Ship of Fools: The Labour Party Leadership Contest

Thread: The Labour Party Leadership Contest Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030040

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

As many of you will know, there is an election underway for the leadership of the Labour Party. Since this Ship appears to list heavily to port, and many of you may well have a vote, I'd be interested to know who gets your backing.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I am voting for JC (appropriately for a Christian website). Labour trying to out tory the tories is doomed to failure.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Corbyn without a doubt. A no-nonsense man of intellect, integrity and principle. He also seems to be confounding the right wingers who say he couldn't win - all the gossip I'm picking up is that he's very popular with the general public.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Corbyn without a doubt. A no-nonsense man of intellect, integrity and principle. He also seems to be confounding the right wingers who say he couldn't win - all the gossip I'm picking up is that he's very popular with the general public.

He has beliefs - which is a refreshing change. But the downside is that he is a sitting duck for the likes of the Daily Mail and the Sun. They will pillory him into smithereens - it will make what they did to Miliband look like a picnic. Think "Michael Foot's Donkey Jacket" and then multiply by a factor of 10.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm picking up is that he's very popular with the general public.

I very much hope that we get the chance to put that idea to the public vote!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Corbyn. As a lefty the way of integrity, to my mind, is to advocate for what you believe in, and try to win the war of ideas to gain public support. I don't see the point of being Tory-lite just to get power.

Ol' Tone can stick his 'heart transplant' up his arse.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Corbyn all the way. Anything that makes Labour that bit less electable is worth supporting... [Biased]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Corbyn all the way. Anything that makes Labour that bit less electable is worth supporting...

It's interesting. I see lots of people saying that a move leftwards would be the wrong thing to do, yet no evidence is ever cited. By contrast, the SNP were generally well to the left of Labour in Scotland and (for a mixture of reasons) won a landslide.

In a shocking move, journos are just starting to ask the general public (rather than a focus group in Slough) what they want. And here's the result: the public agree with Corbyn.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

I suppose that politicians who can contrive to suggest that they are on the same side as their voters will attract votes.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

It's interesting that the Tories are wanting Corbyn, thinking he's an easy target.

After Michael Howard's failure in 2005, I recall the left were preferring his successor to be the younger, inexperienced toff who'd never had a proper job, lacked an understanding of the working classes and was seen as an unelectable fool who was too far right of centre.

Be careful what you wish for...

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Corbyn without a doubt. A no-nonsense man of intellect, integrity and principle. He also seems to be confounding the right wingers who say he couldn't win - all the gossip I'm picking up is that he's very popular with the general public.
He has beliefs - which is a refreshing change. But the downside is that he is a sitting duck for the likes of the Daily Mail and the Sun. They will pillory him into smithereens - it will make what they did to Miliband look like a picnic. Think "Michael Foot's Donkey Jacket" and then multiply by a factor of 10.

Sadly, it's Labour themselves who'll slaughter Corbyn. If he becomes leader, I can see the parliamentary Party engineering another leadership challenge within a year - ignoring the democratic decision of the whole Party. And that's when Labour has really, finally had it.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I see lots of people saying that a move leftwards would be the wrong thing to do, yet no evidence is ever cited.

The evidence is every general election in the last half a century or so. Left wing parties may command the fierce loyalty of their members and have a solid core of voters, but they don't win elections and become governments. Those achievements go to whichever party can hold the centre ground.

If Labour move left they will cede the centre ground to the Tories, and therefore become more likely to lose the next election.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

Can the centre and the left not co-exist within one party?

Given anecdotal evidence that Corbyn is popular with some of the public, a mix of popular socialist policies and policies that appeal to the centre would appear to be a winning formula.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The evidence is every general election in the last half a century or so. Left wing parties may command the fierce loyalty of their members and have a solid core of voters, but they don't win elections and become governments. Those achievements go to whichever party can hold the centre ground.

If Labour move left they will cede the centre ground to the Tories, and therefore become more likely to lose the next election.

Those are arguments from 20 years ago. Just as 90s Labour were right to move on from 70s policies, 2010s Labour should recognise that politics has changed a lot since 1997. A move to popular socialist policies wouldn't cede the centre ground to the Tories simply because these Tories are nowhere near the centre ground: they're probably the most extreme doctrinaire right wing Government we've had in living memory. That they were pushed towards the centre in 2010-15 by the LibDems is to the shame of the LibDems, who succeeded only in making the Tories look acceptable.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Those are arguments from 20 years ago.

Really? As I've said in the Purg thread, without Blair the Labour Party hasn't won a general election since 1974 and hasn't won a majority of seats in England since 1966. The argument for winning from the centre is compelling, though I'm happy for Labour to ignore it.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Corbyn all the way. Anything that makes Labour that bit less electable is worth supporting...

But many in the general public agree with a lot of his policies/beliefs.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Corbyn all the way. Anything that makes Labour that bit less electable is worth supporting...
But many in the general public agree with a lot of his policies/beliefs.

Shame they didn't ask a question about whether they considered Hezbollah to be their friends.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Corbyn all the way. Anything that makes Labour that bit less electable is worth supporting...
But many in the general public agree with a lot of his policies/beliefs.
Shame they didn't ask a question about whether they considered Hezbollah to be their friends.

Isn't it rather Christian of him to offer the hand of friendship - in the sense of being willing to speak to people - despite disagreeing with them? [Two face]

Compare and contrast Thatcher's love-in with Pinochet.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Corbyn all the way. Anything that makes Labour that bit less electable is worth supporting...
But many in the general public agree with a lot of his policies/beliefs.
Shame they didn't ask a question about whether they considered Hezbollah to be their friends.

Given that Hezbollah and ISIS are enemies, I'd guess that even things like that might be flexible over the next few years. Also, this isn't America. Pro-Palestinian views are mainstream in Britain.

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :

I don't have a vote, but my sister-in-law does and she is for Corbyn. Her brother likewise. I agree wholeheartedly.

Never heard of the others.

Tony Blair says that anyone who says he is heart and soul with Corbyn should get a transplant.

Tony could use a brain transplant, IMHO

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Also, this isn't America. Pro-Palestinian views are mainstream in Britain.

I think you can be in favour of Palestinians without being in favour of terrorists (in the same way that one might be in favour of a United Ireland but deplore the IRA). I'm not so sure that pro-Hezbollah views are mainstream in Britain.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Corbyn. As a lefty the way of integrity, to my mind, is to advocate for what you believe in, and try to win the war of ideas to gain public support. I don't see the point of being Tory-lite just to get power.

Ol' Tone can stick his 'heart transplant' up his arse.

Amen

Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :

I will be voting for Corbyn. This leadership vote has exposed the party as more right-wing than I'd ever realized and if Corbyn fails I shall never vote Labour again, whichever of the other candidates wins.

I voted for Ed Miliband in the election out of desperation and loyalty, but Labour's true colours are now revealed and they are surprisingly blue. If Corbyn fails I'll be going Green next time rather than attempt to choose between two Tory parties.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:

Given anecdotal evidence that Corbyn is popular with some of the public, a mix of popular socialist policies and policies that appeal to the centre would appear to be a winning formula.

I don't think Corbyn can compromise. He's too much the principled rebel. Similarly, I don't think he'd be prepared to compromise enough to provide some left-wing spine in a centrist candidate's cabinet.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Did anyone see Corbyn on C4 news a week or two ago? It's not exactly a hostile environment, but he was asked about his "friends" comment. Corbyn lost the plot, ranted, raved and almost stormed off. It left me feeling he hasn't the emotional equilibrium to cope with being Party Leader, let alone PM. However, now that Blair has condemned him, his chances of leadership have sky rocketed. Last time round Blair made it quite clear he favoured Dave, so the party went with Ed. Although the Tories revere him, TB has no following within Labour, as far as I can see.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

On the other hand you have Prezza saying how good it is that JC is standing, so he could cancel out the Blair effect.

I like that the presentation of JC's policies was a press-free zone: as The Times* put it, the policies of 1983 presented as if it were 1883.

*Opinion piece today by Philip Collins - very good and also quite funny in places.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Did anyone see Corbyn on C4 news a week or two ago? It's not exactly a hostile environment, but he was asked about his "friends" comment. Corbyn lost the plot, ranted, raved and almost stormed off. It left me feeling he hasn't the emotional equilibrium to cope with being Party Leader, let alone PM.

My reading of that episode was that Corbyn lost his patience when Guru-Murthy was intent on indulging in trashy interview technique. Guru-Murthy has yet to learn he's no Paxman, and when to let go of a question that's going nowhere.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Ken Livingstone has described him as having the popular touch like Nigel Farage.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Well, that should sink his chances then.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Not necessarily - given that UKIP did very well in the General Election

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/jeremy-corbyn-is-the-only-candidate-the-public-actually-likes--labour-or-otherwis e-10407998.html - implies I'm not alone in thinking that there is value in honestly campaigning for what one truly believes in, and trying to win the war of ideas, rather than try to be all things to all people.

I hope, therefore, that Marvin is right for the wrong reasons [Razz]

[ 25. July 2015, 15:43: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Jeremy Corbyn has been a top-notch member of the awkward squad in parliament for decades. He's a lot like Paul Flynn, the veteran Newport (West) MP in that and Flynn too is popular and left-wing.

I honestly doubt that Corbyn has the steel in him to handle years and years of questioning plus keeping the herd of cats that is the Parliamentary Labour Party in any kind of order, so I'll be holding my nose and voting for Andy Burnham.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Andy Burnham would also be my second choice.

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

Corbyn.

quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I will be voting for Corbyn. This leadership vote has exposed the party as more right-wing than I'd ever realized ...

I agree. The threat by the Labour right to force another leadership contest if Corbyn wins reeks of entitlement ('If they don't vote the way we want, we'll make them vote again until they choose one of ours'). Perhaps that threat, and the threat to split the party if Corbyn is elected, and the description of the MPs who put Corbyn on the leadership ballot as 'morons' by a former aide to Tony Blair, will make a lot of us on the left think hard about whether to vote Labour in future?

Labour went to the right in the 1990s. Labour then won a general election in '97. Some people conclude that, therefore, Labour can only win by going to the right. I see it differently.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Labour went to the right in the 1990s. Labour then won a general election in '97. Some people conclude that, therefore, Labour can only win by going to the right. I see it differently.

And 2001, and 2005.

How do you see it differently? When did Labour last win by going to the left?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Labour went to the right in the 1990s. Labour then won a general election in '97. Some people conclude that, therefore, Labour can only win by going to the right. I see it differently.
And 2001, and 2005.

How do you see it differently? When did Labour last win by going to the left?

When did Labour last fight an election by going to the left? Answer: 1983 against the backdrop of a jingoistic press cheering on a PM who had just won a war and a group of arrogant tossers deciding now was the time to split the party. If the Labour right grit their teeth and get on with it like the Labour left did in the Blair years then we'll see a very different story.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Labour went to the right in the 1990s. Labour then won a general election in '97. Some people conclude that, therefore, Labour can only win by going to the right. I see it differently.
And 2001, and 2005.

How do you see it differently? When did Labour last win by going to the left?
When did Labour last fight an election by going to the left? Answer: 1983.

Yes, quite correct, but that's not the question I asked.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Labour went to the right in the 1990s. Labour then won a general election in '97. Some people conclude that, therefore, Labour can only win by going to the right. I see it differently.
And 2001, and 2005.

How do you see it differently? When did Labour last win by going to the left?

1964 IIRC, after Wilson had won the leadership on the death of Gaitskill. The Tories by contrast only have to go back to 1970 (Heath) to find a win following a move to the left. It's been "Right, right; right, right, right" since, as far as electoral success is concerned.

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
How do you see it differently? When did Labour last win by going to the left?

How do I see it differently? Labour lost repeatedly from 1979 to 1992. Was it because Margaret Thatcher occupied the centre ground? Hardly! Her politics, whatever you think of it, involved change which was radical then. Instead of occupying the centre ground, Thatcher redefined it - with privatisation, deregulation, the right to buy council homes and free-market economics - all policies which continued under subsequent leaders, both Conservative and New Labour.

When did Labour last win by going to the left? Good question! My guess would be under Clement Attlee, in 1945 (or 1950). Of course, I acknowledge your point that going to the left could mean that Labour loses the next election(s) - yes, you could be right.

Of course, conservative campaigners and the conservative media would relentlessly pillory a leader like Corbyn - but they would relentlessly attack any Labour leader. Tony Blair was the most right-wing leader in Labour history - that did not prevent them putting demon eyes on him in the famous 'New Labour, New Danger' poster in '97, nor did it prevent The Sun from calling Blair "THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN BRITAIN" on 24 June 1998. Yes, Blair went to the right and won - but, I suggest, a more left-wing Labour leader could still have won in '97, albeit with a smaller majority.

Like Thatcher, Attlee redefined the centre in British politics. Attlee's leadership left us with health care based on need, not the ability to pay; welfare to mitigate poverty and better pensions for dignity in old age; a duty to provide housing for people who were homeless through no fault of their own and better conditions for workers, among other policies.

As I see it, British politics is overdue for another transition in thinking, like the transformations of 1945 and 1979. I admit that I don't see any evidence that any of the Labour leadership candidates is able to achieve a transition like those of Attlee and Thatcher. I see Corbyn as the best chance for a leader who would actually challenge the post-Thatcher political consensus, rather than cringe and equivocate. For me, that's the least bleak option - to "Rage, rage against the dying of the light", as it were.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I've just heard that The Labour Party is investigating postal voting for the leading because it appears that about a thousand votes* are from members of other parties*.

Do Shipmates have suggestions about who they might be voting for?

* i) a suspiciously round number ii) I think we all know which party they mean!

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I caz haz done votin fur realz, Jez we can !

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I've just heard that The Labour Party is investigating postal voting for the leading because it appears that about a thousand votes* are from members of other parties*.

Do Shipmates have suggestions about who they might be voting for?

* i) a suspiciously round number ii) I think we all know which party they mean!

Which party do you think they mean (genuine question): the Conservatives? The Greens? The Socialist Workers' Party?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I think the fears of entryism are overdone, even if there are a couple of thousand dogy affilates I think they'll get rather lost amongst the 400,000.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

That might depend on the margin of victory by the winning candidate.

(Congrats on voting for Corbyn, btw)

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I believe we can win the argument ...

We will either get Corbyn or Burnham - I could live with Burnham best of the triplets of Blairdom.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I believe we can win the argument ...

We will either get Corbyn or Burnham - I could live with Burnham best of the triplets of Blairdom.

Burnham, the only Health Secretary to privatise a NHS hospital. Yes, he could be fun too!

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I believe we can win the argument ...

We will either get Corbyn or Burnham - I could live with Burnham best of the triplets of Blairdom.
Burnham, the only Health Secretary to privatise a NHS hospital. Yes, he could be fun too!

I'll see your privatisation of an NHS hospital by Andy Burnham and raise it with Margaret Thatcher's grammar school closures in the 1970's.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I did say live with rather than be thrilled with.

Out of interest, Anglican't, would you oppose the renationalisation of the railways ?

[ 18. August 2015, 21:38: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'll see your privatisation of an NHS hospital by Andy Burnham and raise it with Margaret Thatcher's grammar school closures in the 1970's.

Even the best have their imperfections.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Out of interest, Anglican't, would you oppose the renationalisation of the railways ?

Yes, on the basis that I don't think it'd make them any better as well as costing taxpayers' money.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

We already pay taxpayers money in the form of a massive subsidy - is there a reason to do that ?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Railway financing is a complex subject and I don't claim to understand it fully. Nor do I deny that some kind of public money might be necessary. But I don't think the faff of nationalising railway companies is going to make the system any better. And I suspect the system now is probably better than it was when nationalised.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Railway financing is a complex subject and I don't claim to understand it fully. Nor do I deny that some kind of public money might be necessary. But I don't think the faff of nationalising railway companies is going to make the system any better. And I suspect the system now is probably better than it was when nationalised.

Privatisation didn't work at all for the infrastructure. The FTSE listed Railtrack company suffered as a result of serious railway accidents (Southall, Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield - all embarrassingly close to London), leading to a lack of commercial confidence, financial problems and transfer of most of its operations to Network Rail, an arms-length body, in 2002.

Compared to Railtrack I suppose most of the operating companies have been roaring successes.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

Is rail actually value for money? I don't know the answer, and most people publishing reports on the subject have an ideological axe to grind in one or other direction, so none of them are trustworthy.

It's certainly the case that when I was in the UK last, it was substantially cheaper to rent a car and pay for petrol and parking than it was to take the train (for my family, even with advance purchase cheapest-possible-tickets tickets). This is without including the costs of luggage and the last mile problem.

But there are all kinds of hidden costs and subsidies - the government subsidizes rail, but also builds the roads. There's a lot of tax on petrol - I don't know how much tax trains pay for their diesel.

The numbers for private vs public transport will change a lot depending on whether you assume that public transport will reduce the number of cars owned, or reduce the total car usage but not the total number of cars.

ETA: There are different questions for passenger rail and rail freight. The answers may or may not be the same.

[ 18. August 2015, 22:46: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Perchance we should move this discussion to purgatory ? (I suddenly recall having started this massive tangent ...)

[ 18. August 2015, 23:07: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

I would vote for Liz Kendall because she is the only candidate who wants to engage with 40million+ voters.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I saw Andy Burnham in action last Friday on Any Questions? And I am going to see Piers Corbyn this Friday.

Last week I was in the front row having had a question chosen for broadcast (public sector strikes), but they only got to the person before me by the end of the programme. Andy Burnham is a career politician, along with Matthew Hancock, the Conservative Government Paymaster General who was also on the panel. He struck me as saying anything that would get him elected without necessarily meaning it. The entertaining bit was seating Andy Burnham next to Germaine Greer and her taking him (and Matthew Hancock) to pieces a couple of times.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

If Andy Burnham is a career politician then the same can be said of Jeremy Corbyn. Apart from a couple of years on VSO, and work as a trade union official, politics has been his career too. FWIW I prefer his politics to those of Burnham, but I think Burnham will be a better leader.

(Piers Corbyn is the weird-as-hell weather forecaster)

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Yes, sorry - I meant Jeremy Corbyn.

Andy Burnham was odd live. He really didn't feel as if he meant anything, but was mouthing the right platitudes. There was more conviction from Tom Conti, Matt Hancock and Germaine Greer, in increasing order. Greer picked Andy Burnham up for saying things had "credibility at their heart" which is the sort of platitudinous stuff he was spouting.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Yes, sorry - I meant Jeremy Corbyn.

Andy Burnham was odd live. He really didn't feel as if he meant anything, but was mouthing the right platitudes. There was more conviction from Tom Conti, Matt Hancock and Germaine Greer, in increasing order. Greer picked Andy Burnham up for saying things had "credibility at their heart" which is the sort of platitudinous stuff he was spouting.

I can imagine Germaine Greer making mincemeat of them and Burnham does look pretty poor "off-the-cuff". I prefer Corbyn's policies, which are very close to those of Newport MP Paul Flynn, but he's no leader.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I would vote for Liz Kendall because she is the only candidate who wants to engage with 40million+ voters.

Really? I got the impression that she was interested in engaging only the 11 million who voted tory. She certainly doesn't seem to give a shit about anyone who voted Labour, Green or SNP, or didn't vote at all.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I would vote for Liz Kendall because she is the only candidate who wants to engage with 40million+ voters.
Really? I got the impression that she was interested in engaging only the 11 million who voted tory. She certainly doesn't seem to give a shit about anyone who voted Labour, Green or SNP, or didn't vote at all.

If Labour had won every seat in Scotland at the last election the party would still have lost. If they had won over a large chunk of Green voters, would they have fared any better? (Assuming, that is, one can win over Green voters without losing moderate Labour voters.)

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Railway financing is a complex subject and I don't claim to understand it fully. Nor do I deny that some kind of public money might be necessary. But I don't think the faff of nationalising railway companies is going to make the system any better. And I suspect the system now is probably better than it was when nationalised.

Depends how you nationalise, surely? East Coast mainline ran jolly well and profitably under state ownership and was only flogged off (to bloody Virgin) for ideological reasons AFAICS. And there are several train companies which are state owned- just not owned by our state (think DB who own Arriva Trains, Abeilio which AIUI is Dutch Railways, etc).

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Albertus is right. There is also the issue that franchise holders perform very well when they come close to the renewal date, then fall back into their bad habits once they've got it. And Network Rail are a quasi-nationalised company anyway.

The biggest two problems IMO is that money paid to shareholders (much of it Government subsidy) is taken out of the system instead of being ploughed back; and that the interfaces between franchisees, Network Rail and contractors is hideously and expensively complicated and frustrates streamlined management.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Curiosity killed...

quote:
Andy Burnham was odd live.

How could you tell? I swear he's a prototype android produced by someone who worked with Gerry Anderson on Thunderbirds; nothing he's said so far tells me any different.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Curiosity killed...
quote:
Andy Burnham was odd live.
How could you tell? I swear he's a prototype android produced by someone who worked with Gerry Anderson on Thunderbirds; nothing he's said so far tells me any different.

Right producer, wrong show.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I would vote for Liz Kendall because she is the only candidate who wants to engage with 40million+ voters.
Really? I got the impression that she was interested in engaging only the 11 million who voted tory. She certainly doesn't seem to give a shit about anyone who voted Labour, Green or SNP, or didn't vote at all.

I thought this was the point of triangulation - you can take the Labour vote for granted, so focus on Tory voters, and Tory policies, and sort of water them down a bit for our people, and bingo, the Tories will vote Labour.

Only trouble is, our people did notice this, and began to vote SNP, UKIP, Green and Tory, in large numbers.

It reminds me of neo-liberalism - it caused the biggest economic crisis for 80 years, so the solution is obviously to apply more neo-liberal policies.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

My wife was listening to the allegations made against Jeremy Corbyn on the radio yesterday. She was very cross about them, and exploded: "How can they say such things? He must be one of the most anti-antiSemitic people around!"

Gently I reminded her of what she had said ... and what she'd really meant. We had a good giggle about it!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Hooray - have just voted.

Corbyn for leader, Bradshaw for deputy.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

That's a curious combination!- although I suppose it's a kind of balanced ticket. I put Burnham first, Corbyn second for leader- would be happy with either- Cooper third in case the wildly unlikely happens and it comes down to her v Kendall. For deputy, Eagle then Watson; no others.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Isn't Stella Creasy standing for deputy? She'd be a very formidable opponent though I don't know whether she's been tarred with the 'Tory' brush yet.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Isn't Stella Creasy standing for deputy? She'd be a very formidable opponent though I don't know whether she's been tarred with the 'Tory' brush yet.

She hasn't because she generally isn't, regardless of what the Taxpayers (ho-ho) Alliance might think.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
That's a curious combination!.

Well, I wanted a leftie, a Christian and a gay person.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
That's a curious combination!.
Well, I wanted a leftie, a Christian and a gay person.

So if Ben Bradshaw was straight you might not have voted for him?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

This morning I voted Corbyn for leader, with Burnham as second choice. I didn't use my third and fourth votes. Angela Eagle for deputy, with Tom Watson and Stella Creasy as follow-up options.

But I once used the word "socialist" in a conversation, so my vote might be disallowed.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

If Corbyn wins, it will be due to his supporters excellent campaigning - I had a phone call from one today - but the other candidates merely send out emails.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Well, he's done it. 59.5% of votes in the first round.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Five years is five years. He may be deposed by then.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

47% of members, 57% of the union affilates and over 80% of the £3 supporters - it is a hell of a mandate.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I agree. Difficult to shift a man with such a mandate. Fingers crossed that he's around in 2020!

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I hope so, for reasons entirely different to your own [Big Grin]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Politicswise I was especially pissed off with Cameron the other day - he apparently said the tories are having a conversation about the extent of the state. What annoys me so much is that they are precisely not doing that, I believe that is why they would like many functions - such as healthcare provision - divested from the state, but they are actually not having that public debate. They are doing whilst pretending it is deficit driven, rather than a philosophical choice.

One thing I hope will happen as a result of Corbyn's election, is that such a public discussion actually happens. I would rather an honest ideological debate than be patronised and lied to about what folk want to do and why.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

(The left wing equivalent would be piecemeal renationalising of railway franchises repeatedly claiming its because targets haven't been met, or as a result of such and such accident inquiry - rather than saying, we want to renationalise therefore we will not renew the franchises as they expire.)

[ 12. September 2015, 12:10: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
47% of members, 57% of the union affilates and over 80% of the £3 supporters - it is a hell of a mandate.

I think the whole thing is distinctly questionable. Some genuine Labour supporters didn't get votes, some genuine non-Labour supporters who'd paid £3 purely to create mischief did, some genuine Labour supporters were told their votes were invalid and de-registered. It's ludicrous inviting anyone and everyone to vote for £3 - utterly naive. It ought to have been restricted to paid-up members of the Labour party. Personally I think they should declare the election invalid. It may be that Corbyn won by a genuine majority but there will always be a question mark over his election.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
It may be that Corbyn won by a genuine majority but there will always be a question mark over his election.

Not with such a significant margin. Whilst I agree that the three quid votes were a bit of a shambles, it is beyond belief that everyone who paid three quid was an agitator or bad actor (which is what you'd need to cast the result into question).

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

As I've laid out on the purg thread, he'd have won outright even without the £3 supporters - all the other candidates were over 50,000 votes behind him. Rigging on that scale could not occur without detection.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think it is a good job he has won by a significant margin. If it was close, the winner would always be in doubt, and would struggle against this all of the time.

As it is, the process is a shambles, and this needs to be sorted out, but it does look like he has overwhelming support from the members and supporters of the party (and others who might be Labour supporters if they had not been such a sell-out for the last decade or so).

He has a very tough job ahead of him. But I think he might be up to it. I think we might be in for an interesting period in politics - I really want him to tear pieces off Cameron.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Its 2015 and we have a party which still finds itself unwilling to elect a woman, so much so that it prefers a serial rebel without experience of even a shadow post; moreover we seem to think it feasible to install as leader someone who, if they win the next election, will be days short of his 71st birthday.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

I'm sure Cooper and Kendall will prefer to think they were defeated by sexism rather than by just not being terribly impressive candidates (neither was Burnham, of course).

And good to know that we're writing off anyone in their sixties...

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Its 2015 and we have a party which still finds itself unwilling to elect a woman, so much so that it prefers a serial rebel without experience of even a shadow post; moreover we seem to think it feasible to install as leader someone who, if they win the next election, will be days short of his 71st birthday.

I think I would be unlikely to vote for Jeremy Corbyn on a number of grounds but they would not include his age.
I'm not sure that ageism is much of an improvement on sexism really..

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

We should probably move the detailed discussion to purg, a new thread or the future of socialism thread.

FWIW, as a feminist, I resent the suggestion I voted for Corbyn because he was a man. I did not vote for the women standing because I did not agree with them.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0