Cycling UK Forum

reohn2 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:Why can't you have policies and good presentation? Am I really missing something here? They don't seem as though they're mutually exclusive to me. In my opinion I'd go for a third option, good policies/ideas and good communication of those policies/idea.

Your confusing communication with sales talk,so yes you are missing something.
Though whilst I agree it's nice to not have listen intently to the delivery of the message,I'd much prefer it if the message is worth listening to.

Not mistaking it at all. Good communication of ideas and policies is not just sales talk no matter how dismissive you want to be about that. Isn't convincing people of the value contained within your policies important to win votes? If you're unable to engage with those outside of the circles who are already converted then unfortunately in most elected democracies you don't win elections.

That is the situation of Labour leaflets my partner gets through the mail. She's not decided with her votes so is open to being convinced.

We've talked about these leaflets (the direct, addressed mail to my partner from Labour or the Tory leaflet hand delivered through the door). The only consensus we had was that they did not give us any answers or policies. They were both a set of platitudes to appeal to their core vote.

Labour were about Tories destroying state apparatus that benefits those most in need Tories about how Labour are not to be trusted with the economy or whatever it was. Not one set of policies. That is the possibly what you see as slick sales. Parties are too far down the path of telling you what the other party will do not what they do. That is a problem. However, going back to the OP, using the poor iconography of the failed communist Soviet era is very.unlikely to get people to read on to find their policies. That is poor communication IMHO.

TM
The question I posed up thread was:-

Which would you have a slightly off putting tone and sound policies,or a slick salesperson and a crap deal for all but the wealthy?

That was the choice on offer.
Whilst I agree it would be ideal for there to be good orator with good policies who I can trust,however as we were discussing the present political position you have two choices
One has a track record of utter failure over the past 6 years but can talk a good talk.
The other has a 40 year record of conviction of sound policies that brings a fairer society for all.
That's the choice currently on offer.

Who's the second option you're talking about? Seriously who?

If you mean Corbyn then you're mistaken. He's had a history of opposition not policies. He's only been against things that others put forward. Whilst I might agree with a few of his opinions to some degree I don't see them as viable policies.

He's had to look into policies since becoming leader of the Labour party. That's what such a role involves but that was the start of his involvement in policies in a serious way IMHO.

If my third option is ruled out of this discussion then this leaves you with only one of your options left. The slick salesman because Corbyn technically hasn't had good policies only ideas he's been putting out. Testing the water if you like. He's yet to seriously change Labour policies other than changing the mood music.

Take trident, a cornerstone of his beliefs as a senior figure in CND, he's been trying to change Labour policy on that but hasn't managed it. He's producing a manifesto for June 8th election so we'll see what his policies are shortly.

We'll have to agree to differ,you go with the present PM(take a loook at her track record) who presides over a failed government but with slick delivery.
I'll look elsewhere,Corbyn will be my first choice.

BTW,I also agree with him on Trident too

Tangled Metal wrote:If you mean Corbyn then you're mistaken. He's had a history of opposition not policies. He's only been against things that others put forward. Whilst I might agree with a few of his opinions to some degree I don't see them as viable policies.

He has always been a vocal advocate of renationalisation. That's a policy

That said, I agree that he has made a career of opposition, not only to Conservatives, but also his own party.

On the other hand, it is clear to me that he has been set there by his ideals.

How can an advocate for peace be anything but opposed to Trident? Or bombing Syria? Or involvement in Iraq?

How can an advocate for education be anything but dismayed at the increasing cost of tertiary education? Or how the system has failed many young people, and increasingly those with extraordinary challenges?

How can an advocate of renationalisation be anything but opposed to the privatisation by stealth that has occurred in the NHS over the last 15 or 20 years?

IMO, if the worst that can said of him is that he has made a career of opposition, well, he has been given a great many things to oppose. I, for one, am glad that *someone* has been doing it.

p.s. for a light take on Corbyn, check out his uncylopedia entry http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn

Wot she ^^^ sed

Vorpal wrote:He has always been a vocal advocate of renationalisation. That's a policy

That said, I agree that he has made a career of opposition, not only to Conservatives, but also his own party.

On the other hand, it is clear to me that he has been set there by his ideals.

How can an advocate for peace be anything but opposed to Trident? Or bombing Syria? Or involvement in Iraq?

How can an advocate for education be anything but dismayed at the increasing cost of tertiary education? Or how the system has failed many young people, and increasingly those with extraordinary challenges?

How can an advocate of renationalisation be anything but opposed to the privatisation by stealth that has occurred in the NHS over the last 15 or 20 years?

IMO, if the worst that can said of him is that he has made a career of opposition, well, he has been given a great many things to oppose. I, for one, am glad that *someone* has been doing it.

Despite what you write above I think your tagline says it better - 'in some ways it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility'. And that is where Corbyn has stood his entire political life. It can be seen as principled (though meeting terrorist groups when they are still advocating the gun and the bullet may be curious set of principles) and it has led Corbyn down some chancy avenues (he really hasn't dealt with anti-semitism properly). He is a dissident and his set of principles make him at best an ineffective leader and at worst someone else's patsy.

Ben@Forest wrote:Despite what you write above I think your tagline says it better - 'in some ways it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility'. And that is where Corbyn has stood his entire political life.

The man who wrote that made an amazing transformation from dissident to president.

Ben@Forest wrote:It can be seen as principled (though meeting terrorist groups when they are still advocating the gun and the bullet may be curious set of principles) and it has led Corbyn down some chancy avenues

Did Corbyn choose to talk with terrorists with a view to them remaining terrorists?
Or with agenda toward peace?
Thatcher famously said she'd never talk to terrorists,though she did unsuccessfully,and I've a good idea why.

(he really hasn't dealt with anti-semitism properly).

How so?

He is a dissident and his set of principles make him at best an ineffective leader and at worst someone else's patsy.

Whereas the present government has very few principles,other than profit for it's puppeteers,look where it's led us
Who's 'patsy' are they?

Vorpal wrote:

Ben@Forest wrote:Despite what you write above I think your tagline says it better - 'in some ways it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility'. And that is where Corbyn has stood his entire political life.

The man who wrote that made an amazing transformation from dissident to president.

Exactly - he compromised, he tried to understand the Afrikaner, he worked with a myriad of people with a wealth of ideas and opinions. Not Corbyn's style.

Ben@Forest wrote:Exactly - he compromised, he tried to understand the Afrikaner, he worked with a myriad of people with a wealth of ideas and opinions. Not Corbyn's style.

Saying Corbyn's style is not to compromise seems somewhat contradictory to criticising him for meeting with terrorist groups.

What do you think Mandela did? Spend all those years in prison on his principles? He was convicted as a terrorist, and he led the armed wing of the ANC.

Mandela was a great man IMHO that was able to make that change. Corbyn is not a great man and it's clear to me that he's struggling. Mentioning those two in the same breath is laughable and desperate.

Tangled Metal wrote:.....Corbyn is not a great man and it's clear to me that he's struggling..........

Care to elaborate?
Coz I'm betting that before he became Labour leader you'd no idea who Jeremy Corbyn was.

Tangled Metal wrote:Mandela was a great man IMHO that was able to make that change. Corbyn is not a great man and it's clear to me that he's struggling. Mentioning those two in the same breath is laughable and desperate.

I'm not suggesting that Corbyn is anything like Mandela, and I didn't start the comparison. But to suggest that it's 'desperate' to mention him in the same breath as Mandela also doesn't contribute anything constructive to the conversation.

What is Corbyn struggling with? Why is he incapable of rising to the challenge?

Vorpal wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:Mandela was a great man IMHO that was able to make that change. Corbyn is not a great man and it's clear to me that he's struggling. Mentioning those two in the same breath is laughable and desperate.

I'm not suggesting that Corbyn is anything like Mandela, and I didn't start the comparison. But to suggest that it's 'desperate' to mention him in the same breath as Mandela also doesn't contribute anything constructive to the conversation.

What is Corbyn struggling with? Why is he incapable of rising to the challenge?

Corbyn is old school socialist who has been chanting the same mantra for decades. Perfectly honourable, but not pragmatic. The UK public does not go for that brand of socialism. Labour leaders who have won power have done so by seeking out a pragmatic middle ground. Corbyn has nothing to offer that would win over those who do not see themselves as definite lefties. Here in the former Labour stronghold of Wales there is a real possibility that Labour could end up with fewer MPs than the Tories for the first time in more than a century.