That Corbyn fella...

Many constituencies would return Gary Glitter if he stood under a Labour banner. There are some Labour MPs who might win if they stood as an independent, but I bet most would lose to whatever other candidate wore a Labour hat.

The party needs the individuals, but not as much as the individuals need the party. Else they'd have fucked off and formed Real New Labour TM.

What's the role of party members (and the like) in your view?

I think their role is changing. Before Corbyn, their role was to help campaign for their MP during elections, aid the party financially with their membership fees, and, of course, vote for their constituency candidate from a group of candidates chosen by the party. In my constituency, they ran campaigns to save libraries and stop damaging developments. Their role now seems to be to dictate policy, choose the leader, and threaten with de-selection any MPs that don't agree with that leader and policy. So the focus of the party is moving away from a grounding in electoral success.

Edit, another important role for Members of course is to protect working conditions and jobs through joining the afilliated trade unions. A clear example of this trident, where Corbyn has sort of given in, though much of his new membership would oppose it.

Please stop saying mandate like it means something in this context. Or in fact could everyone just stop saying it all together.

Those MPs were voted in for a multitude of reasons, seeing as I don't recall any one of them setting out their case that if elected they would challenge JC's leadership then no explicit 'mandate' is given.

Their mandate probably includes being a good local MP, championing local issues, not being a Tory that kind of thing.

Please stop saying mandate like it means something in this context.

The word is possibly unhelpful, agreed. However, it is used as a rebuff by Corbyn and his allies to any and all criticism of his leadership. Especially to make the point that it doesnt matter if none of his MPs have any confidence or respect for him, because of his 'mandate'. Maybe the MPs don't have a mandate in the same sense, but whatever they have, I think it's important.

Just out of interest. Where about in Po'salad do you live or is it Hove Actually?

I think we can all agree that Corbin having actual principles is the problem (repeated referenced by Winifred as a critical reason why he is dooming the Labour Party) and that therefore someone with no principles should be located immediately and put in charge- I believe that Cameron is free?

I wish he had had the balls yesterday to come out with an "immigration is a good thing" stance in his speech.

I am fed up with all politicians taking immigration is a bad thing as an accepted fact when in fact all economic evidence points to the opposite.

Leadership should lead, it should help inform and progress the thinking of the populace. Even when taking controversial positions.

Corbyn is in the perfect position to say the difficult things. It's not like he is just saying the throwaway easy things anyway, is he?

I agree, it's a shame. I imagine it's Corbyn doing what Winnifred says he can't, and trying to present some views that won't be equivalent to a lengthy piss on the third rail- like it or not the UK is a very right wing country and we're also pretty racist, both of those things having been both used to gain and furthered by the Brexit vote

I think we can all agree that Corbin having actual principles is the problem

All labour MPs are principled people. I did not say principles were the problem. But politics is about compromise, and the hard left are incapable of this. And compromise does not make you a tory, this slur is getting really tired.

Yes, we do have a large middle England, right wing contingent. We need to win some of their votes. Can we turn them all into socialists? No. Can we bring them towards the centre in their thinking by showing we understand their concerns? Possibly.

Where about in Po'salad do you live or is it Hove Actually

When I said "our MP" I meant our labour MP, speaking as a labour member. I live in West Norwood.

I wish he had had the balls yesterday to come out with an "immigration is a good thing" stance in his speech.

He said that our health service only manages to function because of the skilled immigrants working in it. He also said immigrants were not responsible for pushing wages down, but buoyed the economy by taking manufacturing and agricultural jobs that natives wouldn't.

I thought this was a good speech. Definitely an improvement, with more emphasis on detailed policy. He even referenced a Gordon Brown policy, that of giving money to communities badly affected by a rapid swell in migrants. So he is making a genuine effort to bring the party together.

Jess Philips, a birmingham MP, was quite positive on the radio. However she still would like specific assurances that if she rejoins the shadow cabinet the threats and abuse against her from new members will end.

Jess Philips would like specific assurances that the threats and abuse against her from new members will end.

The act of expressing that is likely to be key in making it not stop.

It's like telling the teacher about a bully.

What is the point of compromising your principles to get into power? You've become your enemy to defeat them, and have therefore won nothing.

If only labour could hate immigrants and the poor a bit more they'd be great for this country. Oh, wait..

What is the point of compromising your principles to get into power?

What is the point of having principles, if you have no power?

Hear, hear. It was measured and appropriate. He acknowledged the issues some communities are facing due to rapid growth of migrant workers whilst being broadly supportive of immigration.

I like Corbyn 2.0.

What is the point of having principles, if you have no power?

Not doing unprincipled things.

So if we achieve nothing, that's fine, because at least we will have done nothing wrong. I don't think that follows, because by doing nothing we are abandoning those who rely on the party to represent them.

I was just answer your question. I'm not getting caught up in a "Corbyn is unelectable, we need a Machiavellian pragmatist to get into power" debate.

Although we're seeing just that with your man Chuka getting all up in Ukip's grill. Fucking immigrants leading double lives. Which is obviously going to do loads to help immigrants and Labours electoral chances.

Would you dispute that large, non-integrated communities, where no-one speaks English, are a breeding ground for mutual resentment? I think he made an important point. There's a difference between saying "we don't like them, keep them out" and saying we need to understand them, and relate more closely.

I think fundamentally this is where the conflict lies.

Those who believe in principles first and being elected second, in the hope that the country as a whole will be improved by a principled opposition and it may drag the country more to the middle.

And those who believe in power first and principles second, in the hope that once in power it will be an improvement on the current situation, although not as good as it could be.

Would you dispute that large, non-integrated communities, where no-one speaks English, are a breeding ground for mutual resentment?

Yes.

^^Define 'integrated'. And while you are at it, define 'hard left' as it's a term you throw around with apparent expertise.

Just attempting to apply right and left to modern politics and politicians would be lols enough.

We should standardise our terminology...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_ideologies