Forum menu
"The simple fact is that the Blairites would prefer a Tory govt to a left leaning labour one, Blair is on record saying as much."
Are you surprised that the moderates on one side prefer the moderates on the other side to the suicide bombers on their own ?
How did rebel Corbyn spend his back bench years?
Most of the time voting in line with Labour. Its worth noting just how many of those times he rebelled the tories were voting in line with the Labour government. Mostly around war, avoiding awkward questions about said war and the right to spy.
PM in waiting that can win votes and engage with the real world around us
Okay, so who? Its the major problem for Labour (actually for the other parties as well).
Remember people are worried about it being dragged rightwards again and then shutting down of any chance to move back to the left.
* sixth form common room president excepted
you're such a knob 😆
Are you saying that he is the only Labour MP you consider left wing enough, yet with the skill and experience to be leader? Genuine question.
Guilty as charged doris 😀
Most of the time voting in line with Labour. Its worth noting just how many of those times he rebelled the tories were voting in line with the Labour government. Mostly around war, avoiding awkward questions about said war and the right to spy.
I know that's the myth he likes to perpetuate, but his rebellions covered a range of issues. The other thing he consistently voted against was the EU
Are you saying that he is the only Labour MP you consider left wing enough, yet with the skill and experience to be leader?
I didnt say that. So who is your recommended choice?
[ for what it’s worth, Lammy would have my vote in a heartbeat, but suspect that the party might want to choose an MP for a constituency outside London next - he might not be as “left” as I’d like, but I haven’t once heard him speak on an issue without sounding very clear and leaving me feeling in full agreement with him on the issue he was speaking on ]
So who is your recommended choice?
Jess Phillips?
Kier Starmer?
It's about time the Labour party had a female leader. There are plenty of likely candidates. Jess Phillips would be brilliant! She's absolutely razor-sharp.
Keir Starmer with Emily Thornberry as deputy would be my choice. Both have held SC positions under Corbyn so are presumably palatable.
All I’ve seen from my own labour MP is his continued great work for our constituency, and the only way I can see he’s undermined the messiah is that he’s been vocal about calling for a second referendum for the last two years
The reality is that he is a shallow self publicist with a few hobby horse issues closely related to his personal circumstances (SEN, music etc) but has done little else but photo ops. That coupled with a labour council and PCC not getting challenged means fundamental issues locally not getting any airing other than "Tory austerity" is to blame
You could also run a competition to find a picture that has both him and Corbyn in it on his website or Facebook feed.
It’s about time the Labour party had a female leader. There are plenty of likely candidates. Jess Phillips would be brilliant! She’s absolutely razor-sharp.
Angela Rayner, Long Bailey, Butler and Smith are far more ideologically pure
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one big_n_daft.
I think he's done plenty for the constituency, ie improving public transport links. Especially when you compare him to the hopeless, heartless, 50's throwback hang-em-and-flog-em Tory who preceded him, who only remembered where his constituency was once every 5 years. He was the photo op king. My wife works in the charity sector and Nuttall would rock up on a train from Euston, do a whistlestop tour of all the local charities getting his photo taken, then be straight back on the train down to Westminster, never to be seen for another year
I note James has wisely stayed out of the whole Corbyn thing completely. I genuinely don't know his thoughts on him, but given that his wife is Jewish, I doubt he's a massive fan
Angela Rayner, Long Bailey, Butler and Smith are far more ideologically pure
What the labour party needs post-Corbyn isn't ideological purity, its competence
Jess Phillips?
Would be attacked for experience. Her feminists position would be the perfect dead cat attack option.
Be the risk of doing a Hague and burning out quickly (Hague developed a lot after his failed leadership and might have been a good PM around now).
Kier Starmer?
I am really not sure what he actually stands for? Only really comes up occasionally for brexit.
Also the experience thing. Suspect he would want a few more years to develop.
Let's be brutally frank about this... pretty much anyone would be doing a better job as labour leader than invisible grandad.
It really is time to go and spend more time with his runner beans
pretty much anyone would be doing a better job as labour leader than invisible grandad.
Diane Abbott ?
she would have to worse...
Also the experience thing.
Is odd, really. I suspect that I'd choose someone who pre-2014 had been a leading human rights QC and Director of Public Prosecutions over someone with a career of backbench activism and a stint as a trade union rep.
Corbyn has had a go at leading the party into an election, did pretty well but didn't get them over the line. Glorious failure is not enough at this moment in UK history. There is a fair chance this Tory government will go pop in the next couple of months, or that Boris will call a quick election. However distasteful it might seem, Labour needs to appeal to a broader swathe of voters in the shires and, together with the LibDems and others, kick the Tories into touch so that the mess they've created can perhaps be repaired.
As an addendum to that, a Labour leader in the present climate has to be palatable to voters of both his party and those voting for potential coalition partners. Otherwise the LibDem campaign is vulnerable to the kind of 'Vote LD, get Corbyn' attacks that no doubt Dominic Cummings is drafting as we speak. Corbyn's pisspoor rating as a potential PM doesn't just hurt Labour, it hurts the whole non-tory side of the vote, in England, at least.
Look what the red-tory, turncoat plotters have done today - is there no end to their treachery ?
a Labour leader in the present climate has to be palatable to voters of both his party and those voting for potential coalition partners.
John McDonnell needs to go as well, he is arguably more unpaletable than Corbyn and there's quite a few youtube videos of him being pretty distasteful in his comments. He's more typically a 'nasty' leftie than Corbyn is I think.
I think he’s done plenty for the constituency, ie improving public transport links.
Local bus services? And here I was thinking only 6th form commies cared about that sort of thing.
I see everyone's obsessed with the who the leader is. It's all a bit pointless really. The important stuff is the policies, and right now only one party is interested in breaking up the neoliberal system which has resulted in a massive shift in wealth and power from the general population to a tiny few at the top, with predictable results for everyone else in lower real incomes, greater insecurity (and the mental illness which comes with it), widespread poverty and societal decay. I couldn't care less who the leader is, the job of the labour party as far as I'm concerned is to challenge and replace neoliberalism with something more humane and progressive. One thing I know is that the likes of Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper or David Miliband are never going to do that. The Liberal Democrats even less.
The whole 'team' around Corbyn need to go
A lot of the 'problem' with Corbyn isn't Corbyn himself, but his outriders. Len McClusky and Ian Lavery couldn't be a more 70's throwback dinosaurs if they tried. They're like caricatures drawn up by the Tory's to scare voters. Both of them manage to immediately conjure up visions of 3 day weeks (and yes, I know that happened under the Tory's) and the winter of discontent every time they open their mouths.
And let's not get on to Seamas Milne and Karie Murphy, who at times seem to be dictating policy in conjunction with McClusky
Then there's the fact that having voted against him in the no-confidence vote, most of the genuine talent and intellect in the party has been banished to the backbenches, never to return. All while Dianne Abbot sits there as a potential home secretary if a Labour government were elected. The front bench generally consists of non-entities and political lightweights, who's only qualification is their loyalty to the glorious leader
I think he’s done plenty for the constituency, ie improving public transport links.
Local bus services? And here I was thinking only 6th form commies cared about that sort of thing.
Its exactly the kind of thing a good constituency MP should be (quietly) getting on with.
It is absolutely not what the leader of HM Opposition should be banging on about at PMQ's when the country is in the middle of a crisis
There's a big difference!
I'm afraid you're in the minority daz, in that you don't care who the leader is, and don't think it important. On a personal level I don't care either, so long as whoever it is, is doing a good job, but nevertheless, it's simply a factor in play - who is the figurehead?
There's a reason Tories are always saying 'otherwise you end up with a Jeremy Corbyn government' they see him as an electoral weakness, and he is.
Just to get back to basics here - surely the most important thing is to get rid of the Tories, for the next two or three parliaments at least. Corbyn will not defeat them, so the Labour party urgently needs a leader who can, regardless of whether they were Blairites or not.
breaking up the neoliberal system
Stick that on a bus, no.10 beckons.
I see everyone’s obsessed with the who the leader is. It’s all a bit pointless really.
If you want to be forming a single party government, you’d better have a leader that voters want to be PM.
If you want to be forming a coalition government, or a minority government with support from other parties, you’d better have a leader that can work with other parties.
Corbyn now looks to me, someone who voted Labour with him as leader in 2017, as neither. Polls suggest I’m far from alone.
I see everyone’s obsessed with the who the leader is. It’s all a bit pointless really.
Now you're just making excuses. Political parties in the UK need a figurehead, you need some-one to shout "follow me" you might not like it, but that's the way it is, and to try to pretend it's just policies is to wilfully miss the obvious: He's a terrible terrible leader, I'd have him in cabinet in a shot, but as a leader he's been a disaster, and now he's a liability. The Tories must be pissing themselves.
in that you don’t care who the leader is, and don’t think it important
Not saying it's not important, just not the overriding primary concern. Despite Binners' fantasies that Corbyn is some sort of stalinist dictator (which doesn't really tally with him also being a useless incompetent btw!), the reality is very different. Corbyn has very little power to force through things the party doesn't want to do. His acceptance of a new referendum being a good example, and before that the nuclear weapons issue. Same thing with policy.
Stick that on a bus, <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">no.10</span> beckons.
You don't think people are concerned about neoliberalism? The only tragedy is that Nigel Farage has been able to articulate the issues with it better than anyone else and fool them that brexit is the solution.
Corbyn has very little power to force through things the party doesn’t want to do.
His MP's, members and voters have been overwhelmingly in favour of both a second referendum and for the labour party to campaign for remain. He's resisted the former and is still caveating it with red-unicorn if.. if... ifs and he refuses to back the latter
And it's ok to say 'get rid of neoliberalism'. I get that. The present anglo-saxon model, which the Tory's want to turbo-charge post-Brexit has failed all but the top 1%. Wages have stagnated for a decade, employment has become less secure, and the wealth of the rich has sky-rocketed
But replace it with what? This is where Corbyn has failed. If he has a plan for this he has singularly failed to communicate it. You can't just say we're going to rip up the basis of an economy and then we'll see what we can up with to replace it. You need a solid programme, and then you need to convince people that it's a feasible proposition
If he could do this, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat
He hasn't
Do you follow him on Twitter or any of the Labour social media? It's like a stream of consciousness. It's all well and good at pointing out that this is shit, and that is shit... yeah, we know...but it then doesn't go on to propose what he's going to do about it. He just uses A blanket 'this will change under labour' or 'labour will put a stop to this' without any details as to how
We can all get behind the sentiment, but when you say 'we're going to abolish student fees' ... great... hows that being paid for? Where are the tens of billions that will cost coming from then? Same with nationalising the railways... again... great!... How? Where are those billions coming from? Even the hundreds of millions you'll need in legal fees as the private rail contracters deluge you from their well-funded legal departments for breach of contract
When the labour party start talking about how they actually intend to achieve any of this, then they can elevate the argument from the sixth form common room level its presently at
Edit: Shadow Norn Ireland Secretary Tony Lloyd (don't get me started on that corrupt ****!) is presently on Five Live saying a labour government would nationalise the shipyards. FFS! What?! Seriously?! Hang on.... is it 1955?! Shipyards?!
He, somewhat predictably, didn't have any answers as to a) WTF would you want to do that in the first place? b) How much it would cost or c) where the money to do that would come from.
Absolute idiocy!
The leader nowadays is more important than it ever has been. Farage gets people behind him when he hasn't even got any polices. The average voters doesn't even know which party has which policies as they don't read them. They just listen to what the leaders say and how they act.
The Labour party need a beauty contest to find the person who would appeal most to the voters. Once they have the leader then put the policies together.
And it’s ok to say ‘get rid of neoliberalism’. I get that. The present anglo-saxon model, which the Tory’s want to turbo-charge post-Brexit has failed all but the top 1%. Wages have stagnated for a decade, employment has become less secure, and the wealth of the rich has sky-rocketed
Neoliberalism has not failed, it could just be improved upon.
Alternatives - protectionist and nationalistic systems such as Russia have failed miserably. Corruption is on the up as is the increasing gap between the rich and poor.
Scandinavian Social Democratic systems have failed spectactularly compared to other European nations in terms of inequality https://www.businessinsider.com/why-socialist-scandinavia-has-some-of-the-highest-inequality-in-europe-2014-10?r=US&IR=T
This is one explanation for the high level of wealth inequality we identify in Denmark, Norway and Sweden: the top groups continue to accumulate for business and investment purposes, while the middle and lower classes have no pressing need for personal saving."
Apparently the above is "progress" - a nation of serfs reliant on their corporate overlords generosity.
And don't even bother mentioning South America or China.
SME's need to be encouraged, there needs to be socioeconomic mobility and we need to find a way to discourage corporate domination of the marketplace in the high street. People are happy when they feel in control of their lives and when there is a basic but functional safety net to catch them. An social democratic economic system that encourages a kind of blissful wealth stagnation in the lower and middle classes, whilst the rich carry on hoarding money is not the way to go.
If only someone had come up with a proposal to try and instigate a system of government which tried to temper the wilder excesses of neoliberal capitalism and invest in a Keynesian manner in infrastructure
If you could do that then you’d probably go on to win a landslide, and probably another couple of elections after that
If only, eh?
Well yes, but people either don't want to try something new (labour and Corbyn) or people (the public) can't be bothered to listen to something new that requires you to develop an understanding of what the new system is. If you start trying to teach them anything, that immediately marks you out as a liberal elitist.
Developing a new macroeconomic model that works and genuinely improves peoples lives, improves social mobility, reduces income inequality and spurs economic growth in the middle and lower classes, whilst keeping the nation competitive with the rest of the world - oh and at the same time being green - is no mean feat - because it hasn't been done yet. If it were done, no one would listen to you anyway because **** evidence based decision making and rationality - when we have ideology and sound bites! And that is all the public and politicians care for.
The only thing that really, truly increases social mobility on a scale that you can actually feel in your day to day life is massive economic growth - eg China - but over the past decade even Chinas growth can't stop rising inequality outpacing the amount of peasants it brings out of abject poverty.
The scary thing about neoliberalism, is that it's the best we've got and probably ever will have - because humans are simple creatures and will never think or agree to anything better until some kind of general AI that can bring human creativity to massively complex systems comes up with the perfectly balanced economic model that minimaxes inequality, growth and our ecological footprint. Even then, if such a model were developed - plenty of people would still hate it and demand overnight revolution to burn everything down and start again......because....humans.
Apparently the above is “progress” – a nation of serfs reliant on their corporate overlords generosity.
Corporate overlords?
Since when have the 'corporate overlords' in Scandinavia provided social housing, healthcare, roads and schools? And has public transport there been privatised in the last few minutes?
You might not think it sounds too good, but many others would be happy to work less and let the handful of people who just want to accumulate shitloads of cash crack on and do just that.
Wow, and what has the Economist ever delivered to the collective good of the people?
Drivel.
It was actually the New Statesmen - which is considered left wing.
Whilst the Economist is center right.
Both have delivered towards the collective good of the people because they both deliver informed, semi-rational debate as opposed to the sound bites of shit talking newspapers, news channels, politicians and the public on social media.
Corporate overlords?
Since when have the ‘corporate overlords’ in Scandinavia provided social housing, healthcare, roads and schools? And has public transport there been privatised in the last few minutes?
Just like here, their political elites are also usually the economic elites. Healthcare is privatized in Sweden as is the rail infrastructure.
The welfare state in Sweden simply serves to pull the wool over the eyes of those reliant on it.
But let's carry on believing that there is currently something out there that is radically better than the system we have now.
Maybe… but then we’re about to lose much of the system we have here, if we’re not careful. Also, offering decent public services and welfare system, alongside capitalism, isn’t about keeping those of us lower down the economic order subdued… it’s about increasing the quality of life for all, in the knowledge that without “interference” from the state, that won’t automatically happen by some kind of market magic.
I'm as unhappy about that as you are kelvin.
I just take issue with the rip it down and start again mentality taken by both the left and right. I hate the dismantling of our current welfare state, I also dislike and do not trust those that call for the destruction of the "neoliberal" order.
I'm a utilitarian, I believe in finding an economic model that balances peoples economic freedom and agency, creates wealth for the largest section of global society (note global society, I don't care for nationalist economic policy) and also protects the largest section of society against environmental factors that will hurt them. I don't believe the Scandinavian models do any of that, radically better than ours - they are better in some regards (income inequality) and worse in others (wealth inequality).
Finding a model that is better than both is an iterative process, that should be impartial to political ideology and is definitely not an overnight revolutionary change.
Agreed. The disaster capitalists and disaster socialists have the same thing in common. Our system can (and should) be improved to improve our economic activities, and improve quality of life for all, and provide better protection and help where people need it… but not by hobbling our current activity and destroying our existing protections before trying to embark on such endeavours. When you burn things down, it’s only those outside the fire that benefit.
The disaster capitalists and disaster socialists have the same thing in common.
Yup. One is for greed - the other is darker though. Disaster Socialists (disaster fascists won't tell you this because they don't care about being seen to be nasty), will tell you that all humans are good and that during a disaster people come together and co-operate. They will mention fluffy examples like the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake when the "community" came together maaaan...
What they almost always fail to remember is that the vast majority of time communities come together and co-operate after a disaster (economic or otherwise), it's to murder the people they like the least (especially those they see as victimizing them) in an organised and systemic fashion during brutal civil wars or to form cults.
Which is why people like DazH are so scary, you have victimized Corbyn and by extension DazH, you are to blame, you are the enemy and it is you who will be strung up from a lamppost come the revolution.
Which is why people like DazH are so scary, you have victimized Corbyn and by extension DazH, you are to blame, you are the enemy and it is you who will be strung up from a lamppost come the revolution.
Have you been drinking?
I think he had too much caffeine and sugar … definitely over fuelled, over excited, and over the top.
To illustrate a principle, you must exaggerate much and you must omit much. - Walter Bagehot
Well it’s comforting to know I’m still a threat to the state from my old days of sitting up trees. 🙂
(hi btw Kelvin, turns out we have mutual friends, don’t take anything on here seriously, it’s only a work monotony distraction! Hopefully see you on a ride sometime 😀 )
[End of thread]
Healthcare is privatized in Sweden as is the rail infrastructure.
The welfare state in Sweden simply serves to pull the wool over the eyes of those reliant on it.
WTF??? I live here and was under the impression that my taxes went to provide state healthcare! Certainly I do not have a private healthcare policy because I know that Karolinska (my local hospital) will patch me up if something happen. That's a state run hospital. I know that private health insurance exists, but it is there to jump queues and do optional treatments. Unlike when I was in the UK, I do not have it.
I'm not sure I understand your second statement above either. Are you saying that the welfare state exists, and is sufficiently strong that it blinds the people that use it from seeing the truth that they are exploited?