Fillon's win in the primary is a real surprise in French politics - along with the serious defeat inflicted on Sarkozy.
Printable View
Fillon's win in the primary is a real surprise in French politics - along with the serious defeat inflicted on Sarkozy.
Farewell, nano-President, see ya on your next come-back!Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Fillon is awfully conservative. He'll get the votes of this part of France that still feels right and have things to lose if any change comes. Are they the majority? No idea, pal!
If the left paid as much respect to their own cultures as they did to others, we wouldn't be dealing with all these crypto nazis.
The positions in both posts are not incommensurate. Life is complex enough to require overlapping nuances, and cognitive ambiguity is the norm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Where is the embarrassment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
If there was nowhere else to sit I would sit in a reserved seat and surrender it to its rightful owner when he boards. Englishmen have been doing it with grace for decades.
You went on a rant unconnected to my point.Quote:
"I'm not really sure what you're arguing about here, I'd rather say ranting about." Of course. Opponents are ranting, always, they are a sect, converting, preaching...
From the perspective of the seated passengers the train looked full... OK. From the perspective of the CCTV Corbyn clearly walked past several empty seats, and so did his entire crew. The fact that it made him more popular with his supporters for "sticking it to big business" is just absurd given the Business in question was Virgin Trains, owned by Richard Branson.Quote:
"Anyway, there's plenty of evidence for Traingate and to say otherwise is intellectually dishonest, when we have CCTV with timestamps." Read link.
Branson's parents weren't exactly poor but he's made his own wealth, he has created thousands of jobs in the UK and he's known for treating his workers well.
It's really simple - Corbyn purports to lead a democratic political party, yet he does not support the democratically decided policies of that party. Instead, he insists on supporting the opposite policy.Quote:
"That is a rejection of collective responsibility and a lot of non-elite Labour members are annoyed because Corbyn is rejecting the democratically decided party policy and trying to pull the party in a different direction. If he doesn't like then outcome of the vote he should resign in protest." Ha, so he has to follow order, does he? If Party is annoyed by Corbyn, why did the members did vote massively for him? Questions, always questions... You should be careful, these sentence sounds like pure Stalinist literature (collective responsibility, democratically decided party policy), which is a bit strange, In another hand, Trotsky was killed by Stalin, so...:inquisitive:
If he genuinely feels the Labour party is wrong on this issue about which he is so passionate why does he continue to lead it? Having failed to convince the rest of the party of his view whilst leader and having had his proposal to drop Trident rejected the honourable thing would be to resign.
Or bide his time? Parties would not survive if their leadership left over any disagreement.Quote:
If he genuinely feels the Labour party is wrong on this issue about which he is so passionate why does he continue to lead it? Having failed to convince the rest of the party of his view whilst leader and having had his proposal to drop Trident rejected the honourable thing would be to resign.
I've not before seen a Labour leader campaign against an issue where party and country are overwhelmingly at odds with him. Even on Iraq, Blair managed to convince the majority of the Commons, which represent the British people. There is no body that supports Corbyn's stance on Unilateralism, and the Labour party clearly rejected it the last time it was discussed. But Corbyn goes the way he wants to go, free from any constraints that collective responsibility requires. He's still a backbencher in his mind and in his actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I'm merely saying that in principle there is no hold against a party leader such that they should not be able to publicly differ with their party on specific platform issues, or maintain a desire to see a change in party direction. Whether the party tolerates that leader is their own affair. If you remain a Labor member, it is your concern as well - but this angle is not a productive one for you. Focus less on principles of conduct and more on specific actions and issues.
Fillon is a surprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristuskhan
A real one, and everyone was really betting on him to drop out. But turns out Monsieur Fillon won the primaries, knocking Sarkozy out and causing problems for Juppe. Technically, the Republicains will gather a large share of the votes because the French electorate is staunchly Republican, secular and always committed to the idea of a strong Republican France. Is Fillon the answer? We don't know yet.
What's certain is that this election will really reshape French politics because of so many surprises.
And it will be curious to see how Francois Hollande fares.
If the leader himself rebels against the party line, what sanctions should there be against individual MPs who do so? Who is the Labour party, the party including the members and its bodies, or the leader? Which party line is the one that loyalty will be judged by, the one set by the leader or the one set by the party?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
BTW, Corbyn's pet journalist, Paul Mason, said that all MPs who don't publicly swear loyalty to Corbyn should be deselected. In his mind, there is no confusion. Corbyn is the party.
"Where is the embarrassment?" Don't know. It's me. Probably from education, or kind of shyness... I really don't know...
"Instead, he insists on supporting the opposite policy." Yet he is elected leader of the same party by the members of the Party. So who actually have the legitimacy within the Party?
I would accept your point if you presented it under the angle of MP are elected by and represent their constituencies, but, as they are members and elected under the label of Labour, their duties is to represent their electorates in Party meetings, not their own preference (see, I just twist your point)... If they so passionated bla bla bla, why don't their resign for Labour? They will be elected by Liberal then vote Tories, as usual.
"If he genuinely feels the Labour party is wrong on this issue about which he is so passionate why does he continue to lead it?" Because he was elected by the party members could be a point to start...
You see, democracy is to accept defeat. To accept that sometimes things don't go your way. The Labour's rebels wanted to have their way, whatever the cost could be, and knowing Corbyn's strength within the Party's members, tried a Coup, failed, instead to try to convince the Party's members to vote for them. It backfired horribly, they had to resort to manipulation which will dishonor the Party and the values they said they represent and this for a long time. If they would succeed in their attempted Coup, the voters who joined will have left, and the ones who came would have go back to abstention.
A successful Coup would have secured Tories' victories for decades, as Labour failed the last decades to make any differences for the people it is supposed to represent, and it would have kill the idea of Labour representing the destitutes, the underdogs and the jobless.
"What's certain is that this election will really reshape French politics because of so many surprises." Agree. None of the "predictions" by the "specialists" and media have shown real.
I hope (do my best) on an even bigger surprise...
Like what? Rebirth of an authoritarian left? François Bayrou on a rampage? Hollande making it out of fear once again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Rebirth of the Republican Left. Well, to have a leftist party at least, as from PS to FN, they have all the same rightist policy...
Well, perhaps now you are getting at the real question. Maybe the Corbyn-electing PMs even feel that, while they are given to consider practicalities of governance, their party leader should act unconstrained in an ideological apotheosis? Head of party as political id (or superego if you prefer)? It's not an entirely novel or bizarre notion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Here's a representative comment from a news post that expands the Mason view cited by Pannonian:
Quote:
Whether Eagle is considered a Blairite or not doesnt matter. It is her betrayal of her leader that marks her out. Labour members voted for Corbyn in massive numbers a year ago. He deserves the support of his MPs. All organisations need a structure that everyone recognises. This applies to a business, army, or political party. If those within an organisation do not respect the structure then the viability of organisation is at threat.
She has challenged Corbyns leadership, fair enough she is entitled to do that but the consequences of this putsch have to be severe. I believe the future of the Labour Party is at stake here. So my advice to Corbyn is to explain before the vote that those that support the challengers will have their titles removed if he wins. Deselection. You cannot have an army where the soldiers support the leader but the lieutenants do not. If Corbyn is a real leader he needs to stamp down hard on those within Labour that question his right to lead.
But then it would certainly validate the fears of anyone who exactly disagrees with this direction for the party. By the same token, however, it turns any criticism of Corbyn-as-leader inert unless constructed as wider criticism of what is now perhaps the majority of the PLP.
Could you put that into plain English please? I thought I could cope with some of the more arcane language used in political discussions, but the above beats my comprehension skills.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
And BTW, in response to the above quote ("It is her betrayal of her leader that marks her out. Labour members voted for Corbyn in massive numbers a year ago."), in 2002, less than a year after the British electorate returned Blair's Labour to power with a majority of 160+ (bigger than Attlee's majority in 1945), Corbyn challenged Blair for the leadership. What's changed? Do Corbyn's supporters regard Labour members as more significant than the British people?
And in case anyone wants to call this off topic, I'll return this to the point I've made again and again. In the UK at least, and according to our American posters, in the US as well, the Left exists without regard of the general populace. They are only interested in winning their own argument, with the expectation that they are therefore right, without the need to take people who disagree into account. The above quote and its disregard of Corbyn's history is illustrative of that. In its view, the Labour party stands alone, without taking the British people into account.
?Quote:
Could you put that into plain English please? I thought I could cope with some of the more arcane language used in political discussions, but the above beats my comprehension skills.
It's not quite what I'm trying to describe, but something like wanting a leader not bound to political practicalities or niceties that they themselves as plain MPs will operate within, meaning that (if a correct evaluation) making a distinction between party line and Corbyn line does not make sense so long as Corbyn backers form the majority within the Labor Party as represented in Parliament (i.e. PLP).
That's not enough to say. The quoted comment, as well as others, assert that Corbyn and related movement are in fact currently representative of the Labor electorate, and that Blairites or Red Labor or whatever are no longer.Quote:
And in case anyone wants to call this off topic, I'll return this to the point I've made again and again. In the UK at least, and according to our American posters, in the US as well, the Left exists without regard of the general populace. They are only interested in winning their own argument, with the expectation that they are therefore right, without the need to take people who disagree into account. The above quote and its disregard of Corbyn's history is illustrative of that. In its view, the Labour party stands alone, without taking the British people into account.
If Corbyn is representative of the Labour movement, and Angela Eagle is a traitor for challenging him so soon after the Labour members had elected him with such a majority, what do you make of Corbyn's leadership challenge against Blair, a year after the British voters had elected him with one of the biggest majorities in living memory (second only to Blair's 1997 election victory). Do Labour members matter more than British voters?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Nothing in particular. What happened with it afterwards? If you find can find and deconstruct any appraisals from the Corbyn side, I'd like to hear it.Quote:
If Corbyn is representative of the Labour movement, and Angela Eagle is a traitor for challenging him so soon after the Labour members had elected him with such a majority, what do you make of Corbyn's leadership challenge against Blair, a year after the British voters had elected him with one of the biggest majorities in living memory (second only to Blair's 1997 election victory). Do Labour members matter more than British voters?
I can't find address of specific parallel between mandate of Blair leadership and mandate of Corbyn leadership, but a general view among supporters seems to be his conduct shows "strength of character". But more interesting from the article is a list of "Corbyn rebellions":
Clearly he stepped up his game during Blair years, but it still leaves me with the question: what was the story with those other, ostensibly even more rebellious, MPs?Quote:
1983-1987: 19 times – which made him the 8th most rebellious Labour MP
1987-1992: 36 times – 7th most rebellious Labour MP
1992-1997: 72 times – 3rd most rebellious Labour MP
1997-2001: 64 times – the most rebellious Labour MP
2001-2005: 148 times – the most rebellious Labour MP
2005-2010: 216 times – the most rebellious Labour MP
2010-2015: 62 times – 3rd most rebellious Labour MP
They're not Labour leader, with supporters calling for deselection of those who disagree with them. Blair, Brown, even Smith and Kinnock, were more tolerant of Corbyn than Corbyn is of people who disagree with him. They accepted rebellions from the likes of Corbyn as a matter of course. Corbyn regards them as treason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
And it still doesn't answer the question, how is Corbyn's majority among Labour members argument enough for deselection of MPs who disagree with him, but Blair's majority among British voters not argument enough for Corbyn to accept his leadership in the way that Corbyn expects his own leadership to be accepted?
The above question relates to the Left in general, in the UK in particular of course, but also in the US as our American posters have repeatedly stated. And avoiding it makes one wonder about the European Left as well.
I'd argue your point about the UK and US left is correct but not for the reasons you believe, both in the UK and the US the political parties had a favoured candidate which they backed, I can't say so much for the USA but in the UK they did it against the popular opinion of the party members, they really weren't interested in listening, they knew they were right and people were expected to follow.
The difference is the establishment backed candidate won in the US.
What I said, then... There is ample room for a "moderate" but genuinely left wing current. But the left has to leave it's lenient attitude (towards daily insecurity; hegemony of financial powers; tax evasion; some abuses of social care,few but can't be tolerated; degradation of health services and utter scuttling of school system; funding and spiritual management of mosques by nice, allied, and arguably moderate powers; waste of public funds feeding the new and very dominant caste of public/private managers, those 60000 who never lose; rule of vulgarity and arrogance in the media, managerial and political spheres; mismanagement of environmental issues and so on, what a list....).Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Something like 25% of the french population has a deeply rooted communist background (really). Some who don't want the republic to be a joke. Most, since most are part of the classes who felt the pain for the last fifteen years, will be wasted on Jean-Marine's side if the left doesn't get back it's sense of authority. On the weak and on the strong. Hard times, eh? Everyone to do his share, then.
I want a rebirth of the Republican Left, indeed, because if it does not happen the local yokels where I live, deep in the mud, will give a majority to the Heiress on first round*.
*and get ready for the night of the long knives to get rid of the queer fraction inside the FN!:clown: TheFrench far-right has always shown genius for division and FN is not a stable matter. In the past it was most about ultracatholic vs neopagan vs AlgérieFrançaise vs ExCollabos, but now with the technocratic gay-friendy current and the neo-underworld current emerging in the south, that IS promising. A bunch of rulers, indeed. Well, that's not funny but one has to laugh.
Establishment and party members again, once more missing the point made by the American posters in the wake of the US election. What matters isn't so much the party and what the party members deem to be right. Winning that argument matters little if you ignore the general electorate. Compare Corbyn's supporters crowing about the mandate he's got from the Labour members that renders any rebellion against him to be treason, and Corbyn's rebellion (in the same form) against Blair, despite Blair having a massive mandate from the British voters. Corbyn's supporters have cited his mandate from the Labour members to strengthen his position in the party, changing party structures and procedures to ensure that he can't be challenged again. What is his position wrt the British voters, pray? Or does that not matter to Corbyn's supporters, as long as Corbyn gets to turn the Labour party into his plaything?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Once more, the danger for the European Left is disappearing up their own backside as the British and American Left have, resulting in the Right having a clear run at election into government. Which is the only election that matters.
"There is ample room for a "moderate" but genuinely left wing current" In theory. But thanks to the Sarkolland period, words have lost their meaning.
To link with the debate about Corbyn and Labour in UK, when voters can't genuinely make a difference in social and economical policies and are under attack from now 20 years, 2 solutions: Abstention or rage vote.
The righist movement doesn't have problem with the ones like Fillon, Cameron or Trump. But when the alleged left had accepted the rules and vocabulary imposed by the right, they lose. Until someone come and say he/she can break the game. Trump in US.
"Which is the only election that matters." And to do the same policy than the ones you took the power from? Then forgetting why and who you represent? Paint on dust and it is new, is it?
TBH New labour are far more guilty of what you accuse them of Pannonian. Firstly Owen Smith is no more electable than Corbyn, if anything he is less electable than the guy.
So why would parts of the labour party destroy the election chances of the labour party by plotting a coup at the worst possible time to replace a candidate they see as unelectable with one just as unelectable?
Because they don't care about winning elections, the argument they wanted to win was in their own party.
They knew better than the people and wanted to tell them what to do, the left was refusing to listen, even trying to bar Corbyn, the standing leader, from standing in the leadership election!
Take what you like from it then. Historically the key issues for determining the election chances of Labour are leadership and trust on the economy. Add immigration to the list with the Euro ref result. Check the poll figures for Labour, discarding outliers, and with the caveat that Labour have historically been at their peak at this point in the electoral cycle, and will only decline from here to the election. Then check the poll figures on leadership (May and Corbyn), the economy (Hammond and McDonnell), and immigration (Rudd and Abbott). Do post the numbers here, and what you make of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
"Then check the poll figures on leadership" Yes, let's the polls decide what is best, no need elections then...
Well, you should not be embarrassed, nor should you be made to feel embarrassed provided you graciously surrender the reserved seat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
In response to this I would point out that Corbyn was re-elected and THEN the party decided to support rearmament and THEN he said he would continue to argue for unilateral disarmament. My point is that after his election Corbyn failed his first major test as leader, first by failing to convince his part of his position, and then by failing to accept the decision gracefully.Quote:
"Instead, he insists on supporting the opposite policy." Yet he is elected leader of the same party by the members of the Party. So who actually have the legitimacy within the Party?
I would accept your point if you presented it under the angle of MP are elected by and represent their constituencies, but, as they are members and elected under the label of Labour, their duties is to represent their electorates in Party meetings, not their own preference (see, I just twist your point)... If they so passionated bla bla bla, why don't their resign for Labour? They will be elected by Liberal then vote Tories, as usual.
"If he genuinely feels the Labour party is wrong on this issue about which he is so passionate why does he continue to lead it?" Because he was elected by the party members could be a point to start...
You see, democracy is to accept defeat. To accept that sometimes things don't go your way. The Labour's rebels wanted to have their way, whatever the cost could be, and knowing Corbyn's strength within the Party's members, tried a Coup, failed, instead to try to convince the Party's members to vote for them. It backfired horribly, they had to resort to manipulation which will dishonor the Party and the values they said they represent and this for a long time. If they would succeed in their attempted Coup, the voters who joined will have left, and the ones who came would have go back to abstention.
A successful Coup would have secured Tories' victories for decades, as Labour failed the last decades to make any differences for the people it is supposed to represent, and it would have kill the idea of Labour representing the destitutes, the underdogs and the jobless.
This has nothing to do with the need for a genuine Left-Wing alternative in Britain and everything to do with Corbyn's base unsuitability as leader. I think Corbyn won the vote because he's the real Left-Wing candidate, not because he was the cabdidate the majority of the party wanted. Despite that his supporters are building a cult around his leadership.
Remember Concerts for Corbyn?
In other news, this was interesting:
https://youtu.be/XkoRODfEMyY
My biggest issue with Corbyn is his failure to understand the need for and benefits of the EU for the socialist cause. So he's basically a national socialist. :sweatdrop: :creep:
His chief of staff, Seumas Milne, accused the British Communist Party of being insufficiently pro-Russia. Milne has also said that Stalin has done more good than harm, while Diane Abbott, Corbyn's shadow home secretary, said the same about Mao Zedong. The whole lot of them are pro-Castro, pro-Chavez, pro-Iran, and pro-anyone who is ant-Anglo-America of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Orwell described their kind back in the 1940s. His description of selective pacifists is especially precisely accurate of Corbyn himself, eg. the sanctimoniousness that is non-existent where (Soviet) Russia is involved. Even in the aftermath of WW2, when the European Far Right had been decisively discredited, Orwell warned the Left against disappearing up its own backside, as the Far Left, especially the anti-Anglo-America type, was no better.