Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

NinjaFletch said:
Well maybe you should have picked that as your example rather than nationalisation then?

Worth bearing in mind that the SNP stand on a platform of not renewing trident and unilateral disarmament and are a hugely popular party though.
Click to expand...
Is opposing trident renewal even a far left ideal though? I mean I know Jeremy's probably not on the popular side with this one but again it's hardly a stance exclusive to the far left or even left of British politics.

Coupled to your point about the SNP, the Lib Dems have suggested considerably downgrading. I'd hardly call them a far left outfit.
 
Kaos said:
I'm already having to pay a ludicrous amount to travel 10 miles into central London, I dread to think how much more I have to pay to get anywhere near a reasonable service.
.
Click to expand...
a lot less in the long run - thats the problem though people seem to think this 100 year old network we have should be able to operate as efficiently as the latest puropse built systems from around the world - we patch things up in the shortest window possible to minimise disruptions when what it needs is a complete overhaul yet its too politically unpopular to admit how bad things are - same with the power networks but thats a different (and far worse) story
 
Marching said:
Quite right.

It's one thing appealing to a couple of hundred thousand of the noisiest supporters but a whole different ball game to getting elected at a general election. The Labour MP's and anyone with half a brain can see this but sadly Corbyn is too stubborn to see it or even care. He loves being in opposition.
Click to expand...

It's not just a couple of hundred thousand though, is it? Because there has been a couple of hundred thousand almost in paid membership sign ups. The number of people not willing to sign up to the Labour Party by direct debit in absolute support of Corbyn will be much greater.
 
sun_tzu said:
a lot less in the long run - thats the problem though people seem to think this 100 year old network we have should be able to operate as efficiently as the latest puropse built systems from around the world - we patch things up in the shortest window possible to minimise disruptions when what it needs is a complete overhaul yet its too politically unpopular to admit how bad things are - same with the power networks but thats a different (and far worse) story
Click to expand...
So ultimately your stance is - "yeah its shit and continues to get worse, but hey one day it might get better so let's wait it out"?

You also say nationalisation isn't feasible because of infrastructural changes but claim we need a complete overhaul anyway to get current private services running to a reasonable level?
 
Adebesi said:
"If the Labour Party had selected David instead of Ed Milliband, we'd probably have a Labour government right now, and would still be in the EU." Discuss.

I read this comment in the FT yesterday and thought it was an interesting proposition.

Its obviously impossible to know, really. But as far as Corbyn is concerned, the whole problem can clearly be traced very directly back to the leadership election reforms brought in by Ed. Ed specifically said he wanted to turn the party into a movement. A classic example of needing to be careful what you wish for. So at the very least we can say if David had been leader of Labour, if he had failed, we probably wouldnt have had the conditions in the following leadership election from which Corbyn could prevail. So it is not a stretch to say the whole Labour Civil War would never have happened, because the hard left would never have got a foothold. Those kinds of members may have drifted away, Labour may have lost a lot of support, but it would at least be a coherent entity.

That is as far as I think I would go though. Im not sure about the whole "Red Ed" thing, I dont think he was that far to the left of his brother - so as to make them unelectable, where his brother may have got them back after 5 years. Would David have offered a real alternative to austerity? If Ed didnt, and people think Ed was too far to the left, then probably not. And if he hadnt, maybe people would have voted Tory anyway. If the Tories had won, they would still have offered a referendum - it was UKIP that forced that issue, not Labour. Maybe a united and functioning Labour Party could have changed the course of that vote but I doubt it. I dont think David would have solved the problem of the Scottish Labour implosion, or disaffection among Northern Labour voters. So it may still be in terminal decline.

So in summary, my best guess is Labour would still have had a fairly major crisis on its hand in terms of connecting with core voters, and we would still have a Tory government. It would probably not be run by Corbyn and would therefore not have that particular issue to contend with, but with Scotland abandoning it and many Englishworking class voters feeling it didnt speak to them about immigration, it would arguably be on the same track, just not so far along it. Maybe that would be worse, maybe this civil war, damaging as it is, can resolve issues that might have taken many years to work through, and lead to a more viable party, or parties, more quickly than would otherwise have been the case.
Click to expand...
I'm not a David Miliband evangelist, I've said on here multiple times that during that 2010 leadership campaign he didn't come across well, looked shifty and Ed actually managed to seem the more human of the two. What I am sure of, though, is that he had a far greater understanding of where to position the party in order to gain support, and wouldn't have made the same (fatal) mistake that Ed made in assuming that the electorate had moved left after the crash. And on the shallow end, looked far more like a PM than Ed. So I think on the two key things that lost Ed the election - economic credibility and leadership - he would've fared a lot better. Scotland may indeed still have been lost, but I'm certain that at the very least, the Tories wouldn't have had a majority, and therefore we wouldn't have had a referendum.

On the leadership election reforms, yeah that's also a good point. Something else that's often said that is if Eric Joyce hadn't punched someone in a Commons bar one night in 2012, he wouldn't have then stepped down as a Labour MP, there wouldn't have been a selection campaign in Falkirk, there wouldn't have been alleged improprieties in the selection involving Unite, and so there wouldn't have been the switch to the current system. Butterflies and whatnot.
 
Ady87 said:
It's not just a couple of hundred thousand though, is it? Because there has been a couple of hundred thousand almost in paid membership sign ups. The number of people not willing to sign up to the Labour Party by direct debit in absolute support of Corbyn will be much greater.
Click to expand...
I hope may calls a general election soon just to put that to the test because I expect a Corbyn lead labour party to be crushed - and in the long run perhaps that is what the left needs... a proper split and re-imagining of how to represent voters
 
sun_tzu said:
unilateral nuclear disarmanent... pretty left wing
and pretty unpopular
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ar-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html
Click to expand...

Even that poll shows its split so it cant be considered radical hard left. Its centre left if anything.

As someone has posted above its his background and the narrative built around that (partly an own goal by the PLP) as to why he's considered a lefty. The idea that he's moved Labour policy to the left considerably just isnt true at all. Ed's final policies were probably further to the left.

I can see sense in questioning his leadership but to do so on his policy seems ridiculous at this point (unless its a lack of official policy)
 
sun_tzu said:
In scotland - though can we differentiate if thats because of the independence or the trident issue? - but when they get their independence how the fek is comrade corbyn going to win the votes he needs in the rest of the UK...
Click to expand...

Which doesn't suggest it's a popular policy even if Scots are further to the left of the UK in general.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/scottish-public-really-opposed-nuclear-weapons

What it does show is that a party can be a force with unpopular policies so long as it is seen to be competent. It'd about perception not policies.

(On the subject Scottish Labour's policies poll much higher than the party does)
 
Kaos said:
So ultimately your stance is - "yeah its shit and continues to get worse, but hey one day it might get better so let's wait it out"?

You also say nationalisation isn't feasible because of infrastructural changes but claim we need a complete overhaul anyway to get current private services running to a reasonable level?
Click to expand...
I say we should be prepared to invest to get a better service and we have to pay for that - not expect fairs to go down, furthermore based on my experience of working on rail networks throughout the world both public and private that the efficiency savings via the private sector are considerable... your point is some polls say its popular so do it even though you offer no insight to the feasibility and practicalities.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
See, I believe that to be a false hope. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

It may be but i dont see another way to victory. Scotland is gone and Labour wont be trusted again by those who see immigration as a key issue unless the tories feck up.

5-10 years down the line do we think the nation will be more left or right wing? Id be suprised if it wasnt to the left.
 
sun_tzu said:
I say we should be prepared to invest to get a better service and we have to pay for that - not expect fairs to go down, furthermore based on my experience of working on rail networks throughout the world both public and private that the efficiency savings via the private sector are considerable... your point is some polls say its popular so do it even though you offer no insight to the feasibility and practicalities.
Click to expand...
But the point is we as consumers are already investing huge amounts based on our extortionate fares, far more than anywhere else in Europe. Are you suggesting the government also reaches into our pockets to boost a failing private service? What would be the logic there?

I've already offered examples of how it could be feasible, namely Sadiq Khans idea of TFL taking over some southern services. TFL of course being a government service that's shown it can functional properly.
 
sun_tzu said:
I hope may calls a general election soon just to put that to the test because I expect a Corbyn lead labour party to be crushed - and in the long run perhaps that is what the left needs... a proper split and re-imagining of how to represent voters
Click to expand...

There is a reason the movement is called Momentum. Support for Corbyn amongst members and the public is growing exponentially, though not surprising from where it started. A GE would come to early now and May would surely cruise it, but it looks like both are happy to keep the status quo and honour the existing cycle. That said, I can see with my own eyes support for Corbyn being strengthened with every failed attempt to oust him. I think the working class relate and see it as their battle against the establishment too. Whether it will ever be enough to win a GE is another matter, but I hear politics mentioned daily now for quite some time and nobody from my generation has ever cared so much.
 
Kaos said:
But the point is we as consumers are already investing huge amounts based on our extortionate fares, far more than anywhere else in Europe. Are you suggesting the government also reaches into our pockets to boost a failing private service? What would be the logic there?

I've already offered examples of how it could be feasible, namely Sadiq Khans idea of TFL taking over some southern services. TFL of course being a government service that's shown it can functional properly.
Click to expand...

TFL... 23% funding comes from government , 8% from crossrail, 20% borrowing (paid for by taxpayers) - not exactly like for like is it - I suspect most private companies could make a bloody good fist of it given the same advantages
 
sun_tzu said:
TFL... 23% funding comes from government , 8% from crossrail, 20% borrowing (paid for by taxpayers) - not exactly like for like is it - I suspect most private companies could make a bloody good fist of it given the same advantages
Click to expand...

You've missed one key point - they're not for profit, so everything they make gets reinvested. Contrast that to the likes of Southern/Govia which evidently don't reinvest much based on the state of their trains and service.
 
sun_tzu said:
I hope may calls a general election soon just to put that to the test because I expect a Corbyn lead labour party to be crushed - and in the long run perhaps that is what the left needs... a proper split and re-imagining of how to represent voters
Click to expand...

The problem with that litmus test is that Corbyn isn't leading, and hasn't actually led, the Labour Party as of yet. He leads about 30 MPs, with the rest doing their own thing.

If he wins the leadership contest and the party actually unites rather than fractures, then Labour being decimated in a subsequent election would be the nail in the coffin of leftist politics for a generation. Can't see that happening, though, as a split seems inevitable.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
If he wins the leadership contest and the party actually unites rather than fractures, then Labour being decimated in a subsequent election would be the nail in the coffin of leftist politics for a generation. Can't see that happening, though, as a split seems inevitable.
Click to expand...
indeed - I think I will probably vote for corbyn in the leadership election just to speed the inevitable process along in the hope that there is a credible opposition formed off the back of the split
 
sun_tzu said:
indeed - I think I will probably vote for corbyn in the leadership election just to speed the inevitable process along in the hope that there is a credible opposition formed off the back of the split
Click to expand...
Yeah, I support Corbyn but in the event of those rebel MPs splitting and forming a centrist party, but with some actual leftist policies, then I'd be all for backing them. Will depend on the leader. I've said it before, but Labour lacks talent.
 
Ady87 said:
It's not just a couple of hundred thousand though, is it? Because there has been a couple of hundred thousand almost in paid membership sign ups. The number of people not willing to sign up to the Labour Party by direct debit in absolute support of Corbyn will be much greater.
Click to expand...

But nowhere near the number to get him elected is the point. He is preaching to the already converted while the rest of the country shakes its head in disbelief.
 
sun_tzu said:
indeed - I think I will probably vote for corbyn in the leadership election just to speed the inevitable process along in the hope that there is a credible opposition formed off the back of the split
Click to expand...
Would rather Corbyn be beaten and let them split off.
 
Marching said:
But nowhere near the number to get him elected is the point. He is preaching to the already converted while the rest of the country shakes its head in disbelief.
Click to expand...

If its swarms of new members then its not to the already converted though really is it.

I hate to use anecdotes but during the referendum i had a couple of friends who are completely disinterested in politics mention Corbyn to me as one they agreed with. They wont be able to vote for him now but they were intending to be a £3 voter. Thats the under 30 category.

Ive spoke to some in the office on the same matter. He's become the anti-establishment vote even more so over the last week and hes attracting new voters who werent previously interested.

That may not be reflected up and down the country but given the numbers joining i reckon its partly this.
 
Smores said:
If its swarms of new members then its not to the already converted though really is it.

I hate to use anecdotes but during the referendum i had a couple of friends who are completely disinterested in politics mention Corbyn to me as one they agreed with. They wont be able to vote for him now but they were intending to be a £3 voter. Thats the under 30 category.

Ive spoke to some in the office on the same matter. He's become the anti-establishment vote even more so over the last week and hes attracting new voters who werent previously interested.

That may not be reflected up and down the country but given the numbers joining i reckon its partly this.
Click to expand...

Corbyn was the most liked leadership candidate with UKIP voters last year.
 
Smores said:
They wont be able to vote for him now but they were intending to be a £3 voter. Thats the under 30 category.
Click to expand...
It's as blatantly obvious and shameless a move as the Republicans push for voter registration, knowing that a mass of voters would be conveniently deemed ineligible to vote.
 
sun_tzu said:
Im not sure - I actually think splitting from the union funding might be a good thing for a centrist party - of course the unions would be welcome into the fold but not in a way that gives them any more power than anybody else
Click to expand...

Good luck winning any elections without Union support. For starters the party would probably go bankrupt.

If you want a centrist party with no union affiliation then there's already a party for that.
 
Smores said:
If its swarms of new members then its not to the already converted though really is it.

I hate to use anecdotes but during the referendum i had a couple of friends who are completely disinterested in politics mention Corbyn to me as one they agreed with. They wont be able to vote for him now but they were intending to be a £3 voter. Thats the under 30 category.

.
Click to expand...
Apparently if they join an affiliated union (£2 per month with some) they can still vote - though its the labour party so between now and conference I suspect we will have the centrist MP's going to court trying to block that whilst Corbyn goes to court trying to reverse the decision from yesterday (ref voters)... basically a big fat mess which is inward facing and topped off with a big trident argument making theresa may and the conservatives look serenely competent and professional in comparison
 
Kaos said:
Good luck winning any elections without Union support. For starters the party would probably go bankrupt.

If you want a centrist party with no union affiliation then there's already a party for that.
Click to expand...
I think post brexit there is a huge funding pool there from pro European businesses and individuals for a centrist party

i wouldnt be surprised to see a lib new new lab (snp?) coalition at the next election - not putting candiadates up against each other and fighting the conservatives for the centre ground as the corbyn labour and UKIP shout from their respective sidelines
 
SteveJ said:
It's as blatantly obvious and shameless a move as the Republicans push for voter registration, knowing that a mass of voters would be conveniently deemed ineligible to vote.
Click to expand...

Yeah its a very similar move to that.

I do actually agree with it, you shouldnt be able to join a week before and vote. Its the retrospective nature of the move though and the fact ts so obvious, i mean they even waited until he left the room ffs :lol:

I wonder if they know the electorate are put off by such behaviour or whether they consider it the norm within their westminster bubble.
 
sun_tzu said:
Apparently if they join an affiliated union (£2 per month with some) they can still vote - though its the labour party so between now and conference I suspect we will have the centrist MP's going to court trying to block that whilst Corbyn goes to court trying to reverse the decision from yesterday (ref voters)... basically a big fat mess which is inward facing and topped off with a big trident argument making theresa may and the conservatives look serenely competent and professional in comparison
Click to expand...

Cheers, ill inform them as such although i doubt they will as they're not into politics. I'm pretty sure neither of them voted in the GE.

Im worried about May as she's incredibly savy. They'll be very hard to beat under her.
 
Kaos said:
Good luck winning any elections without Union support. For starters the party would probably go bankrupt.

If you want a centrist party with no union affiliation then there's already a party for that.
Click to expand...

Yeah .The Lib Dems .Who were more left of labour at one point.
 
Marching said:
I hate saying this about a Leeds lad but he's out of his depth!
Click to expand...
this man is now the shadow secretary of state for justice... its pretty clear Corbyn cant form a functioning opposition if he has to rely on the like of Burgon to fulfil pretty serious roles - if a few more quit then I dread to think how far up the ranks he might slither his way to
 
Dobba said:
And will be again should the PLP get their way.
Click to expand...
I guess it comes down to if you think its best to stick to your principals and be un-electable or to compromise somewhat but be able to introduce legislation (minimum wage, tax credits, debt relief to poor countries, human rights legislation, increase education funding, increase health funding, record employment, civil partnerships, ban on foxhunting, free nursery places etc etc)
Personally Id welcome a more centrist labour party though I can respect the opinion of others - I think though that the divergence is becoming too big and we will have to split into two parties and the best we can hope for is that the divorce is not too messy and we can still work together when interests overlap - my guess is we keep the name (or new labour or new new labour) and the other lot keep the union funding (and presumably call themselves momentum)...
 
sun_tzu said:
I think post brexit there is a huge funding pool there from pro European businesses and individuals for a centrist party

i wouldnt be surprised to see a lib new new lab (snp?) coalition at the next election - not putting candiadates up against each other and fighting the conservatives for the centre ground as the corbyn labour and UKIP shout from their respective sidelines
Click to expand...

What would be the point of a new new lab party if there's already the Lib Dems, and for some MPs - the Tories, both of who'd happily accept them as defectors. Why bother going through the headache of another split that went so brilliantly in the 80s.
 
Kaos said:
What would be the point of a new new lab party if there's already the Lib Dems, and for some MPs - the Tories, both of who'd happily accept them as defectors. Why bother going through the headache of another split that went so brilliantly in the 80s.
Click to expand...
whats the point of momentum when there is already un electable socialist workers parties?
I can see some common ground where a new lab lib (snp?) coalition could work though and that may be what happens - but I suspect the liberal name is a little too tarnished from the coalition for a lot of people still - perhaps we will just call ourselfs fek the corbynistas?
 
sun_tzu said:
I guess it comes down to if you think its best to stick to your principals and be un-electable or to compromise somewhat but be able to introduce legislation (minimum wage, tax credits, debt relief to poor countries, human rights legislation, increase education funding, increase health funding, record employment, civil partnerships, ban on foxhunting, free nursery places etc etc)
Personally Id welcome a more centrist labour party though I can respect the opinion of others - I think though that the divergence is becoming too big and we will have to split into two parties and the best we can hope for is that the divorce is not too messy and we can still work together when interests overlap - my guess is we keep the name (or new labour or new new labour) and the other lot keep the union funding (and presumably call themselves momentum)...
Click to expand...

Well that's one to put it.
 
sun_tzu said:
whats the point of momentum when there is already un electable socialist workers parties?
I can see some common ground where a new lab lib (snp?) coalition could work though and that may be what happens - but I suspect the liberal name is a little too tarnished from the coalition for a lot of people still - perhaps we will just call ourselfs fek the corbynistas?
Click to expand...

Except momentum aren't a separate party, but rather an affiliation of an existing one. There are dozens of examples spanning different parties across the spectrum. What you're suggesting in the formation of a new party which is pretty much identical to one that already exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.