Jeremy Corbyn

That too utopian? It’s not asking too much, and its all do-able within a single parliamentary term.

So no corporate speaking gigs for BBC staff and contracted personalities?

People’s Bank?

Community MoD?

Where is this system in operation? There are 190+ countries to pick from

dazh, I don’t know how you find the strength to carry on

Ha! I’ve spent my entire life being told I’m everything from a dreamer, fantasist, extremist, utopian, do-gooder, hand-wringing liberal etc. What people have never told me is why they put so much effort into supporting and justfiying a system which is so obviously f**** that schoolkids can recognise it before they even get to high school. I reckon I put much less effort into banging on about this stuff than most others do suppressing what stares them in the face. I don’t how people manage to accept all the crap they see every day and think it’s always been that way and always will be that way. It hasn’t and it won’t be.

Still waiting for a working model of utopia

Or are you proposing just tinkering with what we have?

Still waiting for a working model of utopia

Care to tell me where I’ve claimed we could have a utopia? I said we should replace a dysfunctional democratic system with a different one which serves the people rather than a tiny elite and tackles the existential problems we have rather than ignoring or exacerbating them. That’s it. No utopia, no revolution, just some fundamental change from this blinkered and self defeating shitshow we currently live under.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

I don’t know how you find the strength to carry on

And another thing.. The other reason I carry on with these endlessly pointless arguments is I’m genuinely interested in and fascinated by how everyone manages deal with all this crap. I figured out my coping mechanisms a long time ago and they seem to be the opposite of everyone else. I know for certain if I did what most do in ignoring the problems or pretending theres nothing that can be done I’d probably be on the depression and mental health threads.

I said we should replace a dysfunctional democratic system with a different one which serves the people rather than a tiny elite and tackles the existential problems we have rather than ignoring or exacerbating them.

How Dazh? It’s all sounding a bit Maoist from you at the moment.

I said we should replace a dysfunctional democratic system with a different one which serves the people rather than a tiny elite and tackles the existential problems we have rather than ignoring or exacerbating them.

Our system has lots of problems, I’m hoping you can name somewhere that has managed to achieve your aims. There must be somewhere close to your proposed paradigm

It’s all sounding a bit Maoist

Sigh, because of course the only way to change anything is through dictatorship? Well it’s not, the very opposite in fact, less change happens under that system because they’re inherently conservative, because dictators usually want to stay in power. Of course you know that though. Or do you really think nothing can be done? Or that we have to wait for those in charge to decide to do something? Having discussed many issues on here with you I don’t think you believe that for a second.

I think lots can be done. The changes need to start with a government elected using the system currently in front of us. There is no skipping over the step of using the existing system to take office… any plan to improve things needs to start right there.

That’s it. No utopia, no revolution, just some fundamental change from this blinkered and self defeating shitshow we currently live under.

Ok. But how do you propose to achieve that? Because, according to you, the system is so corrupt and rigged it ain’t ever going to happen. If the populace votes for change, then ‘the system’ has obviously failed.

The changes need to start with a government elected using the system currently in front of us.

True, but if we elect people or parties who don’t offer that change then it’s pointless, and I’m not seeing anyone offering anything that’s different right now. Or do you subscribe to the fantasy concept of electing someone on an ‘acceptable’ agenda who will then suddenly and miraculously do something else?

I said we should replace a dysfunctional democratic system with a different one which serves the people rather than a tiny elite and tackles the existential problems we have rather than ignoring or exacerbating them.

The problem being that we can only elect people who want to be in power and want to stay in power, not the people who are deserving of it. Nobody will get elected by saying they will change the system to PR. Firstly it means no constituency MP to contact as everything would be centralised. Secondly there would be no chance for independent candidates to get involved.

You need to look at other countries with PR… many still have constituency MPs. Secondly, how many MPs have been elected as independents in UK parliamentary elections in recent years?

PR can work. But, we need to elect a government proposing change using the current system, we can’t just wish we had a better system. Labour should get behind PR as part of their next general election manifesto. Their desire to hold onto a two party system benefits the Conservatives far beyond their own interests (if those interests really are about enabling change for the people, and not just holding together their ever loosening coalition of left leaning groupings).

Dazh,

Maybe you put too much faith in politics, society is like it is for a whole host of complicated reasons, politics is a symptom of the society it finds itself in.

Politics offers a promise of utopia that has never, nor will ever exist. Human beings have existed in systems that are more or less shit and often brutal throughout history. Our present system may be pretty awful when looked at through a moral prism but history shows us that it is a system that has delivered a 75 year period of unprecedented peace. This might be a reason why the public is instinctively nervous about radical change.

Kelvin,

Maybe we could have another referendum on PR, like there was with the Cleggy one a few years back. It failed then so why wouldn’t it fail again? As I mentioned earlier, all this tinkering with democracy only ever serves to undermine it.

I’m with that old lady from Bristol when it comes to tinkering with the system :

“What, another one ?”

The two party system benefited Labour for 3 terms pretty well when they had an electable leader didn’t it? It would have done so for 4 terms had Brown had the balls to call an election as soon as Blair resigned, (he could have then governed with a mandate).

Politics doesn’t shape society, it’s the other way round. If you change the system then the public will either get confused or they will make their own adaption to the new rules, the results will likely be similar whatever the system.

Maybe we could have another referendum on PR, like there was with the Cleggy one a few years back. It failed then so why wouldn’t it fail again?

That would be the referendum on electoral reform that was at best “a miserable little compromise” and at worst a blatant Tory stitch up to stymie reform?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/06/reasons-av-referendum-lost

The other reason I carry on with these endlessly pointless arguments is ….

Its because you’re not succeeding in taking people with you but are utterly convinced the way you see forward is ‘the’ way.

Or at least that’s how it reads.

I often read into your posts an absence of pragmatism with how to achieve solutions, that may not be a fair assessment but as is proven on a daily basis in pretty much every theatre of life, fairness isn’t relevant.

Just to bring things back on topic, what was Corbyn’s view on PR then?

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/islington_north/divisions?policy=1084

https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/news/lcer-ask-the-candidates

True, but if we elect people or parties who don’t offer that change then it’s pointless

The problem you have is that YOU (and me for that matter) are not part of the WE. People elect who they think will do the closest to what they want. If that is a Tory party they choose that (which for the vast majority of time in this country is what they do)

You think they are wrong and I think they are wrong but that is democracy. If THEY want a different system, if THEY are really concerned about climate change for example THEY wouldn’t vote a Tory party in but that is exactly what THEY did based mostly on their dealings with Brexit (again, another thing THEY wanted)

You can bitch and whine about it for 60 years but at some point you need to have some acceptance that is isn’t going to be changing in a big way any time soon.

Corbyn has gone, why are people going on about him? Restitution of the status quo ante ain’t going to happen. Peace for 75 years? So long as we ignore Kenya, Aden, Ireland, poll tax, Iraq, austerity, and so on. The present is the balance of forces between different class interests, reform will not fix system. Alternative electoral systems have not provided better solutions.
There’s something very deferential about this, looking up for a better/moderate/whatever party leader. These people are not special geniuses, they do deals, look after themselves, promote their ideologies. The LP can’t really fight against this because it’s never been a socialist party, even the post war nationalisations, council housing and the NHS were about propping up and revitalising capitalism and the LP introduced ‘In Place of Strife’ and industrial relations legislation to stop strikes. If it were a socialist party it wouldn’t get the backing of the rich lords and industrialists who back Sir.
So long as people can be had by distracting them with identity politics, binary this and that, radicalism frightening the horses and old ladies, immigration, the terrible 1970s, Corbyn was Lenin, then they really have nothing to worry about. But if you’re on the bones of your arse, worrying about your future employment, housing, kids, existence even, then you would be well advised to take a broader view. I hate to see those who are suffering argue an essentially tory position and attack socialists and but that’s how cleverly manipulative and aggressive the forces are we’re up against and not everyone has had the educational opportunity or experience to become class conscious. Time to start thinking a bit differently, or it’s game over.

Corbyn has gone, why are people going on about him?

Because he popped his head up end of last week to object to the findings of the Equalities Commission on antisemitism, so dominating the news agenda for a couple of days.

There’s a bit of momentum left in the thread because, in the face of overwhelming evidence, a few prolific posters do not regard Labour’s Corbyn experiment as a failure.

Its because you’re not succeeding in taking people with you but are utterly convinced the way you see forward is ‘the’ way.

I’m no more able to predict the future than anyone else. What I am convinced of though is that the problems we face are real, and that if we keep repeating the things we’ve done in the past then we’ll won’t just fail, we’ll be destroyed. We might be able to tolerate and recover from poverty, inequality, even the odd war or pandemic, but we won’t be able to ride out climate change, resource depletion and the destruction of the natural world. We depend 100% on the earth and its resources yet we have a system which assumes everything is infinite. It’s stupid.

I often read into your posts an absence of pragmatism

Ah yes the good old P-word. You’re right, I don’t recognise pragmatism, because its simply an excuse for not doing anything. Less than a year ago we were told that the Labour Party’s election manifesto would cost 250bn (or something like that) and wasn’t possible because we ‘couldn’t afford it’. We’ve already spent more than that on covid in 6 months than labour were proposing to spend in 5 years. If we were pragmatic about covid then hundreds of thousands more would be dead and the NHS and economy would be in a state of collapse.

I would argue the reason people are still going on about him is his suspension from the Labour Party, thus making him a martyr to the Labour left and making the Labour Party look even more divided.

a few prolific posters do not regard Labour’s Corbyn experiment as a failure.

We depend 100% on the earth and its resources yet we have a system which assumes everything is infinite. It’s stupid.

This. It’s really not difficult to grasp, but people just want to stick their fingers in their ears and say ‘lalalala I’m not listening’.

If it’s a straw man because everyone accepts the Corbyn experiment failed? That’s not what I’m reading.

Or do you mean the straw man on a thread about Corbyn is to bring in uncontestable assertions about finite resources? I’d suggest a new thread for that.

“There’s a bit of momentum left in the thread”

Boom tish.

“making the Labour Party look even more divided.”

I’d have disagree. Whilst the Labour Party is divided, the way it looks to the public in general is that the Labour Party has ‘taken back control’. I’m far from Starmers biggest fan but the way he has dealt with RLB and Corbyn has echoes how Kinnock dealt with Militant Tendency, only Starmer has gone this without the fanfare and theatre that Kinnock employed.

I think the general view of Starmer was that he was competent and decent but not a strong leader. I think the way he has dealt with the AS problem and the fallout has been like a silent assassin and whilst that may not appeal to elements of the Labour base it appeals to the country at large. It’s in part why the RW press hasn’t laid into him and also why Labour are polling better than many (including me) expected.

It’s not the LP that has ‘taken back control’. Starmer is forever going on about ‘leadership’ ie shiny suit, shoes and shiny hair, following his mentors rather than conference or the membership. He’s now widening his base by promoting the principles of decency, electability, employment, family, I reckon he’d do well to promote being nice to cats.

BillMC,

The important thing is that it ‘looks like’ Labour has taken back control to the general public. like the public at large couldn’t give a stuff about what ‘conference’ thinks and ‘the mebership’ (said in a Hale and Pace style) is as responsible for this mess as anyone (their minority vote gave us Corbyn in the first place FFS)

“Peace for 75 years? So long as we ignore Kenya, Aden, Ireland, poll tax, Iraq, austerity, and so on”

Wouldn’t it be great if these things were uppermost in peoples minds when they go to vote but they aren’t. With a dad who was stationed in Aden with RAF ground crew and a partner who is Kenyan I feel your pain brother, I’ve tried talking about Kenya on here a few times, things like 9 million bombs being dropped from Lincoln bombers onto Kenyan tribespeople resisting colonial rule but even on here there’s not much interest, yet alone the general public when they’re at the polling booth.

If it’s a straw man because everyone accepts the Corbyn experiment failed? That’s not what I’m reading.

It’s quite obviously failed and I don’t see anyone trying to argue otherwise.

Have we already mentioned Starmer’s fibs about Corbyn and AS ?

https://skwawkbox.org/2020/10/30/so-did-forensic-former-barrister-keir-starmer-accidentally-misquote-corbyn-3-times-in-a-few-seconds-to-justify-suspension-video/

I don’t recognise pragmatism

Ah, ok I see. That helps me avoid some old mistakes.

Have we already mentioned Starmer’s fibs about Corbyn and AS ?

What was all that banging on about “only 0.0000001% of Labour members investigated” supposed to be about? Why not just apologise and accept the findings of the enquiry…? It’s really not hard.

What he said was true though. It was about the fact that everyone has been lead to believe the Labour party is filled to the brim with anti semites, and it’s not. He also said it was a real and serious problem regardless.

I know saying stuff that’s true with evidence to support it is unpopular these days….

Anti semitism is a society problem but now everyone thinks it’s just a Labour party problem.

Accept the report’s findings, apologise, don’t deliberately neuter your apology with these whatabouterisms. It’s not hard.

We depend 100% on the earth and its resources yet we have a system which assumes everything is infinite. It’s stupid.

It doesn’t assume everything is infinite, it assumes the goal is to monetise it all as soon as possible.

The effect is the same, though.

Anti semitism is a society problem but now everyone thinks it’s just a Labour party problem.

Absolutely nobody thinks that.

But they may think it is worse within the Labour party than in wider society.

Absolutely nobody thinks that.

I reckon you’re probably wrong on that. To the average joe who’s only exposure to politics is tabloid newspapers and the 6 o’clock news it absolutely is only a labour party problem.

Well they’d be wrong.

The researchers said the prevalence [of anti semitic views] was considerably higher among right-wingers than on the left.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41241353

And you’ve all bought into believing the opposite, and thinking it’s not ok to point out the truth. You’re on the side of ‘evidence and facts don’t matter’. Strange world we live in.

Yes… yes… all true… but accepting the findings of the report meant accepting its findings… tempering it with “others are worse” and “it’s not as bad as some make out” is not the way to respond to the report and its findings. Accept, apologise, point out that you improved things since the events of the reports while you were leader, say you’ll support the new leadership in acting on the report, apologise again… save the whatabouterisms for another time.