Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
At least he's successfully united the left and right of Labour in thinking that's a fecking shit slogan.
The alleged Labour supporters here amuse me, you've spent most your energy and time on this forum laying into Corbyn then you have the Tories 
. I would have never guessed you lot voted Labour last May.
. I would have never guessed you lot voted Labour last May.I think given a straight choice between conservatives or a Corbyn leadership I would actually vote conservative next time - just as I'm sure a number of Conservative supporters would be unhappy and potentially switch allegiance if a far right leader somehow got electedThe alleged Labour supporters here amuse me, you've spent most your energy and time on this forum laying into Corbyn then you have the Tories
Primarily because the biggest roadblock to Labour doing well next election is the current leadership. It's even worse than I feared it would be. I knew the ideas would be unpopular, I didn't realise they'd be outright incompetent as well.The alleged Labour supporters here amuse me, you've spent most your energy and time on this forum laying into Corbyn then you have the Tories
Fair enough, at least you're honest about it.
I'd argue the biggest roadblock to Labour doing well would actually be alleged Labour supporters constantly undermining the party leader who has had the biggest democratic mandate in Labour's history.
If you cant see that the gun-to-foot politics we've seen this week from Corbyn's team is entirely self-inflicted, then your faith is truly blind.
Also will you stop that biggest mandate ever thing. Blair got more votes, Smith got a higher % of the vote.
Pretty sure my posting on RedCafe doesn't make Jeremy Corbyn and his team incompetent or his ideas unpopular.
The alleged Labour supporters here amuse me, you've spent most your energy and time on this forum laying into Corbyn then you have the Tories
I much prefer a party of people that argue their views with each other to one that waits to be told what to do by it's betters. I would welcome a return to the Labour party conferences of old where members passionately argued out policy. And then I might go and vote Liberal, and that's democracy for you.
What's frustrating for me is that I don't think the ideas are getting a fair hearing because of the incompetence/naïvety. I'd say about half of the controversies have been self-inflicted and half have been media agenda driven bollocks, but they knew that's the propaganda machine they would be facing. They needed to be flawless, or close to it, from the off. The lack of a clear message at the moment is really disappointing. The Lords stopping the tax credit cuts, whilst obviously a good thing, has been politically disadvantageous. It gave them something to hammer home. Perhaps the Autumn statement will offer a similar opportunity.
And I know we have a fundamental disagreement over giving the people what they want vs convincing them. I think in the leadership election you mentioned that politically you are closest to Corbyn? Anyway, the electorate is wrong about a huge amount of things. For example climate change is a bigger threat than either terrorism or immigration, but you'd never get elected on a platform that prioritised that. I could get behind a 'centrist' Labour leader as long as I believe it was cynical ploy to get elected and do good, leftist things. Blair sort of started like that (although it's a little before my time), but New Labour became exactly what it purported to be, a friend of established power and wealth.
What's most baffling to me is how Labour seems to have so few good, up and coming people at the moment. The Tories aren't that much better on that front either. Why is the standard in politics so low at the moment?
Oh come on they may be scoring some own goals recently but the biggest roadblock? Really?
I'm not sure about the unpopular/incompetent ideas either. The bigger issue is the lack of actual policy. Many of these reported 'ideas' that have been thrown around aren't policy and many haven't even come from the leadership of party.
Noticed Chukka was on Sky this morning, with his delusions of grandeur that he's still relevant. If he thought himself so worthy of being listened to perhaps he should have stayed in the running.
I think they are scared to actually announce some policies
Trident has been kicked into the long(ish) grass by having eagle and red ken looking into the issue - but at some point before the end of next year there will almost certainly be a vote and at that point they will need a defined strategy...
will corbyn be able to stomach voting for it - probably not
will they be able to keep enough mp's in line to look anything other than shambolic if they try and force voting against it - probably not
so they will end up with a free vote.
Syria - I know Corbyn has said no free vote but that is still proably going t be their only option as he couldn't realistically get enough MP's to do what he never did and vote for something they disagree with.
EU Referendum - I think this will end up with all parties allowing people to campaign in / out freely because if either party tries to impose a rule (outside cabinet / shadow cabinet MP's) they will probably look shambolic.
If their economic policy consists of socialism with an i-pad (and lets be honest that is all that will be remembered) then thats looking pretty bad.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34878766
Interesting article. This paragraph in particular describes a microcosm of my frustrations with both sides of the issue.
Interesting article. This paragraph in particular describes a microcosm of my frustrations with both sides of the issue.
I disagree with the Tory side of things. They may not be our cup of tea, but if you like your politics blue, this is a vintage crop. Their intake of 2010 and 2015 MPs brought some interesting characters too who will probably emerge once the current big hitters start to retire.
With Labour its harder to say. That's partly because there's a lack of clarity about what constitutes 'good' in the party right now. If Blairite=bad as many in the party feel, then the party does lack quality. I mean if Richard Burgon and Clive Lewis are the future, god help us. On the other hand if you're either pro- or neutral to Blarites, then there's plety of good MPs in there. If you look at Blair's first cabinet say, its not chock full of big hitters by any means. A few of those figures became senior figures in the party over time of course, but at the time weren't all that. I'm sure we could put together a decent Cabinet.
What the party lacks is an obvious Prime Minister/Chancellor combo. Love em or loathe em, Blair and Brown were big dogs with tonnes of gravitas, and they dominated the political landscape for 15 years (and arguably still do). There's no-one like those two knocking around.
Chukka / Reeves
Jarvis / Reeves
D Milliband /Reeves
Basically when it comes down to qualifications and competence you probably couldn't find a more natural fit for Chancellor than Reeves - but as her politics don't chime with the Corbynista wing of the party its not going to happen until there is a shift back to a more centrist type of politics... at that point though stick her with any of the people mentioned and she would probably be a good back up to any of them - probably not a future leader herself but if anybody stood up to argue credentials against her they would make themselves look pretty foolish
PPE Oxford
Msc (Economics) LSE
Worked at the bank of England as an economist
Worked for British Embassy in Washington as an economist
Worked in Private Banking sector
Turned down Goldman Sachs to become an MP
2 years experience as Chief Shadow Treasury Minister
Of course the difficulty is going to be finding a leadership candidate that the centrists can coalesce around - Chukka is probably unpopular enough with the left that they would vote anybody in but him - a bit like when they voted millibands brother in just to stop David winning - and with him not being an MP at the moment I guess Jarvis is the most likely but probably not for a couple of years or even post 2020 (which is probably long enough for Corbyn to be given a fair crack at it - before even his most ardent comrades can admit he is unelectable)
And good lord do I regret that (it was before campaigning really began). I'm a lefty at idealistic heart (believe it or not) but not close to his level (e.g. I'm a republican but wouldn't just pretend that the Queen doesn't exist, as he's seemed to at times), and my pragmatism inevitably overrides it. From my perspective, the inescapable fact is that all the evidence shows that the centrist wing is the way to go politically and electorally, there is no other way to win that I've seen and without winning, no good Labour stuff will be done.The electorate being wrong is a hard one, the alarming turn against refugees that I've seen in polls since Paris for example is something I fundamentally disagree with and my priority there would be minimising the harm to those escaping Syria rather than following the electorate's preference. You have to take it on board in your arguments, though, and recognise the fears of potential terrorist infiltration as well as stresses on service provision. The economy on the other hand is the fundamental thing people will vote on, and it's extremely difficult to change minds on it through simple argument. It takes events to do that, and in the meantime you basically need to adapt your message to whatever reality you're in. At the moment, borrowing is a dirty word and you need to plan your strategy with that in mind.
He got half the votes of Tony Blair in 1994 and more people voted for Blair than voted in the 2015 leadership election as a whole. Political party membership and eligibility to vote are minuscule in the UK. He was elected by .5% of the British electorate. Sure, he got a higher percentage of votes, but the number of votes in the election are by no means a "mandate" with Labour voters much less the general public.
That's a ridiculous statement. Are the Republican majorities in the house and senate gained on the back of historically low turnout also not a mandate?
Republican majorities in the House are largely a result of gerrymandering. In NC, for example, once they redrew the districts they won 9 of 13 seats despite losing the popular vote statewide in 2012 and the Democrats lost 3 seats.
If the GOP presidential nominee was the result of .5% of the US population, he would not have a mandate. The primary system isn't representative of the broader electorate, as evidenced by the shifts to the extreme during the primary but back to the center during the general election, but it gets substantially higher participation than the British system. In the US, 15% of the electorate voted in the 2012 GOP primary. In the UK, less than 1% of the electorate voted in the leadership election. There's also a significant disconnect between Labour voters and members of the party since the leadership election requires some form of membership (and the associated cost) to participate.
Did he actually go down on Diane Abbott?
Dunno, but at least he gives more satisfaction than Cameron.
Although the "Socialism, with an iPad line" isn't great the actual content of McDonnell's speech/piece is pretty strong
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nnell-labour-technology-tax-economy-of-future
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nnell-labour-technology-tax-economy-of-future
It's fine but he's branded it terribly.
We live in an era of soundbite politics and unfortunately for him socialism with an I pad is an awful soundbite
Britain poised for Syria air strikes after Labour revolt against Jeremy Corbyn
Up to 60 Labour MPs could back military intervention in Syria in defiance of Jeremy Corbyn on the basis of a UN resolution calling for "combat by all means" to be used to wipe out Isil
By Steven Swinford, and ******* Alexander
20 Nov 2015
Britain is poised to join air strikes against Isil in Syria after senior Labour MPs publicly defied Jeremy Corbyn and pledged cross-party support for international action in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks.
Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary, welcomed a UN security council resolution - poised to be passed tonight- calling for "combat by all means" to be used to wipe out Isil.
Labour insiders said that the resolution is likely to be enough to convince as many as 60 Labour MPs of the need to extend RAF air strikes to Syria - something which would boost David Cameron's chances of passing a vote in the Commons.
Shadow cabinet ministers say that military intervention is even more likely after the party's own legal advice suggested that there is a "sound basis" for air strikes even without the UN approval.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...fter-Labour-revolt-against-Jeremy-Corbyn.html
Up to 60 Labour MPs could back military intervention in Syria in defiance of Jeremy Corbyn on the basis of a UN resolution calling for "combat by all means" to be used to wipe out Isil
By Steven Swinford, and ******* Alexander
20 Nov 2015
Britain is poised to join air strikes against Isil in Syria after senior Labour MPs publicly defied Jeremy Corbyn and pledged cross-party support for international action in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks.
Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary, welcomed a UN security council resolution - poised to be passed tonight- calling for "combat by all means" to be used to wipe out Isil.
Labour insiders said that the resolution is likely to be enough to convince as many as 60 Labour MPs of the need to extend RAF air strikes to Syria - something which would boost David Cameron's chances of passing a vote in the Commons.
Shadow cabinet ministers say that military intervention is even more likely after the party's own legal advice suggested that there is a "sound basis" for air strikes even without the UN approval.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...fter-Labour-revolt-against-Jeremy-Corbyn.html
Wonder how this will play out. Benn, you'd think, would be in favour of backing action. Corbyn can't, and has ruled out a free vote (despite asking for one in the 2013 vote on Syria). So either Corbyn backs down and allows the free vote, or Benn chooses between resigning and voting against to maintain collective responsibility. I'd prefer the last of the three, good to have a reliable figure still in the shadow cabinet and will probably be needed for the inevitable Trident showdown.
Exactly, if you are trying to persuade the public of something that they don't already believe in, and you know the media are ready to jump on your back, then your messaging needs to be on point.
I've read all of what he actually said and I still can't fathom what socialism with an iPad is actually trying to put across as a message. It's socialism, but with a device manufactured by an American company which keeps the massive stockpiles of money that you've criticised in this very speech, manufactured by underpaid and overworked Chinese people?
I'm fine with what he actually means, and commiting to infrastructure spending seems like a decent policy to me. But socialism with an iPad?
Socialism with lasers... now THAT would have been a slogan we could all get behind.
They basically agree with Tory policies. So no surprise there.The alleged Labour supporters here amuse me, you've spent most your energy and time on this forum laying into Corbyn then you have the Tories
I've been a supporter of the Labour party for over 30 years and voted in every election;general, council and European.I even voted for Labours police thingy candidate who had to resign over the child abuse incompetence and only three men and a dog turned out for that.
I am going to struggle to vote for this guy. There is nothing alleged about my support for the Labour party directly financial, through union membership or over decades on election day.
If the Labour party wants to indulge itself in self congratulatory aren't we cool we voted in the guy everyone thinks isn't up to the job because that's the way we roll type bullshit, then it is entitled to do so but it can count on people like me being very angry with it. The Tories will make hay fecking over the people who I would like to see protected as much as possible.Like the working poor with tax credits, people who live in the north in general and people who rely on benefits to maintain their human dignity. These are the people who are now going to suffer because of the Jez we can stupidity.
At the moment he looks like Labours Ian Duncan Smith. A self indulgent wanker, if he really cared about the cause he wouldn't have damaged it so badly by standing in the first place and people who voted for him should think about that because this isn't a game. In the real world the Tories are planning the biggest cuts to the welfare state the UK has probably ever had to make and the people who voted for Jez have just made it so easy for them it hurts to think about it.
Different kind of politics indeed if by different you mean unsuccessful in attaining the goals you set out for.
Same poll Ubik mentioned in the other thread has some awful stuff on Corbyn
The big society?
It's hard to agree with any of this when the centre of the party are all for conceding that the cuts are necessary and so are therefore left arguing over how the welfare state is butchered rather than against the butchery
Hug a hoodie... The hand of history etc... But socialism with an I pad is pretty bad... Especially when you consider what a successful private enterprise apple is known for making high end goods manufactured under questionable working practices outsourced to China...
On the plus side, 52% of people still don't know who John McDonnell is. The longer that can be maintained, the better.
So have the Tories do the butchery instead is what your position amounts to. Its on you then, every cut, every penny taken while we have this joker as leader.