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

No I'm genuinely sorry that I was baited into engaging. I thought I was outlining why nationalisation of industry was impractical in a country where one party will always endeavour to privatise it, arguing that there may be less-than-perfect but more realistic and practical ways the public/consumer can be protected from the brunt of market forces that acknowledges that reality.

I'm almost disappointed in myself that I was briefly fooled into believing the person I was conversing with was going to have anything else than: "You sound like a Tory."

Guess it only takes Dobba to come along and ask "Didn't you vote Lib Dem?" and the set is complete.
 
No I'm genuinely sorry that I was baited into engaging. I thought I was outlining why nationalisation of industry was impractical in a country where one party will always endeavour to privatise it, arguing that there may be less-than-perfect but more realistic and practical ways the public/consumer can be protected from the brunt of market forces that acknowledged that reality.

I'm almost disappointed in myself that I was briefly fooled into believing the person I was conversing with was going to have anything else than: "You sound like a Tory."

Guess it only takes Dobba to come along and ask "Didn't you vote Lib Dem?" and the set is complete.
@Dobba you know you want to.
 
No I'm genuinely sorry that I was baited into engaging. I thought I was outlining why nationalisation of industry was impractical in a country where one party will always endeavour to privatise it, arguing that there may be less-than-perfect but more realistic and practical ways the public/consumer can be protected from the brunt of market forces that acknowledged that reality.

I'm almost disappointed in myself that I was briefly fooled into believing the person I was conversing with was going to have anything else than: "You sound like a Tory."

Guess it only takes Dobba to come along and ask "Didn't you vote Lib Dem?" and the set is complete.
what's the point of any politician doing anything? what's the point of the tories doing something when labour will win eventually anyway? what's the point of labour doing anything if the tories will win eventually? what's the point of the lib dems existing in a fptp electoral system? what's the point of joining the eu? the world will eventually be consumed by the sun and political unions will be destroyed so lets not do anything at all ever

it is the single dumbest argument in the world, that you would call into question other peoples intelligence while spouting this nonsense is really something
 
Don't worry @Sweet Square definitely nobody has noticed how you still haven't discussed or presented a single thing within that 25,000 word document you say that you've read and have presented 3 times on here for "debate" yet oddly not found a single thing to say about it beyond "interesting" and "really interesting", so carry on.
 
Don't worry @Sweet Square definitely nobody has noticed how you still haven't discussed or presented a single thing within that 25,000 word document you say that you've read and have presented 3 times on here for "debate" yet oddly not found a single thing to say about it beyond "interesting" and "really interesting", so carry on.
Er...I'll just repost it again then

If you literally read(For the million time I've read the bloody thing) labours alternative models of ownership you would know this is a counter to your argument. Labour are not talking about the same type of nationalisation that happen in the post war years, in fact Bennism(And thus Corbyn)is very critical of that type of nationalisation.

Older forms of national state ownership in the UK have tended to be highly centralised, top-down and run at ‘arms-length from various stakeholdergroups, notably employees, users and the tax paying public that ultimately funds them. The post 1945 nationalisation programme set the trend here with what has been termed the ‘Morrisonian Model’ (after Herbert Morrison, the Minister overseeing the programme). The model was justified at the time as being about enlisting ‘business’ or ‘expert’ groups who would manage in the ‘national’ interest, rather than give voice to ‘vested’ interests, which was usually aimed at trade unions or the idea of workerrepresentatives.

The result was that a small private and corporate elite – in some cases the same people who had been involving in managing the pre-nationalised privatesectors (which were riddled with underinvestment, deteriorating infrastructure and poor performance)

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Alternative-Models-of-Ownership.pdf


.

193 words I hope that isn't too many.
 
Er...I'll just repost it again then



193 words I hope that isn't too many.

That directly addresses the point that future Tory governments would be both politically inclined and financially motivated not to re-privatise said industries upon the first opportunity. Or at least maybe you're hoping people who skim read the thread in the hope of finding and attacking anything that isn't in praise or support of Jeremy Corbyn will simply assume it does.


You've copy and pasted a bit out of a report you've never bothered to read before today and hoped that it's somehow relevant to the point you're trying to respond to. I've asked why there would be an incentive for the Tories to not privatise any industry and you respond by posting a section about how one model of ownership previously was flawed.


You may well have posted....picking a random page number....31....

"There are different ways of achieving more democratic and accountable forms of state ownership. One option would be a traditional model of state ownership, largely staffed and managed by professionals and expert groups but open to greater democratic scrutiny by the wider body politic. A good example of this type would be Statoil, the Norwegian national oil company, set up in the 1970s to safeguard the nation’s interest against foreign oil multinationals"


You, me and everyone reading this is reading it for the first time. Please stop the charade, it's embarrassing.
 
Last edited:
To catch everyone up:


My point is that nationalising already privatised industry is ultimately pointless in a country where the party who historically tends to win more times than not will forever be financially and politically incentivised to re-privatise at every opportunity and that the cycle of one government spending billions on buying back industry the next government will sell-off, which the next government will buy back, which the next government will sell off again - doesn't represent a great deal for the taxpayer/consumer.

Apparently a pertinent reply/challenge to that point of view, are these words:

"Older forms of national state ownership in the UK have tended to be highly centralised, top-down and run at ‘arms-length from various stakeholdergroups, notably employees, users and the tax paying public that ultimately funds them. The post 1945 nationalisation programme set the trend here with what has been termed the ‘Morrisonian Model’ (after Herbert Morrison, the Minister overseeing the programme). The model was justified at the time as being about enlisting ‘business’ or ‘expert’ groups who would manage in the ‘national’ interest, rather than give voice to ‘vested’ interests, which was usually aimed at trade unions or the idea of workerrepresentatives.

The result was that a small private and corporate elite – in some cases the same people who had been involving in managing the pre-nationalised privatesectors (which were riddled with underinvestment, deteriorating infrastructure and poor performance)"



I'm posing this without editorial comment. Make your own minds up.
 
Last edited:
Chuka Umunna urged Mr Corbyn to "call off the dogs".

Real classy from an MP.

I don’t get it. Calling off the dogs is a figure of speech, in the sense of call off the attacks, or stop the attacks. It’s not an insult.
 
I don’t get it. Calling off the dogs is a figure of speech, in the sense of call off the attacks, or stop the attacks. It’s not an insult.


See: Lipstick on a pig

Also see: "OMG! Jess Phillips says she literally wants to stab Jeremy Corbyn in the front with an ACTUAL knife and properly kill him until he's all bleeding and deaded" - from people who wanted everyone to believe they genuinely have never heard of the phrase "stabbed in the back" in the context of politics.
 
That directly addresses the point that future Tory governments would be both politically inclined and financially motivated not to re-privatise said industries upon the first opportunity. Or at least maybe you're hoping people who skim read the thread in the hope of finding and attacking anything that isn't in praise or support of Jeremy Corbyn will simply assume it does.


You've copy and pasted a bit out of a report you've never bothered to read before today and hoped that it's somehow relevant to the point you're trying to respond to. I've asked why there would be an incentive for the Tories to not privatise any industry and you respond by posting a section about how one model of ownership previously was flawed.


You may well have posted....picking a random page number....31....

"There are different ways of achieving more democratic and accountable forms of state ownership. One option would be a traditional model of state ownership, largely staffed and managed by professionals and expert groups but open to greater democratic scrutiny by the wider body politic. A good example of this type would be Statoil, the Norwegian national oil company, set up in the 1970s to safeguard the nation’s interest against foreign oil multinationals"


You, me and everyone reading this is reading it for the first time. Please stop the charade, it's embarrassing.

:lol:

 
Last edited:
US starting science researchers get paid <$15/hour, while Disneyland employees are getting more.
Yet there are scientists in the US.
I think you know that's disingenuous. Recently qualified scientists, postdocs, etc. will take low paid posts until such a time they are established. After that, they won't stick around if the pay isn't competitive. This is true even in Europe.
 
Here is some random and fourth-hand gossip from a source in the LOTO office.

Apparently Corbyn and McDonnell haven't spoken for weeks over McDonnell's apparent betrayal over supporting the adoption of IHRA.

Now you can all treat this as you wish.

I post it because it does fit in with what I have been thinking about McDonnell. From speaking to people who actually know or knew him he can be a bully, aggressive, forceful and for those reasons has been disliked by the PLP for years.

With that being said I have always been of the opinion that McDonnell wants a Labour Government more than Corbyn. By that I mean if he has to compromise or cut deals or be pragmatic rather than principled to get into power than he would be. For a while I think that if JM rather than JC was in power he would be less popular amongst the membership but more popular in the electorate.
 
From that link you provided the two previous times you've mentioned it:






Wow you're really across the context of a 25,000 word article you've now mentioned three times providing no other contents each time other than:

"Interesting", "Really interesting" and most recently ":rolleyes: and a review of it here"

I don't know how I ever questioned your familiarity with a document that you've repeatedly displayed so much knowledge of. I mean that's three times now you've posted the link and I'm sure had you had time you'd have given more of an insight as to your thoughts, views, criticisms and praises of what was contained within but you've twice gone so far as to say the document was "interesting" so that's pretty much exactly the same as if you had read and understood all 25,000 words.

Honestly I feel silly now doubting you. If only you'd have said earlier you've twice called the document interesting on previous occasions I never would have made the accusation in the first place.

You complain about the quality of discourse and this is your example to everyone? Hypocritical bollocks.
 
Of all the arguments that have been made against Corbyn thus far, saying he shouldn't pursue Labour policies while Labour leader because the Tories might undo them is the most bizarre. And probably what sums up opposition to the more centrist Labour more than anything else. Indeed under such logic the party would've been better off not creating the welfare state at all in the first place, since the assumption would be that the Tories were going to dismantle it anyway. Bizarre.

There is, of course, an argument to be had as to whether bringing certain sectors into public ownership should be the focus of any Labour government when they come into power, since it's something that'd take plenty of work and planning as they attempt to reshape the economy, but if you're arguing they shouldn't at least attempt to follow their principles then I'm not sure what you really want, other than Tory-lite economic policies. Not following policies because the opposition don't like them is embarrassingly limp if you've been given a mandate by the electorate to implement them.
 
How much will it cost to re-nationalise the water, gas, electric and rail industries? How often to Tories win elections? What are the odds of the Tories not lining the pockets of those who bankroll them by selling off any nationalised industry?

I don't get why pretending this isn't the case because it makes people feel better if we do has to be a thing. At most it would be a short term thing and with that reality it's surely legitimate to question whether the party should commit to it as a policy.

What's bizarre that just because is in a party's manifesto it's wrong to ask some pretty obvious questions about the wisdom of it. But I guess that's where we are now. Criticism of a policy is probably an unforgivable smear now.
 
How much will it cost to re-nationalise the water, gas, electric and rail industries? How often to Tories win elections? What are the odds of the Tories not lining the pockets of those who bankroll them by selling off any nationalised industry?

I don't get why pretending this isn't the case because it makes people feel better if we do has to be a thing. At most it would be a short term thing and with that reality it's surely legitimate to question whether the party should commit to it as a policy.

What's bizarre that just because is in a party's manifesto it's wrong to ask some pretty obvious questions about the wisdom of it. But I guess that's where we are now. Criticism of a policy is probably an unforgivable smear now.

This is a fair and valid question. Naturally renationalising certain industries will take a lot of work, and the benefits and drawbacks should be considered when doing so. Like all parties in government, Labour will have to make tough decisions and will in all likelihood have to abandon certain plans and ideals to pursue other ones they believe are more pertinent.

But saying "the Tories will undo it" isn't valid because it presumes the political capital will be there for the Tories to undo it if they regain power, and that they won't moderate their own manifesto to be more in-line with a Britain that increasingly supports nationalised industries if Labour's next government is successful. A century or so ago the idea of a Tory government supporting a welfare state would've been ridiculous. Indeed before the liberal reforms at the start of the last century, seeing poverty as a defect of the individual was the norm as opposed to a telltale sign that someone's a cnut.

Labour, under Corbyn, are seeking to shift the centre by reintroducing left-wing economic ideas as being something fairly normal again as opposed to somehow radical and on the fringe. If they were to succeed (and I have my doubts as to whether they will) then there's every chance that in response the Tories will have to moderate their own economic message, as they did post-WWII when they supported public services, something they wouldn't have done before.

If you feel that this isn't worth doing or that it's a silly gesture, then you're probably not left-wing. And I don't mean that to be offensive or derogatory - I just mean it in the sense that you're clearly fairly alright with the current economic setup we have, barring a few minor policy shifts here and there, and that you're not particularly in favour of a restructuring of the economy. That's fine - you have every right to that view. But it's a matter of fact that for a lot of people the current economic approach isn't working, wasn't working before Brexit, and won't work without a radical rethink as to how politics are done, and what our economic approach is as we deal with oncoming problems like climate change, the housing crisis, automation etc. For those people voting for a centrist Labour isn't really enough, and if you're message is that we shouldn't implement certain policies because the Tories might undo them if it's in their manifesto when they regain power, whenever that may be, then we're as well giving up now. Certainly, Thatcher didn't exactly care about what a lot of her dissenters and opponents thought during the 80s, and never cared that a Labour government would seek to undo a lot of her changes if they regained power. And she's probably the most influential PM the country has seen since Attlee.
 
Hilarious seeing past comments by the pro-Jezza mob using identical or similar phrasing to Umunna. But apparently when they said it, it was fine.
 
Hilarious seeing past comments by the pro-Jezza mob using identical or similar phrasing to Umunna. But apparently when they said it, it was fine.

They know what it means. They are using this pretence to try to silence someone they see as a political enemy. But that's Labour for you.
 
Well this is bad. Thread is worth reading.


And there in lies the problem by using vague clauses to define the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Those with an agenda will abuse it to silence any criticism.

At the very least it’ll make quite a few very nervous to express any sort of solidarity with the Palestinian issue out of fear of being tenuously in violation with the clauses.
 
And there in lies the problem by using vague clauses to define the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Those with an agenda will abuse it to silence any criticism.

At the very least it’ll make quite a few very nervous to express any sort of solidarity with the Palestinian issue out of fear of being tenuously in violation with the clauses.
Yep it was always a stupid idea to accept the IHRA. Especially in a place like the labour party where no one is acting in any sort of honest way and where everything is done for some sort inside political power(Both on the left & right of the party).
 
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/10/swing-voters-say-labour-is-the-party-of-quinoa
On Brexit, the polling suggested that adopting a firmer policy position could undermine political support for the party by alienating one group of voters or another.


The Labour frontbench has come under intense pressure to harden its opposition to Britain leaving the European Union or to back a second referendum.

But in the polling, a net balance of 2% of voters said they would be less likely to vote for Labour if it backed a final referendum; 10% if the party backed a “hard Brexit”; and 13% if it backed a “soft Brexit”.
 
It's funny how people want to look at vote share from the last election.....except for the Tory one, which shows May on the same % share as Thatcher in her 1983 landslide. Presumably Corbyn supporters begrudgingly accept Theresa May as one of the most awesome political forces in this country since the second world war.


If you happen to think she isn't then you're surrendering all right to point to Corbyn's share of the vote at the exact same election.

It's one or the other. Either Corbyn did well and May is the most successful leader in a generation....or you agree vote share is a highly dubious measurement of things in a FPTP political system. It cannot be both. You don't get to pretend only one side of the coin counts.
 
It's funny how people want to look at vote share from the last election.....except for the Tory one, which shows May on the same % share as Thatcher in her 1983 landslide. Presumably Corbyn supporters begrudgingly accept Theresa May as one of the most awesome political forces in this country since the second world war.


If you happen to think she isn't then you're surrendering all right to point to Corbyn's share of the vote at the exact same election.

It's one or the other. Either Corbyn did well and May is the most successful leader in a generation....or you agree vote share is a highly dubious measurement of things in a FPTP political system. It cannot be both. You don't get to pretend only one side of the coin counts.

Alternatively, you could recognise the stupidly obvious fact that there are factors outside of who the current leader of each party is that affect the outcomes of general elections in a significant way.

Also, if you took a break from building ridiculous straw men to actually pay attention to reality you'd probably realise that George Eaton is not a Corbyn supporter.
 
Alternatively, you could recognise the stupidly obvious fact that there are factors outside of who the current leader of each party is that affect the outcomes of general elections in a significant way.

Also, if you took a break from building ridiculous straw men to actually pay attention to reality you'd probably realise that George Eaton is not a Corbyn supporter.
Oscie is literally the Frank Grimes of this thread.

JC would have an icepick in his skull and the civil service would be retasked with photo shopping JC from history (and setting up gulags / reeducation camps for "blairites")
Ah your being far too kind, there's no way that lot is getting reeducated.
 
It's funny how people want to look at vote share from the last election.....except for the Tory one, which shows May on the same % share as Thatcher in her 1983 landslide. Presumably Corbyn supporters begrudgingly accept Theresa May as one of the most awesome political forces in this country since the second world war.


If you happen to think she isn't then you're surrendering all right to point to Corbyn's share of the vote at the exact same election.

It's one or the other. Either Corbyn did well and May is the most successful leader in a generation....or you agree vote share is a highly dubious measurement of things in a FPTP political system. It cannot be both. You don't get to pretend only one side of the coin counts.

Have you ever heard of a thing called "context"?