The labour party

Viewing 40 posts - 161 through 200 (of 319 total)
  • The labour party
  • Premier Icon dazh
    Subscriber

    You’ll never win an election by appealing to the party membership, particuarly not when setting policies.

    And you’ll never win a leadership election by not appealing to the membership. You can’t do the latter without doing the former. Has it occurred to you at all that the main reason the general population hate politicians is because they do exactly what you suggest? Corbyn tapped into this and it’s the main reason he won. If he does as you suggest and abandons that he’ll be finished far quicker than he will be at the hands of the PPE drones.

    and the sudden upsurge of new party members from the ‘random nut jobs’ on the left

    Like yourself you mean?

    mefty
    Member

    You see the trouble with this is that Corbyn won the biggest ever landslide in the leadership election, in all 3 sections of the vote.

    Not entirely true, he won all three votes but actually if you compare like for like with Blair’s election the result is quite similar. It is is £3 voters who massively change it because Corbyn dominated there more than Blair dominated the PLP vote.

    £3 voters Corbyn 84% vs Blair N/A
    Constituency Corbyn 49.69% vs Blair 57.61%
    Affiliated Corbyn 58.2% vs Blair 52.3%
    PLP Corbyn N/A vs Blair 60.55%

    Note Blair won a majority in each electoral college, which Corbyn didn’t quite.

    ahwiles
    Member

    martinhutch – Member
    …Many were younger people making their first foray into politics, which is a good thing for the Labour Party in the longer term

    The Labour mis-management have to proceed very carefully.

    if (when?) Corbyn gets done-over, the exodus by the new membership will be huge, and they’ll associate the words ‘labour party’ with a very nasty taste in their mouth. They’ll never come back on side.

    Here’s a thought…why is it people support Cameron who would rather kill people (go to war) over offering a helping hand to the destitute (immigrants fleeing worn torn counties)… Says it all really…least Corbyn has some compassion and empathy…

    ninfan
    Member

    I don’t think you can dismiss everyone who backed Corbyn as a random nut jobs.

    I wouldn’t seek to do so – on the same basis as I wouldn’t dismiss everyone who backed Farage as a random nut job, but the fact that they both attract random nut jobs like flies round **** should be enough of a warning on how the majority see them to ring alarm bells on their policies, leadership and electability.

    And you’ll never win a leadership election by not appealing to the membership.

    Which is why the Labour Party previously weighted elections towards the PLP – in fact, prior to that I think it was entirely a PLP decision.

    Premier Icon dazh
    Subscriber

    but the fact that they both attract random nut jobs like flies round **** should be enough of a warning on how the majority see them to ring alarm bells on their policies, leadership and electability.

    Coming from someone who has been quite open about paying 3 quid to vote for Corbyn I’m surprised you can write that with a straight face.

    ninfan
    Member

    Really? I think it proves my point perfectly 😆

    Though unfortunately you seem to be mixing up the ‘attracts lots of £3 voters’ and ‘surge in membership’ as the same people 😉

    grum
    Member

    from the middle, Corbyn is hard left. As as far left as Farage is right.

    But the middle has moved waaaaaay to the right. What Corbyn is mostly suggesting is only slightly to the left of Thatcher on most issues!

    DrJ
    Member

    Though unfortunately you seem to be mixing up the ‘attracts lots of £3 voters’ and ‘surge in membership’ as the same people

    I suspect only a tiny number of fanatical Tory/UKIP loonies actually paid 3 quid to vote.

    zokes
    Member

    from the middle, Corbyn is hard left.

    Whose definition of the middle?

    Junkyard
    Member

    anyone who does not embrace thatcherism/blairism.serve the interest of global capitalism and our “free press” is seen as hard left.

    Have the far left and right ever existed in the UK – at least in power?

    To consider mild shifts in UK political positions as movements far in one way or another requires an extraordinary narrow context.

    Even then, strip away the titles and look at actions not words. Some of the more RW stuff and policies are found north of the wall from a so-called anti-austerity, left of centre party. And the far right (sic) austerity driven nasty Tories are currently running one of the widest budget deficits in the developed world! Far right of centre???????

    So much for the headlines….

    More like noise around a consistent centre ground. Hence the challenge of recognising that a different mindset is needed to tackle the current situation that does not fit into LW or RW categorisation. That’s just historically convenient labelling (and BS) frankly

    Lifer
    Member

    This doesn’t seem right…

    The BBC orchestrated the resignation of a MP from the shadow cabinet and timed it to cause maximum trouble for Corbyn while feeding Cameron the info. Then deleted the blog detailing it.

    DrJ
    Member

    And the far right (sic) austerity driven nasty Tories are currently running one of the widest budget deficits in the developed world! Far right of centre???????

    You’re seeing things from a purely economic viewpoint in which a poor person’s pound is the same as a rich person’s pound. “Austerity” a la Osborne is not about spending less, it’s about spending less on poor people, such as via working tax credits.

    DrJ
    Member

    The BBC orchestrated the resignation of a MP from the shadow cabinet and timed it to cause maximum trouble for Corbyn while feeding Cameron the info. Then deleted the blog detailing it.

    Particularly telling.

    Junkyard
    Member

    Austerity is a set of economic policies implemented with the aim of reducing government budget deficits.

    I think most would agree that the govt is doing this , or attempting to do so, even if THM will refuse to accept this point.

    Given the state of the public sector its pretty hard, though I am sure some will take up the challenge, to argue that the govt has not/is not implementing polices designed to reduce its spending and therefore the deficit.

    Well you have to admire the Tories’ spin machine for making sensible things like state-owned railways seem like the beginning of a Stalinist tyranny, while you marvel at the stupidity of the British electorate who routinely vote for things which are directly opposed to their own interests, apparently stuck in a time warp of forelock-tugging and blindly doing the bidding of the gentry.

    But some ‘stupid’ people still remember national strikes crippling state-owned industries so maybe they think (rightly or wrongly) putting them back into state-ownership would result in something similar again, so maybe they are thinking of their own interests (i.e. they need to go to work, have electricity etc.).

    Its that kind of “I know better than you” attitude that did for the Labour at the last election.

    grum
    Member

    But some ‘stupid’ people still remember national strikes crippling state-owned industries so maybe they think (rightly or wrongly) putting them back into state-ownership would result in something similar again, so maybe they are thinking of their own interests (i.e. they need to go to work, have electricity etc.).

    Its that kind of “I know better than you” attitude that did for the Labour at the last election.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/27/privatising-east-coast-rail-rip-off

    I know, Grum, thats my railway, you’re preaching to the converted here!

    I was more trying to point out the aggressive labeling of people with a different opinion doesn’t win them over.

    If you walked up to me, told me I was as thick as mince then you would be unlikely to get me to look at your facts to prove it.

    Its not stupidity that gets the Tories in..its greed and selfishness which is a product of neo-liberalism. That’s why the Tories can only ever talk about the economy…and also why you never here the tory supporters on here defending Cameron and co for the good, community spirited work they (obviously don’t) do…nstead they have to hide behind slinging insults at othe politicians…I meam , strike in the 70’s..what a lame argument for not voting Labour now…

    DrJ
    Member

    breatheeasy wrote:

    I know, Grum, thats my railway, you’re preaching to the converted here!
    I was more trying to point out the aggressive labeling of people with a different opinion doesn’t win them over.
    If you walked up to me, told me I was as thick as mince then you would be unlikely to get me to look at your facts to prove it.

    That’s OK – I’m not a politician and I’m not trying to win you over.

    DrJ
    Member

    sunnydaze310 wrote:

    Its not stupidity that gets the Tories in..its greed and selfishness which is a product of neo-liberalism.

    Yeah … well … that too, but to vote out of greed and not actually benefit when your choice gets elected seems a bit … stupid.

    zokes
    Member

    Its that kind of “I know better than you” attitude that did for the Labour at the last election.

    Given the perverse logic most Tory sycophants come out with to justify their political position, I’d suggest that a fart in a wet paper bag knows better than them, let alone the majority of Labour members who voted for Corbyn

    A commentator once wrote that he/she felt the Tory strategy was to suggest to the public that if you voted for them you’d get what they have (money), but never actually making a situation where the masses get the share of the money. Instead the top tier keep it for themselves – but the crucial bit so the strategy keeps working is to drip feed little scraps of incentive to the masses as if to say, “look we’re giving you some” keep voting for us…

    The UK is not a poor country for its size but a lot of people are suffering – the money is somewhere

    Someone else wrote…without an understanding of hegemony it would be puzzling to contemplate how, in a democracy, it is possible to create a society in which it is has been justi?able to increase poverty at the same time as wealth…

    Junkyard
    Member

    The reality is most of us have to lose in the pyramid scheme that is capitalism

    Junkyard
    Member

    The former shadow justice minister[Dan Jarvis} told the Guardian in an interview: “To my core I have always been Labour and always will be, but I would feel deeply uncomfortable fighting as a Labour candidate on a manifesto that committed us to getting rid of our nuclear deterrent, not least because we would lose the election. It’s an issue of such strategic importance with the public that it would be catastrophic for us to go into an election with that as our policy.”

    Regrettably, as I am no fan of the deterrent and think its an expensive toy we will never use and we have nukes via NATO, but he is probably correct that a no nukes platform is unelectable.

    ninfan
    Member

    The reality is most of us have to lose in the pyramid scheme that is capitalism

    It’s this type of lazy ‘agree and retweet’ rhetoric that undermines the Corbynites view of the world.

    Do you really think that people are worse off (eg. Overall quality of life wise) than they were in the sixties, seventies and eighties? The stats show clearly that UK poverty rates dropped massively since the war, and hovered around 10-15% for the past forty years of evil capitalism, being in poverty in Britain today sure as hell doesn’t mean what it did in the seventies.

    How do you think poverty in India and China has fared under capitalism? You pyramid seems to be a bit messed up when the people at the bottom are getting richer.

    jambalaya
    Member

    The UK is not a poor country for its size but a lot of people are suffering – the money is somewhere

    We are the 6th richest country in the world, the second richest in Europe. When people look at where the money is they neglect to properly value things like the NHS which provides universal health care, state pensions and welfare support which is non contributory (unlike France and Germany). As quited elsewhere in STW unless you earn more than £38k pa you take out more than you put in.

    As someone who has commuted daily by train for 30 years I can verfiy our railways are poor and expensive (have commuted by train/subway in NY and Sing and used railways extensively in Europe and Japan). However London is one of the worlds largest cities in terms of commuter numbers, others just don’t have the same pressures. I personally think raiway re nationalisation would be a disaster on a Greek scale with almost immediate huge increases in costs and necessary subsidies. Its very easy to predict a Labour government nationalising a railway and facing huge increases in wages as workers strike – can you really see a Labour government facing down railworkers having just become their employer ? State employees did for Labour in the 1970’s. Its also a strange policy politically, very idealistically driven and not one thats going to attract many swing/undecided voters.

    Junkyard
    Member

    its this inability to read and comprehend that undermines the tories trolls
    The pyramid[ its not mine] only gets messed up when there is no bottom and its a square- really you wish to argue capitalism will create this?
    Its not possible to argue that wealth within capitalism is anything other than inequitably distributed.

    You make a different point that has some merit

    The base has [possibly] got wider but the distance to the top has got further away.d.

    You can like capitalism or dislike it but one has to accept it is a pyramid in terms of wealth/income distribution.

    jambalaya
    Member

    What @ninfan says. JY why do you think millions and millions of people would love to emigrate to the UK ? For every anti-capitlaist whiner there are hundreds if not thousands of very bright well educated ambitious hard working Indians and Chinese desperate to come to the UK. None of them are interested in the minimum wage or welfare or indeed the cost of housing, all they see is the opportunity. They are happy to live in a small room in a shared house to get started as its worth it and they won’t be whinning about it.

    jambalaya
    Member

    JY the top of this pyramid is folks like Mark Zuckerberg etc. Its getting fatter at the bottom due in large part to exploding world population and campaigners insistence on including property wealth and ignoring the benfits of welfare and free health provisions. Those lower down this “pyramid” have had their jobs amd wages undermined firstly by offshore manufacturing and now by immigrant labour which is increasingly doing jobs “on-shore”. This is now moving very much up the skill chain as per the bright Indian and Chinese I spoke of above, they are competing for the graduate jobs.

    ninfan
    Member

    The base has [possibly] got wider but the distance to the top has got further away.

    I’ll give you a challenge – go and draw a pyramid, and show me just how that is possible geometrically…

    Junkyard
    Member

    Ninfan every now and then i see if you wish to actually debate rather than scribble

    Every time the same answer.

    FWIW both a geometry and a not answering the question fail there
    As were then as we were.

    why do you think millions and millions of people would love to emigrate to the UK ?

    What does that have to do with the point I am making about capitalism?
    Why is it that you cannot bring yourself to admit the obvious truth about what capitalism has produced that you evade and change the subject at every point using gentle name calling?
    It is a pyramid scheme – though of course whilst the top has fewer numbers it also has more wealth than the bottom – This is true and its morally unjustifiable hence you have to avoid discussing it or accepting it yourself and just claiming that the raison detre of capitalism is poverty reduction.
    Its BS and you know hence the obfuscation.
    The point i made is just true
    Deal with it.

    DrJ
    Member

    why do you think millions and millions of people would love to emigrate to the UK ?

    Because we just dropped bombs on their houses? Because our (not so distant) ancestors screwed up their countries while we were running them? Am I getting warmer?

    ninfan
    Member

    Woah Ho Ho Ho Ho there 😆

    FWIW both a geometry and a not answering the question fail there

    Go on then, explain how a pyramid can get both wider and taller at the same time? There’s only one way that it can be achieved.

    And yes, the answer is directly relevant, because it sums up capitalism perfectly!

    Growing the pyramid

    The people at the bottom are getting richer – India, China, South America, Poland, Romania, Albania, the list goes on – they’re not complaining about capitalism.

    It’s this type of lazy ‘agree and retweet’ rhetoric that undermines the Corbynites view of the world.

    No (in their vacuum) it feeds them. Without it, what would be left (excuse the pun)

    why do you think millions and millions of people would love to emigrate to the UK ?
    Because we just dropped bombs on their houses? Because our (not so distant) ancestors screwed up their countries while we were running them? Am I getting warmer?

    No Dr, considerably colder in fact verging on frozen.

    The most rapid increase in immigration has been seen from the EU (although the total is just below non-EU) and the majority is related to work and formal study.

    But let’s not let facts get in the way of the froth

    airtragic
    Member

    It is a pyramid scheme – though of course whilst the top has fewer numbers it also has more wealth than the bottom – This is true and its morally unjustifiable hence you have to avoid discussing it or accepting it yourself and just claiming that the raison detre of capitalism is poverty reduction.

    JY, I think you’ve summed up the difference between socialism and capitalism there. Proponents of socialism argue that the state should engineer wealth redistribution from richer to poorer, fair enough. Capitalists would argue that the second-order effect of exploiting human ambition/striving/greed, whatever you want to call it, is that everyone gets richer, to a far greater extent than under socialism?

    Socialism always seems to me like it would be a great idea, if only people would stop being people.

    I’m not suggesting that Labour or the Conservatives fully reflect either ideology btw, just separate points on the spectrum.

    wrecker
    Member

    Because we just dropped bombs on their houses? Because our (not so distant) ancestors screwed up their countries while we were running them? Am I getting warmer?

    I’d say not. The UK is a nice place to live. Kids get a good education, we have a great health service and (generally) we look after people when they’re in the shit.
    Frankly, if I were a Syrian I’d be doing my level best to get my family the hell out of dodge and to somewhere like the UK.
    The UK’s challenge is that this all costs money, and we don’t have any (in real terms)
    I’d wager that the average Syrian either doesn’t know or doesn’t give a shit what anyone’s ancestors did. They have bigger problems.

    DrJ
    Member

    The most rapid increase in immigration has been seen from the EU (although the total is just below non-EU) and the majority is related to work and formal study.

    You seem to be in a muddle over what has been claimed. Immigrants can come from the EU because it is legal for them to do so, so the actual numbers of immigrants cannot be used as an indicator of how many people from around the world WANT to come to the UK. I realise that this may be a bit complicated for an economist to understand.

Viewing 40 posts - 161 through 200 (of 319 total)

The topic ‘The labour party’ is closed to new replies.