Although not a Labour Party supporter, anymore than I am a Conservative Party supporter in their current guise, as I believe they have a vital constitutional role to play at the moment might I be permitted to comment?

I believe it's essential, and in the wider public interest, for Corbyn to be replaced and for Labour to ditch it's leftward drift and reclaim the sensible middle ground as soon as possible.

Beating populism in the UK, ensuring the supremacy of Parliament over the executive remains as a fundamental pillar of our system, and ensuring that if we are to exit the EU we do so on a basis that causes the least harm is a duty on the Labour party which transcends normal politics.

They cannot do that while they fight internal battles.

I would like them to go much further and establish electoral pacts to ensure that the "no no deal/remain" vote isn't split thus allowing Johnson to creep in. That might well create a Tory/Brexit party alliance but at least then we can all be very clear what is at stake at the forthcoming GE.

Before that of course we need to get beyond Oct 31st unscathed and see what the bunch of anti-democrats do after the Supreme Court verdict.

Labour though needs to man up and do what's needed. There are some decent people in their ranks, alongside some less appealing and they need to be strong. The problem is their internal systems which hand far too much influence to the membership and not sufficient to the MPs. So whether they can actually do it is a very open question.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Populism - a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

I don't see anything wrong with that

The primary thing that's wrong with it is that is far too simple. Cutting and pasting the first result on a google search doesn't get to the heart. Populism means different things to different people.

As an alternative there is this, from the Cambridge Dictionary:-

"political ideas and activities that are intended to get the support of ordinary people by giving them what they want".

Now that seems a much more accurate definition for the current political climate in the UK, Hungary, Turkey and the USA as examples. Giving people what they want rather than what they need is an irresponsible abrogation of responsibility.

Try reading this as well:-

[Link]

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (22 Sep 2019 8.33pm)

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

This thread isn't meant for me, which is fair enough.

Still I just wanted to post this as it made me chuckle earlier.

Attachment: Bucket.JPG (82.68Kb)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Like giving away “free stuff” that isn’t actually free and just increase our national debt?

Strange how the economist and the FT have now become left wing rags by the way. Just shows you who’s actually in charge.

He definitely needed to go. He's awful.
He stood for remain and lost.
Stood for a GE and lost.
He got hammered at the EU and local elections.

Labour have tried to get rid of him twice but cant.

I noticed today they are still using the "for the many, not he few" tagline that lost the last election.

Friends in politics have told me that momentum do not care how many elections they lose, just as long as they have a far left Labour party.