|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Jeremy Corbyn out?
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Some of the PLP is next, unless is stops listening to each other and starts listening to the world *shock* outside Westminster.
What makes you think that they haven't already and then come to the conclusion that Corbyn is a loser?
Labour has won all four by-elections since 2015.
Labour has won the mayoral elections in London, Salford, Liverpool and Bristol.
Labour did as well in the local elections as they did in 2001.
Labour now has the largest membership of any political party in the UK.
A majority of Labour voters voted Remain.
Corbyn has the largest mandate of any Westminster politician, including the PM.
But apart from that, yes, he's a total loser.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
If the parliamentary labour party isn't prepared to stick to socialist principles, what is the point of the parliamentary labour party.
Do you believe that the PLP MPs aren't prepared to stick to socialist principles?
It was mdijon who said that. I was responding.
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But apart from that, yes, he's a total loser.
Labour need to win, what, say 100 seats to form the next government? How many do you think Jeremy Corbyn is capable of winning?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Tts Michael Foot all over again.
Some folks never learn.
Michael Foot was not the problem. The gang of 4 deciding to vote with their egos and split votes across the country was the problem.
It's taken a while for the penny to drop on this one, but it occurs to me that whatever Jeremy Corbyn does, he cannot lose. He seems to represent (in the eyes of his devotees) a kind of pure, Grade A socialism, so refined that the pursuit of it must be unquestionably correct. The seeming blind obedience it seems to engender in otherwise intelligent people is, as an outsider, fascinating in many ways.
And so it seems that the Conservatives might very well win the next general election with a massive majority. But it won't be because Jeremy Corbyn lost, because he can never lose, because he is pure. It'll be because of the Parliamentary Labour Party; or the 'right-wing press' (a term often used to describe the Mail and Murdoch-owned papers, but conveniently expanded to include the Guardian and probably anything except the Morning Star when it suits); it'll be because Labour voters weren't listening properly. It might even be because of MI5 or mysterious Zionists who exercise secret powers. But it won't be because of Jeremy. He cannot lose.
Barmy, but fascinating.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
It's taken a while for the penny to drop on this one, but it occurs to me that whatever Jeremy Corbyn does, he cannot lose. He seems to represent (in the eyes of his devotees) a kind of pure, Grade A socialism
No. Most of them don't think he's a pure socialist, the only people making that identification seem to be projecting - a lot.
I think what he represents to most of his supporters is a break with the traditional politics of consensus around a neo-liberal center. Who don't really see the point in winning if the price is that there are two parties of the centre-right.
Their personal support of JC himself is perhaps more prone to change than people think, that he has retained support is more due to the lack of alternatives rather than anything else.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But apart from that, yes, he's a total loser.
Labour need to win, what, say 100 seats to form the next government? How many do you think Jeremy Corbyn is capable of winning?
I'm detecting the same sort of Gish Gallop from you that I'm seeing in the media.
At least acknowledge that my list of 'losses' are true before we move on to the next question.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
If the parliamentary labour party isn't prepared to stick to socialist principles, what is the point of the parliamentary labour party.
Do you believe that the PLP MPs aren't prepared to stick to socialist principles?
It was mdijon who said that. I was responding.
Yes I saw that. I was still interested in your personal view. Some socialists are more pragmatic than others when it comes to matters of policy. That doesn't mean they have abandoned socialist principles. Half a loaf is better than no bread.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Labour need to win, what, say 100 seats to form the next government? How many do you think Jeremy Corbyn is capable of winning?
Answer to first question: Yes. As things stand at present, Labour cannot win a general election. But this doesn't depend at all on who their leader is, it's simply that they don't have the votes.
Answer to second question: No idea, but Blair won a landslide for Labour in 1997 simply because the electorate were so fed up with the Tories and he put forward new ideas. There's currently a lot of anger around at the Tories but it didn't get expressed in Labour votes at the last election because the Labour campaign was so difficult to distinguish from the Tory campaign. Say what you like about Corbyn, he comes across as different. So who knows?
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]Half a loaf is better than no bread.
No one is satisfied any more with a tory loaf with a light pink sprinkling. At the moment, the PLP is close to being gluten-free in terms of identifiably Labour crumb.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
If Labour MPs have collectively abandoned any meaningful trace of socialism, then why did socialist Labour members campaign for them in the first place?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If Labour MPs have collectively abandoned any meaningful trace of socialism, then why did socialist Labour members campaign for them in the first place?
1. The Labour party have been haemorrhaging members for years.
2. Because of hope.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But apart from that, yes, he's a total loser.
Labour need to win, what, say 100 seats to form the next government? How many do you think Jeremy Corbyn is capable of winning?
I'm detecting the same sort of Gish Gallop from you that I'm seeing in the media.
Perhaps I'm just a spawn of the Murdoch-Rothermere-Scott Trust nexus?
quote:
At least acknowledge that my list of 'losses' are true before we move on to the next question.
Well, technically, yes they are. But...
Labour has won all four by-elections since 2015.
This is true. But one of those by-elections occurred in a seat that hasn't returned a non-Labour MP (if one includes predecessor seats) since before 1918. For another, not since before 1935. To chalk these up as meaningful Labour victories in the context of the electoral success of the party or the leader is, I think, ridiculous. The only one of these four of note, I'd say, is Tooting in which Labour increased a fragile majority. But was that to do with Mr Corbyn's dynamic leadership of the Labour Party or because the departing MP had just been elected mayor and there was a strong local candidate? (I canvassed in Tooting, met a lot of Labour voters (sadly) and none of them mentioned Corbyn to me.)
Labour has won the mayoral elections in London, Salford, Liverpool and Bristol.
Terrific. I don't know about the politics of Bristol, but Salford and London are traditionally Labour cities, are they not? And the Mayor of Liverpool was facing re-election so he was presumably campaigning on his record?
Labour did as well in the local elections as they did in 2001.
So why isn't Labour doing better now (after years of supposedly cruel Tory-led government) than it did when it had been in power for four years? Shouldn't it be doing far better than it did in 2001? I would've thought so.
Labour now has the largest membership of any political party in the UK.
Lovely. Will be interested to see whether this translates into actual people willing to tramp along pavements on wet Saturday mornings canvassing.
A majority of Labour voters voted Remain.
I haven't seen a breakdown of the result by party allegiance. Would be interested to see such a thing if it exists. There appears to have been some confusion, thanks to Mr Corbyn's (lack of) leadership on this issue as to what Labour's position even was. If such a view was widespread, it would seem that many Labour voters voted Remain in spite of Corbyn rather than because of him.
Corbyn has the largest mandate of any Westminster politician, including the PM.
But that's meaningful how? By comparison, if one were to add up the number of votes cast for Labour MPs who oppose Corbyn (something like 172 of them, right?) one would presumably get a figure that dwarfs the number of votes cast for Corbyn or his acolytes.
I'm not sure that this is all so reassuring.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]Half a loaf is better than no bread.
No one is satisfied any more with a tory loaf with a light pink sprinkling. At the moment, the PLP is close to being gluten-free in terms of identifiably Labour crumb.
That's pretty dismissive of some very good people, good constituency MPs, who have given their lives in support of the Labour movement. And who maybe, just maybe, know rather more about UK political realities and electability than you think.
I'm 73 so I've seen this play out a couple of times before. I think those who believe that idealistic attitudes towards means and ends will get you a parliamentary majority any time soon are most likely going to have to learn what two previous generations of Labour supporters learned. I admire the enthusiasm. But I don't think it's coupled with realistic expectations.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LR-by-party-768x558.jpg
Basically Corbyn carried the voters about as well as Sturgeon carried hers. [Okay -- you could of course claim that that poll is inaccurate too - though in that case on what are you basing your opinions on, because .. see below]
(Kept quote, as it means there's some disclaimer about the source, and uncertainties involved, and credit)
The adding individual contests doesn't seem quite right, without some kind of recognition of the nature of contest. I don't quite know how it should be scaled in terms of mandate, if Ron was an option, or even if AV, it would be a bit clearer.
For what it's worth, in simple terms, I'd guess it to be around 5m (the labour party as a whole got 9million, and I've guessed from there...).
But the use of mandate as solely a privilege annoys me anyway. The mandate is a responsibility to represent the people. Yes, situations change, and MP's should have the benefit of attending debates and being able to put more thought in.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That's pretty dismissive of some very good people, good constituency MPs, who have given their lives in support of the Labour movement. And who maybe, just maybe, know rather more about UK political realities and electability than you think.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to this line of thinking; however, as I've pointed out a few times, the ball is really in the court of the PLP to put up an credible alternate candidate and make a proper, reasoned case - which is something they have signally failed to do [preferring instead to mostly behave like Kevin the teenager in the media and on twitter].
Secondly, I think there are other things going on that make this particular era somewhat different. I think we have reached the limits of Blair style third-wayism, and that is something that isn't restricted to the UK, you can see reflections of this all across Europe. Simultaneously the power of business to steer politics both directly and indirectly has never been greater, and this has lead to the various contortions some of the previous set of leadership candidates went through (Liz Kendall's Nicola Murray-esque agreement in order to oppose).
I don't think that there was an halycon age where Labour was driven purely by the desires, political aspirations and needs of the working classes, but I think the contrasts at this point in time are stark. [There's a related crisis for any sort of paternal Toryism that isn't all that far away either].
In the short term you - and they - may be right on electability, but I think the broader aim of most of the more thoughtful activists is to change the terms of the question around electability.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]Half a loaf is better than no bread.
No one is satisfied any more with a tory loaf with a light pink sprinkling. At the moment, the PLP is close to being gluten-free in terms of identifiably Labour crumb.
That's pretty dismissive of some very good people, good constituency MPs, who have given their lives in support of the Labour movement. And who maybe, just maybe, know rather more about UK political realities and electability than you think.
I'm 73 so I've seen this play out a couple of times before. I think those who believe that idealistic attitudes towards means and ends will get you a parliamentary majority any time soon are most likely going to have to learn what two previous generations of Labour supporters learned. I admire the enthusiasm. But I don't think it's coupled with realistic expectations.
I think you forget the fury which in my case arises from the huge waste of opportunity which was Blair. His opportunistic corrupt craven politicking got the country so much less far than could have been achieved if he had not been guided by George w Bush and the right wing media.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
At least acknowledge that my list of 'losses' are true before we move on to the next question.
Well, technically, yes they are. But...
You really do have to have this dragged out of you, don't you? You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thunderbunk
I think chris styles' observations about the probable decline of the effectiveness of "third-wayism" (which was the essential DNA of New Labour) may well be right, but they had bugger all to do with George W Bush and the right wing media. This article re the origins and philosophy of New Labour is pretty good.
I'm absolutely furious about Iraq and it will forever besmirch Tony Blair's reputation, but it's not the whole story when it comes to evaluating New Labour and the more general European experiment with mixed economies.
Mixed economies are indeed pragmatic compromises between pure capitalism and pure socialism, but I'd be a lot more bothered about social stability in the UK if it became politically polarised around a choice between pure capitalism or pure socialism.
quote:
Originally posted by chris styles:
In the short term you - and they - may be right on electability, but I think the broader aim of most of the more thoughtful activists is to change the terms of the question around electability.
I have no problems with the aspiration to do that but how short do you think the short term might be?
An initial part of that answer must take into account the current disastrous divisions and how long it will take to recover from those. And what then will happen to the existing PLP MPs? Resignations, deselections prior to the next General Elections, a Labour Party conference or two revising existing policies along more purely socialist lines. Two years at least to get our house back in some sort of order before we even begin the job of persuading a suspicious electorate that the new radical Labour movement may have what it takes to run a government.
There is a transitional cost and time associated with a move to more purist policies. Making the transition now is bound to lose the next General Election and will probably lead to further loss of parliamentary seats. An aspirational policy to "change the terms of the question about electability" might enable some recovery of lost ground, but we will be coming from a long way back. I think it would take two elections to get a majority. Effectively, you're looking at being in opposition until 2030. By which stage I probably won't be around.
You may accuse me of cynicism, but according to "Yes Prime Minster", far-sighted and courageous policies not only lose you the next general election but the one after that. Doesn't "changing the terms of the question of electability" fall into the category of far-sighted and courageous?
[ 25. July 2016, 01:02: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
At least acknowledge that my list of 'losses' are true before we move on to the next question.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, technically, yes they are. But...
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You really do have to have this dragged out of you, don't you? You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.
It's hardly fair to clip the first sentence from a point-by-point discussion of your examples. You might not agree with the reasoning but that one-sentence dismissal doesn't get us anywhere.
[ 25. July 2016, 04:12: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Answer to first question: Yes. As things stand at present, Labour cannot win a general election. But this doesn't depend at all on who their leader is, it's simply that they don't have the votes.
Surely the leader influences the votes? And the leader will set the policies that influence the votes?
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Answer to second question: No idea, but Blair won a landslide for Labour in 1997 simply because the electorate were so fed up with the Tories and he put forward new ideas.
But his new ideas where a centre-left approach, not so different from the approach favoured by virtually every challenger to Corbyn. Today these approaches are criticized as insufficiently different from Tory. And yet Blair won with them. This doesn't seem consistent. If the key thing was difference from the Tories then Foot would have won, Kinnock would have won and Blair would have lost. If Blair's victory had depended only on anger against the Tories he wouldn't have won more than the first election.
I accept it is possible the landscape has changed and Tory-lite/centre-left is no longer a winning formula, but one can't argue that changed landscape based on history.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If Labour MPs have collectively abandoned any meaningful trace of socialism, then why did socialist Labour members campaign for them in the first place?
1. The Labour party have been haemorrhaging members for years.
2. Because of hope.
The point I'm getting at is that if party members have been knowingly campaigning for Blairite MPs, they can't complain when those MPs start behaving like Blairites.
And (with the caveat that this might be a strawman), if party members would really prefer a TUSC or Green agenda but campaign for Labour on the grounds that TUSC and Green candidates will never be elected, they can hardly complain that Labour MPs also compromise on pure socialism in the cause of electability.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
[Ish, but when the day after a close relative of the then PM says she wants to join the Labour party, they intentionally take the headlines. They're compromising on pure socialism at the expense of (short term) electability.
I guess there could have been a trigger discussion, but there can't have been much time for it.
[ 25. July 2016, 06:11: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
They're compromising on pure socialism at the expense of (short term) electability.
I don't know who the story behind the close relative joining the labour party so might be misinterpreting you, but if electability isn't part of the deal then it really doesn't matter how pure anything else on the ticket is.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
The point was they (Hillary Benn et al) were giving both away.
It was Emily Sheffield (Samantha's sister)
The Independent version
To be fair, the mail version, has it to oust Corbyn (though only in the headline). But the tweets are from the day after the referendum, (and I'm sure I saw something Saturday, though can only see things from the Monday) before the events on Sunday (though obviously she's probably better informed). And wasn't ever true blue.
But the point being that would have been an ideal chance to woo those Tory's, whereas now (thanks ironically to the one's most in tune) they've lost that free chance, alienated a section of the workers (I.E the Brexity ones), and pissed of the liberal left. It might not have been enough, and pure socialism probably isn't a virtue anyway.
It might not have been enough, and perhaps an existing different leader, could have changed the balance and got more (or of another group instead). And you may have needed a future change to keep them.
[killed link and can't get it back in time, sorry] huff pst
(Independent link fixed - B62)
[ 25. July 2016, 08:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I'm not looking for pure socialism, I don't think; I am looking for a government which looks to people rather than corporations for its standard of well-being. New Labour failed comprehensively at that, being every bit in the pockets of large corporations as any Tory administration.
There is a huge gulf, that is not yet widely recognised, between the interests of small companies (including sole traders) and those of large corporations. To an unacknowledged extent, the latter rely on the operations of government to protect them from competition and create a favourable environment for them. They come into that category noted after the 2008 crash, "too big to fail", and they are an obvious point for governments to identify with, because they operate at a similar scale, and governments have for some time had an obsession with operating like private sector organisations - an ideological obsession every bit as damaging as the most abstruse and perverse Trotskyite mantra.
If I'm preaching pure socialism, then the political spectrum has shifted so far to the right as to be meaningless.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I'm not looking for pure socialism, I don't think; I am looking for a government which looks to people rather than corporations for its standard of well-being. New Labour failed comprehensively at that, being every bit in the pockets of large corporations as any Tory administration.
What exactly does "being in the pockets of large corporations" mean to you? It sounds like a pretty sweeping allegation of corruption to me.
So let's try to clarify. Do you have examples in mind, of legislation, or statutory instruments, enacted by New Labour, which demonstrate that the government, or any particular minister, was "in the pockets of large corporations"? Also, is there evidence of any New Labour government minister receiving kick-backs from large corporations in exchange for favours?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
At least acknowledge that my list of 'losses' are true before we move on to the next question.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, technically, yes they are. But...
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You really do have to have this dragged out of you, don't you? You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.
It's hardly fair to clip the first sentence from a point-by-point discussion of your examples. You might not agree with the reasoning but that one-sentence dismissal doesn't get us anywhere.
It was late, I was going to bed, and yes, I could have 'debated' the utterly self-serving and dismissive commentary Anglican't dished up.
But I'm not obliged to. I'll take the technically-yes and move on.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If Labour MPs have collectively abandoned any meaningful trace of socialism, then why did socialist Labour members campaign for them in the first place?
1. The Labour party have been haemorrhaging members for years.
2. Because of hope.
The point I'm getting at is that if party members have been knowingly campaigning for Blairite MPs, they can't complain when those MPs start behaving like Blairites.
Which is a perfectly fair point. People in difficult marriages make all sorts of compromises they'd rather not, and couldn't have foreseen that they'd make.
Perhaps this is the start of the divorce proceedings. I don't know.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Perhaps this is the start of the divorce proceedings. I don't know.
It is beginning to feel like "irreconcilable differences".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You may accuse me of cynicism, but according to "Yes Prime Minster", far-sighted and courageous policies not only lose you the next general election but the one after that. Doesn't "changing the terms of the question of electability" fall into the category of far-sighted and courageous?
It is arguable that the more gradualistic set of policies were already tried and found wanting.
Prior to Corbyn's election to leader there were two schools of thought floating around. Firstly that Labour had lost a lot of their working class support because of not being insufficiently anti-migration whilst simultaneously being distrusted on the economy because they weren't sufficiently pro-austerity. At the same time, some more thoughtful commentators pointed out that the 'Labour heartlands' had been subsidised but never really re-developed economically during the Blair years, and this had led to a gradual ebbing away of support.
Both prior to the leadership campaign and during the campaign itself, mainstream Labour pushed the first line. Hence things like the 'Controls on immigration' mug, and abstaining from voting on the Welfare bill, as well as Liz Kendall branding anything to the left of Blairism as extremism. [The reason I keep returning to Kendall btw, is that at least the start of the leadership election she was seen as the pundits choice, with Yvette Cooper being too close to the previous administration and Andy Burnham being portrayed as a characterless droid].
The problem with playing on this ground is that you alienate parts of your core constituency, and those inclined to vote Tory won't believe you anyway. So the idea that the way forward once the 'Third Way' had run out of steam was to move to the right of Blair seems somewhat fantastical - as is the idea, incidentally, that the PLP could set up a successful technocratic party of the centre/centre-right.
I think we have hit a secular crisis, and the current issues within the Labour Party are just a symptom of a wider malaise in politics. I do not believe it is possible for the Labour party to win by endlessly triangulating on every issue - as they will always be outflanked by the Tories, whilst simultaneously losing every pretension of progressiveness. I do not think that having a right wing government with a centre-right opposition is a desirable state of affairs.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It was late, I was going to bed, and yes, I could have 'debated' the utterly self-serving and dismissive commentary Anglican't dished up.
But I'm not obliged to. I'll take the technically-yes and move on.
Now we've agreed that what you posted were facts (even if we appear to very much disagree on the significance and/or relevance of those facts) I wondered, out of interest, whether before moving on you had considered the further question I asked (and which you refused to consider until I accepted that what you had stated were facts)?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It was late, I was going to bed, and yes, I could have 'debated' the utterly self-serving and dismissive commentary Anglican't dished up.
But I'm not obliged to. I'll take the technically-yes and move on.
Now we've agreed that what you posted were facts (even if we appear to very much disagree on the significance and/or relevance of those facts) I wondered, out of interest, whether before moving on you had considered the further question I asked (and which you refused to consider until I accepted that what you had stated were facts)?
As to whether JC can win a parliamentary majority? If the PLP weren't behaving like (as I think chris stiles said) Kevin the teenager, possibly. Currently, no, though I think he'd do far better than expected.
That is, of course, all Corbyn's fault. Because he's such a loser.
There'll be a by election in Jo Cox's constituency soon. If Labour retain the seat, it'll be despite Corbyn. If they lose it, it'll be because of Corbyn.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
If they retain it, it will (also) be in memory of Jo Cox herself. I predict an increased majority.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Batley and Spen, owing the the circumstances in which the vacancy arose, is currently going to be contested by Liberty GB, The English Democrats and the Labour Party. In those circumstances one would expect the Labour Candidate to win by an extremely comfortable margin. At which point we will be expected to answer the question: "Did he or did he not win all the by-elections contested under his Leadership? Come on! You get to have your own opinions but not your own facts! Five by-elections! Yes or no?"
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
As to whether JC can win a parliamentary majority? If the PLP weren't behaving like (as I think chris stiles said) Kevin the teenager, possibly. Currently, no, though I think he'd do far better than expected.
Personally I think that's a fair comment. "Possibly" is as much as anyone can ever say in politics.
But how does he get the PLP to get on board so he can turn the "no but better than expected" into "possibly"? Either he has to compromise his approach to win enough of them over to subdue the rest, or declare war and get a new PLP. Neither is easy, but those were the choices to start with and he opted for both. (i.e. lack of compromise and hoping they would all come on board). It hasn't worked. So now what should he do? Clearly some of his supporters would prefer a new PLP.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
For those who say not a hint of fault in Corbyn's approach I wonder what to make of stories like this and this one.
And since I originally posted now this as well.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Perhaps this is the start of the divorce proceedings. I don't know.
It is beginning to feel like "irreconcilable differences".
Saying what you really want to say in the way you want to say it, has to be balanced against what you judge will be well received by your audience. You might be a politician setting out your policies, or a candidate applying for a job, or someone thinking how to post right here: you have to pitch it right.
This compromise is always there; it is part of communication. Is the issue for the Labour Party simply about adjusting this balance? Is it something deeper?
From my perspective towards the Corbyn end of the scales, it feels as if many of the PLP have learnt to hide their opinions. I don't doubt that some of them are in favour of redistributive tax, for example, but it's a generation since you could catch anyone saying it. Instead they will talk about rewarding hard working families, encouraging business interests, having a competitive fiscal environment and I don't know what else. They think it is electorally safest to sound as if they want to be hard on welfare and supportive to 'wealth creators'.
In power under Blair and Brown they did mildly redistributive things, but dressed it up in tough language.
Now that they are distant from power they need to pull the debate towards the left. They need to win some of the arguments about economics, migration, equality, defence policy, electoral reforms and protecting parliament from business and media influence. In fact they need to reframe the discourse around these issues.
Electability can wait. When an election looms, one where 40 lost Scottish seats might not be decisive, then is the time to turn a project into a set of policies expressed so they don't frighten the floating voters. Maybe the new head of the Murdoch empire would like a conversation, too.
Maybe a majority of the PLP don't want a more equal society, would prefer to send immigrants back, are willing to kill 10 million people if a conflict gets out of control, and think we should all be grateful to the rich. Maybe a majority just believe they should sound as if that's how they think.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Now that they are distant from power they need to pull the debate towards the left. They need to win some of the arguments about economics, migration, equality, defence policy, electoral reforms and protecting parliament from business and media influence. In fact they need to reframe the discourse around these issues.
.. and further to my post above, I would say one minor triumph of Corbyn/Mcdonnell was to hold the anti-austerity line until it was picked up on by other politicians (and even May echoed parts of it in her initial speech).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
From my perspective towards the Corbyn end of the scales, it feels as if many of the PLP have learnt to hide their opinions. I don't doubt that some of them are in favour of redistributive tax, for example, but it's a generation since you could catch anyone saying it. Instead they will talk about rewarding hard working families, encouraging business interests, having a competitive fiscal environment and I don't know what else. They think it is electorally safest to sound as if they want to be hard on welfare and supportive to 'wealth creators'.
Well, I don't know which members of the PLP you had in mind, there, but all of them were elected on a manifesto which involved raising the top rate of taxation from 45% to 50% and implementing a property tax on homes over a value of £2 million pounds. The same manifesto also called for the ending of non-domisciled status for wealthy people who pay no tax here. During the subsequent leadership campaign Liz Kendall, who to judge by some of the remarks on this thread is regarded as Mrs Thatcher's last horcrux, opposed the Chancellor's inheritance tax cuts on the grounds that the money could more usefully be spent on early years education. So, apart from all the Parliamentary Labour Party, including the Blairites, none of them have called for redistributive taxation.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I thought chris styles' analysis was very helpful. The Kevin the teenager collective insult is not so. The PLP MPs who have voted no confidence are a pretty variable group. Maybe some of the complaints have been a bit whingy but by no means all. Some have already been linked in this thread.
I don't think all Corbynistas are the same either.
[ 25. July 2016, 11:33: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I thought chris styles' analyses was very helpful. The Kevin the teenager collective insult is not so. The PLP MPs who have voted no confidence are a pretty variable group. Maybe some of the complaints have been a bit whingy but by no means all.
The thing is these complaints are the tip of the iceberg that started the day after Corbyn was elected, almost immediately a number of the PLP stated very publicly that they would refuse to serve in a Shadow Cabinet should they be asked, a number of others then started giving statements to the papers about hypothetical scenarios in which they would rebel against the leadership (incidentally, reverse the sexes and ask yourself how acceptable a threat to 'stab X in the front' would actually be).
So no, the fact that amongst all of this dross they have managed to come up with a few reasoned statements doesn't raise my overall opinion of them.
Even if they had a case, there are better, more organised, more dignified and ultimately more electable ways of making the same set of points.
[ 25. July 2016, 11:39: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
At which point we will be expected to answer the question: "Did he or did he not win all the by-elections contested under his Leadership? Come on! You get to have your own opinions but not your own facts! Five by-elections! Yes or no?"
And undoubtedly Corbyn will be expected to answer the question: "These were all just shoo-ins, right? Bristol and London were Labour cities (never mind the previous independent and Tory mayors) and were easy victories. When are you actually going to win something?"
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Fair enough, callan. I don't follow politics enough to remember many facts, though I accept I am not entitled to my own (that was a great line).
I still think, though, that despite those marginal policies, the Labour Party has worked very hard to sell itself as a pro-business party and to shake off the accusation that it believes in benefits. Worse, it seems to have accepted the suggestion that our country has been brought to the edge of economic collapse by the overwhelming amount of benefit fraud.
I forget manifestos, but I listen to the Today programme and Question Time, and I do not hear Labour MPs talking as if there was much merit in welfare. I hear them accepting that it is a drain on hard working people that should be reduced at all costs. I do not hear them saying that benefit fraud is trivial in terms of costs. I do not hear them taking about what it feels like to be on benefits.
Nor do I hear them talking about the replacement of traditional industries by insecure and low paid work as drivers and packers and call-centre workers, or the relentless march of computer driven efficiencies.
There are important questions about who will enjoy the profits of future economies where low skilled work is replaced by machines. This is already happening. Will those who own the machines benefit, or will we all, and how on earth might that be managed?
If I want answers to such questions I have to look for them myself, because the politicians who might represent me are stuck in the small government, light regulation, everyone look out for themselves ideology of the day. They daredn't talk about the future, what we would like society to look like, what we think would be fair, still less what sort of people do we want to be. A 5% adjustment to a tax band is a little disheartening.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Good post, hatless. Some of the plp have gone so far to the right, they sound like the old time and motion experts, (anybody remember measured day work?) I think Brexit is part of their inheritance, since some Labour areas feel neglected by all governments. I suppose something similar happened in Scotland, with the turn to the SNP.
A shift back to the left seems inevitable, but nobody can predict how this will be integrated in the future, and which personnel might be involved, usually somebody we haven't thought of. But for me, Corbyn is keeping alive the soul of the Labour, and for that, much thanks.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I don't think the issue is that the Labour party forgot the dispossessed of the North. I think the issue is that they got it wrong. They thought immigration and European anti-democracy were the big issues and didn't believe the stories about economic damage and the benefits of cooperation with and being in Europe.
I think the same is true of Corbyn's unelectability. The PLP moved right because it made them electable and they decided they liked being in power better than opposition. Then when they were in opposition and had moved right there are two pulls - stay right and have another go at being electable or go back left.
I am left wing. I wish socialism was electable. But it isn't. That's because the electorate are getting it wrong. They got it wrong on Europe, they get it wrong on immigration and wrong on benefits. I don't really know whose fault that is but I reject the article of faith that the electorate are right and if we only talked about the right things in the right way they would come around to see things our way. They don't necessarily and they haven't.
By all means let's keep trying but let's not delude ourselves that they is a majority of nascent socialists out there just waiting for the right explanation. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, and until we've tried everything there is to try we don't know. The alternative is to not bet on it and compromise.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't think that Labour forgot the deprived areas, they took them for granted. I mean they took a Labour vote for granted, and yes, also did provide some succour, in the form of investments, Sure Start, and so on.
There are also those awkward questions, which I think Corbyn is asking - is it right that one person gets the minimum wage, another one gets a bonus of X thousands?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think it is about actually making the argument in the first place, and until very recently that just hasn't been happening.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hang on. Can we go back a bit? Sarah G seems to be saying that Corbyn is deliberately organizing abuse and intimidation. That strikes me as pretty inflammatory. So she claims to know Corbyn's motivation - how?
Look, the thing is really simple. If how individual members of the NEC voted was made public knowledge, those voting against JC would face an almighty reaction from the Corbynistas, based on, well, everything that's happened so far (the 44 female MPs and minority figures will do for just a start). Multiply by 10 if the vote had gone against Corbyn.
She knew that, others on the NEC knew that, and that's why they were scared. That's why some who ended up supporting Corbyn to be on the ballot paper, voted for a secret vote.
JC knew what would happen to those who could be identified as voting against him.
There is no excuse for putting NEC members in that sort of fear, and certainly not 'transparency'.
Now could you answer the question put to you by Ricardus, please, which is really what I'm trying to say and he put better?
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Example being the daily mail 'slave labour' smear - it's the second time the daily mail have tried this, running a very similar story in 2015 that they then had to withdraw and apologise for. The claim is being retweeted with hashtag #slavelabour - but it's unfounded.
Actually, it's not just the Mail. Most national papers seem to be carrying the story. The Mirror for one.
I would have thought that Momentum of all organisations would have gone for Fairtrade t-shirts. This is an absolutely dead serious request away from all the noisy politics- if anyone reading this has connections, could you suggest they go FT on this and other things?
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are also those awkward questions, which I think Corbyn is asking - is it right that one person gets the minimum wage, another one gets a bonus of X thousands?
Do you think everybody should be paid the same salary, whatever their role?
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I'm not looking for pure socialism, I don't think; I am looking for a government which looks to people rather than corporations for its standard of well-being. New Labour failed comprehensively at that, being every bit in the pockets of large corporations as any Tory administration.
What exactly does "being in the pockets of large corporations" mean to you? It sounds like a pretty sweeping allegation of corruption to me.
So let's try to clarify. Do you have examples in mind, of legislation, or statutory instruments, enacted by New Labour, which demonstrate that the government, or any particular minister, was "in the pockets of large corporations"? Also, is there evidence of any New Labour government minister receiving kick-backs from large corporations in exchange for favours?
Does the phrase "special advisors" mean anything to you?
In any case, it's a question of the drift of policy making, and how much difference a change of government made. To my mind, it didn't make nearly enough difference: there was still a tendency, at every turn, to make policy driven by the twin poles of lobbying and Daily Mail editorials, under New Labour as under the Tories. Unfortunately, I don't really have the time for a forensic analysis of the information available, but this is my memory of the accumulated impression, and why I voted Liberal Democrat in 2001 and 2005: they seemed to be the only people interested, at the time at least, in not being Tory. The irony.....
[ 25. July 2016, 16:49: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
