If people are ok with nationalisation but are scared of him going further, I really don't know what to say. For me nationalisation is the most radical action they are proposing (and yes, I'm aware that govt trains are both popular now and have a long precedent in England). Because unlike with tuition fees or just increasing NHS spending, it actually removes a section of the economy from pvt hands. The other radical part of the manifesto was to allow workers at plants that are about to be shut down, the option to take control of the plant and use it for producing ___. That, afaik, is as far as they go in terms of steps beyond standard welfare state stuff.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
If people are ok with nationalisation but are scared of him going further, I really don't know what to say. For me nationalisation is the most radical action they are proposing (and yes, I'm aware that govt trains are both popular now and have a long precedent in England). Because unlike with tuition fees or just increasing NHS spending, it actually removes a section of the economy from pvt hands. The other radical part of the manifesto was to allow workers at plants that are about to be shut down, the option to take control of the plant and use it for producing ___. That, afaik, is as far as they go in terms of steps beyond standard welfare state stuff.
Or maybe in order to get stuff done in politics you have to build broad coalitions and that means you need policies with broad appeal.
Blair’s understanding of this is what enabled him to be the most devastatingly successful election winning labour leader ever. Corbyn’s failure to understand this - indeed his apparent reluctance to learn lessons from labours relatively patchy electoral history, is why he won’t be.
Indeed if a tory leader surrounded themselves with ex fascists and extreme right economists people would jump to all sorts of conclusions about their intentions. Corbyn, who has done similar, apparently gets a pass.
What they offered in 2017 was light reforms, there was nothing that should of scared any moderated centre liberal voter. The manifesto 2017 was about updating Britain into the 21st century.
The next manifesto might be a little bit different. The pushing forward of ideas similar to the Meidner Plan and the 4 day work week I image do test what a moderated views as well......moderated. But while testing it's not revolutionary, the percentage of shares start off I think at 10%, there's good data showing a 4 day work week would actually be more productive, some unions in Germany have recently won the right to a 28 work hour week and the guy who basically saved liberalism - Keynes thought we'd all end working 15 hour work weeks by now.
Yes big changes but not revolutionary and considering the future we are facing - Climate change, rising far right, rising inequity etc. It isn't so much socialism or barbarism but potentially radical social democracy or barbarism(Isn't as catchy sadly). If someone is struggling to move to the left then I'm not sure how liberal or moderate they really are.(Btw we are in this situation because of the failures of liberalism which have resulted in the only people offering reforms being marxists)
To me the potential for real worker power will be the reaction to a Labour government
- A coalition government with Lib Dem/SNP/Green then I think we will get basic reforms such living wage, better union rights, pv voting and at the most extreme - top down nationalisation. With the Labour government under constant media attack and a somewhat stubborn civil services. None of this is a enough to solve the crisis we are in.
- Labour majority(I know unlikely but it's worth saying anyway)then I think we will see a civil service trying its best to stop any reforms, constant attacks from the media, revolts from people inside the on the Labour right and outside inference from the US. All of this won't lead to any sort of revolution but I could see it pushing the Corbyn project to further to the left which could lead to mass strikes, protest movements etc.
Mr Bevan seem to do alright in life.
To be more serious it's about peoples class interest. Thatcher with the backing of British capital was able to appeal to a broad range of the public and to her credit made people into long term tory voters. I always say this but people really should watch The Long Good Friday & The Cook The Thief His Wife And Her Lover.
Yeah I would agree this could happen. Although its impossible to know at the moment, I'm not even sure after the tory leadership race that the brexit party will be around.
Last edited:
Again here though there seems to me to be this disconnect, where on the one hand I’m hearing that Corbyn’s manifesto really isn’t all that radical, while on the other hand he’s being presented as Britain’s only hope for radical, revolutionary change. Which is what prompted my original question (Edit - now answered above by @Sweet Square).
This often gets overstated a bit and is a bit more complex than some people like to make out. Blair was undoubtedly and incredibly successful and adept leader but Labour were leading in the polls before he became leader - under John Smith they'd often been mounting 10-20 point leads on a consistent basis. Blair could've probably been much further to the left than he was and would've still won the election against a tired and demoralised Tory party that just didn't have anything left to offer after 18 years in power.
And also in spite of his success, I'd argue Blair's approach had some detrimental effects in the longer term by alienating a lot of the core party base. While he was able to pick up a lot of more middle-class voters who typically wouldn't have voted for the party, those same voters weren't particularly loyal at all and weren't likely to stick by the party when things gone sour - in the meantime Labour started to alienate a lot of members etc to an extent that was unnecessary.
Blair's often touted as someone who compromised a lot but I'm not sure how true this is - in fact if anything it arguably undersells his conviction as a leader and politician. Instead of being a leftist compromiser I'd argue Blair was a proper neoliberal, someone who inherently believed in strong state services but who was also very sceptical of nationalisation and pro-privatisation at the same time, someone who was keen for the financial sector to be deregulated and for the private sector to be brought into public institutions when necessary. If that's what you believe, then sure, go for it - but it doesn't make you someone big on compromise - I'd argue it just makes you someone who's centre/centre-right.
Also I went on Milne's wiki page and this seems to be his controversial article: https://www.theguardian.com/Columnists/Column/0,,1710891,00.html
Is this it, or am I missing something further?
And sorry, I don't know who murray is.
If I remember correctly he's gotten a fair bit of stick over the years for being a bit of a Putin apologist.
Andrew Murray, member of the Communist Part of Britain for 40 years until joining Labour in 2016 and now serving as a senior adviser to Corbyn.
Yeah Murray is well to the left of basically anyone but in fairness he has a long history in the labour movement, won trade union elections and was also chief of staff for Unite.
Murray's the sort of neo-communist Labourite who, deservedly, attracts ridicule and contempt in equal amounts.
So Corbyn then makes him a Senior Advisor and finds a job for his daughter in his private office.
And then Corbyn's supporters wonder why the rest of us won't take Corbyn seriously and think he's a bit of a nutter.
So Corbyn then makes him a Senior Advisor and finds a job for his daughter in his private office.
And then Corbyn's supporters wonder why the rest of us won't take Corbyn seriously and think he's a bit of a nutter.
What the is a Neo communist ?
edit - found it
edit - found it
Fair point.
There's definitely merit in what Corbyn says. A lot of European countries are further to the left than we are in terms of their top tax rates and welfare spending. There's no reason we can't go down that route (although personally I think the problems with the NHS are as much to do with mismanagement as lack of resources). It's also fair to talk about improving the transport system, which is a joke.
But the problem is this gets lost in the nuttery and the obsession with certain causes. As you say, he's not giving people a chance to take him seriously by doing stuff like this.
not a fan of the CPGB* so i looked it up, and apparently i missed hat you said. i had never heard other CPB before. i don't know much about it but their international alliance in India is the CPI(M). if the CPB is anyway similar to the CPI/CPI(M), it is not particularly radical, especially in their actions as opposed to their rhetoric.
*still the home of the tankies
John Smith would have won but not as as overwhelmingly as Blair, and I suspect he'd have struggled to contain the Tories as well as Blair - you have to remember, Blair didn't just beat the Tories, he shattered them, sucked away all their oxygen and gave them no space at all to recover. Blair was also determined to leave nothing to chance when it came to winning - he'd seen what had happened to Kinnock after Sheffield, and I think that cautiousness, plus the determination not to throw it away like Kinnock did, is what led to the deal with Murdoch, the promise to stick to Tory spending limits initially etc. Smith wouldn't have done that, he'd have had a higher chance of throwing it, and he would have allowed the Tories to recover much quicker.
I didn't say Blair compromised (although he was flexible), I said he built coalitions and policies with broad appeal. You can't imagine Corbyn ever using the phrase Big Tent.
pretty much this.
But then, the lack of true ambition in a lot of Blair's policies is the reason the bulk of the good stuff his government did was easily dismantled in a single term by the coalition government.
If all there was to winning elections was selecting broad appeal policies, the Lib Dems would win every election. Labour's win in 1997 was on the cards before Blair became leader (although not it's scale admittedly), he had the opportunity to change the country to the same extent that Atlee and Thatcher did, he just didn't want to.
Last edited:
Remarkable how your claim crumbles with just the next post. I'm afraid your confidence that "surely Jews can understand" what you're writing isn't warranted, at least when we're talking about the overwhelming majority. Which makes them pro Nazi, right?
You don't get it do you?
The Right wing Government of Israel have forgotten their own history.
Just look at how they are treating the Palestinians?
Israel has a right to exist as a state. The Palestinians deserve to have their state too.
No matter who represents the Palestinians, the Israeli government has to sit down with them to get to a solution. Unfortunately there is no honest broker in the WH.
Like me, he probably finds people thick enough to one day need the NHS while still voting for politicians who’ll underfund and privatise it utterly repellent.
Except Peterborough disproves this.
Where’s the ‘nuttery and obession’?
Give specifics, rather than hollow cliches.
I reported a post on here that used the Holocaust to make a cheap joke and was told that I had no sense of humour.
It was a few years ago now though and the mod team is much better now than it was back then.
Having a bad day are we?
Sorry, I'm not going to argue with you over this. I just wanted to point out what I did.
I called it last week - 9th June if you want to check.
The Peterborough result just proves that Mahmood was up to his usual tricks again.
https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk...ection-being-investigated-by-police-1-8964103
Or, if you prefer, yet another example of Corbyn's utter nuttrey allowing Mahmood anywhere near Peterborugh and the Labour candidate during the by election.
Thanks for that. Lost my Dad 6 months ago after the NHS tried all they could - in the face of horrific cuts - so today’s a difficult one, yes.
Sorry to hear that. Keep your chin up.
Agree with this. The Palestinians don't seem particularly willing to talk (see Abbas's comments recently) and Israel will be unreceptive as long as Netanyahu's in charge. Can't see either side coming to the table any time soon sadly.
And same ' Chin Up ' from me as well.
Mrs FBR and myself have both had cancer the past few years and, hopefully, are now both currently cancer-free although we both know it will be back
But thanks to the NHS and the French equivalent, we have a couple of years yet and which is why we're now in France trying to and enjoying whatever time we have left before we have to cross over to the other side.
As someone said earlier, the front line of the NHS is unbelievably good - just too many back office and administrators who mess it up and give the impression that the NHS is on its knees when in reality although it's far from perfect, it's still world class and something to be admired and supported 101%.
So the evidence of any wrongdoing amounts to a social media post of gloating and someone who's done wrong before being seen at a place where he was meant to be?
Seems conclusive to me...or maybe not.
Well....Let's put it this way....
There were 13,600 applications for Postal Votes, of which 9,900 were actually returned and counted.
Of those 9,900, 400 ( an unusually high percentage, it would appear ) were rejected as invalid - names / addresses / signatures did not match with Council records. So 9.500 Postal Votes were included in determining the result and 33,900 votes were recorded at Polling Stations.
And therefore 1 in 4 votes were Postal Votes....And are we seriously to believe that 25% of the people in Peterborough who voted were unable to get to a Polling Station that day because of sickness, health, away on holiday, away working, etc....The national average at the 2017 GE was about 12% Postal Votes.
The Polls the day before the election indicated Brexit Party about 26% and was about 29% in the result - an error of about 3%, an almost normal diference
The same Polls the day before the election indicated Labour about 20% and was about 31% in the result - an error of about 10%, absolutely not a normal difference.
In the Referendum, Peterborough voted 70% Leave but then apparently elect a staunch Remainer Labour MP to replace a disgraced Remainer Labour MP who 26,000 people signed a petition to have disqualified and a By Election to be held to replace her.
At the Euro Elections, the week before, the Brexit Party received approx 16,000 votes in Peterborough, but a fortnight later only approx. 10,000 votes.
And all this in the same same city where Mahmood has already been convicted of and served time in jail for fraud of Postal Votes.
So no actual evidence yet - just mountains of circumstancial evidence to be going on with.
But don't hold your breath - the result will not be investigated by the Electoral Commission because Electoral Fraud doesn't happen in the UK, only in Russia or Deepest Africa....And, I believe, none of this has been reported on the BBC although I don't actually see the BBC every day, of course.
There were 13,600 applications for Postal Votes, of which 9,900 were actually returned and counted.
Of those 9,900, 400 ( an unusually high percentage, it would appear ) were rejected as invalid - names / addresses / signatures did not match with Council records. So 9.500 Postal Votes were included in determining the result and 33,900 votes were recorded at Polling Stations.
And therefore 1 in 4 votes were Postal Votes....And are we seriously to believe that 25% of the people in Peterborough who voted were unable to get to a Polling Station that day because of sickness, health, away on holiday, away working, etc....The national average at the 2017 GE was about 12% Postal Votes.
The Polls the day before the election indicated Brexit Party about 26% and was about 29% in the result - an error of about 3%, an almost normal diference
The same Polls the day before the election indicated Labour about 20% and was about 31% in the result - an error of about 10%, absolutely not a normal difference.
In the Referendum, Peterborough voted 70% Leave but then apparently elect a staunch Remainer Labour MP to replace a disgraced Remainer Labour MP who 26,000 people signed a petition to have disqualified and a By Election to be held to replace her.
At the Euro Elections, the week before, the Brexit Party received approx 16,000 votes in Peterborough, but a fortnight later only approx. 10,000 votes.
And all this in the same same city where Mahmood has already been convicted of and served time in jail for fraud of Postal Votes.
So no actual evidence yet - just mountains of circumstancial evidence to be going on with.
But don't hold your breath - the result will not be investigated by the Electoral Commission because Electoral Fraud doesn't happen in the UK, only in Russia or Deepest Africa....And, I believe, none of this has been reported on the BBC although I don't actually see the BBC every day, of course.
Unable or unwilling...
So no actual tangible evidence then right? Just people with theories right?
When I was in college decades ago, the PLO at the time were about to recognize the Israeli state. But it never happened.
problem is always pre-conditions.
Both sides need to meet with a view to actually bring about peace. But there needs to be a neutral broker.
But the Palestinians do not trust the US anymore. Why should they.
But I do see a Bernie presidency actually getting peace accomplished.
He spelled out 'no actual evidence' himself, did you miss that? What do you think yourself? I don't know, but it is intriguing.
Yeah, it is interesting, some peculiar patterns of voting.
But alas, we are seeing this more and more, a sure fire Victor doesn't get the win and calls foul.
Some vote by post for convenience, not necessarily because they unable to vote in person for some reason. I do, as I don't want to miss my vote by accident. Also to avoid queues, which are long at my polling station.
I don't personally think Bernie would get elected (although it would be a good thing for the US) and even if he were elected, he'd face a mammoth task getting both sides to the table.
On the one hand you've got Netanyahu naming the uber-controversial Golan settlement after Trump, which shows how much of a shit he gives about building bridges and softening Israel's stance.
On the other hand there's still tension between Hamas and Fatah, and both sides continue to issue blood-curdling threats towards Israel (even Mahmoud Abbas, who I'd hoped would be a voice of reason in this mess).
Then you've got the practical problem of what a two-state solution would look like. You'd assume there would be a UN-patrolled demilitarised zone between the two countries. But what about Jerusalem? How do you divide that up? Either both sides have access (in which case it would doubtless become a focus for violence and extremism) or neither does. And neither side is going to consider abandoning its holiest site.
Let's hope that, in the future, more moderate actors take power and demographic changes make the two sides want to seek a solution. I can't see it any time soon, though.