Labour now

May is criticised but Corbyn suffers vitriolic comments.

The victim card doesn't win votes

I agree Ankers; an interesting article. John London sums the whole argument up for me in this paragraph.

Jones’ criticism of Corbyn is not about his policies but about his leadership qualities. He says Corbyn is ineffective and wants him replaced with a younger, more effective communicator (unnamed).

I would also echo this:

It is a lazy and too common assumption that the Labour Party would be doing OK if only it had more centrist or right wing policies. This seems to be based on the example of Tony Blair. However, 2017 is not 1997. In particular, there have been two General Elections since the 2008 Crash and Labour has lost both of them. Labour’s underlying problems pre-date Corbyn. Labour lost almost 5 million votes between 1997 and 2010 (going from 13.5 million to 8.6 million). It was not Corbyn’s policies that led to a wipe-out in Scotland.

If Owen Smith had been leader would he have even held Stoke?

The sheer personal nastiness re Corbyn I, as someone who might vote Labour but also might not, that I have read on here would put me off far more than any personal characteristic of Corbyn but what I really need, in order to attract my vote, are clear social democratic policies for the times we live in. If you want to tell me they are not coming from Corbyn then please tell me where they are coming from and that you are not using vitriolic personal comments to put them forward.

I found that link interesting, not really for its main ideas, but because it explains how some people think. This bit in particular.

“The party’s warring factions now refuse to accept that differing opinions are expressed in good faith - there have to be ulterior motives, ranging from careerism to self-aggrandisement to “virtue signalling””

tomdlondon.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/the-labour-party-and-jeremy-corbyn.html

Ana, always have been a realist , well I did believe in the tooth fairy so I need to remember this when reading Corbyn will win the general election , or the job is done - whatever he meant by that , even his followers haven't any suggestions as to what he could have meant

You're certainly one of the realists, Annie!

Rosesarered, am I part of the intellectual elite ? . Never been called intellectual or elite , could be because I am neither

Stephen Hawking is not the only one to say it and many more have thought it, so he and anyone who agrees with him are hardly a tiny minority.ab is hardly on her own with the message that 'Corbyn needs to go' !

So?

It least it will have made you feel even more right than you already did AB. Whether he is right or wrong he has said what you want to hear.

Just asking!!!

I wonder if all or some of those who voted for Corbyn, especially the young, have now had a change of heart?

Or is it leader first, party and general public second?

Really? So when he says he agrees with Corbyns policies he should not be listened to? Ok.

Isn't he a member of the 'intellectual elite' of the Labour movement many have said should not be listened to?

Stephen Hawkins, a strong Labour supporter has said Corbyn must stand down for the good of the party

Really interesting to be able to read the consultation paper Jen. Thanks

Your persistency in defining my post regarding being a 'non Labour Member' and 'not a Labour Member' is simply ridiculous.

But it was your decision to redefine my political stance that made it so very, very ridiculous POGS and quite rude too.

www.schumacherinstitute.org.uk/submission-to-labour-party-consultation-on-industrial-strategy/

Oh yes, DD have just seen that you started one.

Oh heck! Well,I suppose people could have a 1000 post thread to discuss the matter. Isn't that what the Labour Party (and Ukip) seem to spend most of their time doing?

roses I've already started a thread about the 4th industrial revolution, because I'd lost the plot on this thread.

I recently discovered that the opposite of kakistocracy is epistocracy
But who would decide?

Not at all, POGS. Quite relieved, in fact.

Yes, it's getting more tangled up with 'words' over 'meanings' POGS which is quite ridiculous, but happens a lot on forums.
Start a 4th Industrial Revolutin thread?

durhamjen 08.47

You will be sad to know there will be no response from me.

GG MK2

Your persistency in defining my post regarding being a 'non Labour Member' and 'not a Labour Member' is simply ridiculous.

POGS Sun 05-Mar-17 10:28:03

" You say you are a non Labour Supporter you obviously do not think the political party you would vote for will 'change anything looking toward the future'.

Did I really say I was a "non Labour Supporter"? I thought I said I was not a Labour supporter and I am reasonably sure they really don't mean anything like the same thing. I can't see any logic in what you say and your twist on what I said about myself seems to be at the root of it. "
----
You answered Akers by saying:-

"Anker's all it means is that if you are going to quote someone then quote them. The language I used is precise - I am not a Labour supporter - a non Labour supporter means something different and I cannot know what it is because it is POGS description not mine but had I felt it applied to me I would have used it - I didn't.

I cannot answer the question. Would a "non Labour supporter" not think the political party they would vote for would change anything? I don't know. I told you what I think but this other "non Labour supporter" person has been conjured up.

As for "blind faith in the party" I just don't know how the conjured person POGS referred to feels. It isn't me."
--

My initial post yesterday that has caused this faux brouhaha was ' NOT ' a generalised post it was personal to you so how you believe I was 'conjuring up' a generalised question to anybody else again defies logic.

By responding today I am giving this rubbish more oxygen to run and run and waste more time.

I will say this however. I am interested in what is called the 4th Industrial Revolution as a topic. Your initial post made some good points and connected to the 4th Industrial Revolution and I made a big mistake in responding to a post of yours. In the mix of questions I wondered why you thought only Labour were looking to the future, especially as you had stated you were 'not a Labour Member'. I remain disappointed that you have at no time engaged with the interesting points in your initial post and as that is not going to happen I am of the opinion it is of no interest to you to do so.

Whilst I fully expect another post from yourself and others I will bow out of this inane discussion / tit - for - tat as I feel as far as I am concerned I have long overstayed the course and can add no more over this particular issue.

Really? On this forum?