How Much is a Corbyn?

Fella

antrobus wrote: »

That's where I think you are going astray. There is no contradiction between (a) having principles and (b) being prepared to compromise those principles in the interests of getting things done. In my view that is an ethically superior position because, by being prepared to compromise you are implicitly recognising that other people have principles too, and they are just as valid yours.

Simply proclaiming that your principles are somehow better than anybody else's, or even claim that your opponents have none at all, is just plain arrogance.:)

We do disagree. Principals are absolute or don't exist at all IMO. Brown (& latterly Miliband) being two shining examples of people who had none. Milliband wouldn't voice an opinion on any topic without testing how that opinion polled first. And Broon detested his own voters if they dared to question him (unfortunately for him he left the mike on whilst he did it).

The irony is it's your own position that's incredibly arrogant. You think it's ok to get in bed with scumbags if the means justifies the end. Fair enough, your own view. To suggest that any other view is invalid if it doesn't concur is arrogance in the extreme.

Mistermeaner

An overly simplistic view of the world fella

Have you seen braveheart? Uncompromising men are easy to admire but being noble is about knowing when and how to compromise.

By your view a leader should blindly pursue his convictions and ignore all feedback from his followers: dictate in other words. Such leaders soon lose the support they need to make them a leader, unless they hold power with force (ala sadam etc)

A true leader knows how to listen and adapt; the examples you use of milliband and brown are good examples of bad leaders but for reasons other than (or in addition) to those you state.

A leader should of course at times be strong, have conviction and state a clear view for others to follow, but also recognise when it is time to listen, adapt and compromise - often conceding minor points with a view to a bigger picture and a longer game.

This is politics

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Fella wrote: »

Principals are absolute or don't exist at all IMO. .

Which is all well and good.

But the entire point of a political party is to gain enough electoral success to form a government and actually be able to enact their policies.

And that generally means very significant amounts of compromise when forming those policies, so as to appeal to sufficient quantities of voters to get elected..

If you want to hold firm to absolutist principles then really, you're not a political party with any chance of achieving anything, you're a pressure group.

Fella

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

If you want to hold firm to absolutist principles then really, you're not a political party

Amen to that.

Fella

Mistermeaner wrote: »

By your view a leader should blindly pursue his convictions and ignore all feedback from his followers: dictate in other words.

Do you truly believe that no-one without principals has ever led, ever?

If so, why do you bother getting out of bed in the morning?

Mistermeaner

You are a sith. Only siths deal in absolutes.

Fella

Wow, you turned out to be boring. Way to go with that Star Wars reference. Any good at anagrams?

Mistermeaner

No there's just no point arguing with you. You're clearly not intelligent enough for considered conversation.

Good luck in your black and white world.

Fella

Mistermeaner wrote: »

No there's just no point arguing with you. You're clearly not intelligent enough for considered conversation.

Good luck in your black and white world.

Yawn. I love you passive aggressive morons who like to have a dig then back off when they get a response.

Feel free to have the last word if you need it. As always when dealing with children like you I won't respond either way.

Mistermeaner

Fella wrote: »

Yawn. I love you passive aggressive morons who like to have a dig then back off when they get a response.

Feel free to have the last word if you need it. As always when dealing with children like you I won't respond either way.

Always happy to chat but look at your post 180 where you quote part of what I said then assert I said something completely different - clearly for me a pointless discussion.

Its akin to me quoting you as above then saying "are you saying you don't like children then?"

It's just pointless talking with you