Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Red Phoenix]

Apparently McDonnell when asked about Churchill said : "Tonypandy - villain". So Churchill is said to be partly or mostly responsible for millions of deaths in India and the first thing that instantly comes into his head is Tonypandy? I really do find some of the stuff he comes out with bizarre.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Churchill, right man for the job at the time. Bit like Fat Sam. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 hours ago, Denny Crane said:

The man who ate his book puts it more eloquently than I could about where there is greater demand for a new party. I think he's right but they are slightly more protectionist. I think people could be won by Labour about non-violent crime being treated as an act to be cured rather than punished eventually but for now many people measure justice in retribution. So they are stuck in defending the status quo on crime and drugs etc. 

 

 

 

 

I think there is space for a third party. We have one, just nobody wants to vote for them but the electorate is wrong. 

[Strontium]

Far and away the biggest obstacle to third party success is our voting system. Which I have been saying for at least a decade.

[ZonkoVille77]

1 hour ago, Section_31 said:

Except they didn't, that's kind of the point.

 

And we'd be naive not to question his motives. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Strontium Dog said:

Far and away the biggest obstacle to third party success is our voting system. Which I have been saying for at least a decade.

Yes, quite a few of us have been saying it for a really long time. Shame the option on offer in the referendum was such a shit half-way house.

[Strontium]

Just now, Hank Moody said:

Yes, quite a few of us have been saying it for a really long time. Shame the option on offer in the referendum was such a shit half-way house.

 

A referendum on AV was the most the Tories were prepared to concede. More importantly, perhaps, it was felt that Labour wouldn't support full proportional representation, but would support AV (having campaigned on that policy in the 2010 election). Because, let's face it, voting reform is not going to be possible without the support of at least one of the two major parties.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Strontium Dog said:

 

A referendum on AV was the most the Tories were prepared to concede.

Should have told them no and to enjoy minority government and getting nothing done. 

[Strontium]

Just now, Hank Moody said:

Should have told them no and to enjoy minority government and getting nothing done. 

 

How long would it have been until another election was called, and the Tories (who were the only party with the necessary funds for another election) ran on a platform of "Vote for us, because we can't get anything done in this hung parliament"?

[Boss]

Like every great man, he was both. Great men have the ability to make the right decision, even if it's an unpopular one.

[Pureblood]

Churchill insurance dog > war hero

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

How long would it have been until another election was called, and the Tories (who were the only party with the necessary funds for another election) ran on a platform of "Vote for us, because we can't get anything done in this hung parliament"?

I think they would have buckled, but even then I'd sooner have had a legitimately voted for agenda than what we got. Either way, my point was we got a shit choice. I voted for it, of course, but I'm not surprised it didn't pass. Not that the 'strength' of FPTP resulting in weak governments or coalitions. Fucking state we're in. 

[SasaS]

4 hours ago, Section_31 said:

Yep.

 

Britain was the only country who went to war against the axis before it was actually attacked. The USA was a big support in terms of material and never entered until it was attacked at Pearl Harbour, and may not even have entered the war against the Germans had not Hitler - strangely - declared war on them.

 

The constant talk about what the Russians did in the war I've always found a bit bizarre to be honest. They invaded Poland from the East in concert with the Nazis and were quite happy to see western Europe demolished until, stupidly, despite repeated intelligence warnings from us and clues so big a blind PCSO could spot them, they got caught with their trousers down by the Germans and got utterly smashed, only being defeated by the winter and Hitler's hubris. Part of the reason they lost so many troops is because their only military tactic was to scoop up thousands of young conscripts from Belarus and throw them, en mass and at gunpoint, at a superior enemy. 

 

Throughout this time, the British continued to send supplies to them at the begging behest of Stalin via the Arctic conveys throughout which countless British sailors froze to death under U-Boat and air attack.

 

As the Russians advanced through the East, the Polish resistance started the Warsaw uprising reasoning that the Russians would help, Stalin ordered them to halt the advance, as he reasoned he didn't want these upstarts around to kick off at his own troops once they occupied the place, and they were wiped out. 

 

With their virtually unlimited supply of manpower they wore the Germans down and, as they were fighting on the Western front againt us and the Allies, the Germans collapsed under sheer weight of numbers. 

 

The Russians then took their spoils and divvied the place up, and were certainly no friend to us ever since (and vice versa I admit). 

 

Piling any credit on them though is quite bizarre. It's like two fellas starting on you in the pub, then one starts hitting the other - who you help - and then people expect you to give him credit to you for helping you in the fight. Bollocks to that. 

 

It should be noted too that at the Yalta conference, Stalin suggested executing 25,000 German prisoners and Churchill was outraged by the mere suggestion, with Roosevelt reportedly having to step in and call for calm. 

 

And as fur Chuchill, you could write a thesis on the rights and wrongs of the man, but the fact remains he's the single greatest and most important leader this country has ever had, possibly the western world has ever had, in the context of what we had to lose had he not stood tall when he did. I've got no problem with people criticizing other things he did, but for me that's what he is and should be remembered for above all else. 

 

 

You are familiar with the number of German casualties and actual scale of battles on the eastern front? And saying they had virtually unlimited supply of manpower is really insulting to the enormous sacrifice people in the Soviet Union had to make to defeat the Nazi Germany, so other nations can talk about winning the war.

"Piling any credit on them though is quite bizarre."  *shakes head at that*

[magicrat]

6 hours ago, Section_31 said:

Except they didn't, that's kind of the point.

And he was re-elected in 1951

 

 

[Creator Supreme]

5 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Apparently McDonnell when asked about Churchill said : "Tonypandy - villain". So Churchill is said to be partly or mostly responsible for millions of deaths in India and the first thing that instantly comes into his head is Tonypandy? I really do find some of the stuff he comes out with bizarre.

Why? He was asked a question, he gave an answer! Maybe he knows more about Tonypandy than India!

[Creator Supreme]

59 minutes ago, magicrat said:

And he was re-elected in 1951

 

 

Your point being?

[cloggypop]

Stalin was still there in 1952.

[M_B]

We are in danger of this being a WW2\Churchill thread.

 

Churchill saved the UK from Nazism and helped to save Western Europe from Stalinism. That is significant and is to be applauded. However he made plenty of other poor judgements in his life and those are open to justifiable criticism, but that history should not deminish his achievements and visa versa.

 

As regards Russia, without their efforts the Allies would not have won WW2. I see little point in belittling their contribution and sacrifice which was far greater than ours. Equally however, the Russians would not have won WW2 by themselves.

 

As for Corbyn. I like him, but sadly I don't think he'll ever be Prime Minister. Only a united (and possibly more centrist) Labour party will overthrow the Tories\Media.

 

 

[ZonkoVille77]

1 hour ago, magicrat said:

And he was re-elected in 1951

 

 

 

Only because of the FPTP system. Labour actually got more votes overall. 

[ZonkoVille77]

5 minutes ago, M_B said:

Churchill saved the UK from Nazism and helped to save Western Europe from Stalinism. 

 

He might have been PM but he sure as shit saved nobody. Innocent young men did by giving their lives.

 

The collective should be remembered, not the cunt living in luxury giving his opinion over the phone.*

 

*This also applies to every world leader who has ever given an order that results in thousands on young people dying.

[M_B]

Well no, thats just not true sorry. Yes people gave their lives but he stood in a political vacuum in the face of overwhelming pressure to surrender and then steered the UK through Allied wartime strategy and politics.

 

Someone had to do it.

 

Your post is massively simplistic.

 

 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

He was still a bit of a cunt though. 

[M_B]

Just now, Nelly-Torres said:

He was still a bit of a cunt though. 

Absolutely. But he was our cunt, when we needed one.

[cloggypop]

29 minutes ago, M_B said:

We are in danger of this being a WW2\Churchill thread.

 

Churchill saved the UK from Nazism and helped to save Western Europe from Stalinism. That is significant and is to be applauded. However he made plenty of other poor judgements in his life and those are open to justifiable criticism, but that history should not deminish his achievements and visa versa.

 

As regards Russia, without their efforts the Allies would not have won WW2. I see little point in belittling their contribution and sacrifice which was far greater than ours. Equally however, the Russians would not have won WW2 by themselves.

 

As for Corbyn. I like him, but sadly I don't think he'll ever be Prime Minister. Only a united (and possibly more centrist) Labour party will overthrow the Tories\Media.

 

 

I agree with everything apart from the last paragraph. Not sure if Corbyn has a chance but centalism is being rejected across Europe. Tis the zeitgeist.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

7 hours ago, Boss said:

Only Britain could respect Neville Chamberlain and hate someone like Winston Churchill. If Churchill was the American leader he'd have his head carved into Mount Rushmore. 

Chamberlain's name has been a byeword for failure for 80 years.

 

Winston Churchill was voted the greatest Briton ever.

 

America's wartime leader (who also led the country out of the Depression) isn't carved on any mountains.

 

Apart from that, great post.