|
Oberleutnant posted:Well this is patently false since the Labour party currently has nearly 400,000 members, is still growing, and is approaching being the largest it has ever been. Stop spewing poo poo out of your mouth.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
TBH I think Corbyn is far too good a person to lead the Labour party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Noxville posted:If only these hundreds of thousands of new members could do this. Alas There have been over 600 new members in my area since Corbyn became leader. As far as I'm aware, only 10 of us have been to any meetings. If their only contribution is the direct debit thats fine, and I imagine more might turn up for a general election, but the lack of anyone new going to help in the local council election says a lot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:You've got this all backwards, it was the blairites who needed to get the gently caress out and make their own party instead of doing what they were doing by hijacking an existing party. Should probably give up on fighting the battles of 25 years ago. Don't want matter whether that should have happened or not, you have to deal with how things are today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
BizarroAzrael posted:People flocking to the party indicates a bad leader? unless they get real votes in real marginal districts submitting a form and 3 quid is not indicative of anything but support amongst the faithful. nobody cares about a few hundred thou extra labour members if they dont actually translate into millions of votes Gonzo McFee posted:Corbyn's done nothing but compromise, his entire cabinet is a compromise. thats still not leadership. he made moronic choices for his cabinet and then let them poo poo all over him/have their poo poo dredged up and re the press barons/media having kingmaking power: they fellated farage all day long and he got zilch, so its clear they have their weaknesses that can be exploited
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:TBH I think Corbyn is far too good a person to lead the Labour party. yeah he's a nice guy that i'd love to have a chat with at a pub but he's clearly out of his element here (unless he grows a spine and takes charge)
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Earlster posted:6 and 2 3's, both groups seem incompatible and one side should grow a pair and walk. Damage is done now, people see it as a divided party. Plus in attracting so many new members the opponents of Corbyn in the party are on borrowed time. Party membership has a huge bearing on a party's electability since campaigns are run on the work of activists and partly paid for by membership dues, on which Labour are far more reliant than the Tories have ever been. 400,000 members are worth (at a minimum) £18m a year to Labour. Unions add a lot more, but that is a significant amount of money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
They didn't fellate Farage. They treated him like America treats Trump. Like a sideshow freak that should be mocked despite openly saying what they have been saying through dogwhistles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:unless they get real votes in real marginal districts submitting a form and 3 quid is not indicative of anything but support amongst the faithful. nobody cares about a few hundred thou extra labour members if they dont actually translate into millions of votes For about the 5th time in the last half hour, they may well translate into votes in marginals, because they will contribute to the ground game in those marginals. It remains to be seen how successfully (though Oldham provides a bit of evidence) but it might well work. Certainly more likely to work in the favour of actual progressive change than capitulating to the right and losing the next election anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Cerv posted:Should probably give up on fighting the battles of 25 years ago. Don't want matter whether that should have happened or not, you have to deal with how things are today. but it gets me likes on twitter!
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:yeah he's a nice guy that i'd love to have a chat with at a pub but he's clearly out of his element here (unless he grows a spine and takes charge) Even the idea of that is getting press time portraying Corbyn as a tyrant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:but it gets me likes on twitter! Do you actually have anything coherent to say or do you just get off on smashing random statements together in a cargo cult imitation of human reasoning?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The party is nowhere near being the largest it has ever been - membership during the 50s topped out at over 1 million. Ah, I was looking at data that only went back as far as 81 and missed (by skimming) a line that said "living memory". It's a fair cop!
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Still far higher than the Conservatives by a country mile. Also is anybody else watching "Making A Murderer" on Netflix? It's good for your ACAB means.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:unless they get real votes in real marginal districts submitting a form and 3 quid is not indicative of anything but support amongst the faithful. nobody cares about a few hundred thou extra labour members if they dont actually translate into millions of votes Okay, just let me know when you want to set the goalposts down. Increased membership is still a positive indicator, as was Oldham, and not countered by you speculating on the outcome of a 2020 vote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Party membership has a huge bearing on a party's electability since campaigns are run on the work of activists and partly paid for by membership dues, on which Labour are far more reliant than the Tories have ever been. 400,000 members are worth (at a minimum) £18m a year to Labour. Unions add a lot more, but that is a significant amount of money. The money is definitely a bearing but how many of the 400k will be activists come election time bears to be seen. The point is that there are plenty of people who see the figure of 400k and relate this to a sign of a guaranteed win, or overwhelming faith in Corbyn, but although I concede it shows he is definitely inspiring some, he is most definitely repulsing others. Its early doors, I think we will have a better look at him over the referendum. Is he in or out and what's the labour party's stance on it? Earlster fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:For about the 5th time in the last half hour, they may well translate into votes in marginals, because they will contribute to the ground game in those marginals. It remains to be seen how successfully (though Oldham provides a bit of evidence) but it might well work. sure and i want a pony but it aint gonna happen if the best corbs has is some sick question time burnz Gonzo McFee posted:They didn't fellate Farage. They treated him like America treats Trump. Like a sideshow freak that should be mocked despite openly saying what they have been saying through dogwhistles. the media loves farage/trump because he's controversial as gently caress and that sells papers and drives page hits the republican establishment donors hates trump since he doesn't need their money if they truly hated farage they wouldn't have him above the fold every other day
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:sure and i want a pony but it aint gonna happen if the best corbs has is some sick question time burnz Are you dizzy from all the circles your argument is going round in?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Earlster posted:The money is definitely a bearing but how many of the 400k will be activists come election time bears to be seen. The point is that there are plenty of people who see the figure of 400k and relate this to a sign of a guaranteed win, oor overwhelming faith in Corbyn, but although I concede it shows he is definitely inspiring some, he is most definitely repulsing others. Its early doors, I think we will have a better look at him over the referendum. I can tell you without fear of contradiction that the number of activists generated by 400,000 paid members will be more than there would be with zero party members. And no, 400,000 members isn't a herald of a guaranteed win, it's a herald of increased public support despite very difficult circumstances. There is no way that you (or anybody else itt) can twist a rapidly growing party membership into a negative or merely neutral, incidental element that's not relevant to the final analysis of electability.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
BizarroAzrael posted:Okay, just let me know when you want to set the goalposts down. Increased membership is still a positive indicator, as was Oldham, and not countered by you speculating on the outcome of a 2020 vote. corbs is not doing particularly well at the latter 2 Oberleutnant posted:Do you actually have anything coherent to say or do you just get off on smashing random statements together in a cargo cult imitation of human reasoning? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Earlster posted:Unless he changes tac I think he is on course for an unopposed tory govt next time around Please, tell us more about your fantasy land, where the Tories win every single seat in the Commons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
I know we kid around a lot in here but I seriously think you might be developmentally disabled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I can tell you without fear of contradiction that the number of activists generated by 400,000 paid members will be more than there would be with zero party members. And no, 400,000 members isn't a herald of a guaranteed win, it's a herald of increased public support despite very difficult circumstances. There is no way that you (or anybody else itt) can twist a rapidly growing party membership into a negative or merely neutral, incidental element that's not relevant to the final analysis of electability. I'm not trying to twist it, I'm expressing that many people see it as an insurmountable advantage and cite it as proof positive of Corbyn being next PM. Granted most who do seem to live in social media echo chambers and are just a bit detached.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:sure and i want a pony but it aint gonna happen if the best corbs has is some sick question time burnz What is your actual point? Yes, Corbyn could receive more favourable media portrayal if he changed some of his policies to what the rich media owners want rather than what's beneficial to the people. But if he did that he would lose an awful lot of grassroots support and also not really be worth voting for any more. Someone said it already, he has a media strategy and it's to ignore any attacks on him. So far I'd characterise it as working reasonably well. Changing that to a policy of engagement is risky and pretty much doomed to failure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I know we kid around a lot in here but I seriously think you might be developmentally disabled. Isn't Malcolm XML a spetic?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Earlster posted:I'm not trying to twist it, I'm expressing that many people see it as an insurmountable advantage and cite it as proof positive of Corbyn being next PM. Granted most who do seem to live in social media echo chambers and are just a bit detached. Just learn to accept a bit of positive news. Increased party membership is a positive thing. That doesn't mean Corbyn is going to win. It means that people are responding positively to his leadership and making themselves available to the party machinery. Good, productive work can be done with those people towards improving Labour's chances in the future. And it's support that is based on the most democratic of foundations, rather than selling out your principles to a media oligarch. That's all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:Please, tell us more about your fantasy land, where the Tories win every single seat in the Commons. Any party with a large enough majority and a strong whip is pretty much unopposed, you don't have to win every seat to be essentially unopposed. Look at the labour landslide under Blair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Are you dizzy from all the circles your argument is going round in? The crux of my argument is that corbs hasn't proved that he can turn his support in the labour leadership election into 2020 votes by having a real ground (and media, old or new) game. 400k members? this is genuinely great. now lets see him keep up that rate of growth over the next 4 years winning oldham? also genuinely good. now lets see what happens when there isn't a split opposition and it's in a seat that labour hadn't already had a solid majority but he has shown that he's a weak leader who picks political liabilities to be his shadow cabinet and has no skill at manipulating the media. i dont have much faith. i understand if this is beyond you, try to keep up e: to be more explicit: the ideal thing would be to win a tory marginal by-election, decisively barring that, being able to riposte tory messaging in as many channels as possible and also having a apparatus to disseminate labour messaging Malcolm XML fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
BizarroAzrael posted:Okay, just let me know when you want to set the goalposts down. Increased membership is still a positive indicator, as was Oldham, and not countered by you speculating on the outcome of a 2020 vote. Is there any evidence that those who voted Labour in the Oldham by-election were people who hadn't voted Labour in the general election?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:Isn't Malcolm XML a spetic? No idea. I never really paid attention to him/her until today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Earlster posted:I'm not trying to twist it, I'm expressing that many people see it as an insurmountable advantage and cite it as proof positive of Corbyn being next PM. Granted most who do seem to live in social media echo chambers and are just a bit detached. I don't think anyone ITT said this at all though. We said it was a good thing, we said it might help, we hope it might lead to a win. We don't say it's insurmountable or a guarantee, we say it's a positive thing that is happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I don't think anyone ITT said this at all though. We said it was a good thing, we said it might help, we hope it might lead to a win. I don't think it's positive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I don't think it's positive. just loving shut up and kiss me you swine
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:The crux of my argument is that corbs hasn't proved that he can turn his support in the labour leadership election into 2020 votes by having a real ground (and media, old or new) game. The crux of your argument is that you're literally demanding the impossible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I don't think it's positive. Why?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I don't think it's positive. Pretty sure when numbers increase the change is in fact positive. Check your maths flaps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Noxville posted:Why? Because I don't want the Tory party to win the general election in 2020 and the longer Corbyn is leader the more certain that outcome is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Corbyn does something well: this won't translate to general election votes! Corbyn does something poorly: see, I knew he was poo poo! 5 years away. Good lord.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:The crux of my argument is that corbs hasn't proved that he can turn his support in the labour leadership election into 2020 votes by having a real ground (and media, old or new) game. The crux of your argument then is that he hasn't proved he can win an election and the only way you'll be satisfied he can is if he in fact does. By that logic, Gideon is also guaranteed to lose the next election as HE hasn't won one yet either as leader, so which is it? Corbyn losing or Gideon (or whichever other not-a-previous-leader that the Tories end up fielding)? Both of them haven't proved they can turn $tactic into election victory which by your logic means they can't possibly win.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Because I don't want the Tory party to win the general election in 2020 and the longer Corbyn is leader the more certain that outcome is. Who would you pick to lead Labour instead of Corbyn?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:25
|
|