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

Fingeredmouse said:
The Liberals are not a party of the left really though are they? And Labour's voting share suggests they are relevant. I'm sure that you don't like them, which is fine.
Personally, from my political perspective, the votes are won nationally seemingly by being on the right of the spectrum.
This resulted in a Labour party going to the right to win in England, resulting in the eventual collapse of the Labour vote in Scotland, followed by a succession of harrowing increasingly right wing governments resulting in a Britain that is riven with inequality and rancour and where the extreme right is once again beginning to get a foothold.
Click to expand...

Britain has always had inequality. Under both Labour & Tory governments.

If Socialist governments were so great, how come they & the downtrodden masses don’t clean up in every GE? After all, there are plenty of them & the Socialists should be cleaning up?
 
berbatrick said:
Labour won students. They also won part-time workers. They also won full-time workers. They also won the unemployed. They lost only one group - retired people.
Employment-01.png
Click to expand...

So how come an Old Labour Party still can’t win an election then. Must be all those stupid gammons who know & have lived through jack shit?
 
Fingeredmouse said:
The Liberals are not a party of the left really though are they? And Labour's voting share suggests they are relevant. I'm sure that you don't like them, which is fine.
Personally, from my political perspective, the votes are won nationally seemingly by being on the right of the spectrum.
This resulted in a Labour party going to the right to win in England, resulting in the eventual collapse of the Labour vote in Scotland, followed by a succession of harrowing increasingly right wing governments resulting in a Britain that is riven with inequality and rancour and where the extreme right is once again beginning to get a foothold.
Click to expand...

Make Britain great Again.


If we think there will be turmoil with a 2nd Referendum, wait till Brexit comes in whatever form.

Whats happening now will be like riding the gravy train.
 
Dobba said:
How long do you think watching him saying he voted Lib Dem on BBC takes? Or listening to him say it on LBC?
Click to expand...

Judging by the election results Campbell wasn’t the only one. Going to purge them all.
 
Strachans Cigar said:
Britain has always had inequality. Under both Labour & Tory governments.

If Socialist governments were so great, how come they & the downtrodden masses don’t clean up in every GE? After all, there are plenty of them & the Socialists should be cleaning up?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I get what you mean? There are many motivations for voting and I would argue that the socialist and left wing movements have increased the rights of people in Britain which is why we have the NHS, and funded schools, and pensions, and holidays, etc and that is, generally opposed and reversed by the right.

I vote for parties of the left and always will (and although I have voted Labour, it is not my current voting pattern) but the Lib Dems don't appeal to me on many matters. I may come from a very working class background, but I can't even pretend to be so now and parties of the left are to my financial disadvantage, but, I believe, to my social advantage.
As I vote left, conversely those who would obviously personally benefit the most from left wing policies may choose to vote otherwise. Brexit was voted for in large swathes of the working classes, despite it being an elitist driven movement likely to result in serious disadvantage to many of these voters.

I'd argue an effectively argued case for a broadly capitalist economic model controlled by socialist principles of taxation, investment and re-distribution is a good basis for a decent Government. I think Labour represent elements of that and whilst I have great dis-satisfaction regarding many things Corbyn has done (Brexit, his spectacular disregard for PR & Spin resulting in a man under attack for being too of the left wearing a Lenin hat, his bad handling of the anti-semitism situation, his dogmatic stubborness) I certainly prefer him to Blair who carried some policies that were, to my mind, deeply objectionable.
 
berbatrick said:
It literally can't be any clearer from that graph. It is because retired people don't like them at all, and vote in large numbers.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That’s because they were around the last time an Old Labour government was around. Which is precisely my point.

How many of you lot were? What sounds great on paper and in theory ain’t necessarily so.
 
Strachans Cigar said:
Exactly. That’s because they were around the last time an Old Labour government was around. Which is precisely my point.

How many of you lot were? What sounds great on paper and in theory ain’t necessarily so.
Click to expand...

Or maybe the others, younger people who are facing the job market, have more of a stake in an economy that works for them, now and in the future ;)
 
Strachans Cigar said:
Exactly. That’s because they were around the last time an Old Labour government was around. Which is precisely my point.

How many of you lot were? What sounds great on paper and in theory ain’t necessarily so.
Click to expand...
I bet they have lived through the succession of not particularly left wing Labour and right wing Tory governments however.
 
berbatrick said:
Labour won students. They also won part-time workers. They also won full-time workers. They also won the unemployed. They lost only one group - retired people.
Employment-01.png
Click to expand...
Not surprised those retired voted conservative . They are now out of touch with the world of work, where as those in work are feeling the austerity measures ,part time work ,zero contracts and slow wage growth.
 
Last edited:
Fingeredmouse said:
I bet they have lived through the succession of not particularly left wing Labour and right wing Tory governments however.
Click to expand...

Well, let’s be fair here, I’m no right wing apologist, as said, I generally skirt around the centre ground.

If we are talking about the economic competence of the right, 1992 & the ERM was indeed a hiccup. Significant though that the Tories got the economy righted before handing over to Blair in ‘97 though. Unlike Denis Healey after he went begging to the IMF in the seventies. What were those tax rates again?

As for 2008, as most Labour voters said at the time in their own parties “defence”: that was global.

In answer to your general point, to paraphrase, running the economy like a capitalist & taxing like a socialist. Only works imo in the corporate world if those tax rates are uniform throughout, ie no significant differences over borders between countries which, isn’t the case currently. Otherwise those multinationals won’t be staying here to tax will they? Which may kinda kybosh things a tad?
 
Last edited:
nickm said:
Judging by the election results Campbell wasn’t the only one. Going to purge them all.
Click to expand...
As I've said before in this thread, it was more than good enough for plenty of people a few years ago and was met with absolute silence by the Comical Ali and the other moderates. I tell a lie, it was met with a cascade of praise when the guy in charge of compliance during those days left the post.
 
I'm sure Campbell is well aware he's earned being expelled here. I also doubt he cares to be honest or he wouldn't have publically stated it in the first place.
 
Strachans Cigar said:
Yes, let’s all be right on and demonise those Blairites.
Click to expand...

As someone who remembers vividly the dossier, David Kelly and the mounting figures of dead Iraqi women and children, I can think of few things as superfluous as trying to portray Campbell and Blair in a negative way.

Criticise the expulsion, defend voting for a different party than that which appears on your membership badge, but don't tell me Hell's negative image is the result of poor lighting brother.
 
Kaos said:
As clever as that sounds, the current Lib Dem surge is more a massed protest vote by remainers than it is a rebirthed mass movement.

If Labour fully adopt the remain stance then the Lib Dems will go back to being irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, true. Just thought it was a clever tweet. And it is technically true that Corbyn’s relentless fudging of Brexit has been a shot in the arm for the Lib Dems (and a problem for Labour).

On a side note, here’s an interesting article on Labour voters switching to the Brexit party. Corbyn’s tried to be all things to all men and ended up losing votes from Remainers and Leavers alike. It’s hugely ironic the way Corbynites use “centrist” as a term of abuse while their leader’s fence-sitting on Brexit is losing them voters, hand over fist.

 
Last edited:
dumbo said:
As someone who remembers vividly the dossier, David Kelly and the mounting figures of dead Iraqi women and children, I can think of few things as superfluous as trying to portray Campbell and Blair in a negative way.

Criticise the expulsion, defend voting for a different party than that which appears on your membership badge, but don't tell me Hell's negative image is the result of poor lighting brother.
Click to expand...

Yes we know all Blair’s shortcomings & the clandestine accusations. However, if you’ve noticed, I’ve been focusing on the Labour approach to actually getting elected as a government in the first place & trust me, old school Socialism and it’s stronger unions and lurching to the left do not work. We’ve been there & done it and we’ve got the evidence to prove it.

That is not to say it didn’t achieve anything whatsoever in its pomp however.

On Campbell, I agree with Watson. The problem with the Labour left is it is occupied by ideologues. Was 40 years ago & it still is now.
 
Last edited:
Pogue Mahone said:
Yeah, true. Just thought it was a clever tweet. And it is technically true that Corbyn’s relentless fudging of Brexit has been a shot in the arm for the Lib Dems (and a problem for Labour).

On a side note, here’s an interesting article on Labour voters switching to the Brexit party. Corbyn’s tried to be all things to all men and ended up losing votes from Remainers and Leavers alike. It’s hugely ironic the way Corbynites use “centrist” as a term of abuse while their leader’s fence-sitting on Brexit is losing them voters, hand over fist.

Click to expand...

Yep. I’m a Corbyn supporter but I find it unfortunately ironic that the only thing he’s spared from Labours ‘broad-church’ ethos was a stance on Brexit - the one policy you simply cannot fence sit on. Best chance he has now is to double down on a belated firm remain stance and hope the Brexit party’s surge is more to the detriment of the Tories than it is to Labour, while claiming back those who’d flocked to the Lib Dem’s, SNP and Greens out of protest.
 
Strachans Cigar said:
I’ve been focusing on the Labour approach to actually getting elected as a government in the first place & trust me, old school Socialism and it’s stronger unions and lurching to the left do not work. We’ve been there & done it and we’ve got the evidence to prove it.
Click to expand...

The thing is, Labour's current approach and policy base is a world away from the Labour left of the early 80s and doesn't at all resemble Labour gov'ts in the 60s and 70s. Citing the 1983 election as proof that any left-wing Labour party is doomed is revisionism in itself, Labour were on course to smash Thatcher until the SDP defections and even after that they were looking likely to be the largest party at the next election until the Falklands War turned it round for Thatcher. Labour's performance in 1983 had less to do with economic policy than it did to do with internal party politics and foreign policy (I'd argue that foreign policy is Labour's biggest weakness under Corbyn with regards electability). All the evidence suggests that the electorate has few particular qualms about left-wing economic policy; the raft of centre-left policies Corbyn's Labour advocate polls very well. It's not Labour's actual policy platform which turns people off, it's a combination of Labour's perennial image problem of economic incompetence and a very successful campaign from both the Labour right, the Conservatives and right-leaning media to characterise Corbyn's centre-left economic platform as a quasi-Communist one.

Since Corbyn's election there's been a big push by the right-leaning establishment to lay the failures of big-state union-friendly centre-left Labour in the 1970s and mixed-economy business-friendly centre-right Labour in the 2000s at the door of a modern Labour left which had nothing to do with either. The Labour centre/right has to shoulder much of the blame for this; by embracing austerity they allowed the right wing line that the failure of Labour economic policy was due to the loony left spending too much to become accepted fact. In reality the failure of Labour economic policy in the 2000s was that it's sustainability was by design overly reliant on the continued success of a financial sector it had no intention of regulating. New Labour's economic policy was always doomed to failure, firstly because it made us more reliant of the financial sector whilst allowing other industries to fall into decline and secondly because it entirely failed to put in place regulation to prevent the financial industry making self-interested short term decisions which would leave it at the mercy of global market forces. The lesson from the 2000s should have been to encourage a plurality of industries to mitigate the impact of any one industry failing and to regulate industries in order to reduce the chances of them failing. Instead, the lesson mainstream political parties took from it was that investing in public services and the economy is a bad thing; policies based on that reading of events have led us down a pretty ruinous path over the last decade.
 
Strachans Cigar said:
Yes we know all Blair’s shortcomings & the clandestine accusations. However, if you’ve noticed, I’ve been focusing on the Labour approach to actually getting elected as a government in the first place & trust me, old school Socialism and it’s stronger unions and lurching to the left do not work. We’ve been there & done it and we’ve got the evidence to prove it.

That is not to say it didn’t achieve anything whatsoever in its pomp however.

On Campbell, I agree with Watson. The problem with the Labour left is it is occupied by ideologues. Was 40 years ago & it still is now.
Click to expand...

if only Watson had not not spent months banging on about how wrong it was that some new Labour members had voted elsewhere then he might have a point. Are we forgetting the previous NEC leader suspended thousands of members from voting in the leadership election for public statements?

Once again Watson goes where ever the wind blows. This a policy used to expel members under nearly every leader but the NEC does it whilst Corbyn is leader and it's an OUTRAGE!!!
 
jeff_goldblum said:
The thing is, Labour's current approach and policy base is a world away from the Labour left of the early 80s and doesn't at all resemble Labour gov'ts in the 60s and 70s. Citing the 1983 election as proof that any left-wing Labour party is doomed is revisionism in itself, Labour were on course to smash Thatcher until the SDP defections and even after that they were looking likely to be the largest party at the next election until the Falklands War turned it round for Thatcher. Labour's performance in 1983 had less to do with economic policy than it did to do with internal party politics and foreign policy (I'd argue that foreign policy is Labour's biggest weakness under Corbyn with regards electability). All the evidence suggests that the electorate has few particular qualms about left-wing economic policy; the raft of centre-left policies Corbyn's Labour advocate polls very well. It's not Labour's actual policy platform which turns people off, it's a combination of Labour's perennial image problem of economic incompetence and a very successful campaign from both the Labour right, the Conservatives and right-leaning media to characterise Corbyn's centre-left economic platform as a quasi-Communist one.

Since Corbyn's election there's been a big push by the right-leaning establishment to lay the failures of big-state union-friendly centre-left Labour in the 1970s and mixed-economy business-friendly centre-right Labour in the 2000s at the door of a modern Labour left which had nothing to do with either. The Labour centre/right has to shoulder much of the blame for this; by embracing austerity they allowed the right wing line that the failure of Labour economic policy was due to the loony left spending too much to become accepted fact. In reality the failure of Labour economic policy in the 2000s was that it's sustainability was by design overly reliant on the continued success of a financial sector it had no intention of regulating. New Labour's economic policy was always doomed to failure, firstly because it made us more reliant of the financial sector whilst allowing other industries to fall into decline and secondly because it entirely failed to put in place regulation to prevent the financial industry making self-interested short term decisions which would leave it at the mercy of global market forces. The lesson from the 2000s should have been to encourage a plurality of industries to mitigate the impact of any one industry failing and to regulate industries in order to reduce the chances of them failing. Instead, the lesson mainstream political parties took from it was that investing in public services and the economy is a bad thing; policies based on that reading of events have led us down a pretty ruinous path over the last decade.
Click to expand...

There is no way Labour would have won in ‘83 however way you paint it. That is why the SDP and the defections came to be in the first place after Labours lurch to the left.

At least we can say Change UK haven’t made the same impact, so history doesn’t appear as yet to be repeating itself. Make no mistake though the split in Labour is absolutely there now as then.

I also don’t agree with the view the Falklands turned Thatchers fortunes around. That again is something of an oft peddled convenient myth. The falling number of strikes since 1979 had more to do with that & the sense that the government was beginning to wrestle back control from the too powerful unions. Though yes, it clearly didn’t do her any harm.

The electorate has few qualms with left wing economics? Why haven’t we had a proper Socialist government for 40 years then? Pure media bias and nothing else?

Old Labour have got that perennial tag of being economic incompetents because it was richly deserved & for a certain generation, we remember Healey going to the IMF & the Winter of Discontent. It was fecking grim. Which is why the Tories won 4 elections on the bounce afterwards.

That’s what happens when you give too much power to the workers sorry to say. They take the p*ss.

But if you are making the distinction that Corbyn is in fact centre & not hard left (officially maybe) and well just “that was then and this is now” again it begs the question why do we need Labour and the Liberals occupying that centre / left space then? The Liberals seem to just have a lot less grief surrounding them than Labour almost perpetually do. Plus of course they don’t have any connection with the Unions. Another very big plus imo.
 
Last edited:
Strachans Cigar said:
There is no way Labour would have won in ‘83 however way you paint it. That is why the SDP and the defections came to be in the first place after Labours lurch to the left.

At least we can say Change UK haven’t made the same impact, so history doesn’t appear as yet to be repeating itself. Make no mistake though the split in Labour is absolutely there now as then.

I also don’t agree with the view the Falklands turned Thatchers fortunes around. That again is something of an oft peddled convenient myth. The falling number of strikes since 1979 had more to do with that & the sense that the government was beginning to wrestle back control from the too powerful unions. Though yes, it clearly didn’t do her any harm.

The electorate has few qualms with left wing economics? Why haven’t we had a proper Socialist government for 40 years then? Pure media bias and nothing else?

Old Labour have got that perennial tag of being economic incompetents because it was richly deserved & for a certain generation, we remember Healey going to the IMF & the Winter of Discontent. It was fecking grim. Which is why the Tories won 4 elections on the bounce afterwards.

That’s what happens when you give too much power to the workers sorry to say. They take the p*ss.

But if you are making the distinction that Corbyn is in fact centre & not hard left (officially maybe) and well just “that was then and this is now” again it begs the question why do we need Labour and the Liberals occupying that centre / left space then? The Liberals seem to just have a lot less grief surrounding them than Labour almost perpetually do. Plus of course they don’t have any connection with the Unions. Another very big plus imo.
Click to expand...

No it isn't - look at opinion polling from back then and you'll see that the Tories literally start getting consistent poll leads right after the Falklands War.

After Thatcher was elected Labour dominated the polls for the rest of 1979. Once the SDP came into play they started to gain some leads for a while before Falklands happened and Thatcher took control again. But until then she'd consistently been lagging behind.

When a lot of left-wing policies are put to the public they tend to poll well. A lot of people are willing to potentially pay a bit more if they feel their money will be invested well, and plenty also agree that the rich should have to pay their way to help implement said left-wing policies. Corbyn's the problem is his wider image and his inability to counter the media's portrayal of him as someone who's extremely far to the left. Plus as @jeff_goldblum said on issues like foreign policy he tends to struggle.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
Click to expand...


Campbell probably would have got along well with Harkishan Singh Surjeet :lol:
He was known to be one of the most compromising and ideologically flexible general secretaries, and wanted the CPM to head a national coalition govt (the Politburo disagreed and overruled him).
 
Sweet Square said:
WHY DOESN'T CORBYN GO ON THE PEOPLE MARCH !


Answer -

Click to expand...


'Under siege' sounds like a really dramatic way of saying that a political movement is trying to put some pressure on politicians to adopt their own stances. Which is, like, activism 101. If the PV campaign wants people to back a referendum then they are obviously going to apply pressure to politicians in areas where people want to see a second referendum. That's just basic political manoeuvring. The PV movement being annoyingly middle-class and insulated from the rest of the country at times doesn't mean their underlying points concerning the futility and stupidity of Brexit are wrong. It also seems fairly condescending to basically insinuate everyone involved with the PV campaign is rich when there are plenty of ordinary, working-class people who will have been attending the marches in London, all no doubt from a variety of social backgrounds.

When Corbyn's met or associated with some rather unsavoury political figures in the past the go-to excuse has generally been that he's facilitating a dialogue or meeting with them to achieve a larger goal in the long-term - if he can do that then he can function alongside the PV considering we're currently talking about the single biggest issue the country is facing.

Although granted, that graphic is beyond abysmal.
 
Cheesy said:
'Under siege' sounds like a really dramatic way of saying that a political movement is trying to put some pressure on politicians to adopt their own stances. Which is, like, activism 101. The PV movement being annoyingly middle-class and insulated from the rest of the country at times doesn't mean their underlying points concerning the futility and stupidity of Brexit are wrong.

When Corbyn's met or associated with some rather unsavoury political figures in the past the go-to excuse has generally been that he's facilitating a dialogue or meeting with them to achieve a larger goal in the long-term - if he can do that then he can function alongside the PV considering we're currently talking about the single biggest issue the country is facing.

Although granted, that graphic is beyond abysmal.
Click to expand...
I'm saying they don't have the right to put pressure on politicians more than it shouldn't surprise people why a socialist labour leader distance himself from a campaign that goes after working class MPs.


Also the People Vote is far more annoying than Hamas.
 
Sweet Square said:
I'm saying they don't have the right to put pressure on politicians more than it shouldn't surprise people why a socialist labour leader distance himself from a campaign that goes after working class MPs.


Also the People Vote is far more annoying than Hamas.
Click to expand...

They're not going after him because he's working-class though - they're going after him because they want a second referendum or for Britain to remain and ideally want him to become more conciliatory to their cause since he's in an area that seemingly has a strong Remain base. That's just standard politics. They'd be a lot less likely to attack Remain MP's had Corbyn and co being willing to back their cause from the start. Ultimately now we're in a position where the country (well, those who care) is polarised between the two extremes of Brexit. And a lot of people don't really think it's tenable for one of the leaders of those main two parties to be someone who's not really had an opinion on the matter for the last three years.
 
Cheesy said:
They're not going after him because he's working-class though - they're going after him because they want a second referendum or for Britain to remain and ideally want him to become more conciliatory to their cause since he's in an area that seemingly has a strong Remain base. That's just standard politics. They'd be a lot less likely to attack Remain MP's had Corbyn and co being willing to back their cause from the start. Ultimately now we're in a position where the country (well, those who care) is polarised between the two extremes of Brexit. And a lot of people don't really think it's tenable for one of the leaders of those main two parties to be someone who's not really had an opinion on the matter for the last three years.
Click to expand...
Unless I've missed it they haven't gone after any other Labour MPs on their twitter time line.
 
It's weird that Lavery is still a public figure pretending to represent the working class considering the his history of self-enrichment from the NUM
 
Smores said:
if only Watson had not not spent months banging on about how wrong it was that some new Labour members had voted elsewhere then he might have a point. Are we forgetting the previous NEC leader suspended thousands of members from voting in the leadership election for public statements?

Once again Watson goes where ever the wind blows. This a policy used to expel members under nearly every leader but the NEC does it whilst Corbyn is leader and it's an OUTRAGE!!!
Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure it wasn’t that those members had voted for other parties, it was that they were members of other parties.
 
Cheesy said:
No it isn't - look at opinion polling from back then and you'll see that the Tories literally start getting consistent poll leads right after the Falklands War.

After Thatcher was elected Labour dominated the polls for the rest of 1979. Once the SDP came into play they started to gain some leads for a while before Falklands happened and Thatcher took control again. But until then she'd consistently been lagging behind.

When a lot of left-wing policies are put to the public they tend to poll well. A lot of people are willing to potentially pay a bit more if they feel their money will be invested well, and plenty also agree that the rich should have to pay their way to help implement said left-wing policies. Corbyn's the problem is his wider image and his inability to counter the media's portrayal of him as someone who's extremely far to the left. Plus as @jeff_goldblum said on issues like foreign policy he tends to struggle.
Click to expand...

Ok listen, I’m not denying The Falklands gave Thatcher a jingoistic fillip of sorts. But it wasn’t the only or obvious thing involved as opponents seem to home in on. Are we ignoring facts like her halving inflation from 16.5% in 1980 to half that by 1982 (it had been over 20% under Labour) and the economy (in 1981) starting to improve after a recession doubtlessly made more severe by an emergency Tory budget not long after taking power? Hence her initial unpopularity? If you think the Falklands on its own was enough to swing the polls or indeed the main factor then I can’t agree. A contributory factor? Yeah, sure.

Yes, left wing policies are frequently popular. I know, I’ve voted for more than a few of them myself in my time. The problem is in financing some of those left wing policies in a way that doesn’t make the rich run for the hills, potentially driving wealth out of the country. Thatcher favoured more indirect taxation, hence the rises in VAT under the Tories whilst lowering Income Tax. Old Labour favoured taxing the rich till the pips squeak, to quote Healey. I know what I think was the more clever approach.

But regarding Labour in general, considering no proper socialist government for 40 years & the Unions aren’t what they were and the fact the Liberals were probably more left leaning than Blair was, I really do question why multi-factioned Labour exist & carry on splitting the centre left vote.

They even bottled looking at electoral reform when they had the opportunity to under Blair. Because they are idiots. Proper PR, and a potential a Lib/Lab progressive centre left coalition could have very, very easily become the new established order. But no. Because Labour are wankers and they had a healthy FPTP majority at the time.
 
Rolandofgilead said:
so what happens if this investigation in to antisemitism in the Labour party comes back as finding no fault then?
Click to expand...
The EHRC have a very high bar to go in and start investigating an organisation. They have limited powers that certainly don't include making a speculative investigation like say the Police have the power to do.

They must already have been given lots of prima facia evidence to launch an investigation. Apparently lots of labour staff have been keeping emails and there is a deluge of info still to come out.

This is a story that will cost lots of people their jobs....just wait and see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.