770"
Get into the present, Mike
It's interesting that Labor has remained very relevant in Australia and has a sneaky chance of forming government in a week's time. They have done this while unions have collapsed to cover around 10% of the private sector workforce. Union hard men still control much of the Labor Party machinery but they know the only chance of influence is through an ALP government. They therefore tolerate centrist politicians and PMs, even that flaky populist Rudd.
The hard left are now Green, and while there will never be a coalition, the Greens will mostly support a Labor government.
This is the only solution for Labour. Move towards the centre, take the unions with you, and buddy up, without conceding policy ground, to the Greens. Otherwise death.
Last edited:
You could argue that the UK Labour party did that once before.
Move towards the centre take as much of the left with you as you can and create a broader church that is capable of winning elections and getting something done.
It worked but is now seen for reasons of war and recession as toxic. "Old" Labour" seems to prefer idealogical purity and irrelevance.
Move towards the centre take as much of the left with you as you can and create a broader church that is capable of winning elections and getting something done.
It worked but is now seen for reasons of war and recession as toxic. "Old" Labour" seems to prefer idealogical purity and irrelevance.
Yes I agree. Yes Blair went to war along with the US, but so did Australia, and this was forgiven. A bit rich blaming Blair for a global recession though.
Labour has the template. Too stubborn to use it, it seems.
'Less' is perfectly correct.......
Get into the present, Oxford English Dictionaries
FTFY, in italics.
Oxford Dictionaries
Seems fair enough to me.
Yes, she backed him in the vote, but considering the extent of the opposition to him amongst MPs I would have expected him to stand down, and it seems so does she. I don't see that as confusion. I see that as pointing out the reality of the situation.
Labour we understand, but otherwise your party names are confusing. Your Liberals are right wingers, neo- Cons. Correct? And your Green Party are right wingers too? The Greens here are unreconstructed old fashioned hard left, and Liberal politics has always been left of centre.
Blair is so toxic now, in all parts of the British political scene, that all the good he did in getting Labour electable again, winning 3 elections and so on, even his legacy in Northern Ireland, has all been forgotten. He is the biggest disappointment in the last 30 or 40 years of British politics, and arguably why Corbyn is spiraling around the plug hole now.
It was always an uneasy alliance of very disparate forces and groups. Blair broke that alliance, and the Left in then trying to govern the LP without this "broad church" approach is completing the process of dissolution.
The Left's problem is that it believes what it says, even if what it says is totally fantastical, while the Right believes in nothing at all, except the acquisition and retention of political power and office.
Libs are just right of centre, with far right loons mainly in country seats and the senate. Greens here are like yours. Lefties, who are becoming very popular with inner city latte-sippers. I detest them, and sadly youngest daughter will vote for them. And Labor is left of centre, but not far.
ETA a mistake in my earlier post. Greens are hard left. I'll go and amend.
Last edited:
Noztradamus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 4,680
Maybe lionking is having a lend of you. the Greens are exactly the same, indeed keelplank owners of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Greens. And as hard left as one with an unreconstructed Stalinist as member could be
Thanks. That's what confused me.
If only we had a centre left and a centre right party in the way you say you do, and the way most of Europe does, then our politics would serve us much better.
Indeed, a stupid mistake of mine, now amended.
The thing is that this reasonable closeness of the main parties has fostered a host of independent candidates. Many loons, but some with a chance of winning seats. I'd hate it to come to the stage where we have cobbled together coalitions where the main partner has to compromise it's life away. As we have in much of Europe.
The SNP in Westminster has now embarked on some naughty mischief-making, applying to be the Official Opposition, as its leader in the House has control of more MPs than Corbyn has. 54 to 40, in fact. From the Herald. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36660386
Very cheeky, but good luck to them.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Last edited:
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
An alternative way to see that was that she tried to support him, but recognized that this was a lost cause , and rather than risk splitting Labour decided to remove support.
