|
Post by harryburrows on Aug 2, 2015 9:33:28 GMT
Sorry I was being facetious , against anti austerity is a bit misleading , I've told you about drinking that parsnip wine late on Well maybe I was wrong about vote mumf....I think we need more austerity to pay it off quicker, but not through the same channels as dosey Dave seems to think I think that's what mumf said in a roundabout way "against anti " is a double negative which means he supports it
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 2, 2015 9:38:38 GMT
Corbyn isn't hard left he's simply not a neo-liberal. The Tories and Blairite Labour aren't fighting over the centre ground, they're all properly right wing, make no mistake. Corbyn is also extremely shrewd and progressive, not at all the dinosaur he's portrayed as. Corbyn is not shrewd at all . No western G8 country leader should be CND and be advocating it . He is , as a result , ....unelectable . The Labour Party should have prevented his entry in this race immediately . In modern day politics he is far left . In the 1970's he would be described as to the left of centre . It is not 1970 however. Correct The minutiae of the terms are good for debate but for all intents and purposes he will be labelled far left. The New Statesman today is calling him 'radical left ' Perhaps this is where 'the left' go wrong....argue the theoretical case but when it comes to the practicalities , they seem to lose it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2015 9:47:21 GMT
Moving on ......If Corbyn wins the election , then the future is bleak . If he loses , then I can see his supporters going down the route of forming their own party . I can see the unions backing him too . This is the Key point . Corbyn is an idealist . He and his supporters are not realists . Already , Huddy has said how I have become so out of touch with politics . The irony of this comment beggars belief when one considers the concept of Corbyns left wing views. Labour is losing more ground all the time ...... ukpollingreport.co.uk
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 2, 2015 10:08:20 GMT
Moving on ......If Corbyn wins the election , then the future is bleak . If he loses , then I can see his supporters going down the route of forming their own party . I can see the unions backing him too . This is the Key point . Corbyn is an idealist . He and his supporters are not realists . Already , Huddy has said how I have become so out of touch with politics . The irony of this comment beggars belief when one considers the concept of Corbyns left wing views. Labour is losing more ground all the time ...... ukpollingreport.co.ukI think that a person can be accused of being out of touch with politics, but Infact be in touch with people. Hot air really, designed to win "personal arguments " perhaps and distracts from the issues. Mumf , On this occasion I think that the "rump" may just fade into obscurity. I know that it is a new generation but I wonder if we are ready for SDP (Social Democrats?) part 2. Perhaps there will be an infight and the medium left(or medium right ie the Burnhamites) will win and the rump could join the Socialist Party (why not?) I hope that Corbyn wins, as a conviction politician, because at least he will help Labour to sort itself out with some honesty...either way Labour are going to go through difficult times.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2015 10:24:02 GMT
Moving on ......If Corbyn wins the election , then the future is bleak . If he loses , then I can see his supporters going down the route of forming their own party . I can see the unions backing him too . This is the Key point . Corbyn is an idealist . He and his supporters are not realists . Already , Huddy has said how I have become so out of touch with politics . The irony of this comment beggars belief when one considers the concept of Corbyns left wing views. Labour is losing more ground all the time ...... ukpollingreport.co.ukI think that a person can be accused of being out of touch with politics, but Infact be in touch with people. Hot air really, designed to win "personal arguments " perhaps and distracts from the issues. Mumf , On this occasion I think that the "rump" may just fade into obscurity. I know that it is a new generation but I wonder if we are ready for SDP (Social Democrats?) part 2. Perhaps there will be an infight and the medium left(or medium right ie the Burnhamites) will win and the rump could join the Socialist Party (why not?) I hope that Corbyn wins, as a conviction politician, because at least he will help Labour to sort itself out with some honesty...either way Labour are going to go through difficult times. I cant see what there is to be gained by his election . We all know how popular (or not ) he is to the broader electorate . The party will be on 20% support with him at the helm . He will do irreparable damage to the parties image , although I can see Donkey jacket and cap manufacturers going through a bit of a boom..... I thought that this debating period was designed to iron out the cracks prior to announcing a new leader . What's the point in announcing a car crash politician to prove the point ? He may popular in the party , but he certainly isn't in the country . We face adding another decade to our years in the wilderness .
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Aug 2, 2015 10:29:11 GMT
The British voters won't elect someone with a beard as PM he is doomed Robert Cecil 3rd Marquess of Salisbury 1895 ;-)
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 2, 2015 10:30:09 GMT
Time for Labour to split?
No. I don't see why. To argue that, because the Labour Party has internal factions vying for the leadership of it that it should split, is to say that the Conservative Party should split because Cameron is a moderate who has persistently been forced to appease the far right of his party. The main political parties tend to be broad churches.
As it happens, this will be the problem faced by the SNP and Greens eventually; they'll inevitably develop internal factions based upon certain policy areas.
Corbyn is the sort of politician who, whilst one can admire his sincerity and conviction, is great for opposition but bad for government. His politics are sincere, definitive, and against the current government agenda. What those supporting Corbyn keep failing to face is that his policies and politics aren't, to coin a phrase, publicly "focus-grouped". They aren't road tested and are indicative of an internal Labour Party wrangle that has been infiltrated by the hard left.
Most of those inside the party who I know are moderate. The polls that keep coming out claiming Corbyn is in the lead in the race to be Labour leader have not been registered against Labour Party members. It's, quite literally, a media storm surrounding him.
Besides, Im not sure anyone who can claim to make George Galloway want to rejoin Labour is the sort of person who is going to court mass public appeal. It stands to reason.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 2, 2015 10:31:21 GMT
I think that a person can be accused of being out of touch with politics, but Infact be in touch with people. Hot air really, designed to win "personal arguments " perhaps and distracts from the issues. Mumf , On this occasion I think that the "rump" may just fade into obscurity. I know that it is a new generation but I wonder if we are ready for SDP (Social Democrats?) part 2. Perhaps there will be an infight and the medium left(or medium right ie the Burnhamites) will win and the rump could join the Socialist Party (why not?) I hope that Corbyn wins, as a conviction politician, because at least he will help Labour to sort itself out with some honesty...either way Labour are going to go through difficult times. I cant see what there is to be gained by his election . We all know how popular (or not ) he is to the broader electorate . The party will be on 20% support with him at the helm . He will do irreparable damage to the parties image , although I can see Donkey jacket and cap manufacturers going through a bit of a boom..... I thought that this debating period was designed to iron out the cracks prior to announcing a new leader . What's the point in announcing a car crash politician to prove the point ? He may popular in the party , but he certainly isn't in the country . We face adding another decade to our years in the wilderness . True But the other 3 seem to me to offer very little.Labour may indeed spend years in the wilderness ,or cease to exist in the current form. Perhaps a debate/discusion should have taken place in the Labour party before they entered the leadership election.Perhaps Ed should have stayed on temporarily until a few things were sorted Perhaps the future ( for some)lies in the return of David M , but whatever happens turmoil lies ahead
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Aug 2, 2015 10:38:42 GMT
The British voters won't elect someone with a beard as PM he is doomed Robert Cecil 3rd Marquess of Salisbury 1895 ;-) (It would put Moeen Ali's to shame !!)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2015 10:52:01 GMT
Time for those on the left of the Party to rally behind Corbyn which they are doing . Time for those like me who vehemently oppose him to stand up and be counted . I don't agree with hardly any of his ideas ...... I am anti CND . I am against same sex marriage . I am against anti austerity but would prefer a more moderate payment plan . I am against mass immigration . I am against taxing the wealthiest to force them offshore . I think that all our UK citizens should be forced into earning their benefits if fit to do so . We wouldn't need foreign workers to take up the slack . I would stop child benefit after the second child . I would increase the minimum wage . I would renationalise the water companies , gas and electricity . I would invest in British jobs for British kids . I would reintroduce apprentiships and I would build more affordable council houses and prevent their sale in the future. I would abandon HS2 rail link. There are many other points I could provide to clearly show my differences with the far left of the party , but the purpose of the thread is merely to highlight the differences rather than provoke an argument to the contrary of my thoughts . I know that there are many in this country that would flock back to Labour instead of going down the UKIP route should some of these ideas be adopted by the new leader. Unfortunately , I fear that this is not going to happen . The Labour Party faces years in the wilderness . Basing election campaigns almost solely of the wellbeing of the NHS is not going to win you elections on its own . It has to be more diverse and pragmatic . More inventive and dynamic . The way it is currently going is catastrophic . A complete shambles . Mumf I agree with a lot of what you say there mumf apart from forcing people to work for their benefits as I see that being a route to forced cheap labour. I would add council houses are for the poor not people with BMWs and Mercedes parked outside. They are not "Cheap Rent" for those who want to party all their lives, or indeed for those that want to create a football team of their own. Child benefit needs to be changed to coupons not beer money for mum and dad. The Left of Labour is what has made them unelectable for decades, trying to pander to every sob story in the world. First thing I would do is bring back national service for any 16 -18 year old that is not at college or university, in other words not learning anything. I know this will shock many , but tbh I don't care, Enforced contraception for under 18s starting at 15. too many young girls and young boys lives are ruined and thrown into a life of poverty and struggle by a one night stand. Bring back tougher schools! Our levels of education and more importantly Social education is appalling. Come and walk the dogs with me for a week I guarantee you we will be shouted at and abused by gangs of cheeky little kids who know you are not allowed to smack and the police can't be bothered to enforce the law. Another big change I would make is the devolution of London. It has become a separate state, totally detached from the realities of the rest of Britain.
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 2, 2015 11:14:24 GMT
I cant see what there is to be gained by his election . We all know how popular (or not ) he is to the broader electorate . The party will be on 20% support with him at the helm . He will do irreparable damage to the parties image , although I can see Donkey jacket and cap manufacturers going through a bit of a boom..... I thought that this debating period was designed to iron out the cracks prior to announcing a new leader . What's the point in announcing a car crash politician to prove the point ? He may popular in the party , but he certainly isn't in the country . We face adding another decade to our years in the wilderness . True But the other 3 seem to me to offer very little.Labour may indeed spend years in the wilderness ,or cease to exist in the current form. Perhaps a debate/discusion should have taken place in the Labour party before they entered the leadership election.Perhaps Ed should have stayed on temporarily until a few things were sorted Perhaps the future ( for some)lies in the return of David M , but whatever happens turmoil lies ahead Leadership elections are the place for debates within parties. It's where parties decide in which direction they want to run. Labour tend to elect a leader for the direction of the path and then have a conference to finalise policy - although, granted, it has become more top-down in recent years. The left of the Labour Party are idealistic and not at all pragmatic - a little bit like the right of the Tory Party. Everyone is entitled to a view, but Labour can't win in 2020 unless the Tories completely implode over the European Referendum - which is distinctly possible. People talk about Labour Party splits over Corbyn, and it's possible, but a more likely split is for the Tories and Europe. Half of them espouse the UKIP line as it is. Will Self, on Channel 4 News, was right when he said there is a case for the main two parties to split over consistently divisive issues - Labour over tax and spend, and the Tories over Europe. Electorally it would force voting reform and it would probably give us a fairer political system if the two main political parties did split. Interesting times.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 2, 2015 11:24:10 GMT
True But the other 3 seem to me to offer very little.Labour may indeed spend years in the wilderness ,or cease to exist in the current form. Perhaps a debate/discusion should have taken place in the Labour party before they entered the leadership election.Perhaps Ed should have stayed on temporarily until a few things were sorted Perhaps the future ( for some)lies in the return of David M , but whatever happens turmoil lies ahead Leadership elections are the place for debates within parties. It's where parties decide in which direction they want to run. Labour tend to elect a leader for the direction of the path and then have a conference to finalise policy - although, granted, it has become more top-down in recent years. The left of the Labour Party are idealistic and not at all pragmatic - a little bit like the right of the Tory Party. Everyone is entitled to a view, but Labour can't win in 2020 unless the Tories completely implode over the European Referendum - which is distinctly possible. People talk about Labour Party splits over Corbyn, and it's possible, but a more likely split is for the Tories and Europe. Half of them espouse the UKIP line as it is. Will Self, on Channel 4 News, was right when he said there is a case for the main two parties to split over consistently divisive issues - Labour over tax and spend, and the Tories over Europe. Electorally it would force voting reform and it would probably give us a fairer political system if the two main political parties did split. Interesting times. I just think they jumped to the elections too quickly. They could have allowed themselves a little time....moving too quickly has got them where they are now , in a mess. Issues could have been discussed, thought through ,even if in private ,before jumping so quickly. (perhaps 'debate ' was the wrong word) I agree on electoral reform. The current system certainly does not reflect the electorate. Leaving aside UKIP as such Corbyn ,in my opinion ,should have stuck to his original principles of being anti EU. Still don't think it would have made him electable except as you say, and I've said previously, something catastrophic ( such as the referendum , extreme austerity, or the handling of immigration) could let Labour in, not because of Corbyn ,but a reaction to the Tories
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 2, 2015 11:33:08 GMT
Leadership elections are the place for debates within parties. It's where parties decide in which direction they want to run. Labour tend to elect a leader for the direction of the path and then have a conference to finalise policy - although, granted, it has become more top-down in recent years. The left of the Labour Party are idealistic and not at all pragmatic - a little bit like the right of the Tory Party. Everyone is entitled to a view, but Labour can't win in 2020 unless the Tories completely implode over the European Referendum - which is distinctly possible. People talk about Labour Party splits over Corbyn, and it's possible, but a more likely split is for the Tories and Europe. Half of them espouse the UKIP line as it is. Will Self, on Channel 4 News, was right when he said there is a case for the main two parties to split over consistently divisive issues - Labour over tax and spend, and the Tories over Europe. Electorally it would force voting reform and it would probably give us a fairer political system if the two main political parties did split. Interesting times. I just think they jumped to the elections too quickly. They could have allowed themselves a little time....moving too quickly has got them where they are now , in a mess. Issues could have been discussed, thought through ,even if in private ,before jumping so quickly. (perhaps 'debate ' was the wrong word) I agree on electoral reform. The current system certainly does not reflect the electorate. Leaving aside UKIP as such Corbyn ,in my opinion ,should have stuck to his original principles of being anti EU. Still don't think it would have made him electable except as you say, and I've said previously, something catastrophic ( such as the referendum , extreme austerity, or the handling of immigration) could let Labour in, not because of Corbyn ,but a reaction to the Tories Welll it's interesting you say Corbyn should be anti-EU. Labour hasn't been anti-EU for a very very long time and it's not one of the definitive fault lines within the Labour Party. It's accepted that Labour as a movement want to stay inside the EU for the reasons I explained in a previous post on a previous thread (ie the principles of both collective decision-making and multilateralism). It changed its stance following the infamous 1983 Manifesto. This is what I mean about Corbyn now having to appease the rest of the Labour Party if he wants to be leader of it; he can't claim to be the personification of an holistic Labour Movement if Mr Corbyn is going to come out with anti-EU and anti-NATO comments which aren't what the majority of the party has signed up for. Nowhere in any recent General Election manifesto has the abandonment of the EU and NATO ever been mentioned. Those are policies of other political parties, not Labour. To that end, I can understand why people think Labour could split, but it won't. I don't believe, for the above reasons, that Corbyn can effectively lead the party. If he does win the leadership election he won't be able to lead it for very long. Eventually Labour will elect a moderate leader who can bind both left and centrist factions within the party. The Labour Party isn't an exclusively socialist party as some people keep saying - it's a Social Democratic Party and, to that extent, it's a broad church. The British political left is split enough as it is - Labour, The Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru, SWP, and SDLP. In terms of parties splitting, I found this interesting article, and thought you might like it: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/02/labour-split-corbyn-blairites
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Aug 2, 2015 11:45:46 GMT
The British voters won't elect someone with a beard as PM he is doomed Maybe not...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2015 11:52:13 GMT
Well maybe I was wrong about vote mumf....I think we need more austerity to pay it off quicker, but not through the same channels as dosey Dave seems to think I think that's what mumf said in a roundabout way "against anti " is a double negative which means he supports it Sorry to be pedantic young man, but didn't mumf say he didn't want to pay it off so quickly?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 2, 2015 11:57:19 GMT
I just think they jumped to the elections too quickly. They could have allowed themselves a little time....moving too quickly has got them where they are now , in a mess. Issues could have been discussed, thought through ,even if in private ,before jumping so quickly. (perhaps 'debate ' was the wrong word) I agree on electoral reform. The current system certainly does not reflect the electorate. Leaving aside UKIP as such Corbyn ,in my opinion ,should have stuck to his original principles of being anti EU. Still don't think it would have made him electable except as you say, and I've said previously, something catastrophic ( such as the referendum , extreme austerity, or the handling of immigration) could let Labour in, not because of Corbyn ,but a reaction to the Tories Welll it's interesting you say Corbyn should be anti-EU. Labour hasn't been anti-EU for a very very long time and it's not one of the definitive fault lines within the Labour Party. It's accepted that Labour as a movement want to stay inside the EU for the reasons I explained in a previous post on a previous thread (ie the principles of both collective decision-making and multilateralism). It changed its stance following the infamous 1983 Manifesto. This is what I mean about Corbyn now having to appease the rest of the Labour Party if he wants to be leader of it; he can't claim to be the personification of an holistic Labour Movement if Mr Corbyn is going to come out with anti-EU and anti-NATO comments which aren't what the majority of the party has signed up for. Nowhere in any recent General Election manifesto has the abandonment of the EU and NATO ever been mentioned. Those are policies of other political parties, not Labour. To that end, I can understand why people think Labour could split, but it won't. I don't believe, for the above reasons, that Corbyn can effectively lead the party. If he does win the leadership election he won't be able to lead it for very long. Eventually Labour will elect a moderate leader who can bind both left and centrist factions within the party. The Kabour Party isn't an exclusively socialist party - it's a Social Democratic Party and, to that extent, it's a broad church. The British political left is split enough as it is - Labour, The Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru, SWP, and SDLP. In terms of parties splitting, I found this interesting article, and thought you might like it: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/02/labour-split-corbyn-blairitesDerrida This is another one where we will have to agree to disagree, but perhaps not so far apart as before. I did mention previously the possibility of the left leaving Labour (ideologically they would be more at home in the Socialist Party, but even they know that party would never get power only because of the name, much better to "Hi jack" Labour OR to bring Labour to its true values, depending upon your perspective ) It is absolutely clear for me that a Socialist party should be anti EU (not Europe nor NATO ) Yes I posted the link about 6 hours back Cilla Black has died!
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Aug 2, 2015 12:06:33 GMT
I think that's what mumf said in a roundabout way "against anti " is a double negative which means he supports it Sorry to be pedantic young man, but didn't mumf say he didn't want to pay it off so quickly? He did say that as well ,that's why I was confused , and you are always pedantic
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Aug 2, 2015 12:08:19 GMT
The British voters won't elect someone with a beard as PM he is doomed Maybe not... How very dare you
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 2, 2015 12:23:52 GMT
Welll it's interesting you say Corbyn should be anti-EU. Labour hasn't been anti-EU for a very very long time and it's not one of the definitive fault lines within the Labour Party. It's accepted that Labour as a movement want to stay inside the EU for the reasons I explained in a previous post on a previous thread (ie the principles of both collective decision-making and multilateralism). It changed its stance following the infamous 1983 Manifesto. This is what I mean about Corbyn now having to appease the rest of the Labour Party if he wants to be leader of it; he can't claim to be the personification of an holistic Labour Movement if Mr Corbyn is going to come out with anti-EU and anti-NATO comments which aren't what the majority of the party has signed up for. Nowhere in any recent General Election manifesto has the abandonment of the EU and NATO ever been mentioned. Those are policies of other political parties, not Labour. To that end, I can understand why people think Labour could split, but it won't. I don't believe, for the above reasons, that Corbyn can effectively lead the party. If he does win the leadership election he won't be able to lead it for very long. Eventually Labour will elect a moderate leader who can bind both left and centrist factions within the party. The Kabour Party isn't an exclusively socialist party - it's a Social Democratic Party and, to that extent, it's a broad church. The British political left is split enough as it is - Labour, The Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru, SWP, and SDLP. In terms of parties splitting, I found this interesting article, and thought you might like it: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/02/labour-split-corbyn-blairitesDerrida This is another one where we will have to agree to disagree, but perhaps not so far apart as before. I did mention previously the possibility of the left leaving Labour (ideologically they would be more at home in the Socialist Party, but even they know that party would never get power only because of the name, much better to "Hi jack" Labour OR to bring Labour to its true values, depending upon your perspective ) It is absolutely clear for me that a Socialist party should be anti EU (not Europe nor NATO ) Yes I posted the link about 6 hours back Cilla Black has died! Hi BJR I understand. It's always worth remembering that Labour isn't a socialist party; it's a social democratic movement. It has socialists in it, along with trade unionists, neo-liberals, centrists, and moderates. It's a broad church, as I said. The argument about the leadership race ISN'T that the left inside the Labour Party want to drag the Party towards an anti-EU stance; because they don't. They want a debate, which is what Corbyn was trying to do, until he realised it was never going to get him elected as it would alienate moderates inside the party and he'd haemorrhage support as a result. What seems to have gone wrong is the idea that people from outside the party, who weren't previously members, have joined it to force the agenda during the leadership election as has been reported across the British media. We know it's happened. For example, Labour hasn't been pro-CND and anti-EU since the early 1980's before Militant were defeated by Kinnock, thankfully enough, for they refused to follow party policy. It's not even history repeating itself. Yep, I know you posted the link, it was worth referencing to make the point
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 2, 2015 12:38:38 GMT
Derrida
Again we will have to agree to disagree
It is clear to me that a socialist/left /even the Labour party should be anti EU if it wishes to keep democracy on behalf of the ordinary man/woman In the context of the Labour leadership it is important ,Infact fundamental because our independence is needed to implement the suggested policies.
Important to remember though ,it is a serious issue, not just a UKIP issue but cross party, non party and across Europe. Also it is very important when it comes to the referendum what we are saying yes or no to. The EU project isn't the complete article by any means, but a process towards closer union . We will be saying yes to the continuation of that.We are nowhere near the end game, because there is not one.
BUT this is old ground, debated many times on here as I am sure that you are aware.I don't want to repeat all the arguments again . It's all there in past threads if anyone wants to check.Infact I started one called " leaving Europe 'Perhaps this is a chance to debate the other aspects of the Labour Leadership
|
|
|
Post by skip on Aug 2, 2015 13:07:21 GMT
People thought the SNP were naive optimists too.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Aug 2, 2015 13:19:50 GMT
Deja vu , all over again
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 2, 2015 13:37:59 GMT
Derrida Again we will have to agree to disagree It is clear to me that a socialist/left /even the Labour party should be anti EU if it wishes to keep democracy on behalf of the ordinary man/woman In the context of the Labour leadership it is important ,Infact fundamental because our independence is needed to implement the suggested policies. Important to remember though ,it is a serious issue, not just a UKIP issue but cross party, non party and across Europe. Also it is very important when it comes to the referendum what we are saying yes or no to. The EU project isn't the complete article by any means, but a process towards closer union . We will be saying yes to the continuation of that.We are nowhere near the end game, because there is not one. BUT this is old ground, debated many times on here as I am sure that you are aware.I don't want to repeat all the arguments again . It's all there in past threads if anyone wants to check.Infact I started one called " leaving Europe 'Perhaps this is a chance to debate the other aspects of the Labour Leadership That's fine, and I understand. Although, to clarify, what you've said is a little contradictory. Why should Labour be anti-EU? Labour as a movement believes in cooperatives, in acting for the collective good of peoples. Both UKIP and a huge swathe of the Conservative Party are anti-EU because they believe UK can do things on its own. Labour tends to believe in multilateralist frameworks. That's precisely why Blair is so despised by those on the left inside the party (and elsewhere) - because he went specifically against multilateralism and thought the UK could do things on its own without international agreement. As you've said, though, this is maybe for another topic. In terms of the Labour Leadership race - you have to focus less on Corbyn and more on why the other candidates are possibly not grabbing the media spotlight. With the notable exception of Corbyn (left of the party) and Liz Kendall (very much on the right of the party) the others offer a progressive, centre-left platform which is very much where Labour's heart has been since John Smith and Tony Blair. Those inside Labour (NOT outside the party as they can't elect the leader) are reacting against the past rather than looking towards what people asked for at the last general election. Cameron won, but only with a very small majority, so it's not as though his policies have received a ringing endorsement. It's more that they rejected Labour and , specifically, Ed Milliband's platform. Scotland rejected English parties outright. Labour simply weren't credible on the economy. The fact is Labour doesn't need to switch to either the left or the right politically. The UK is a country with a history of despising extremes. Following the calamitous Callaghan period, there was no realistic potential Labour governmental alternative until 1992. You only have to ask yourself why; following 1979 Labour veered off to the left, on a CND, anti-EU, nationalisation Bennite platform and was subsequently crushed. The idea that all Labour needs to doing is return to those very same polices 30 years later is nonsense. Those policies were unelectable then, and they're unelectable now. It's the political embodiment of Einstein's definition of insanity. Labour doesn't need a return to the policies of Blairism, but it does need a candidate who can return to the hope of it. What Labour got wrong wasn't that it wasn't left wing enough, it's that it lacked credibility over the economy and in Milliband had a theorist as a leader. It needs a political pragmatist, somebody who knows how the game works.
|
|
|
Post by Nick1984 on Aug 2, 2015 13:46:05 GMT
They should make like a tree and split.
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 2, 2015 13:46:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 2, 2015 15:53:05 GMT
Derrida Again we will have to agree to disagree It is clear to me that a socialist/left /even the Labour party should be anti EU if it wishes to keep democracy on behalf of the ordinary man/woman In the context of the Labour leadership it is important ,Infact fundamental because our independence is needed to implement the suggested policies. Important to remember though ,it is a serious issue, not just a UKIP issue but cross party, non party and across Europe. Also it is very important when it comes to the referendum what we are saying yes or no to. The EU project isn't the complete article by any means, but a process towards closer union . We will be saying yes to the continuation of that.We are nowhere near the end game, because there is not one. BUT this is old ground, debated many times on here as I am sure that you are aware.I don't want to repeat all the arguments again . It's all there in past threads if anyone wants to check.Infact I started one called " leaving Europe 'Perhaps this is a chance to debate the other aspects of the Labour Leadership That's fine, and I understand. Although, to clarify, what you've said is a little contradictory. Why should Labour be anti-EU? Labour as a movement believes in cooperatives, in acting for the collective good of peoples. Both UKIP and a huge swathe of the Conservative Party are anti-EU because they believe UK can do things on its own. Labour tends to believe in multilateralist frameworks. That's precisely why Blair is so despised by those on the left inside the party (and elsewhere) - because he went specifically against multilateralism and thought the UK could do things on its own without international agreement. As you've said, though, this is maybe for another topic. In terms of the Labour Leadership race - you have to focus less on Corbyn and more on why the other candidates are possibly not grabbing the media spotlight. With the notable exception of Corbyn (left of the party) and Liz Kendall (very much on the right of the party) the others offer a progressive, centre-left platform which is very much where Labour's heart has been since John Smith and Tony Blair. Those inside Labour (NOT outside the party as they can't elect the leader) are reacting against the past rather than looking towards what people asked for at the last general election. Cameron won, but only with a very small majority, so it's not as though his policies have received a ringing endorsement. It's more that they rejected Labour and , specifically, Ed Milliband's platform. Scotland rejected English parties outright. Labour simply weren't credible on the economy. The fact is Labour doesn't need to switch to either the left or the right politically. The UK is a country with a history of despising extremes. Following the calamitous Callaghan period, there was no realistic potential Labour governmental alternative until 1992. You only have to ask yourself why; following 1979 Labour veered off to the left, on a CND, anti-EU, nationalisation Bennite platform and was subsequently crushed. The idea that all Labour needs to doing is return to those very same polices 30 years later is nonsense. Those policies were unelectable then, and they're unelectable now. It's the political embodiment of Einstein's definition of insanity. Labour doesn't need a return to the policies of Blairism, but it does need a candidate who can return to the hope of it. What Labour got wrong wasn't that it wasn't left wing enough, it's that it lacked credibility over the economy and in Milliband had a theorist as a leader. It needs a political pragmatist, somebody who knows how the game works. Derrida I fully understand exactly what you say about the reasons why Tories and Labour may take a stance on the EU , to be honest this confirms what I said about repetition, I remember discussing this a long time ago. I would never presume to label people nor speak for them, some Labour supporters Infact would also be anti EU for democratic reasons. BUT I get the gist of what you are saying ,as I say I can recall discussing this before. Sorry that I may sound contradictory, I am crystal clear in my own mind but you can have the last word on this as I feel that I am going over old ground.For me , as a pragmatist I am not particularly bothered why people might vote UKIP ,as long as they do. Controversially even racists have a single vote, just like you and I . ( By the way , before we go down that route, I believe the vote will be to stay in, as previously discussed, status quo, pressure etc) Back to your second point re the Labour split, leadership I agree with you. Only 23% , I think ,actually voted FOR THE Tories. I am pretty simplistic really .I just see it that Corbyn is different , more to the Left (but how far is a matter of opinion, as discused!) than anything Labour have had for about 20 years.He was included by default to provide debate.He has succeeded.He has exposed the others.Some have joined the party...for a range of ressons He might win.I hope he does.He nay or may not split the party . Either way Labour are in trouble.If he becomes leader prople will suport or rrjecg him for a ranfe of individual reasons , as previously discussed..Time will tell. Have a good day.
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Aug 2, 2015 15:54:13 GMT
Although I am pretty much Tory, Corbyn's bid worries me. His ideas are clearly too far to the left for most British electorate and consequently the Conservatives will look very strong.
I think it is healthy for politics to have a viable and popular opposition to act as a balance against the party in power getting too much influence.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2015 16:18:49 GMT
I appreciate that the idea to make long term unemployed work for their benefit may seem harsh and a form of cheap labour , but one has to counter that against what useful role do they fulfill sat on their fat idle arses watching the TV all day . You should then examine what the mental and physical health implications there are to sitting down all day . Obesity rates are soaring across all age groups ,Obesity rates especially among the poorer members of society are by far the highest and this above all else should persuade anyone to reconsider my motives for suggesting that they should work for their benefits . If children see their parents sat at home doing nothing , then they may well consider it the norm and God given. It should be introduced to create the right environment to get these long term unemployed back to work which is where they should be . If we could get a good system introduced , then we would not need the volume of immigrants to do the low paid menial tasks . I don't care if they are fat women in the forties , or teenagers with false nails and eyelashes ....get the fuckers off their arses . We cannot continue to fund the welfare state to the current levels of provision .
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Aug 2, 2015 17:04:53 GMT
Well I'm predicting a Burnham win, followed by a lack lustre performance at the next General Election. A proper candidate, in the John Smith mould will be selected, then hopefully he/she won't spoil things by dying and then to be followed by a complete (but electable) cunt.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 2, 2015 17:18:50 GMT
I think that a person can be accused of being out of touch with politics, but Infact be in touch with people. Hot air really, designed to win "personal arguments " perhaps and distracts from the issues. Mumf , On this occasion I think that the "rump" may just fade into obscurity. I know that it is a new generation but I wonder if we are ready for SDP (Social Democrats?) part 2. Perhaps there will be an infight and the medium left(or medium right ie the Burnhamites) will win and the rump could join the Socialist Party (why not?) I hope that Corbyn wins, as a conviction politician, because at least he will help Labour to sort itself out with some honesty...either way Labour are going to go through difficult times. I cant see what there is to be gained by his election . We all know how popular (or not ) he is to the broader electorate . The party will be on 20% support with him at the helm . He will do irreparable damage to the parties image , although I can see Donkey jacket and cap manufacturers going through a bit of a boom..... I thought that this debating period was designed to iron out the cracks prior to announcing a new leader . What's the point in announcing a car crash politician to prove the point ? He may popular in the party , but he certainly isn't in the country . We face adding another decade to our years in the wilderness . It's this kind of childish and stupid response that illustrates my point about you. You never let me down.
|
|