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

ThierryHenry said:
I don't think people quite understand that the Labour party's vote had no impact on the vote succeeding or failing.
Click to expand...

Ubik said:
It was also different from the tax credits cuts, which the Tories were implementing through a statutory instrument. It was also a second reading, not a final vote.
Click to expand...

Yes on both issues. Burnham's big mistake was to abstain. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he had voted against. Yet again, the man's party loyalty overrode his ambition, for good or ill (one factor in his lack of resigning from the Shadow Cabinet).
 
This huge swing to Corbyn among those members who were already in the Party at the general election of 2015 was arguably down to two things. First, there was – right from the start – very little enthusiasm for any of the other candidates. Second, there was a good deal of latent dissatisfaction, as well as latent demand for a leader who was even more socially liberal and economically left-wing than Ed Miliband.

When we asked members to write in who should succeed Ed – back when Jeremy Corbyn received two mentions – Andy Burnham was the nominal front-runner among those who eventually stood. But – and this is a big but – he was the choice of a mere 18 per cent of members, while Yvette Cooper was on 8.5 per cent and Liz Kendall on just 2 per cent. Indeed, the most striking thing was that, in May 2015, nearly 4 out of 10 grassroots members of the Labour Party (37.5 per cent to be precise) said they didn’t yet know who they wanted as leader. Add that to the 34 per cent who named somebody other than the four candidates who eventually made it onto the ballot, and we perhaps had every reason to expect the unexpected.

But attitudes mattered too. When we asked grassroots members in May 2015 to place themselves on a left-right spectrum running from zero (‘very left-wing’) to ten (‘very right-wing’), the average score was 2.39 – slightly to the left of the average SNP member and only just to the right of the average member of the Greens.

On specific issues, 9 out of 10 Labour members who were in the Party in May 2015 wanted to see government redistributing income and thought cuts to public spending had gone too far – hardly surprising, perhaps, when nearly half of them were public sector employees. Meanwhile, probably reflecting the fact that between 60 and 70 per cent of them were middle-class graduates, eight out of ten Labour Party members in May 2015 thought that immigration was a good thing.

When asked to rank the qualities they most valued in a leader, Labour members in May 2015 put a premium on he or she having strong beliefs, while very few put the ability to unite the party top of their list. Finally, around a third of members in May 2015 didn’t feel the leadership paid them much attention and a quarter felt it didn’t respect them; 6 out of 10 wanted ordinary members to have more influence on policy.

Given all this, Jeremy Corbyn’s rise to power was, in effect, an accident waiting to happen. Grassroots members – whether they joined before or after he was nominated by MPs – weren’t so much ‘waiting for Jezza’ in particular as longing for someone, anyone, like him – or, more precisely, someone, anyone, like them – to come along and tell them what they wanted to hear. Persuading those members that they were wrong will take quite some doing.
Click to expand...

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/54068-2/

Also, for those interested, the braoder findings of the ESRC Party Members Projects is well worth a read: https://esrcpartymembersproject.org/
 
DenisIrwin said:
Seems this journo has similar misgivings about NATO.
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/356726-russian-threat-paranoia-money/
Click to expand...

Neil Clark holds some interesting views:

The most nauseating aspect of the campaign is the way we are repeatedly told that the Iraqi interpreters worked for ‘us’.
Who exactly is meant by ‘us’? In common with millions of other Britons, I did not want the Iraq war, an illegal invasion of a sovereign state engineered and egged on by a tiny minority of fanatical neoconservatives whose first loyalty was not to Britain but to the cause of Pax Americana.
Click to expand...

The interpreters did not work for ‘us’, the British people, but for themselves – they are paid around £16 a day, an excellent wage in Iraq – and for an illegal occupying force. Let’s not cast them as heroes. The true heroes in Iraq are those who have resisted the invasion of their country.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/aug/10/keepthesequislingsout

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/feb/12/warcrimes.comment

http://neilclark66.blogspot.co.uk/2006/03/invictus.html

http://neilclark66.blogspot.co.uk/2006/03/murder-at-hague_12.html

If you tell a lie enough times, it becomes accepted as truth, said Joseph Goebbels. In its coverage of the death of Milosevic, the western media has done the Nazi minister of propaganda proud. In order to cover up the Nato powers' complicity in the criminal dismemberment of Yugoslavia - and the war crimes committed in the Balkans, the west's media has not been content to tell just the one lie about Slobbo, but 10.
Click to expand...

http://neilclark66.blogspot.co.uk/2006/03/milosevic-true-or-false.html
 
Compare/contrast to the Iraqi quislings piece.

'We would have had a revolution in Britain a long time ago had it not been for horseracing', bemoaned Harry Pollitt, leader of the British Communist Party until 1956. But would a revolution which denied us the wonder of horse-racing, really be one worth having? Racing, and in particular National Hunt racing is a compelling and exciting sport which enriches so many people's lives. But all those who love jump racing, as I do, know that there is a downside- the terrible downside we saw today at Exeter when the three-times Gold Cup winner Best Mate, arguably the best chaser in Britain and Ireland since the legendary Arkle-
collapsed and died in front of the grandstands. The thoughts of all fans of the sport will tonight be with the connections of this magnificient animal, whose courage and honesty shone through in all his races.
Click to expand...

http://neilclark66.blogspot.co.uk/2005/11/sad-day-at-races.html
 
Ubik said:
It's from Russia Today, what do you expect?
Click to expand...
The BBC has been proved to have been unfair and biased. Can anything in that article, written by a western journo, be shown to be unfair and biased? If so, what? If not, should the fact that it's in RT matter?
 
 
Shamwow said:
That's irrelevant to this point.
Click to expand...

Not really. I think it goes to the crux of the debate about the direction of the party. The members' certainly hold the views which you espoused in the earlier post - namely that the Party was triangulating and shedding all principle in pursuit of power.

My point is that the right and centre of the Party, and their positions (especially those which were critical of the Balls/Miliband manifesto), is that there is no point just appealing to the membership, as they are unrepresentative of the wider Labour voters and wider electorate. This disagreement goes to the heart of the issue.

I should also be clear that no-one (Corbyn or Smith) has addressed the wider issues of Labour's electability.

EDIT: I should have said 'just appealing to the membership' - this is not to underplay the fact that the Right and centre of the Party do want to address members concerns.
 
Last edited:
Frosty said:
Not really. I think it goes to the crux of the debate about the direction of the party. The members' certainly hold the views which you espoused in the earlier post - namely that the Party was triangulating and shedding all principle in pursuit of power.

My point is that the right and centre of the Party, and their positions (especially those which were critical of the Balls/Miliband manifesto), is that there is no point just appealing to the membership, as they are unrepresentative of the wider Labour voters and wider electorate. This disagreement goes to the heart of the issue.

I should also be clear that no-one (Corbyn or Smith) has addressed the wider issues of Labour's electability.

EDIT: I should have said 'just appealing to the membership' - this is not to underplay the fact that the Right and centre of the Party do want to address members concerns.
Click to expand...
My own daughters switched from Greens to support Corbyn, which I see as a trend in those stats.
 
DenisIrwin said:
Wow! That's a lot to get through. Read the one about the interpreters. He does have a point, doesn't he?
Click to expand...

I am not sure how to respond, so I think I had better just go with 'no'. Clark has a history of views which seem to be deliberately contrarian and controversy-stirring, and not in a good way.

Iraq is seemingly going to cast a bigger and longer pall over Labour than Vietnam did with the Democrats.
 
Frosty said:
Not really. I think it goes to the crux of the debate about the direction of the party. The members' certainly hold the views which you espoused in the earlier post - namely that the Party was triangulating and shedding all principle in pursuit of power.

My point is that the right and centre of the Party, and their positions (especially those which were critical of the Balls/Miliband manifesto), is that there is no point appealing to the membership, as they are unrepresentative of the wider Labour voters and wider electorate. This disagreement goes to the heart of the issue.

I should also be clear that no-one (Corbyn or Smith) has addressed the wider issues of Labour's electability.
Click to expand...

Is that true? Millibands most left leaning policies polled extremely well. Some of Corbyns have as well.

I think the dissatisfaction expressed with Smiths chosen direction shows that despite the claims of it being about leadership that for them it was actually about repositioning Labour to the right.

I often wonder with the right whether its about them gaining power or the party. Would they be fully satisfied if Corbyn won an election or would they still seek to reposition the party for control?
 
Frosty said:
I am not sure how to respond, so I think I had better just go with 'no'. Clark has a history of views which seem to be deliberately contrarian and controversy-stirring, and not in a good way.

Iraq is seemingly going to cast a bigger and longer pall over Labour than Vietnam did with the Democrats.
Click to expand...
It's straight from the Stop the War handbook.
 
Frosty said:
I am not sure how to respond, so I think I had better just go with 'no'. Clark has a history of views which seem to be deliberately contrarian and controversy-stirring, and not in a good way.

Iraq is seemingly going to cast a bigger and longer pall over Labour than Vietnam did with the Democrats.
Click to expand...
The point, as I see it, is that it was unquestionably an illegal war, and not at all surprising that those that worked for the invaders in whatever capacity, be it interpreters or otherwise, are unpopular with the "liberated" Iraqis.
 
Smores said:
Is that true? Millibands most left leaning policies polled extremely well. Some of Corbyns have as well.

I think the dissatisfaction expressed with Smiths chosen direction shows that despite the claims of it being about leadership that for them it was actually about repositioning Labour to the right.

I often wonder with the right whether its about them gaining power or the party. Would they be fully satisfied if Corbyn won an election or would they still seek to reposition the party for control?
Click to expand...

Which bit? (Sorry, it was unclear).

Yes, individual policies do poll very well, but there is the obvious difference between policies in a vacuum and a programme for government with a leader that the public can see as a PM. But we have had those debates not just with Corbyn but Miliband as well.

I think that yes, many left-leaning members believe that if Corbyn is removed Labour will be pulled to the right. That, I think, points to the inherent problem of the Corbyn experiment - namely that the man pre-dated the movement, rather than vice-versa, so everything is dependent on him remaining in charge.

Also, I think the distrust is long-standing and a two-way street. Those on the right and centre could make the same accusation (power vs party) of the left and the 'Bennite' wing. Now I know that doesn't specifically address the issue, but I think it (more importantly) focuses on the key issues which Labour will have to debate and address over the coming years.
 
DenisIrwin said:
The point, as I see it, is that it was unquestionably an illegal war, and not at all surprising that those that worked for the invaders in whatever capacity, be it interpreters or otherwise, are unpopular with the "liberated" Iraqis.
Click to expand...

Well the interpreters were being targeted by radical groups (AQI for instance), not just the Shia militias, and to lump all Iraqis together (as Clark does) grossly misunderstands the situation. Just like with Syria, which has over 400 groups fighting, Iraq was similar. Here were Iraqis who were trying to rebuild their country, and being targeted for that. For the UK at the time to dither over whether to grant them asylum was the bigger travesty in my view.

Anyway, the Iraq War needs to be separated into its components. Even if the UK had opposed it, the US would have invaded. The bigger disaster was Rumsfeld's insistence that they did not need 500,000 troops. If the US had gone 'all in', that would likely have avoided the immediate post-War chaos and vacuum. However, that is not a popular point, for obvious reasons.
 
Ubik said:
It's straight from the Stop the War handbook.
Click to expand...
Is it still in print?
Frosty said:
Which bit? (Sorry, it was unclear).

Yes, individual policies do poll very well, but there is the obvious difference between policies in a vacuum and a programme for government with a leader that the public can see as a PM. But we have had those debates not just with Corbyn but Miliband as well.

I think that yes, many left-leaning members believe that if Corbyn is removed Labour will be pulled to the right. That, I think, points to the inherent problem of the Corbyn experiment - namely that the man pre-dated the movement, rather than vice-versa, so everything is dependent on him remaining in charge.

Also, I think the distrust is long-standing and a two-way street. Those on the right and centre could make the same accusation (power vs party) of the left and the 'Bennite' wing. Now I know that doesn't specifically address the issue, but I think it (more importantly) focuses on the key issues which Labour will have to debate and address over the coming years.
Click to expand...
Interesting that Corbyn's policies are seen by some to be neither left nor right, just fair and sensible, from BBC...

 
DenisIrwin said:
Interesting that Corbyn's policies are seen by some to be neither left nor right, just fair and sensible, from BBC...
Click to expand...

Two things.

First, Corbyn's policies (until the leadership campaign this year) were almost identical to the 2015 manifesto, which were equally popular on the street:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/05/continuity-between-ed-miliband-and-jeremy-corbyn

https://leftfootforward.org/2016/08...ity-began-with-ed-miliband-not-jeremy-corbyn/

The leader of the party, and the general programme for government as a whole, is more important than individual policies. Miliband learned this to his cost.

Second (and connected), an opposition party needs to be seen as competent, with a media strategy, clear ideas and a good communicator by the general public. These issues are less important to Labour party members (see the ESRC data), especially since the 2015 election. Corbyn's personal ratings are a better indicator than how the individual policies play, as the public's perceptions (fair or unfair) will influence their votes as to whether they think any individual can lead a government. For instance (from last September):

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/29/jeremy-corbyn-twice-left-wing-ed-miliband/
 
Here's a good point re: individual policies vs perception (from 4 July 2016)

Sky Data political analyst Harry Carr said: "While some of Jeremy Corbyn's specific economic policies are popular, he is not trusted with the economy at a more general level.

"Public mistrust in Ed Miliband’s economic credibility dogged him throughout the 2015 general election campaign. Electoral precedent suggests it is unlikely Mr Corbyn will win in 2020 unless he can win back that trust."

Looking further back, Mr Corbyn also comes off worse in comparison with Tony Blair, who was highly critical of Mr Corbyn during the Labour leadership election campaign.

The pairing of Mr Blair and Gordon Brown were preferred on the economy by 48% of Britons, compared to 16% for Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell.

Sky Data interviewed a nationally representative sample of 1,001 Sky customers online from 16-19 October 2015.

Data was weighted to match the profile of the population.
Click to expand...

http://news.sky.com/story/corbyn-and-mcdonnell-less-trusted-on-economy-10341289
 
Frosty said:
Here's a good point re: individual policies vs perception (from 4 July 2016)



http://news.sky.com/story/corbyn-and-mcdonnell-less-trusted-on-economy-10341289
Click to expand...
Most voters now see austerity as a busted flush and that Osborne has failed to hit his own targets. The hard right Tories will further damage the electorate's view of their own party in the coming months and years - with things like doing away with the Human Rights Act etc., while Corbyn appears to me to be gaining in popularity in leaps and bounds. I really think he can and will win in 2020 - or perhaps sooner.
 
Frosty said:
Two things.

First, Corbyn's policies (until the leadership campaign this year) were almost identical to the 2015 manifesto, which were equally popular on the street:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/05/continuity-between-ed-miliband-and-jeremy-corbyn

https://leftfootforward.org/2016/08...ity-began-with-ed-miliband-not-jeremy-corbyn/

The leader of the party, and the general programme for government as a whole, is more important than individual policies. Miliband learned this to his cost.

Second (and connected), an opposition party needs to be seen as competent, with a media strategy, clear ideas and a good communicator by the general public. These issues are less important to Labour party members (see the ESRC data), especially since the 2015 election. Corbyn's personal ratings are a better indicator than how the individual policies play, as the public's perceptions (fair or unfair) will influence their votes as to whether they think any individual can lead a government. For instance (from last September):

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/29/jeremy-corbyn-twice-left-wing-ed-miliband/
Click to expand...

Very good post and i especially agree with your second point. I dont know where i attribute blame but certainly a good portion is on Corbyn and his direct team for not polishing up their act even if it is in the face of a sabotaging PLP.

With Corbyn his integrity and lack of political bullshit does appeal to members and the politically disinterested more than the wider electorate. Yet i dont believe this should have prevented him from also running an effective communication strategy.

Labour have an experienced media team to call upon its a shame they've found themselves battling Corbyn rather than working with him.
 
DenisIrwin said:
Most voters now see austerity as a busted flush and that Osborne has failed to hit his own targets. The hard right Tories will further damage the electorate's view of their own party in the coming months and years - with things like doing away with the Human Rights Act etc., while Corbyn appears to me to be gaining in popularity in leaps and bounds. I really think he can and will win in 2020 - or perhaps sooner.
Click to expand...

I am pleased that they do. Many of us have been shouting against the wind for years in that regard. But not just voters now - the IMF, World Bank, economists who supported austerity, and Theresa May's government. This is all a positive move.

However, I am not sure I can agree with the assessment that Corbyn is gaining popularity, or that he would win in 2020.

I don't think any Labour leader could win in 2020, given the swing needed to win would be greater than that achieved in 1997. I actually did think that Corbyn could make the best effort for Labour in 2020 (making it more akin to 1992 than 1983, for instance), but events and his actions have changed my mind in the meantime.

However, quite apart from this - Corbyn has the worst personal ratings of any opposition leader in history. I am not sure whether we can say he is becoming more popular with the electorate as a whole.

berbatrick said:
Don't you think that's a problem much wider than this contest: people vote against their favoured policies based on false perceptions and biases...
Click to expand...

If that is the case, it works both ways (so Labour voters vote against the Tories despite agreeing with their policies. In addition, most people don't really follow politics, so vote on emotion/gut instinct/other issues. There is an implication that simply educating people will lead them to support left-wing policies. The point I made a few pages back was that the UK has never elected a government on a left-wing slate like Corbyn is offering (compared to the poilitical centre). Why should that change now?
 
Im starting to wonder if Owen Smith would jump off a bridge if someone told him JC had done so.

"Just like Corbyn but not Corbyn"
 
Frosty said:
If that is the case, it works both ways (so Labour voters vote against the Tories despite agreeing with their policies. In addition, most people don't really follow politics, so vote on emotion/gut instinct/other issues. There is an implication that simply educating people will lead them to support left-wing policies. The point I made a few pages back was that the UK has never elected a government on a left-wing slate like Corbyn is offering (compared to the poilitical centre). Why should that change now?
Click to expand...


But a lot of polling (I'm on more solid ground asserting this about the US) shows substantial support for Democratic (and left-of-Democrat) positions on education, healthcare, etc. while the same public votes nearly split between the 2 parties which are both to the right of their position.

In the UK, apart from the death penalty and immigration, I don't know of issues where voters are to the right of their choices. And interestingly, public perception of immigration numbers is famously hugely inflated.

Finally, I can't argue on specifics, but about Attlee: the policy gap between him and Churchill was huger than you paint it for a single reason. Churchill would never preside over the demise of the Empire. Compared to what Attlee did in India, withdrawing from Nato seems like a breeze. You mentioned that the manifestos were similar, I don't know, but I do know that Churchill said that to implement Labour policies it would need a Gestapo.
Additionally, from wikipedia:
Churchill's commitment to creating a welfare state was limited and he and the Conservative Party opposed much of the implementation of the Beveridge Report, including voting against the founding of the NHS.
Click to expand...

Finally, I'm not sure whether it was you or someone else who made the point about centrists acheiving so much more for Labour...the main who created the NHS was no centrist. And he resigned from government due to Attlee's support for the Korean War. He seems to me someone who would fit in better with Corbyn than Blair.
 
berbatrick said:
But a lot of polling (I'm on more solid ground asserting this about the US) shows substantial support for Democratic (and left-of-Democrat) positions on education, healthcare, etc. while the same public votes nearly split between the 2 parties which are both to the right of their position.

In the UK, apart from the death penalty and immigration, I don't know of issues where voters are to the right of their choices. And interestingly, public perception of immigration numbers is famously hugely inflated.
Click to expand...

Tax and defence spring to mind as well:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/11/30/analysis-four-million-labour-voters-lack-trust/

Finally, I can't argue on specifics, but about Attlee: the policy gap between him and Churchill was huger than you paint it for a single reason. Churchill would never preside over the demise of the Empire. Compared to what Attlee did in India, withdrawing from Nato seems like a breeze. You mentioned that the manifestos were similar, I don't know, but I do know that Churchill said that to implement Labour policies it would need a Gestapo.

Additionally, from wikipedia:

Finally, I'm not sure whether it was you or someone else who made the point about centrists acheiving so much more for Labour...the main who created the NHS was no centrist. And he resigned from government due to Attlee's support for the Korean War. He seems to me someone who would fit in better with Corbyn than Blair.
Click to expand...

I am not denying that there were huge differences between the parties in the 1945 election. My point was whether the Labour manifesto was as relatively left-wing (compared to the political centre) as Corbyn's policies (which we know of in detail) today.

All three parties endorsed the Beveridge Report in the 1945 election.

Here are the manifesto commitments on health from 1945.

The Conservatives actually had the longest section in their manifesto, pledging:

The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them. We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation
Click to expand...

although they went on to envision it as encompassing voluntary hospitals and university medical research, as well as focussing on maternity care.

The Liberals had the shortest manifesto of the election, making just 20 points, but still placed health as a priority:

People cannot be happy unless they are healthy. The Liberal aim is a social policy which will help to conquer disease by prevention as well as cure, through good housing, improved nutrition, the lifting of strains and worries caused by fear of unemployment, and through intensified medical research. The Liberal Party’s detailed proposals for improved health services would leave patients free to choose their doctor, for the general practitioner is an invaluable asset in our social life.
Click to expand...

and in typical Liberal style, they accordingly released a supplementary pamphlet giving detailed proposals for the practical implementation of such a scheme, which nobody read, but was then largely worked into law a year later.

The Labour party, on the other hand, was by far the most ambivalent of the three. It gave a fairly evasive pledge, envisioning the NHS as little more than an advisory body for healthier nutrition and medical research:

By good food and good homes, much avoidable ill-health can be prevented. In addition the best health services should be available free for all. Money must no longer be the passport to the best treatment.

In the new National Health Service there should be health centres where the people may get the best that modern science can offer, more and better hospitals, and proper conditions for our doctors and nurses. More research is required into the causes of disease and the ways to prevent and cure it.
Click to expand...

On the Empire, the Conservatives were supportive of the continuation of Empire (their manifesto is here: http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/con45.htm). But the Labour Party's manifesto (http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab45.htm) did not speak of decolonisation at all, and instead only alluded to self-governance in a similar (but less affusive and direct) way than the Tories.

On Bevan, again you are correct that he was a radical. But his plan for the NHS was controversial even in the Labour Party, and was only passed because of the majority that they won. Whilst it did become law, the key point there is that all parties in 1945 supported the creation of an NHS. There was only a difference on what it would look like and cover. Even then it was the National Government of 1944 (doiminated by Tories) who endorsed the White Paper of 1944. The political centre, and what was considered a 'reasonable' proposal, was markedly different from where it is today, and again the Attlee Government was elected not on radical leftist ideas, but on a manifesto which was not too far away frm the other parties.
 
DenisIrwin said:
http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/leadership/info
Click to expand...
160820-election-rigging-for-dummies.png
 
Frosty said:
...
Click to expand...

You are using the manifesto alone as a proxy for everything. Again, I'm learning this new, so here goes:
The report achieved instant fame and approval, and the political agenda was transformed. Henceforth until the end of the war, British politics were dominated by questions of social reform. Though Labour ministers were constrained by the need to maintain the unity of the wartime coalition, Labour politicians - and sympathisers outside the government - campaigned vociferously for the adoption of the Beveridge Report. This was in opposition to the Conservatives, who were accused with some justice of delaying and obstructing it.
...
Absorbed in the conduct of the war he was resentful of what he thought of as distractions, and especially of the raising of issues likely to cause disputes within the coalition. Besides, his radical days were far behind him, and he spoke of Beveridge in private as 'a windbag and a dreamer'.
He therefore ruled that while preparations for social reform could be made in wartime, decisions must await the outcome of the first post-war general election. The outcome was that the coalition government issued a series of White Papers on post-war policy, but put through very little legislation.
...
In the opening broadcast of the campaign, on 4 June, he warned that the introduction of Socialism into Britain would require '... some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.'
...
In a second broadcast he emphasised improvements in health and nutrition, and extolled the coalition government's plans for social insurance. But after this he reverted to negative tactics by exploiting the 'Laski affair'.
...
Churchill and Tory media mogul Lord Beaverbrook based much of their campaign rhetoric on the dangers posed to democratic institutions by Labour's proposals for a welfare state and the nationalisation of key industries.
Click to expand...
 
berbatrick said:
You are using the manifesto alone as a proxy for everything. Again, I'm learning this new, so here goes:
Click to expand...

No, I am using the manifestos to show that Labour, Liberals and the Tories all supported the creation of an NHS. They all accepted the Beveridge Report and the Tories ran on many of its proposals.

The point I originally made related to whether a Labour Government had been elected on as left-wing policies (compared to the political centre) as Corbyn is proposing. Attlee's Government was not as far a departure from the mean (given the manifestos as illustration) as Corbyn's is today.

The NHS is a perfect example of this. For decades Labour have presented it as 'theirs', but the reality was (and I say this as a Labour member and voter) different. It formed part of the post-War consensus. The execution was where the parties differed.

Now, you are using Churchill's election campaign, and one infamous speech (on 4 June), which does not reflect the Tory manifesto, its ideas, or indeed the views of MPs (many of which were annoyed at Churchill's poor campaign).

See here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/election_01.shtml

Also, from the above, is the context of the 4 June speech:

In the opening broadcast of the campaign, on 4 June, he warned that the introduction of Socialism into Britain would require '... some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.' This preposterous allegation, apparently inspired by Friedrich Hayek's book Road to Serfdom (1944), was likely to impress no one except the most loyal and unquestioning of Tories. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that it cost Churchill many votes, still less that it cost him the election.
Click to expand...

Also:

The first-past-the-post system gave an exaggerated picture of Labour's triumph, disguising the fact that just over half the electorate had voted against them.
Click to expand...
 
Frosty said:
I am pleased that they do. Many of us have been shouting against the wind for years in that regard. But not just voters now - the IMF, World Bank, economists who supported austerity, and Theresa May's government. This is all a positive move.

However, I am not sure I can agree with the assessment that Corbyn is gaining popularity, or that he would win in 2020.

I don't think any Labour leader could win in 2020, given the swing needed to win would be greater than that achieved in 1997. I actually did think that Corbyn could make the best effort for Labour in 2020 (making it more akin to 1992 than 1983, for instance), but events and his actions have changed my mind in the meantime.

However, quite apart from this - Corbyn has the worst personal ratings of any opposition leader in history. I am not sure whether we can say he is becoming more popular with the electorate as a whole.



If that is the case, it works both ways (so Labour voters vote against the Tories despite agreeing with their policies. In addition, most people don't really follow politics, so vote on emotion/gut instinct/other issues. There is an implication that simply educating people will lead them to support left-wing policies. The point I made a few pages back was that the UK has never elected a government on a left-wing slate like Corbyn is offering (compared to the poilitical centre). Why should that change now?
Click to expand...
(not really a reply (sorry), but) ...this is who will be in charge of replacing the Human Rights Act in ths country:
<iframe src="" width="600" height="600" frameborder="0"></iframe><script src="https://platform.vine.co/static/scripts/embed.js"></script>
 
DenisIrwin said:
(not really a reply (sorry), but) ...this is who will be in charge of replacing the Human Rights Act in ths country:
Click to expand...

But the key issue is that the PM has pledged not to withdraw from the Convention: http://rightsinfo.org/breaking-theresa-may-will-not-try-leave-european-convention-human-rights/

Therefore any British Bill of Rights will be rebranding only - especially given the margin of appreciation doctrine, and David Davis a Minister who would resign if the matter came to a head.
 
Also, here's a good article on the 45 election in the Historical Journal (subscription/registration required): http://www.jstor.org/stable/2638675?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

The point re: Attlee is emphasised by the fact that in '45 there wasn't a huge difference between the parties on foreign policy and defence. Now, we have a huge difference. This again raises the question - if the UK has never as comparatively a left-wing government as Corbyn is proposing, why would they now? This is again a question Smith must answer too, or indeed anyone who wants a left-wing government. It is somethign I have been wresting with for a long while too.
 
Frosty said:
But the key issue is that the PM has pledged not to withdraw from the Convention: http://rightsinfo.org/breaking-theresa-may-will-not-try-leave-european-convention-human-rights/

Therefore any British Bill of Rights will be rebranding only - especially given the margin of appreciation doctrine, and David Davis a Minister who would resign if the matter came to a head.
Click to expand...
And if the last, greenest, most transparent, tuition fee removing, book balancing, non-NHS reorganising, non-VAT increasing, non-tax credit cutting government showed us anything, it is that pledges are a sure thing in British politics.
 
Dobba said:
And if the last, greenest, most transparent, tuition fee removing, book balancing, non-NHS reorganising, non-VAT increasing, non-tax credit cutting government showed us anything, it is that pledges are a sure thing in British politics.
Click to expand...

The Runnymede Tories would defeat any attempt to leave the ECHR - the Government majority is that slight. May admitted as much in her statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.