Jeremy Corbyn

Aside from the immigration tangent (which I think is a red herring BTW)....

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/with-up-to-100000-now-barred-labour-has-become-less-a-broad-church-and-more-a-secret-society-10471163.html ]100,000 rejected voters is an alarming number[/url] (if true).

Seems to me this could be the labour partiy's 'no tuition fees' moment where they incompetently betray their new support base in a misguided attempt at looking all 'mature' and 'credible' when really all people want is for them to stand up for their principles and draw a line in the sand. They'll go the same way as the liberal democrats too if they pass up this opportunity.

Must be why the [uk]conservatives love it so much

Yes the Tories are committed to the free movement of Labour, as they are of course to the EU. A few comments and token gestures to appease Daily Mail reading bigots and racists doesn't take that away.

* does any country have no restriction on immigration?

Yes, I know for a fact that as long as you don't have a criminal record anyone can choose to live in Argentina. Argentina is the 8th largest country in the world with a population considerably smaller than the UK, they actively encourage immigration to it as it is an under exploited territory which they wish to further develop.

Its neither helpful nor accurate to claim this anymore that it would be fair for me to say your attitude of british jobs for british workers is racist.

It is perfectly accurate to point out that some people who are happy with white immigration from Europe but not with black immigration from Africa and Asia are racist. And I don't think there's any thing fair about claiming that a commitment to the UK population suggests that I am a racist. That commitment extends to a young black unqualified school leaver who stands less chances of employment in the UK than a skilled Pole does, an appalling and intolerable state of affair imo.

It is a fact that those who are descendants of immigrants are among the most disadvantaged in finding employment in the UK, how is that even vaguely acceptable ffs?

The similarity ends when you have 700,000 Poles living in the UK and nowhere near that number of Brits living in Poland. That doesn't suggest "broadly similar economies".

Poland were not members when the open borders began.

[quote=mefty ]Depends how you define winning, Scotland is a red herring as the SNP would find it difficult not to support a left wing government in the UK

So is he going to go into the election having agreed that he will happily rely on the support of the SNP to form a government, or will he recognise that as being a potential vote loser? Are we ignoring the supposed effect of people not voting Labour in England because they didn't want the SNP in power, or has that been debunked as a myth (TBH I don't know, but such theories seemed to have a lot of credibility at the time).

aracer - Member

Are we ignoring the supposed effect of people not voting Labour in England because they didn't want the SNP in power, or has that been debunked as a myth

It's not been debunked; but nobody attempted to present a counterargument last time so we don't know how that could have played.

It was one of the moments that most defined Ed's uselessness tbh- the Tories set the tone (which bordered on the deranged- Sturgeon the most dangerous woman in britain, "we cannot let these people (Scots) have a voice in our (also their) parliament", coalitions are dominated by their minority partner even though we're in a coalition right now and that's clearly not the case, all that... Flipflopped around for a while to maximise the damage, demonstrating himself to be weak and indecisive. Then eventually ruled out a coalition. It couldn't have been handled worse.

I'm not saying here that you can definitely counter the anti-scottish argument, xenophobia often plays well in politics. But we don't know, because nobody even tried.

[quote=aracer ]Are we ignoring the supposed effect of people not voting Labour in England because they didn't want the SNP in power, or has that been debunked as a myth (TBH I don't know, but such theories seemed to have a lot of credibility at the time).
a University of Manchester study into the causes of the 2015 general election result. BBC Parliament, 25 May 2015

Ed handled it poorly but at my local hustings it was a question asked and it was asked in we must avoid this/it will be risky type manner

How the tories sold the small parties bully large parties whilst in coalition is one of a masterclass in spin /shows the power of having the media on your side/ the electorate is stupid

IMHO it was an issue in England and probably scared/worried/affected the mythical floating voter to be scared.

Aye, Cruddas's report found 60% of english voters agreed with the statement that they would be "very concerned if the SNP were in government". Though, that was skewed to tory voters unsurprisingly (85%), and came at the end of the unchallenged anti-Scottish campaign. TBH I think the pitch gets harder with the increase of familiarity with the SNP, as with all "other = scary" campaigns, they fail once you meet the other and discover they're not scary after all. They're OUT TO EAT YOUR BABIES! But, there's been 60 of 'em in the house of commons for 5 years and they've not eaten my babies yet...

And the other point of the campaign, ie the attack on Miliband, wouldn't have worked with a competent leader.

But key point, Cruddas found the major reasons were a lack of economic confidence, and a lack of understanding of what Labour stood for. His main conclusion is "We can seek to change the views of the public, but it’s best not to ignore them."

Curtice's report is good reading too

"What Labour has to ask itself is not only why it failed to attract the support of voters who were concerned about the deficit, but also why it often struggled to secure the support of those who were doubtful about the way in which the deficit and the economy were being handled in the first place. Many of the latter were working-class voters among whom Labour suffered a sharp loss of support in 2010 which they failed to reverse in 2015. Labour needs to convince the electorate not only that it can run the economy well, but that it is capable of creating a more attractive economy. Then, perhaps, voters not just in England and Wales but in Scotland too would be willing to look at the party afresh once more."

How the tories sold the small parties bully large parties whilst in coalition is one of a masterclass in spin /shows the power of having the media on your side/ the electorate is stupid

If the electorate were "stupid" for believing Ed Miliband when he in effect agreed with the Tories with regards to the SNP, what does that make Ed Miliband?

.

Cruddas found the major reasons were a lack of economic confidence

Hardly surprising when the Labour leadership kept pretty much schtum and looked embarrassed and guilty every time the Tories and their sidekicks the LibDems accused them of screwing up the economy. Ed Miliband and Ed Balls all but apologized for causing the last global recession.

It's rather a tall order to expect the electorate to have confidence in people who don't have confidence in themselves.

ernie_lynch - Member

It's rather a tall order to expect the electorate to have confidence in people who don't have confidence in themselves.

Exactly. And ties perfectly into the other main reason Cruddas identifies, IIRC 31% of voters (not the public at large, those who voted) said they don't know what Labour stood for. That's as fundamental as you can possibly go- who'd ever vote for a party that they can't say "I know what you stand for"?

(I've not seen any further breakdown but I'm going to assume here that this 31% are going to be disproportionately floating voters/potential Labour- because the hardcore of opponents that will never vote for Labour, probably know or think they know exactly what they stand for)

Exactly. And ties perfectly into the other main reason Cruddas identifies, IIRC 31% of voters (not the public at large, those who voted) said they don't know what Labour stood for. That's as fundamental as you can possibly go- who'd ever vote for a party that they can't say "I know what you stand for"?

That's why Corbyn would be a great choice imo, and not 'unelectable' at all. You know where you stand with him and it'd give the party a direction. The other 3? More of the same Torylite shite.

I don't know. His anti austerity stance has been backed as a sound plan
By both Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe.

Some people from Venezuela and Zimbabwe did question the policy of printing money until it had no worth, but don't worry, they have been decried as tories and enemies of the revolution.

For example
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/19/corbynomics-why-we-should-take-it-seriously

Seems like Harriet is trying to kill the start of a mass movement before it begins......

IIRC 31% of voters (not the public at large, those who voted) said they don't know what Labour stood for.

it looks like 75% of the present leadership contenders are struggling with it too

Apaprently they've disqualified 1900 green party "supporters or members"- if the DM polling is right, Labour stand to take 400000 voters back from the Greens if Corbyn's in charge, so what's suspicious about getting 1900 leadership votes from green supporters? These aren't diametrically opposed parties.

Members, that's an easier argument to make- you want to win back Green members as voters but you don't necessarily want them making decisions at this point. But people who've supported the greens? That's not adequate reason to disqualify imo.

A cynic might observe that these Greens will probably be mostly voting Corbyn.

But people who've supported the greens? That's not adequate reason to disqualify imo.

No, but being a member of the Green Party obviously is. I'm not sure why the Green Party hasn't banned its members from registering as Labour supporters, not even their recent candidates apparently.

Green voters are more economically right wing than Labour voters. if Corbyn took Labour left, that would make it less attractive to Green voters, not more.

On specific economic policy issues, those planning on voting Green in 2015 tend to be less left wing than Labour voters: 64 per cent of Greens believe the government should redistribute incomes, less than the 70 per cent of Labour voters who believe so. Clearly then, contrary to their party’s policies, Green voters are not of the far left.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/green-party-voters-look-like-lib-dems-think-like-labour-voters-and-are-as-dissatisfied-as-kippers/

Green voters are more economically right wing than Labour voters

Bit of an aside but I know plenty of people who care about the environment but don't see the Green parties old lefty style re-distribution, anti-science and heavy tax as the answer. A liberal, capitalist economy with the right incentives and regulation, could achieve far more. These people will never vote for the Green party as it stands and that its why the Green Party in the UK will never take off IMO.

I was rejected as a former Green, and told my views don't align with Labour's aspirations.

64 per cent of Greens believe the government should redistribute incomes, less than the 70 per cent of Labour voters who believe so

I'll take the cryptic "less than the 70 per cent" as meaning "69 per cent", not a very significant difference. What is the survey's margin of error and was it from a reliable and credible source?

Either way it suggests that Green voters share simular views to Labour voters. Since Labour voters are more likely to support Corbyn than the other 3 candidates then it's reasonable to assume that Green voters also would, which was Northway's point :

[i]A cynic might observe that these Greens will probably be mostly voting Corbyn. [/i]

[quote=ernie_lynch said]
I'll take the cryptic "less than the 70 per cent" as meaning "69 per cent",

Eh ?

Eh?

Misread as "less than 70%". The figure is 70%, which still isn't a big difference.

64 per cent of Greens believe the government should redistribute incomes, less than the 70 per cent of Labour voters who believe so.

64% of Greens believe something.
This is less than the 70% of Labour voters who believe the same thing.

As in, 64% is less than 70%.

Yeah my mistake allthepies, I edited before your above post.

I was rejected as a former Green, and told my views don't align with Labour's aspirations.

Given we haven't had the leader elected yet, how does Labour HQ know what the party's aspirations are?

Well, I guess they're not Green? 😆

I wanted to argue the point with the woman I spoke with on the phone, about similar policies and so on, but TBH, she was just following a script, and it wasn't her decision, so I didn't find out how my being a former Labour member, and lapsed Green member prevented me from become a Labour member again.

It was all a bit weird. FWIW I don't think I mentioned Corbyn

Green voters share similar views to the left wing of Labour, that's very believable

@kona, I'm not the only person describing the process as a shambles and most of the critisms I've posted of Corbyn have been made by senior figures of the Labour Party with decades of experience of elections.

Corbyn looks like a nailed on certainty to win in the first round so I'm delighted. We will get a chance to see him "lead" the party and a public debate of whatever policies he may wish to put forward. Right now it's just a wall of proposals and consultation. We'll also get a proper debate of his stance towards the IRA. He won't face a challenge immediately in my view but he's going to struggle to form a viable shadow cabinet, perhaps he won't even bother. His campaign in the upcoming Scottish elections will be entertaining and it's my predict ion he will be destroyed by the far. More electorally savvy SNP. That will kill him off which will suit the SNP as it's easier for them to fight the "Westinster elite", the "Tories" and the "government we didn't vote for" than a left wing Labour Party.

Go Jeremey, go 🙂

Do jam and THM have a rota,one sleeps/works while the other ensures that everybody remains warned about the SNP?

most of the critisms I've posted of Corbyn have been made by senior figures of the Labour Party

Is this the first time you have attempted to boost your rather questionable credibility on this forum by claiming that senior figures in the Labour Party agree with you?

As a committed dyed-in-the-wool Tory who uses every opportunity to attack the Labour Party it speaks volumes that you find yourself so much in agreement with the right-wing political elite in the Labour Party with regards to this leadership contest.

It also encapsulates the Jeremy Corbyn phenomenon and helps to explain his apparent runaway popularity among Labour Party members and supporters.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/25/labour-union-leader-vote-jeremy-corbyn-pcs-mark-serwotka ]Satire is now officially dead.[/url]

You really couldn't make it up!

he will be destroyed by the far. More electorally savvy SNP

But aren't there a lot of left leaning voters who only voted SNP due to lack of faith in a left leaning Labour government? Seems to me Labour would win back a hell of a lot of votes under Corbyn. Whether or not it would be enough to win seats I couldn't say.

Binners he is exactly the type of person the Labour party don't want as he is Trot, and has previously aligned with the Socialist Alliance & Respect Party. Further PCS aren't actually affiliated to Labour.

This is the problem with this election, its allowed people from other parties to try and gain a hold and influence its course. Idiocy.

He can't be destroyed by the SNP - they managed to do that with the last Labour leader in Scotland. There isn't anything really left to lose.

Unless the SNP are planning to stand in English seats too...

Any gains, however marginal will be spun as a Lab victory. Possibly in thehope it sparks some new momentum in Scotland.

Any gains, however marginal will be spun as a Lab victory. Possibly in thehope it sparks some new momentum in Scotland.

I think if he managed to walk the walk as well,he would make serious gains up here. I voted SNP,but know that they can do little in Westminster other than vote against the reintroducing of serfhood by IDS. But a Socialist Labour party who could get into Government...I would vote for them.

breatheeasy - Member

He can't be destroyed by the SNP - they managed to do that with the last Labour leader in Scotland.

Nah, they never really lifted a finger tbh, Jim Murphy stepped up and took care of it for them.The SNP did a decent job of taking advantage but it just goes to show Labour [i]can[/i] still change minds!

konabunny - Member

[s]Some [/s]Green voters are more economically right wing than Labour voters. if Corbyn took Labour left, that would make it less attractive to[s] some[/s] Green voters, not more.

I mentioned the DM poll- it found that 36% of people who voted Green in the last election, would vote Labour if Corbyn was leader. (though tbh that must be pretty small fraction of the sample). That doesn't have to mean they agree with everything Labour says mind- lots of tactical thinking since the Greens will probably still be unelectable in most seats.

The guardian are outdoing themselves today. Splashed across the front of their website earlier today was [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/26/women-only-train-carriages-a-possibility-under-jeremy-corbyn ]Corbyn raises possibility of women only carriages[/url]. This is then followed by numerous comment pieces by various columnists about how mental an idea it is etc, and then the original story is replaced by a follow up piece about the [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/26/jeremy-corbyn-backlash-women-only-train-carriages-cooper-kendall ]supposed backlash[/url]

And sure enough halfway down the the 'backlash' article, is the following paragraph...

[i]"In the document Corbyn stresses that he would prefer not to introduce women-only carriages. “Some women have raised with me that a solution to the rise in assault and harassment on public transport could be to introduce women-only carriages. My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform to the bus stop to the mode of transport itself,” he says."[/i]

So an entire day's media spinning about an inconsequential paragraph in a policy document. Says it all really.

The guardian are outdoing themselves today.

The Right On/Guarduianista/New Labour Adoring/North London/Blair Apologist/Toynbee war machine has been in full flow, and getting increasingly hysterical for weeks now. Its getting embarrassing. Its like some second-rate Chris Morris spoof . Tomorrow - Corbyn revealed as having released bad Aids into the world.

Ironic seeing as they all live in his constituancy

I mentioned the DM poll- it found that 36% of people who voted Green in the last election, would vote Labour if Corbyn was leader. (though tbh that must be pretty small fraction of the sample). That doesn't have to mean they agree with everything Labour says mind- lots of tactical thinking since the Greens will probably still be unelectable in most seats.

Corbyn's policies are pretty much lifted straight from the Green manifesto anyway, aren't they?

most of the critisms I've posted of Corbyn have been made by senior figures of the Labour Party with decades of experience of elections.

So an entire day's media spinning about an inconsequential paragraph in a policy document. Says it all really.

I find it hugely reassuring that in their desperation they are driven to "spinning about an inconsequential paragraph in a policy document" which says exactly the same thing as the Tories said a year ago without any fuss at all being created, ie, that's it's worth considering the possibility of women-only train coach option.

Hugely reassuring.......they really are seriously struggling to attack him. Corbyn is doing so much better than I could have ever imagined.

Corbyn's policies are pretty much lifted straight from the Green manifesto anyway, aren't they?

I very much doubt that Corbyn bothered reading the Green Party manifesto, although I could be wrong.

He is saying much the same thing today as he was years ago, he has been totally consistent and predictable. In fact his political opponents who are opportunists and lack conviction attempt to criticise him for it.

Following Labour's Great Purge of £3 members who don't support the current version of "Labour values",
I presume their distaste will extend to refusing to count those votes in the next election.

I'm sure Harriet Harman has a PIE chart of where her support lies...

🙂

Just saw this on a random link, did we really miss this?

[url= http://www.****/news/article-3207363/Prime-Minister-Corbyn-1-000-days-destroyed-Britain-brilliant-imagining-Corbyn-premiership-reveals-Tories-gloat-Labour-s-woe-careful-wish-for.html ]http://www.****/news/article-3207363/Prime-Minister-Corbyn-1-000-days-destroyed-Britain-brilliant-imagining-Corbyn-premiership-reveals-Tories-gloat-Labour-s-woe-careful-wish-for.html[/url]

Yes it's a Daily Mail link

There's some jolly good ideas in there.

May I suggest the heads of all members of the HoL on spikes outside the Parliament.

Be a bonzer tourist attraction and they'd finally be doing some good, and it would leave some little boys unbuggered.

Green voters share similar views to the left wing of Labour, that's very believable

@kona, I'm not the only person describing the process as a shambles and most of the critisms I've posted of Corbyn...

...did we really miss this?

I thought the link might take me somewhere worthwhile and not to be missed.

I read this much :

[i]"The night sky over London was thick with choking black smoke, but in the hellish glow of the flames rising from a myriad burning buildings, the rioters, looters and......"[/i]

And decided I'd had enough.

A vote for Corbyn means arson, rioting, and looting, apparently.

Unlike presumably the arson, rioting, and looting, under the premiership of "moderates" and "centrists" such as Thatcher and Cameron, yeah right.

I'm sure the article continued in the same vein and the rest was just as entertaining and amusing but quite frankly I couldn't be arsed.

There was some good stuff in that article - especially this

One Direction went off on a US tour and never returned.

A vote for Corbyn means arson, rioting, and looting, apparently.

...did we really miss this?

I thought the link might take me somewhere worthwhile and not to be missed.

I read this much :

"The night sky over London was thick with choking black smoke, but in the hellish glow of the flames rising from a myriad burning buildings, the rioters, looters and......"

It seems like a fine, balanced, unbiased piece of journalism to me. Not remotely alarmist, at all. And probably entirely accurate

I wasn't going to post anymore but I had a friend who went last night to the Labour hustings and in his opinion Andy Burham came out best, Cooper was okay, Liz worst and he thought Corbyn's was a good speaker but his economic polices were idiotic.

but his economic polices were idiotic

Am I right in assuming that your friend presumably thinks the anti-austerity criticism expressed in recent times by the IMF is also "idiotic" ?

Central to Corbyn's economic policies is a strong criticism of austerity on that he is closer to the opinions expressed by the IMF, a rather conservative organisation, than the other 3 candidate.

It doesn't make him right of course but it does suggest that "idiotic" is probably not the best term to use.

Furthermore for a conservative organisation such as the IMF, whose Managing Director is a retired right-wing politician, to increasingly take an anti-austerity stance suggests that the arguments put forward by people such Corbyn are gaining traction due to economic reality, not because it is idiotic.

IMF self-criticism over its past support for austerity :

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/11209593/IMFs-push-for-austerity-was-wrong-says-funds-internal-auditor.html ]IMF's push for austerity was wrong, says fund's internal auditor[/url]

[i] The International Monetary Fund ignored its own research and pushed too early for richer countries to trim budgets after the global financial crisis, the IMF's internal auditor has said.

The Washington-based multilateral lender, concerned about high debt levels and large fiscal deficits, urged countries such as Germany, the US and Japan to pursue austerity in 2010-11 before their economies had fully recovered from the crisis. [/i]

Ignoring your own research now that does sound rather idiotic.

Am I right in assuming that your friend presumably thinks the anti-austerity criticism expressed in recent times by the IMF is also "idiotic" ?

No my friend happens to work as an economist but is definitely on the anti-austerity / IMF side of the fence. So if he's not convinced good luck convincing the electorate.

my friend happens to work as an economist but is definitely on the anti-austerity / IMF side of the fence.

And yet he's backing Andy Burham rather than Jeremy Corbyn on that issue, your friend sounds a tad confused.

[url= http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/andy-burnham-attacks-rival-jeremy-corbyns-anti-austerity-promises-11363996077937 ]Andy Burnham attacks rival Jeremy Corbyn's anti-austerity promises[/url]

.

So if he's not convinced good luck convincing the electorate.

I'm not sure how much of it needs to be down to luck, Corbyn has managed to convince 2 Nobel Prize-winning economists that he has the best economic policies out of the 4 candidates.

Dunno.......is that lucky? Or idiotic? Or does it mean something else?

your friend sounds a tad confused

Oh he really isn't.

Were those two Nobel prize winning economists also the same rent a quote ones that backed Ed's policies per chance?

Were those two Nobel prize winning economists also the same rent a quote ones

Yeah I think I'll leave it there........describing Nobel Prize-winning economists, one of them a former chief economist of the World Bank, as [i]"rent a quote"[/i] gives a fair indication of the futility of this discussion.

.

In other news.......

A shocking revelation :

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyns-supporters-are-more-working-class-than-other-candidates-research-finds-10476433.html ]Jeremy Corbyn's supporters are more working class than other candidates’, research finds[/url]

Labour Party.......working class? Whatever next?

Someone please stop this madness.

Is the idiotic policy the one about printing money to fund infrastructure? Cos people think that will turn us into Zimbabwe overnight?

Ahem.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10881540/IMF-accepts-it-was-wrong-on-George-Osbornes-austerity.html

Ahem.

Whilst clearing your throat you appear to have missed a couple of important points Woppit. Firstly your article is over a year old. The article I linked to and to which this quote is attributed is more recent than that :

[i] The International Monetary Fund ignored its own research and pushed too early for richer countries to trim budgets after the global financial crisis, the IMF's internal auditor has said.

The Washington-based multilateral lender, concerned about high debt levels and large fiscal deficits, urged countries such as Germany, the US and Japan to pursue austerity in 2010-11 before their economies had fully recovered from the crisis. [/i]

The claim that Corbyn's anti-austerity policies falls broadly in line with the IMF's growing opposition to austerity is backed by a multitude of economists who only last week said :

[i]"The accusation is widely made that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have moved to the extreme left on economic policy. But this is not supported by the candidate’s statements or policies.

His opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics, even backed by the conservative IMF".[/i]

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics ]Jeremy Corbyn's opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics[/url]

And secondly you miss the point than while there was much talk of "austerity" at the beginning of the last government's term it soon became apparent that attempting to clear the deficit in 5 years was having a disastrous effect on the economy, so Osborne quietly dropped the policy half way through the last government's term and ditched austerity. He completely missed his much trumpeted deficit reduction targets.

The unsurprising result was that there was a slight improvement in the economy and things picked sufficiently enough for the Tories to claim credit for an over-delayed recovery ....... the Tories had of course as we all know inherited a growing economy.

However having won the election and secured another 5 years the script is now changing again with talk of a staggering 40% non-protected departmental budgetary cuts, so the fight against austerity continues.

And pointing out the IMF's growing skepticism to austerity is an important tool in that struggle quite simply because of what it signifies.

The IMF has always historically been a champion of neo-liberalism and synonymous with cuts in government spending no - matter what the social costs and consequences.

For decades the IMF has supported, insisted, and imposed, brutal and devastating cuts on poor and economically weak countries. Often it needed murderous and ruthless military dictatorships to implement their neo-liberal policies such as Latin America in the 1980s.

It is therefore hugely significant that the IMF is now beginning to sing from the same hymn sheet as people such as Corbyn.

Why then the apparent change of heart by the IMF after decades of commitment to neo-liberalism and austerity? Well I think the answer might lie in "economic reality", something which has been so excellently highlighted as a result of the Greek economic disaster.

So they thought it was a mistake, then decided it was OK, then went back to it's a mistake.

They need a crystal ball, perhaps they could borrow Osbourne's.

Some fantastic stuff written in this article by Owen Jones.

Really thought it was thought through superbly.

Particularly enjoyed some of the ways he advised reframing/defending/managing attacks.

One example:

[b]Because he will be caricatured as a dinosaur, Jeremy will have to emphasise modernisation and a forward-looking vision.[/b] Emphasis on, say, an industrial strategy that nurtures the hi-tech jobs of the future, and renewable energy industries, so that Britain can move on from its failed old economic model and properly compete in the world.

https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/my-honest-thoughts-on-the-corbyn-campaign-and-overcoming-formidable-obstacles-de81d4449884

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/corbyn-would-make-a-terrible-bond-says-pierce-brosnan-20150827101519 ]Most sensible article on Corbyn yet![/url]

Lots of sensible stuff in the Owen Jones piece but I can't help but think it reads like a job application to be Corbyn's chief advisor. As he suggests, I suspect the NATO stuff, and probably Trident, will be watered down drastically if he wins.

One thing that concerns me though...

Democracy should not mean chaos, though. In our world of rolling news and rampant social media, having public conferences with huge bust-ups over every other issue would not look good at all, and would project an image of unfitness to government, as well as leaving the public unsure what Labour stands for on each given issue. So, there needs to be a balanced approach to democratic involvement.

The left in Britain, as in many other countries, has an authoritarian and patrician streak running through it. They always think they know best, and the above paragraph looks like the luminaries on the left are already thinking along those old traditional lines. It does make me wonder whether the leopard will ever change it's spots.

So they thought it was a mistake, then decided it was OK, then went back to it's a mistake.

If there's one thing the detailed coverage of the Greek crisis has taught us it's that the IMF change their minds three times before breakfast, but whatever they "believe" at any given moment in time, they lack the integrity to confront powerful vested interests.

The left in Britain, as in many other countries, has an authoritarian and patrician streak running through it. They always think they know best, and the above paragraph looks like the luminaries on the left are already thinking along those old traditional lines. It does make me wonder whether the leopard will ever change it's spots.

I think there's a balance to be had here.

The left in Britain, as in many other countries, has an authoritarian and patrician streak running through it.

Really? Current Tories seem far more patrician if you ask me. They seem to like telling us all what to do with all these social ideas they had, and they also like telling disabled people to stop being so lazy.

dazh: the democracy he is talking about is not democracy among the voters but within the Parliamentary Labour Party. it is a message to the loser and Danczuks of the PLP that once the leader has been decided, they had better not sabotage Labour's chances by backstabbing the leader.

I think the NATO following party consultation it would be a policy similar to the old French one where we are still part of it but we remove ourselves from NATO Command.

The Tories are going to push forward with Trident it will be too late by 2020 so a sensible policy there is just convert them from SSBNs to SSGNs which makes sense.

Really? Current Tories seem far more patrician if you ask me. They seem to like telling us all what to do with all these social ideas they had, and they also like telling disabled people to stop being so lazy.

I don't disagree, this current tory lot are far from libertarians. What I mean though is that for all the talk of involving the people in a new democratic system of setting policy, some like Jones are already talking in terms of limiting that influence. That's how I read it anyway, and if it's the case then it'll be a huge mistake as I think the surge in support is based mostly on this new open and inclusive approach, rather than any 'march to the left' stuff.

" for all the talk of involving the people in a new democratic system of setting policy, some like Jones are already talking in terms of limiting that influence. "

the article is fundamentally about splits and unity in the Labour Party, and the sentence you refer to is part of that discussion

in any case, you might be overreading a single sentence from a guy that's not an advisor to a guy that hasn't won an election!

Quite liked this on Twitter... 🙂
[IMG] [/IMG]

The left in Britain, as in many other countries, has an authoritarian and patrician streak running through it. They always think they know best, and the above paragraph looks like the luminaries on the left are already thinking along those old traditional lines

Inner-party democracy becomes totally meaningless if there lacks the discipline to enforce democratically arrived decisions.

Democracy's greatest failing is that the majority triumph at the expense of the minority. But that's how it works.

The time to express opinions is when issues are being discussed and debated, once those issues have been fully debated and put to a vote the debate is closed until the issues come up for discussion and debate again. Until then it becomes a requirement for all party members to fully support democratically arrived decisions, whatever their previous position was. That's how inner-party democracy works.

Far from being anti-democratic the left has a long history of commitment to democracy, it was the Blairite right-wing which purged the Labour Party of its democratic structures. It was them that changed for example the Party Conference into a staged-managed meaningless exercise which at the height of the Iraq War banned all debates on the war. It was them who banned all criticism of the Labour leadership. It was them who created the situation where one man and one man alone decides Party policy.

It was the Blairite right-wing who made the Labour Party leadership not just disconnected with ordinary working people, which they purport to represent, but so disconnected with Labour Party members that they were utterly unaware there would be significant support for Jeremy Corbyn in a leadership contest. It is a symptom of the complete lack of democracy that the right-wing leadership had no idea of the views of their fellow party members.

For me the single greatest benefit of Corbyn becoming Labour leader isn't that the Labour Party will become more "left-wing" but that it will provide the opportunity to reestablish it as a democratic party.

If I thought there was a right-wing candidate who had more commitment to reestablish democracy in the Labour Party than Corbyn then he or she would have my support, without question.

British politics cannot imo move forward until we have a mass democratic party. Everything develops from that starting point.

For me the single greatest benefit of Corbyn becoming Labour leader isn't that the Labour Party will become more "left-wing" but that it will provide the opportunity to reestablish it as a democratic party.

If I thought there was a right-wing candidate who had more commitment to reestablish democracy in the Labour Party than Corbyn then he or she would have my support, without question.

Totally agree, which is why I raise an eyebrow when I hear the likes of Jones talk about a 'balanced' approach to democracy. We need to be moving towards a system of democracy where MPs, councillors, mayors etc are delegates who carry out the wishes of their electorates, rather than representatives who decide what's best for them. I'm not convinced many on the left or in the labour party share this view though.

Problem with that is that electorates frequently don't know what's good for them. For many reasons.

could he mess things up as badly as the last lot of bellends we have had screwing things up? I very much doubt it! for once im going to vote and its for Corbyn plain and simple that all the 'Established' guard see him as a threat, and that can only be a Good thing IMO

Problem with that is that electorates frequently don't know what's good for them. For many reasons.

At the moment that's probably true, but I think that's more a symptom than a cause. Give people the proper education and information they need to make their own informed decisions, and marry that with complete transparency, accountability and direct involvement in democracy then I think they would soon show that they're not as stupid as there supposed superiors think they are.

Problem with that is that electorates frequently don't know what's good for them. For many reasons.

Hi ......

[img] [/img]

Give people the proper education and information they need to make their own informed decisions, and marry that with complete transparency, accountability and direct involvement in democracy then I think they would soon show that they're not as stupid as there supposed superiors think they are.

Aside from the moon on a stick content in that post - you'd also have to somehow prevent people with a vested interest from manipulating them too. How're you going to control the media as well as implement political education?

[img] [/img]

Ok so I'm being silly, but the reason we are where we are is that the things you ask are damn near impossible even for me to imagine, and I'm pretty optimistic. You really expect everyone over the age of 18 to be able to understand what the EU does for them and why, and to weigh up the pros and cons? Even economists can't decide. Ok so they can read the papers, but they have an agenda, and without controlling them you can't stop that.

Ok so I'm being silly, but the reason we are where we are is that the things you ask are damn near impossible even for me to imagine, and I'm pretty optimistic.

I'm not claiming it's something that's easy or quick, but it should be something we aim for, and the first step is giving people a voice and real influence over policy, rather than just telling them to do what they're told is best and vote for x or y. Maybe I'm being hopelessly idealistic but I see this Corbyn insurgency as potentially the first step in this process.

but it should be something we aim for

A population full of well informed conscientious dilligent voters who pay the required amount of attention to all areas of current affairs so they can be informed? Er, yeah, sure.

the first step is giving people a voice and real influence over policy

Over policy details? Seriously? The modern world is waaay too complicated for the common voter to have an influence on that. We (as voters) should be informed enough to pick an ideology, and let the technocrats sort out the details. Which is basically what we have now.

"technocrat" is a label people give to themselves when they want to pretend their ideology isn't an ideology