Jeremy Corbyn

We (as voters) should be informed enough to pick an ideology

And that's the very problem, ideologies tend to be polar opposites, or in the current case, have no differences at all. They inherently limit choice and promote apathy and abuse of power. The divisions in ideologies and parties are silly and make no sense. I don't see why we couldn't have a system where policy issues are decided on their own merits rather than grouped together under arbitrary banners. Do you really think people are too stupid to hold opinions on different issues which don't adhere to traditional party/idelogical divisions?

The divisions in ideologies and parties are silly and make no sense.

Presumably you believe that we live in a classless society ?

They make perfect sense to me.

And also to the Bullingdon Boys, even though they like to claim that we're all together in Greggs or something.

[img] [/img]

ideologies tend to be polar opposites

I don't agree. You can be hard left, centre left, centre, centre right etc.

I don't see why we couldn't have a system where policy issues are decided on their own merits

Because you can't determine the 'merits' of something without a set of values against which to evaluate it. Which is what an ideology is.

Ideology is a bad word these days because ideological politics is a bad thing BECAUSE it's become a term for ploughing on regardless for your own ideal and ignoring the pragmatic considerations of the status quo.

However ideology is not a bad thing - everyone (who cares) has to have one by definition. And even the left and right ideologies work *in theory*, and a poor politician ignores what happens in practice.

grouped together under arbitrary banners

They aren't arbitrary! There's more than one way to run a country, to grow an economy. The question is, which way is best? That's ideology.

Check the gap between so-called ideology and what parties do in practice. That quickly puts this idea to bed!

So will JC get rid of the whip?

delegates who carry out the wishes of their electorates

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

Check the gap between so-called ideology and what parties do in practice.

It is rare for a major UK political party to claim to have an ideology or an ideological commitment.

You can be hard left, centre left, centre, centre right etc.

But you don't get to vote for one of those, you have to vote for labour or the tories, which is a hopeless compromise of all of them. I have no problem with ideology, just silly attempts to pigeon-hole these into two (or three if we're being generous) groups which people then have to vote for. Everyone has their own personal ideology, and the system of government and the democracy used to choose it should reflect that.

Presumably you believe that we live in a classless society ?

No, but I do think the stratified and unequal society we have is in part a result of a system which denies people real choice and disempowers them.

Who is denied real choice?

Politicians crave power and voters give them that
Majority of voters have moderate/centrist views
Politicians stand on the basis of what the majority want

Do you believe your views are centrist THM?

Majority of voters have moderate/centrist views
Politicians stand on the basis of what the majority want

Thatcher was neither a moderate nor a centrist, and despite the majority of voters not voting for her she remained Prime Minister for 11 years until her own party sacked her.

Thatcher was neither a moderate nor a centrist

She was both. A liberal (especially economically). Deffo not a Stalin or a Hitler. The fact she maintained a National Health Service and an Effective Welfare State & Free Tuition Fees means you could argue she was quite far to the left.

Or are we just proving how little some of these terms actually mean?

Deffo not a Stalin or a Hitler.

Yeah, we're talking in the context of UK politics, not Germany and Russia in the 1930s 😆

Thatcher was on the right of her party, she was not a moderate. Her economic policies were not centrist. And there was nothing moderate about more than doubling unemployment, being responsible for the highest tax burden in UK history, wholesale privatization and closure of entire industries, a poll tax so unpopular that it brought about her demise, 2 recessions, attacks on employment rights, attacks on council house building, Section 28, .......the list is endless.

Yeah, we're talking in the context of UK politics, not Germany and Russia in the 1930s

Thatcher was on the right of her party

Ok, so if you eliminate people in every other country, people at other times and people in other uk parties, you think she was not a centrist.

Defining your parameters to make your hypothesis true! (And even then I'm not sure I agree she wasn't reasonably centerist & moderate - but as we've shown the terms are vague and you can pick your boundaries to make it true or false according to your whim.)

Yes, compared to Vlad the Impaler she was a pinko Liberal.
In the context of her party and the era in which she lived. She wasn't.

Thatcher was neither a moderate nor a centrist, and despite the majority of voters not voting for her she remained Prime Minister for 11 years

have you considered looking at google, or perhaps Corbyn's website? I doubt he's keeping it a secret if he has a policy on it

Yes, compared to Vlad the Impaler she was a pinko Liberal.
In the context of her party and the era in which she lived. She wasn't.

As I say, you can draw your boundaries wherever you want and thus put any politician you want at any extreme you want.

I would still argue that: NHS, liberal Economics, State Paid Tuition Fees, Privatisation all add up to a centerist, moderate politician. (Obama couldn't provide two of those!)

Certainly in the battle for the centre ground that's been going on since the early 90's none of our politicans have reversed anything substantial from the Thatcher Era so are they not centerists? (Although Lamont claimed in his 'Refelctions' interview that Brown undid/loosed Lamont's regulation of banks. I've no idea if that's true or not.)

as we've shown the terms are vague and you can pick your boundaries to make it true or false according to your whim.)

no. cobblers. the words have a perfectly clear meaning. you're just wrong. HTH

The point is you can only judge people in context. 100 years ago supporting the idea of votes for women was dangerously subversive. Thatcher moved politics to the Right, forcing the centre to move across accordingly. She was a creature of the Right, judged by the political norms of 30-40 years ago. This is why Corbyn is seen as Left Wing now, whereas in the Labour Party of the 1970's very little of what he is suggesting would be seen as radical.

Who is denied real choice?

Funny cos you've spent most of this thread saying that left v right is an illusion (which I mostly agree with BTW), and that in the face of the cold reality of economics party politics is largely irrelevant, so it would seem rather self evident that there is a lack of choice in how we organise and govern society.

Politicians crave power and voters give them that

As above, you've spent most of this thread saying politicians are irrelevant but now they have power?

Majority of voters have moderate/centrist views

Like the nationalisation, or part thereof, of failing privatised industries, the closing of tax loopholes for the super-rich, free/affordable higher education, and non-privatisation of the NHS, which are routinely portrayed as crazy leftwing utopian ideals by the media and tories.

Politicians stand on the basis of what the majority want

Based on your previous posts on this thread and others I don't for a second think you actually believe that.

The point is you can only judge people in context.

Indeed, and the context "same party, same country, same time" is so narrow as to be meaningless.

This is why Corbyn is seen as Left Wing now, whereas in the Labour Party of the 1970's very little of what he is suggesting would be seen as radical.

Corbyn is a socialist. He thinks the means of production should be state owned. Between 1945 and 1990 in the UK that wasn't an extreme idea. Viewed over the last 20 years or the last 200 years it is. (Choose your context!) Of course you don't have to be left wing to be a Socialist (Nazi Party), but in the UK we think of Socialism as left wing which is probably one reason why we regard him as left wing. But then in the UK we tend to regard being pro-EU as 'Left Wing' but that's completely inconsistent with socialism as Corbyn or Benn would tell you. Just another example of why these terms mean very little really. It's very hard to list a set of policies that are objectively left/right wing.

ernie_lynch - Member

And also to the Bullingdon Boys, even though they like to claim that we're all together in Greggs or something.

I don't really give a chuff if he wins or not but you clearly didn't see this on Twitter 😯

[img] [/img]

(yes I know it's photoshopped)

Of course you don't have to be left wing to be a Socialist (Nazi Party)

Whatever they called themselves the Nazis weren't socialists, they didn't nationalise the means of production, distribution, and exchange, they did the opposite and privatised stuff.

In another revelation the shower fittings in the gas chambers Auschwitz weren't actually connected to any water supply, whatever the Nazis said their prisoners weren't about to get a shower.

You'll also find that Corbyn isn't a really socialist, he's much more a social democrat.

(yes I know it's photoshopped)

Well it was all too obvious - everyone knows that Abraham Lincoln couldn't have been a Bullingdon Club member, he never went to Oxford University.

😆

If Corbyn has Blair and his cronies take the stand and be sent to prison for lying to the public. He will get my vote. Blair is the only danger to this country since Hitler. Weapons of mass destruction my arse.

Whatever they called themselves the Nazis weren't socialists, they didn't nationalise the means of production, distribution, and exchange, they did the opposite and privatised stuff.

Good point, I think I have to concede that.

You'll also find that Corbyn isn't a really socialist, he's much more a social democrat.

That's probably a fair point too, I assume he isn't proposing to nationalize a large percentage of our economy, but then everyone in mainstream UK politics at the moment is a Social Democrat depending on which of the two common definitions you choose.

If Corbyn has Blair and his cronies take the stand and be sent to prison for lying to the public. He will get my vote.

I was broadly understanding (supportive?) of Blair's domestic policy but I would love to see him on trial in some appropriate court (Hague?).

The fact that we have to dress thatcher and the myth of Thatcherism up as radical just shows how centrist/moderate UK politics really is.

konabunny - Member

have you considered looking at google, or perhaps Corbyn's website? I doubt he's keeping it a secret if he has a policy on it

Any process of electoral reform must retain the MP-constituency link.

What's "the Thatcher issue" which I apparently raised ?

outofbreath - Member

Posted 7 minutes ago # Report-Post

I have the same problem and can't get the words out when I'm out of breath.

EDIT : 😉

and despite the majority of voters not voting for her she remained Prime Minister for 11 years

Well it's no more an issue for me than all the other Prime Ministers who were in office despite the majority of voters not voting for them, why single out Thatcher? She had as much legitimacy than any other PM.

For the record I strongly support proportional representation. I also strongly agree with Jeremy Corbyn when he says [i]"any process of electoral reform must retain the MP-constituency link"[/i].

I believe that politicians should have a close relationship with the people they represent and be accessible, not be aloof, remote, or disconnected from voters.

Presumably unlike you who bizarrely claims that it [i]"sounds like the same old establishment to me"[/i] without apparently any need to explain why.

This is as much about how the media work as about Corbyn in particular, but still pretty sobering:

Clicky for biggy
[url= https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNz_t8bWUAAIAJ3.jp g" target="_blank">https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNz_t8bWUAAIAJ3.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

This is as much about how the media work as about Corbyn in particular, but still pretty sobering:

Agree the press are criminal in misquoting and deliberately misinterpreting. (Everyone should listen to "more or less" on R4.)

However the direct quotes from him highlight one of the problems I have with Corbyn: It's not clear to me specifically what policies he's going to push for as leader. I get the sense he's very good at pointing out the flaws in other people's policies, but not so great at coming up with his own. You can do that in opposition, but as PM he's going to be making endless decisions where each available option is completely unpalatable to him and the electorate.

Well to be fair there's a lot at stake AlexSimon. There's always the possibility that Corbyn's crazy moderate views might capture the imagination of British voters, a terrifying prospect for all warmongering neoliberals.

You can't blame them for wanting to insulate the public from his real views, in the same way that you can't blame them for regretting to be stupid enough to allow him onto the leadership ballot paper.

He was never suppose to come anywhere near to winning the leadership election, so if Labour Party members and supporters insist on voting incorrectly, despite being clearly told not to, then desperate measures are required.

It's not clear to me specifically what policies he's going to push for as leader.

I think you probably haven't fully grasped the concept of democratically arrived decisions and policies, hardly surprising after years of one man deciding all party policies - it's so different.

You are however wrong in claiming that it isn't clear 'what policies he's going to push for', he makes his personal preferences clear. He just believes that it's not just down to him (or any leader) to dictate policies which party members have to fight for.

if Labour Party members and supporters insist on voting incorrectly, despite being clearly told not to, then desperate measures are required.

You are however wrong in claiming that it isn't clear 'what policies he's going to push for'

Entirely possible that I'm wrong - I haven't followed his words closely. Can you help by citing two policies he's going to push for as leader?

What I don't understand (or at least would hope to be different) is how our current interconnected generation are still so influenced by a few media heads

Well the alternative is to do nothing and allow Corbyn to freely express his views without misrepresenting and twisting them, which bearing in mind how popular he appears to have become overnight sounds rather risky.

Surely it's worth a punt to try and stop his apparent growing popularity?

I understand their motivation, I don't understand how in the modern age it's still so effective.

I understand their motivation, I don't understand how in the modern age it's still so effective.

I think you might have the cart before the horse. I think people who buy papers *want* to buy lies that reinforce their prejudices. The readers bias comes first, the choice of newspaper comes second. The paper prints the lies the readership wants to hear, the paper doesn't create the prejudice. (Although clearly it must reinforce the prejudice to a degree.)

oh - and policies:
Renationalisation of railways and energy companies
Replace tuition fees with student grants
Increase the top rate of income tax
Withdraw from Syria
Stop cuts to public services

(there are more)

I get the sense he's very good at pointing out the flaws in other people's policies, but not so great at coming up with his own.

Party leaders don't (or shouldn't) come up with policies. The party does it, the leader should simply manage the process to arrive at the best decision. This is another reason why I think he'd be good at the job.

Renationalisation of railways and energy companies
Replace tuition fees with student grants
Increase the top rate of income tax
Withdraw from Syria
Stop cuts to public services

Yeah, that's pretty specific and (with the exception of removing our mighty number of zero assets from Syria) pretty expensive.

Even increasing the top rate of tax *might* carry a cost or fail to generate much cash: http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-50p-top-rate-tax-bring/17601

Party leaders don't (or shouldn't) come up with policies.

I'll leave you and AlexSimon to argue about whether he has come up with some policies he would push for and whether doing so was a mistake...

Even increasing the top rate of tax *might* carry a cost or fail to generate much cash: http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-50p-top-rate-tax-bring/17601

So you couldn't bothered to do a search to establish what Corbyn's opinions were but you managed to find the motivation to do one to counter his opinion ?

And this is from someone who claims [i]"he's very good at pointing out the flaws in other people's policies".[/i]

I think [i]sheep[/i] who buy papers *want* [i]bleats[/i] that reinforce their prejudices. The [i]herd[/i] comes first,
🙂

It's not clear to me specifically what policies he's going to push for as leader.

Yeah if only he would come out with a clear, strong manifesto which he then has to abandon when circumstances change eh?

Yeah if only he would come out with a clear, strong manifesto which he then has to abandon when circumstances change eh?

I really really hope he wins, at least the leadership. I've complained bitterly in the past about this problem with politics - the electorate (or the media) demand a concrete set of promises, but given that's not really possible in all situations they are doomed to be broken and consequently everyone tears everyone else apart for it constantly. So the whole political debate is reduced to angry mudslinging instead of anything constructive.

If Corbyn can change that.. I'll be a very happy voter even if he doens't become PM.

So you couldn't bothered to do a search to establish what Corbyn's opinions were but you managed to find the motivation to do one to counter his opinion ? And this is from someone who claims "he's very good at pointing out the flaws in other people's policies".

Yes, being good at pointing out flaws is a very common trait.

Yeah if only he would come out with a clear, strong manifesto which he then has to abandon when circumstances change eh?

Rightly or wrongly some specific policy always helps me make up my mind. I assume many of Corbyn's supporters/opposers have come to their conclusion based on the policies stated by AlexSimons.

You are however wrong in claiming that it isn't clear 'what policies he's going to push for', he makes his personal preferences clear. He just believes that it's not just down to him (or any leader) to dictate policies which party members have to fight for.

So considering we know most of the Labour MP's are further to 'right' than Corbyn I assume he'll just accept the majorities policies? I don't buy for one minute.

I assume many of Corbyn's supporters/opposers have come to their conclusion based on the policies stated by AlexSimon

He does the exact opposite of what you were suggesting earlier in fact - he doesn't just pick opposite points to Tory policy, he sees where we're heading, has decided there's a better alternative and has committed to research and debate to get us there.

I think that's what's motivated people to support/vote personally. Not the headline policies, but the commitment, belief, honesty and transparency.

So considering we know most of the Labour MP's are further to 'right' than Corbyn I assume he'll just accept the majorities policies?

No? Maybe he's not an egomaniac, and is prepared to work with a variety of opinions..?

dragon - Member

So considering we know most of the Labour MP's are further to 'right' than Corbyn I assume he'll just accept the majorities policies? I don't buy for one minute.

You are not paying a blind bit of notice to what Corbyn is saying. He has clearly stated that Labour MPs should not be forcing their views on the party.

He has clearly stated that Labour MPs should not be forcing their views on the party.

Right so that'll work then 🙄 Its a disaster waiting to happen if you let the party in fight with no clear strategy or direction. He doesn't seem much of a leader if he's just going to allow a massive bun fight on everything from rail ownership, NATO commitment, abortion legislation, science strategy etc. etc.

Its a disaster waiting to happen if you let the party in fight

You can manage different opinions without infighting, if you're good at your job. Managers all over the country do this every day. Of course, other managers also fail to do this at the same time.

The party leader job should be just that - manager, not dictator, and not messiah.

I've complained bitterly in the past about this problem with politics - the electorate (or the media) demand a concrete set of promises, but given that's not really possible in all situations they are doomed to be broken and consequently everyone tears everyone else apart for it constantly.

Which was exactly the point I was trying to make on p46 which you were questioning. Obviously I didn't get the point across properly.

No he is the party leader, that is not the position for a manager.

See:

The leader’s job is to inspire and motivate.

The manager’s job is to plan, organize and coordinate.

Apologies dazh, quite possible.

Dragon - it's a bit of both. Good managers get the best out of their staff, that includes inspiring where necessary. Management is about people and strategy as much as it is logistics and planning.

Disagree, while there is overlap between a manager and a leader, there are clear differences (see below definitions). A party leader is clearly mostly doing the top definition, he then has his colleagues and whips to execute the management functions. TBH I don't think Corbyn has much experience of either and that will be a major problem for the Labour party if he wins.

"Leadership is about aligning people to the vision, that means buy-in and communication, motivation and inspiration."

"Management is a set of processes that keep an organisation functioning. They make it work today – they make it hit this quarter's numbers. The processes are about planning, budgeting, staffing, clarifying jobs, measuring performance, and problem-solving when results did not go to plan."

Yes but the leader shouldn't just pursue whatever aims he or she personally values the most. It's not a one-man show, at least it shouldn't be. IMO anyway.

Leadership is about aligning people to the vision

Yes and the vision is something that should be arrived at by a consensus of more than one person, even Blair did that.

dragon - Member

He has clearly stated that Labour MPs should not be forcing their views on the party.

Right so that'll work then 🙄 Its a disaster waiting to happen if you let the party in fight with no clear strategy or direction. He doesn't seem much of a leader if he's just going to allow a massive bun fight on everything from rail ownership, NATO commitment, abortion legislation, science strategy etc. etc.

You clearly haven't got a clue how democracy and democratically arrived decisions work. It is perfectly possible to have 'a clear strategy and direction' AND still have a debate and discussion. How, ffs, you think Parliament works?

But I'll tell you what dragon, since it's obvious after 48 pages that you're unimpressed by Corbyn why don't just carry on voting Tory and not worry too much about the Labour Party? 💡

I can't imagine arguing with Tory supporters over who would make the best leader for their party.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/01/labour-jeremy-corbyn-chuka-umunna ]What do we think of this then?[/url]

An olive branch from the right now they've woken up and smelt the coffee, or a cynical attempt by a career politician to keep a shadow cabinet post? I suspect the latter but think it's probably no bad thing. If the labour party are to avoid implosion they'll need a lot more like Umunna to swallow their pride and accept what the membership wants.

What do we think of this then?

I said previously that I doubted a huge amount of hostility towards Corbyn from the Parliamentary Labour Party should he become leader.

Sadly few are conviction politicians and as career politicians they just go with the flow. I expect most will declare that they fully embrace the party moving to the left.

After all they had no problem at all denouncing for years every single bit of privatisation carried out by the Tories before preforming a complete political somersault upon the arrival of a new leader and agreeing with him that the Tories hadn't privatised enough and more privatisation was required.

EDIT : I said it better imo a couple of weeks go here :

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/jeremy-corbyn/page/27#post-7108917

I expect most will declare that they fully embrace the party moving to the left.

I, for one, welcome our new socialist overlord.

I, for one, welcome our new socialist overlord.

See, the opportunists are already crawling out of the woodwork.

Alex, why are the headline points unique to Corbyn, other than creating a natty headline? It's rare to find a link between headlines and the content of the article let alone a link to facts these days. Nothing unique to Corbyn.

So let's take another headline - Corbyn is a conviction politician (apparently). So much conviction that

- rather than resigning from a party whose policies he so frequently opposes, he merely rebels and sits on the sidelines. Why no Robin Cooke moment? Why indeed...actually the whole inner democracy sham is a great diversionary tactic, no wonder some love it so much!

- already showing willingness to compromise in NATO - why? Pragmatism, he knows that there (his words) wasn't "an appetite as a whole for people to leave."

- err, I'll wait a bit before abolishing the monarchy

- err, agree with Dave, let's wait until we understand the state of the EU before we decide yes or no

So as pragmatic as the next man. But "conviction" makes a much better headline. He'll be smartening his dress sense next......

As always, watch what they do, not what they (or the headline writers) say...

What's that THM, he'll be smartening up his dress sense? I give you:

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11832674/Jeremy-Corbyn-ditches-trademark-vest-in-makeover-as-he-prepares-for-power.html ]Corbyn makeover[/url]

Phew....next step will be learning how to tie a bow tie! 😀

Tie he can already, bow tie (well he can already as can everyone as it really is a rather simple knot).

[img] [/img]

teamhurtmore - Member

....rather than resigning from a party whose policies he so frequently opposes, he merely rebels and sits on the sidelines. Why no Robin Cooke moment?

If you mean Robin Cook the former Foreign Secretary, he didn't resign from the party. Like Jeremy Corbyn he rebelled and went to sit on the sidelines, or to be more precise the backbenches.

In fact you could say that Robin Cook had a "Jeremy Corbyn moment".

Here he is to the left of Jeremy Corbyn while making that famous speech condemning the Labour government's drive to war :

[img] [/img]

Good point. I stand corrected. Ignore the Cook reference.

Main point stands however.

Well if your main point was that Jeremy [s]Cook[/s] Corbyn isn't a conviction politician then good luck with that one, I think you're going to struggle.

[quote=ernie_lynch said]Well if your main point was that Jeremy Cook isn't a conviction politician then good luck with that one, I think you're going to struggle.

Jeremy who ? 🙂

Well if your main point was that Jeremy Cook isn't a conviction politician then good luck with that one, I think you're going to struggle.

Jeremy Cook? Who's he? Is he the bloke between Robin and the Michael Parkinson tribute act?

But as for struggle, you are correct again. The headline is much easy to swallow that the reality. A real man of conviction, not a hint of compromise or pragmatism anywhere.

Thanks allthepies. Both names starting with the same two letters didn't help 🙂

A real man of conviction, not a hint of compromise or pragmatism anywhere.

I don't really understand your point. You think "a real man of conviction" isn't pragmatic and doesn't compromise?