advertisement


Labour leadership election (part II)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Robert

Tapehead
Do you mean different in the way that The New Hope for Britain calling for "unilateral nuclear disarmament, withdrawal from the European Economic Community, abolition of the House of Lords, and the re-nationalisation of recently privatised industries like British Telecom, British Aerospace, and the British Shipbuilders Corporation" was different.

And we all know how well that went down in 1983. Corbyn is not original or different or acceptable to the electorate. Had Dennis Healey been elected leader instead of Foot he could have led a Labour government and avoided the Miner's Strike and all the damage that caused.

Yes, without the SDP splitting from the party, Labour would have won!

The same right wing that so treacherously gave us a decade of Thatcher are threatening to do the same again.
Trouble is, 40 years have elapsed and there is now no mood for a 'sensible' social democratic party among a huge section of the public who've become increasingly disillusioned with the moderate centre, as evidenced by the near annihilation of the Liberals and the failure of Labour to gain traction.

I'm afraid you like many other on the right seem to do your political thinking in some kind of bubble, devoid of any attachment to economic developments.
During this current parliament, our economy will take another dive after perhaps the weakest recovery in history. There comes a point were tolerance to the neoliberal agenda runs out.
 
Any means to circumvent this faux democracy is fine by me.

Doesn't leave much room for fair means does it? You want to overthrow the present system and replace it with, lets see, which socialist dictatorship do you feel provides the best guidelines on how to organise the country.

I think you are well intentioned, but blind to what your approach would bring about - chaos, suffering and more suffering as those in control cannot make Socialism (as outlined by Marx) work.

Has Socialism ever remotely achieved what it promised?
 
Doesn't leave much room for fair means does it? You want to overthrow the present system and replace it with, lets see, which socialist dictatorship do you feel provides the best guidelines on how to organise the country.

I think you are well intentioned, but blind to what your approach would bring about - chaos, suffering and more suffering as those in control cannot make Socialism (as outlined by Marx) work.

Has Socialism ever remotely achieved what it promised?

Is your axe sharp yet?

Talk about quoting out of context.
 
Yes, without the SDP splitting from the party, Labour would have won!

If Healey had become leader there would be no SDP. But blaming the SDP (with 23 seats) is a bit misleading when the Tories got nearly twice as many seats as Labour. Maybe a left wing government is not what the electorate wanted.

I'm afraid you like many other on the right seem to do your political thinking in some kind of bubble, devoid of any attachment to economic developments.

I would say this applies more to your thinking. Marxists have been unable to connect with the real world for over a century. You predicted riots in Europe earlier this year which did not emerge. Greece has taken a hammering and living standards have been sliced to pieces, but no storming of government offices. You cannot explain this and all your other predictions about the collapse of the present system can be taken with a pinch of salt.

During this current parliament, our economy will take another dive after perhaps the weakest recovery in history. There comes a point were tolerance to the neoliberal agenda runs out.

The worst recession since the 1930s didn't force an overturn of the system (not even small protests) but you think a slow recovery will. That's what I call detached thinking.

PS I am not a right winger just because I don't think Marxist theory provides a prescription on how to organise our lives in a better way.
 
Do you mean different in the way that The New Hope for Britain calling for "unilateral nuclear disarmament, withdrawal from the European Economic Community, abolition of the House of Lords, and the re-nationalisation of recently privatised industries like British Telecom, British Aerospace, and the British Shipbuilders Corporation" was different. And we all know how well that went down in 1983.

Corbyn is not original or different or acceptable to the electorate. Had Dennis Healey been elected leader instead of Foot he could have led a Labour government and avoided the Miner's Strike and all the damage that caused.

The thing you are missing IMO is the huge, huge shift to the right since that time. To my mind Foot, whilst a genuinely decent and intelligent bloke, was simply out of touch with the zeitgeist of his time. The UK of the late 70s was being strangled by the unions etc and something just had to change. Anything. I didn't personally like that change and left school straight onto Thatcher's never-ending dole queue, but I do acknowledge that some degree of rebalancing needed to occur as things had moved too far to one extreme. We are now at the opposite extreme.

35 years of neoliberalism with zero forward planning or coherent national strategy has left the country a hollowed-out shell without even the basic infrastructure to keep the lights on short of dealing with gangsters or the insanely religious. We can't even get people to work reliably as the roads, rail and bus system is basically f***ed. Add to that exploitative zero hours contracts, reduced workers rights and the typical 'George Osborne High St' of chain pound shops, gambling dens and loan-sharks and it's obvious how far we've crashed as a nation. That's before acknowledging that the police, by their own admission, don't even have the resources to keep law and order any more. And then there's education; we live in a country where a bell-end such as Toby Young can run a bloody school! How the hell did that happen?

Corbyn's policies are actually pretty moderate: it is obvious the railways need kicking into touch as privatisation has been such a catestropic failure in this area. Likewise power (though as I stated earlier I fundamentally disagree with the fine detail here - I'm pro nuke and lots of it until we get green energy up and running properly!). Look around the better parts of Europe and you will see nationalised transport and power infrastructure. It's not communism, just a far better way of managing things that need a long-term national strategy.
 
The way they are behaving is disgusting. How dare they tell me that I'm stupid for voting for the person I want to vote for?
Voting for who you want does not demonstrate your stupidity, it's voting for Corbyn that's the marker.

If Corbyn becomes leader then the Labour party breaks. And what happens next is unpredictable. It's excellent sport for Tories and anarchists, but it seems a bit careless if you're a sympathiser, and regrettable if you're a pragmatic democrat.

Paul
 
The way I see it it's voting for any of the other three over Corbyn that's the marker for stupidity, as none offer anything too much different to the Tory Party.
 
They say that the party in government loses a general election as opposed to the opposition winning. Cameron would have to make some massive blunders of poll tax proportion to enable a Labour win next time around.
 
Voting for who you want does not demonstrate your stupidity, it's voting for Corbyn that's the marker.

Have the other three wannabes tried that one yet? Maybe you should email it to them. They might credit you with its origination.
 
Stupid people don't change their behaviour when simply advised of their stupidity. Not understanding that seems to be an endemic fault in the Labour leadership. Because the panic is simply not going to work. It's too late.

Paul
 
Cameron will just have to hold the ship to its present course to lose the next election. Corbyn's enemies within Labour are realising they have to tone down their attacks on him if they hope to stand a chance. He has shifted the political discourse to where it needs to be and away from the Blairites' collusion with Cameron and Osborne.
 
They say that the party in government loses a general election as opposed to the opposition winning. Cameron would have to make some massive blunders of poll tax proportion to enable a Labour win next time around.

Plenty of opportunity.

Cameron can't manage to get policies through already (fox hunting, human rights) with his narrow majority, never mind how he'll face the problems that the challenges of Europe, his succession and interest rate rises will bring. The latter will painfully demonstrate that, for ordinary people, growth is a myth. Increasingly unaffordable rents and houses and the coming hit of removal of tax credits will create plenty of scope for dissatisfaction with the Tories.

Osborne's return to austerity will start to choke any slivers of real growth in the economy again as will a lack of skills - something that will be assisted of course by ill thought -out immigration policies.

Old Tories are dying and a new tranche of disaffected young people will be coming to voting age in 2020 to join an increasingly poorer middle class. This should make the next election pretty unpredictable IMHO.

Stephen
 
He's got some class Corbyn, and he's no fool. Saying that he's not interested in personal stuff, but policies.

Fair play to him. He's doing it his way, and it's the right way. Let the other three dummies be exposed for what they are, classless career politicians looking to get up the ladder by any means.
 
He's got some class Corbyn, and he's no fool. Saying that he's not interested in personal stuff, but policies.

Fair play to him. He's doing it his way, and it's the right way. Let the other three dummies be exposed for what they are, classless career politicians looking to get up the ladder by any means.


Corbyn is a cool character, no doubt.

His policies are uncool and will be Labours undoing...I'm getting my popcorn ready for the longest train wreck in history.

No nuclear deterrent, in today's effed up world, really?

Printing money to help the economy, good luck with inflation rates on that one!

Cameron must be praying for JC to win, I am.
 
Stupid people don't change their behaviour when simply advised of their stupidity. Not understanding that seems to be an endemic fault in the Labour leadership. Because the panic is simply not going to work. It's too late.

Paul

It seems the abuse and name calling that comes from the right wing of the Leadership contest in recent days has infected a few people here. Or perhaps they're willing hosts.

As it is in the leadership contest, so it is here..... those without ideas resort to abuse
 
The thing you are missing IMO is the huge, huge shift to the right since that time. To my mind Foot, whilst a genuinely decent and intelligent bloke, was simply out of touch with the zeitgeist of his time.

Sorry but I think Corbyn like Foot is also out of touch with the zeitgeist of his time. I'm certain Corbyn is genuinely decent bloke, but has as much personal appeal/charisma as a Civil Service head of dept.

Corbyn's policies are actually pretty moderate: it is obvious the railways need kicking into touch as privatisation has been such a catestropic failure in this area. Likewise power (though as I stated earlier I fundamentally disagree with the fine detail here - I'm pro nuke and lots of it until we get green energy up and running properly!). Look around the better parts of Europe and you will see nationalised transport and power infrastructure. It's not communism, just a far better way of managing things that need a long-term national strategy.


Even the Daily Mail is up in arms about the railways esp the rising cost of journeys, so maybe some traction there for Corbyn. However I am not convinced that he has the economic nous to pay for all the changes he suggests. 'QE for the people' has a hollow ring to it and seems far from being a proven way to finance a substantial increase in govt spending.

So Corbyn is right when he says People’s QE should be an option if times get tough. Cooper is right when she questions its use as a day-to-day tool of economic policy or as a backdoor way of financing higher public spending. The Guardian's analysis of Corbyn's spending plans.
 
Corbyn is a cool character, no doubt.

His policies are uncool and will be Labours undoing...I'm getting my popcorn ready for the longest train wreck in history.

No nuclear deterrent, in today's effed up world, really?

Printing money to help the economy, good luck with inflation rates on that one!

Cameron must be praying for JC to win, I am.
You might be right (no pun intended ;) ), but then what's the point of having a Labour Party that has virtually the same policies as the Conservative Party?

At least a Corbyn win will ask that question of the public. If it all goes Pete Tong then the Labour Party may as well disband, IMO.
 
At least a Corbyn win will ask that question of the public. If it all goes Pete Tong then the Labour Party may as well disband, IMO.

I'm almost astonished at the support for Corbyn, but that is down to my underestimating his appeal. I feel I am not alone in that. It seems necessary to debate where the Labour Party stands in 2015 (as it does seem to have lost it's way) and by definition decide it's future role. Should it finally move away from it's traditional ideological considerations or decide that is where it's future lies.

I guess the centrists had thought it was all done and dusted, but sometimes discarded baggage acts like a boomerang.
 
No nuclear deterrent, in today's effed up world, really?

This issue is interesting. I support Corbyn, but am in two minds about the nuclear deterrent.

I do think that MAD has helped Word War III not to happen. However, the major powers have had proxy wars all over the globe instead, while trying to corner resources like oil.

If we hold onto Trident, there is no way that we can insist that anybody from Iran to The Isle of Mull can't have nuclear weapons.

It would be amazing if the UK gave up nuclear weapons. I can't think of any other country that has done so.

Would we get attacked by North Korea? I somehow doubt it.

Like I said, I am undecided.

Corbyn says he doesn't believe in using the whip in Parliament, so Labour MPs can vote however they want concerning proposed nuclear disarmament.

I believe he has has written a piece for Fabian, which I haven't yet seen. In it he argues that policy should be decided all the way down to grass roots level, instead of just at the Labour Party Conference.

In other words Corbyn is turning Labour into a completely democratic party, when it comes to deciding policy. This is a major move.

I had long given up taking any notice of proposed Labour policies, because they were coming up with the same old Tory/austerity-lite crap year in year out.

Corbyn is different.

Jack
 
Today's problems need radical thinking and new policies but that does not mean to say that the roots of those cannot be found in the thinking of the past.

Exactly. This is what Labour's Blairites and the media deliberately refuse to acknowledge. They don't like the uprising of the left.

Jack
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top