Fun and games with ballot papers

[Richard Barrett]

I think those people who are really concerned about the future of the planet can see straight through the Labour party's new found enthusiasm for environmentalism.

That would be why George Monbiot supported Labour in the election then, I suppose.

[Andy Freude]

That would be why George Monbiot supported Labour in the election then, I suppose.

Lesser of two evils? Labour and Corbyn don't escape critiicism. But with Tories the alternative?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/20/labour-conservative-party

The sad point is that many of 'the many' seem to want a 'strong leader', not an honest one.

[MrGongGong]

Don't very similar considerations apply to the Cons?

Of course

That would be why George Monbiot supported Labour in the election then, I suppose.

Lesser of two evils BUT what we need is something else IMV

Lesser of two evils? Labour and Corbyn don't escape critiicism. But with Tories the alternative?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/20/labour-conservative-party

The sad point is that many of 'the many' seem to want a 'strong leader', not an honest one.

"Honest"

Where ?

[Richard Barrett]

Labour and Corbyn don't escape criticism.

Nor should they of course. But saying that Labour's focusing on the environment is belated and therefore shouldn't be trusted is a silly argument. You could say, for example, that they came late to LGBT rights as well. What matters is what the policy is now and with what commitment it's put forward. If Rebecca Long-Bailey becomes leader the climate crisis will probably become more central than with other candidates..

The sad point is that many of 'the many' seem to want a 'strong leader', not an honest one.

Leaving aside the fact that "strong leaders" probably don't hide in fridges, nick reporters' phones and duck difficult interviews, this is an issue that certainly needs addressing, but, I would say, by persuading people rather than capitulating to received opinion. But perhaps Mr Johnson's conduct in power will convince people that it actually would have been better to have elected an honest prime minister.

[Richard Barrett]

Lesser of two evils

This is what Monbiot actually said: "what I see is a group of people genuinely seeking to solve our massive problems – environmental, political, economic, medical and social – rather than appeasing press barons and queueing at the notorious revolving door between politics and money-making. My experience, as an author of the Land for the Many report that Labour commissioned, has been of a party boldly seeking new ideas for improving national life, and being prepared to weather a storm of lies for having the temerity to mention them."

[MrGongGong]

This is what Monbiot actually said: "what I see is a group of people genuinely seeking to solve our massive problems – environmental, political, economic, medical and social – rather than appeasing press barons and queueing at the notorious revolving door between politics and money-making. My experience, as an author of the Land for the Many report that Labour commissioned, has been of a party boldly seeking new ideas for improving national life, and being prepared to weather a storm of lies for having the temerity to mention them."

We shall see
I don't share your faith i'm afraid

[Richard Barrett]

I don't share your faith i'm afraid

I don't have any "faith", I'm just looking at what's there. You seem to think that now Labour has taken on climate change it's just as likely to drop it again. I see absolutely no reason why one might take that view. Maybe you do?

[Dave2002]

Nor should they of course. But saying that Labour's focusing on the environment is belated and therefore shouldn't be trusted is a silly argument. You could say, for example, that they came late to LGBT rights as well. What matters is what the policy is now and with what commitment it's put forward. If Rebecca Long-Bailey becomes leader the climate crisis will probably become more central than with other candidates..

Leaving aside the fact that "strong leaders" probably don't hide in fridges, nick reporters' phones and duck difficult interviews, this is an issue that certainly needs addressing, but, I would say, by persuading people rather than capitulating to received opinion. But perhaps Mr Johnson's conduct in power will convince people that it actually would have been better to have elected an honest prime minister.

Over years I have found the concept of "leader" somewhat strange. Sometimes it is argued that leaders should listen to others, and often listen to the people "under" them, before committing or acting. Other times it seems to be that the "leader" should have vision, fire, and determination. Sometimes I think that the only "leader" the majority of people want is someone who'll let them get on with their lives, and tell them who they should vote for.

Having said that, I was around 30 when I discovered that some people - whom I know to be intelligent, and have opinions - just haven't a clue when it comes to doing, and deciding what actions to take. To my surprise, if they were told what to do, they would sometimes do it. I always assumed that most people would be more or less self motivated, and act if they wanted to, resist or avoid if they didn't want to, and I also assumed - very mistakenly - that people would have a rational basis for their thoughts, decisions and actions.

[MrGongGong]

I don't have any "faith", I'm just looking at what's there. You seem to think that now Labour has taken on climate change it's just as likely to drop it again. I see absolutely no reason why one might take that view. Maybe you do?

Depends on who is in charge

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/24/union-boss-urges-labour-mps-to-back-heathrow-expansion

[Serial_Apologist]

I think those people who are really concerned about the future of the planet can see straight through the Labour party's new found enthusiasm for environmentalism. Simply "renting" the issue in order to get elected won't work.

I don't see the likes of Len McCluskey supporting the Zero growth agenda and when it comes down to a choice between jobs or environment it's highly unlikely that the Labour party would choose the latter.

Given that it is clear that our political parties don't represent the divisions in thinking in the country the best option would be to start gain BUT people are far too attached to the historical narratives (on ALL "sides") IMV

In the light of the fact that funding for socially enriching projects as much as for the welfare state amounts to cream skimmed off the top of a very large pie, much of it comprising lolly "made" through that form of gambling politely known as speculation, your words just don't address the complexity of dealing with the problem, but instead come across as rhetoric.

[StephenMcK]

If, as you say, a party's MPs are the people who actually "steer the ship of government" or whatever one's favoured metaphor might be, why shouldn't they have been first selected democratically by party members?

For one reason, because of the distortion we have seen as a result of entryism in both the Labour and Conservative parties.

[Serial_Apologist]

For one reason, because of the distortion we have seen as a result of entryism in both the Labour and Conservative parties.

What you call distortion I see as always being the norm!

[Richard Barrett]

What you call distortion I see as always being the norm!

Yes indeed. Of course there is no way that "entryism" in the sense you presumably meant it was the sole reason for Jeremy Corbyn's election as leader. It was the result of party membership having a greater say in who the leader is. Surely there's no credible argument against that.

[Andy Freude]

Surely there's no credible argument against that.

Ed Miliband?

[Brexit? Boaty McBoatface? Boris Johnson?]

[Richard Barrett]

Ed Miliband?

[Brexit? Boaty McBoatface? Boris Johnson?]

Not sure what you're getting at there.