Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Corbyn bombs in leadership election debate Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)


    I don't agree with everything Owen Smith says, but at least he'd have an actual chance of getting into government. Corbyn is completely unelectable; I'm a Labour member and I live in one of the safest Labour seats in the country. We regularly go doorknocking and pretty much everyone I speak to in this safe labour seat, even in social housing who are basically clients of the Labour political machine and make up our reliable political base, say he's completely rubbish and they won't vote for him.
    What are their views on Brexit? Similar to these?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ferendum-video

    Owen Smith is a rabid Europhile who wants to go against the democratic will of the people on the EU. In a general election that would be endlessly raised.

    Why would Labour Breixiteers vote for a metropolitan elite (with a posh Welsh accent) Labour Leader that despises their views and would overturn their wishes?

    And how is he any less out of touch with the Labour base than Corbyn?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    The polls show that the public don't want his brand of politics. 85/89 polls before then "coup" had Labour behind the Tories, that's why the PLP are trying to oust him before it's too late and he causes an electoral wipe out.

    The fact that he's the worst rated opposition leader in the history of polling seems to be lost on his followers, who think he'll win a GE because he's popular on Twitter.
    This is what I am saying. You use Corbyn's unpopularity to attack left wing politics.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    This is what I am saying. You use Corbyn's unpopularity to attack left wing politics.
    I'm not attacking left wing politics, I'm stating the reality of the situation that Labour are in under their current leader.

    I've only ever voted Labour and would rather have a centrist govt with sympathies to the left than a centre right or right wing govt any day. These being the only realistic options re who can get enough votes to run the country.

    In other words I'd choose part of something rather than all of nothing.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    I'm not attacking left wing politics, I'm stating the reality of the situation that Labour are in under their current leader.

    I've only ever voted Labour and would rather have a centrist govt with sympathies to the left than a centre right or right wing govt any day. These being the only realistic options re who can get enough votes to run the country.

    In other words I'd choose part of something rather than all of nothing.
    Well...it didn't look like that.

    What's the difference between a centrist government and a centre right government and are these differences significant?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    Well...it didn't look like that.

    What's the difference between a centrist government and a centre right government and are these differences significant?
    Based on the current landscape it would be the Lib Dems as opposed to Cameron's Tories. They get a lot of flack over tuition fees but did help keep a lid on a lot of the more right-wing Tory policies.

    http://www.markpack.org.uk/129190/wh...-tories-doing/
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    Owen Smith is a rabid Europhile who wants to go against the democratic will of the people on the EU. In a general election that would be endlessly raised.
    It would be endlessly raised, but there is a constituency that is receptive to that (i.e. 48% of the population, and probably a majority of the people who actually bother to turn out to vote). I don't agree with Owen Smith on the EU stuff but it would be a mistake to assume that because it upsets Corbnites and UKIP voters, that therefore it would be highly unpopular.

    The SNP lost the indyref and only 45% of Scot voted for Yes, and yet the SNP hoovered up almost all those people in the following election. Labour could look forward to hoovering up similar numbers of voters from the liberal wing of the Tories and the Lib Dems, and centrist voters.

    Two more points. First, Smith's position on the EU is a moot point because by the time of the next general election we'll probably be out of the EU or have triggered Article 50 which is irreversible anyway. Second, Owen Smith isn't massively ambitious to be leader himself; most who are supporting him in the PLP are doing so as a means to get rid of Corbyn. Once Jezbollah has been gotten rid of, then a real leadership election between the really talented candidates like Dan Jarvis, Sir Keir Starmer and Hillary Benn can take place.

    In a general election that would be endlessly raised
    What is more likely to be endlessly raised, given Art 50 will have already been triggered by the next election and thus there's no way in which Brexit can be blocked, is the grave danger Corbyn poses to the national security of this country.

    What will get endless play and airtime in the media and in print during the next general election is the £20,000 Corbyn accepted to be a television shill on the propaganda network of a regime that lynches gay men from cranes and stones "adulterous" women to death. What will get endless play is how Corbyn effusively praised (to the point of gushing fanboyism) an organisation that called for all Jews worldwide to be killed, as (in Corbyn's exact words), "dedicated to peace and social justice", "honoured guests" and "friends".

    What will get endless play is that Corbyn expressed sympathy and support, and gave succour and respectability, to IRA terrorist murderers at a time when they were slaughtering British soldiers and killing innocent civilians simply because they were protestant (and that's not to say there weren't loyalist atrocities too, but those of us who oppose Corbyn don't support and praise those loyalists... Corbyn does praise and support the IRA). In fact, in 1984 when the IRA bombed the Grand Hotel (where most of the government was staying) in Brighton during the Tory conference, Corbyn expressed his admiration for the "audacity" of this operation, which came extremely close to killing the Prime Minister and resulted in the deaths a Consevative MP and staffer, and three wives of MPs. The publication Corbyn was managing at the time published the 'joke', "What do you call five dead Tories? A good start". When 8 IRA terrorists, who were attacking a police station using a truck bomb and machine guns, were thankfully stopped by the SAS and killed before they could demolish the police station and kill all inside, Corbyn held a minute's silence for these "fallen soldiers". And during that period Corbyn opposed the peace process on the basis that it wouldn't lead to a united Ireland, thus encouraging the more extreme elements of the IRA who opposed any deal.

    Then of course you have Corbyn wanting to walk away from alliances that go back to before World War I (with the French, Belgians, etc), to abrogate our NATO responsibilities, to downgrade our relationship with the Americans and generally run a pro-Russian foreign policy. He also wants to build nuclear ballistic missile submarines for tens of billions of pounds but not build any actual nukes, give up the Falklands to Argentina against the wishes of the Falkland Islanders and with utter contempt for the 255 British servicemen who lost their lives defending that soil.

    If Corbyn takes Labour into the next election as leader of the opposition, it won't be an election about economics, it won't be about fiscal policy or welfare policy, or cuts, or education... it will be a national security election. Day in, day out Corbyn will get smashed by the print media (which broadcast media will pick up on and repeat) for his anti-British, pro-terrorist, pro-Putin sympathies. He will be repeatedly questioned and his answers interrogated (and his pathetic, weaselly answers up until now on those matters will not just be accepted) on why he did those things, on why he took thousands of pounds from a regime that lynches gay people, on why he is such good friends with so many fasicsts, holocaust deniers and murderous homophobes.

    He will be king hit on day one, and he'll be reeling for the rest of the election. He won't ever get his footing back or be in a position to set the agenda. His dodgy friendships and anti-British dogmas will lead to a wave of revulsion and white-hot anger amongst ordinary voters (most of whom don't yet know about these things) and this could mean game over for the Labour Party, permanently.

    I'd rather go into the next election led by someone like Owen Smith, who for all his faults is broadly a conventional Labour politician with fairly conventional views, although quite far to the left. At least with Owen Smith Labour has a fighting chance. With Corbyn it has no chance, period.

    And how is he any less out of touch with the Labour base than Corbyn?
    A supermajority of the Labour base voted to Remain. They are amongst the most emphatic supporters of the European Union in polls. And for those supporters who are of a eurosceptic bent, they tend to be quite patriotic and they are not going to go for a man whose political views and positions have verged on treason. If they want to vote for a eurosceptic, they'll vote for UKIP. In any case, as I said by the time of the election Art 50 will have been triggered and we will be irreversibly on our way out and so Smith won't be able to promise "a second referendum" or some kind of opportunity for the people to give their view on the terms of the exit deal.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    I've only ever voted Labour and would rather have a centrist govt with sympathies to the left than a centre right or right wing govt any day. These being the only realistic options re who can get enough votes to run the country.
    Well said, dude. In respect of the hard left's obsession with purity and their claim that unless a Labour government adheres 100% to their rigid hard left dogma then it is basically no different than a Tory government... in adopting that mentality they are basically like a starving person who refuses to eat anything except at a three Michelin star restaurant. It's the Nirvana fallacy
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    Well...it didn't look like that.

    What's the difference between a centrist government and a centre right government and are these differences significant?
    A government of that sort, in my view realistically would be about halfway between the centre-left and the centre (i.e. faintly centre-left), is absolutely different to a Conservative government. If you want to see what that looks like, all you have to do is cast your mind back to the Blair years and the following policies that would be far less likely under Conservatives. In fact, it was the tremendous success of New Labour that forced the Tories much closer to the centre and to abandon their racist and homophobic tendencies (at least among those who were running the party). The achievements of the Blair government;

    *Minimum wage
    *Funding per child doubled in education system
    *Substantial redistribution through working tax credits
    *26% increase in child benefits
    *Introduction of child tax credits
    *Introduction of paternity leave
    *Introduction of the right to paid holidays
    *600,000 children lifted out of poverty
    *1 million pensioners lifted out of poverty
    *Scrapped section 28, introduced civil partnerships
    *Free entry to national museums and galleries
    *Free nursery places for three and four year olds
    *Created 2,200 SureStart centres which provided early childhood education and health, integrated learning and childcare free for at least 10 hours per week, among many other services for new parents
    *Devolved power to Scotland and Wales
    *Peace in Northern Ireland
    *Reintroduction of a city-wide government for London
    *Human Rights Act
    *Equality Act and prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation
    *Crime cut by 32% due to greater prosperity and support for the poor
    Now these policies provided real, practical and substantial help to ordinary people. New Labour did a lot of hard policy work and brought about a complete change in the level of support ordinary people got from the state; it created a much greater degree of redistribution but it did it in a very unobtrusive way that many people could overlook and fail to realise.

    Instead of focusing on dogmas,ideologies and grand gestures, it focused on determining the best way to provide practical support to ordinary people, it found the money to do that and it went about implementing it. And between 1997 and 2007 it did all that while reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio (in other words, paying off Tory debt).

    I know many Corbyn supporters don't find things like child tax benefits, paternity leave and SureStart centres very "sexy", it's not a grand geopolitical statement like sanctioning the State of Israel or pulling out of NATO, or just increasing the corporate tax rate. But those policies (child tax credits, early childhood health, working tax credits) are much harder to develop, they take real and deep policy work in opposition and then further development and delivery in government, and they require a real passion for the area in which they are dealing. I detect nothing of that sort from the Corbyn leadership. Instead of doing detailed policy-work, they just mouth lazy platitudes like "Full employment and an economy that works or all", and then attach a £500 billion spending promise to that pledge. Surely if you are proposing to spend £500 billion in a massive Keynesian programme (and to pay for it by increasing the national debt from £1.5 trillion to £2 trillion, and debt-to-gdp ratio from 81% to 107%, in one go) then it is incumbent on you to do some real policy development work with experts, and to put together a policy that is more than just three lines on a single A4 page of ten "pledges".

    The £500 billion promise is not serious policy, that is coming up with policy on the back of a fag packet after 9 months of doing next to nothing and being forced by the leadership challenge into coming up with actual commitments. They claim that £500 billion pledge will create one million new homes and one million new jobs. If you divide the money half and half, that works out at £250,000 per new home and £250,000 per new job. That is insanely expensive given the economies of scale we are talking about. There's a sense that they're living in a fantasy-land with no consequences, that it's not really their money so who cares?

    Rakas21
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    It would be endlessly raised, but there is a constituency that is receptive to that (i.e. 48% of the population, and probably a majority of the people who actually bother to turn out to vote). I don't agree with Owen Smith on the EU stuff but it would be a mistake to assume that because it upsets Corbnites and UKIP voters, that therefore it would be highly unpopular.

    The SNP lost the indyref and only 45% of Scot voted for Yes, and yet the SNP hoovered up almost all those people in the following election. Labour could look forward to hoovering up similar numbers of voters from the liberal wing of the Tories and the Lib Dems, and centrist voters.

    Two more points. First, Smith's position on the EU is a moot point because by the time of the next general election we'll probably be out of the EU or have triggered Article 50 which is irreversible anyway. Second, Owen Smith isn't massively ambitious to be leader himself; most who are supporting him in the PLP are doing so as a means to get rid of Corbyn. Once Jezbollah has been gotten rid of, then a real leadership election between the really talented candidates like Dan Jarvis, Sir Keir Starmer and Hillary Benn can take place.



    What is more likely to be endlessly raised, given Art 50 will have already been triggered by the next election and thus there's no way in which Brexit can be blocked, is the grave danger Corbyn poses to the national security of this country.

    What will get endless play and airtime in the media and in print during the next general election is the £20,000 Corbyn accepted to be a television shill on the propaganda network of a regime that lynches gay men from cranes and stones "adulterous" women to death. What will get endless play is how Corbyn effusively praised (to the point of gushing fanboyism) an organisation that called for all Jews worldwide to be killed, as (in Corbyn's exact words), "dedicated to peace and social justice", "honoured guests" and "friends".

    What will get endless play is that Corbyn expressed sympathy and support, and gave succour and respectability, to IRA terrorist murderers at a time when they were slaughtering British soldiers and killing innocent civilians simply because they were protestant (and that's not to say there weren't loyalist atrocities too, but those of us who oppose Corbyn don't support and praise those loyalists... Corbyn does praise and support the IRA). In fact, in 1984 when the IRA bombed the Grand Hotel (where most of the government was staying) in Brighton during the Tory conference, Corbyn expressed his admiration for the "audacity" of this operation, which came extremely close to killing the Prime Minister and resulted in the deaths a Consevative MP and staffer, and three wives of MPs. The publication Corbyn was managing at the time published the 'joke', "What do you call five dead Tories? A good start". When 8 IRA terrorists, who were attacking a police station using a truck bomb and machine guns, were thankfully stopped by the SAS and killed before they could demolish the police station and kill all inside, Corbyn held a minute's silence for these "fallen soldiers". And during that period Corbyn opposed the peace process on the basis that it wouldn't lead to a united Ireland, thus encouraging the more extreme elements of the IRA who opposed any deal.

    Then of course you have Corbyn wanting to walk away from alliances that go back to before World War I (with the French, Belgians, etc), to abrogate our NATO responsibilities, to downgrade our relationship with the Americans and generally run a pro-Russian foreign policy. He also wants to build nuclear ballistic missile submarines for tens of billions of pounds but not build any actual nukes, give up the Falklands to Argentina against the wishes of the Falkland Islanders and with utter contempt for the 255 British servicemen who lost their lives defending that soil.

    If Corbyn takes Labour into the next election as leader of the opposition, it won't be an election about economics, it won't be about fiscal policy or welfare policy, or cuts, or education... it will be a national security election. Day in, day out Corbyn will get smashed by the print media (which broadcast media will pick up on and repeat) for his anti-British, pro-terrorist, pro-Putin sympathies. He will be repeatedly questioned and his answers interrogated (and his pathetic, weaselly answers up until now on those matters will not just be accepted) on why he did those things, on why he took thousands of pounds from a regime that lynches gay people, on why he is such good friends with so many fasicsts, holocaust deniers and murderous homophobes.

    He will be king hit on day one, and he'll be reeling for the rest of the election. He won't ever get his footing back or be in a position to set the agenda. His dodgy friendships and anti-British dogmas will lead to a wave of revulsion and white-hot anger amongst ordinary voters (most of whom don't yet know about these things) and this could mean game over for the Labour Party, permanently.

    I'd rather go into the next election led by someone like Owen Smith, who for all his faults is broadly a conventional Labour politician with fairly conventional views, although quite far to the left. At least with Owen Smith Labour has a fighting chance. With Corbyn it has no chance, period.



    A supermajority of the Labour base voted to Remain. They are amongst the most emphatic supporters of the European Union in polls. And for those supporters who are of a eurosceptic bent, they tend to be quite patriotic and they are not going to go for a man whose political views and positions have verged on treason. If they want to vote for a eurosceptic, they'll vote for UKIP. In any case, as I said by the time of the election Art 50 will have been triggered and we will be irreversibly on our way out and so Smith won't be able to promise "a second referendum" or some kind of opportunity for the people to give their view on the terms of the exit deal.
    I agree with a lot of the above.

    As you say, Corbyn will get crucified at the next GE if he remains Leader and so will the Party. It isn't that he won't get elected, but that you will be talking about a Scotland like meltdown in the remaining heartlands in England and Wales.

    So Owen Smith is far better in that he will avoid a total catastrophe.

    BUT he isn't the answer either, I suggest.

    I think you are missing the reason for the disconnect between working class non metropolitan Labour voters and the party leadership revealed by Brexit.

    It isn't the EU which is the issue but culture, identity and immigration. Labour, in supporting BME identity politics so forcefully, and proselytising immigration as a social good in itself, has cut itself off from those who feel threatened by the former and profoundly disagree with the latter. And Brexit has revealed that there are many millions of those, up and down the country.

    But the Party Leadership believes profoundly in internationalism and "progressive" identity politics. So do its membership. It would be a red line to introduce polices like immigration controls which so many floating voters want.

    The whole country has moved to the right. "there is no progressive majority" any more (if there ever was). I don't see how the Labour can stay true to its own values and build the kind of coalition that wins elections under FPTP.

    I suspect the Party will split after the election of Corbyn, if as expected it happens. This will make an election victory impossible anyway.

    But even if it didn't split it can't present the country with a compelling intellectual case that will deliver victory. Or if it can I have yet to hear it.

    I'll ask you the question that many voters will have in the minds. Post Brexit, what is the point of Labour?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    As you say, Corbyn will get crucified at the next GE if he remains Leader and so will the Party. It isn't that he won't get elected, but that you will be talking about a Scotland like meltdown in the remaining heartlands in England and Wales

    So Owen Smith is far better in that he will avoid a total catastrophe. BUT he isn't the answer either, I suggest
    I completely agree. The Labour Party faces an existential crisis if Corbyn leads it into the next election. Of course Smith isn't the long-term answer, but in the here and now, he is the instrument to take a shot at Corbyn and weaken him. It may take two or three tries, the moderates intend to mount a yearly challenge (given Corbyn, during the 2015 leadership election, said party leaders should submit to yearly election, he can't really object).

    Labour really does have some great talent on the backbenches, it is painful that Labour has such promising prospects for the front bench and leadership (particularly Dan Jarvis, the former Para Regiment major who fought in Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq and toured everywhere else, and whose wife died of cancer leaving him a widower and single father.... I hate to be so cynical but that is electoral gold, and he is sensibly moderate).....(and I'd also identify Sir Keir Starmer QC as a possible future leader if the Corbynite faction can be displaced; he's highly intelligent, he's not a natural politician but he is a really nice, decent guy and has a great head for policy)..... but that "the quality" can't move forward in the current climate of hard left extremism and intimidation.

    I think you are missing the reason for the disconnect between working class...It isn't the EU which is the issue but culture, identity and immigration.
    I take your point but I also don't think you are fully cognisant of the major debate within Labour, and how the party has moved on from the early 2000s when Blair went a bit mad and brought in hundreds of thousands every year for very spurious and discreditable reasons of political advantage and spite. The Blue Labour faction has for years been advocating an Australian-style points system, and Miliband put forward some very strong immigration control policies, The problem was always the EU free movement issue; as long as we had free movement no government of either stripe could really do much to control immigration. But with the UK leaving the EU, Labour will be freed up to have a serious and plausible immigration policy.

    Labour, in supporting BME identity politics so forcefully, and proselytising immigration as a social good in itself, has cut itself off
    Corbyn is the quintessence of that kind of alien, metropolitan right-on virtue signalling world. He's spent the last 30 years associating with cooks of every stripe, Islamists, black power activists and Britain-haters of varying sorts. I mean, one of his closest allies is the execrable Diane Abbott, a woman who is undeniably an anti-white racist (and I say that cautiously because most accusations of anti-white racism are bull), without even getting into her dishonesty, greed and utter incompetence. Imagine making that woman a shadow secretary of state. And his other major ally is Emily Thornberry, a woman who was fired from the shadow cabinet by Miliband for her bigotry against the white English working-class.

    Not everyone in Labour is like that, and the old Labour right, Labour First, and the Blue Labour faction, are definitely seeking to remedy the issues of disconnect. But I think in the scheme of things, Corbyn is far more disonnected than Blair was, who was disconnected on some issues but remarkably in touch on many others and during his PM'ship widely popular. I think someone like Dan Jarvis, the ex-para commander and no-nonsense guy that he is, is one of Labour's best chances to reconnect with its roots. I believe that traditional Labour voters will warm to him and that he will offer a substantie centre-left economic slate of the Milibandite variety but also a strong, patriotic slate on foreign policy, military affairs and a moderate but suitably firm immigration policy.

    But the Party Leadership believes profoundly in internationalism and "progressive" identity politics. So do its membership. It would be a red line to introduce polices like immigration controls which so many floating voters want.
    As mentioned above, it's a mistake to label the whole party as being any one thing. There are so many strains of thought in the party, so many sub-factions; remember it's not just the party, with its centre-liberal faction (Blair, progress; pro-immigration, social democratic on redistribution, but pro-business and sensible on foreign policy), the old Labour right / small-c conservative faction (Simon Danczukm among others), the moderate centre-left but traditionally union proxy faction(people like Tom Watson, Andy Burnham, Tom Blenkinsop perhaps Hillary Benn; left economically, less enthusiastic about America than the centrists but still overall sensible, trying to find some kind of middle-road for immigration but understanding how toxic the issue is for Labour... and there are sub-factions within that faction, Benn is more sympathetic to intervention than Burnham but also more pro-Palestine than Burnham), the strong centre-left (people like Owen Smith and Cat Smith, but even that faction has split between pro and anti-Corbyn) and finally the hard left (Corbyn,McDonnell, Abbott, John Lansman, etc).

    Even that description doesn't actually describe the different factions and strains of thought because all those factions have split to some degree with a few allying themselves to Corbyn (even Lord Falconer, an arch-Blairite, did try to work with Corbyn for a long-time). And it is so important that you give credit to the fact that Labour is not monolithic and certainly not all these sort of effete, metropolitan, pro-open border politicians that you describe. That view of Labour is somewhat out-of-date, if indeed it was ever true.

    The whole country has moved to the right. "there is no progressive majority" any more (if there ever was). I don't see how the Labour can stay true to its own values and build the kind of coalition that wins elections under FPTP.
    The whole country hasn't moved to the right. At the last election it was broadly 52% (centre-right and right-wing parties) to 48% (liberal and left-wing parties). The Conservatives got 11.3 million votes to Labour's 9.3 million votes, and the Conservatives have a 12 seat majority. We are not talking about a right-wing landslide. It is more than plausible that those results would reverse, Labour winning 11.3 to the Conservative 9.3 in which case Labour would be in government. It is an error to imagine that all 11.3 million of those are necessarily hardcore conservative supporters or conservatives. The underlying Conservative base of loyal voters is probably around 8.5 million and about the same for Labour. They each have to capture around 3 million votes that are typically up for grabs to win government. It's worth keeping in mind that many voters are not politically-minded; they will vote based on their intuition (i.e. in 1997 these people, not natural Lab supporters, knew it was time for a change and voted Labour. In 2010 the same sort of voters felt the Labour government was tired and out of ideas, and voted Conservative).

    Only ten years ago Labour had 356 seats to the Tories 198... Labour is in a better position in this partliament than the Tories were in the 2005-2010 parliament. And in every election since 1997, the Tories have got between approximately 30% and 36%. There has been no massive surge in conservative voting. And even this current government is far to the left of the Conservatives of 1997 as a result of the success of New Labour; a "conservative" government that introduced gay marriage, ended dividend imputation and and strongly favoured remaining in the EU can hardly be considered right-wing by any serious measure.

    I suspect the Party will split after the election of Corbyn, if as expected it happens. This will make an election victory impossible anyway.
    I doubt it will split after he is re-elected. It will all depend on whether Corbyn and his allies attempt to deselect moderates. Corbyn has already declined to offer his support to moderate MPs who are being threatened with a trigger ballot for reselection. If as is quite possible, almost all of the 172 are deselected by Momentum extremists, those MPs have little to lose and will resign their seat to call a by-election and re-stand under some kind of "Independent Labour" banner. To have 172 simultaneous by-elections, where the Independent Labour moderates have the advantage of name-recognition, incumbency, the massive coverage that will result from what will almost be a mini-general election on the left, and likely support from moderates, Lib Dems and liberal Tories, I rate their chances of mostly being re-elected, in which case Corbyn will be left with a rump of about 40 MPs and cease to be opposition leader. At that point the union heavies will come in and force Corbyn's resignation, negotiate a merger of the two parties and a return to sanity in exchange for policy commitments and concessions on employment law and economic policy.

    I'll ask you the question that many voters will have in the minds. Post Brexit, what is the point of Labour?
    Why would Brexit make a difference to the validity of Labour as a party? If Corbyn continues as leader and the Momentum faction consolidates their power so that they can never be overthrown, then Labour has no point. It will have devolved from the natural party of government in the 2000s to a fringe pressure group and party of protest.

    If the moderates can wrest control away from the extremists then Labour will return to playing its vital role as the oversight mechanism to ensure fairness in our society and save capitalism from itself. Labour has been the driving force behind the most important reforms that characterise the British state today; the NHS and welfare provision, employment protections (minimum wage, materniy/paternity leave, unfair dismissal protection, TUPE provisions,etc etc) NATO, a strong US-UK alliance, the independent nuclear deterrent, the redistributive system of tax credits and child benefit, the Human Rights Act and protection from discrimination, and many other things.

    There are around 3 million to 5 million Britons who can look after themselves and are doing well and do not need assistance, whose social and financial advantages allow them a great deal of consideration of their interests by politicians. For the other 55 million people, who can't afford to hire a lobbyist, who don't know how to make effective representations to politicians, who do not have the expertise or bargaining power to negotiate a fair employment contract or mortgage, for those people there is the Labour Party. The interests of these people is Labour's core business; considering their employment terms, their need for consumer protections, the necessity for health and safety legislation for the workplace, giving attention to the need to enact into law provisions that protect people with mortgages, people who are injured at work, people with disabilities. There are all these basic safeguards that you have as a British citizen, enactments that afford you basic fairness and protections in most spheres of life. The Labour Party is there to think about such things, to engage the experts and the talent who know about these subjects and who can make policy for it. More fundamentally,the Labour Party is there to ensure that when you are ill, there is a health system that won't ask for your wallet when they treat you. Labour is there to ensure that if you have a disability, or are unlucky with work and get made redundant, that there is a system that exists to give you a helping hand up and make sure you don't starve. That is what Labour is about, to provide a civilising force in society that mitigates the harshness of pure capitalism. I am proud of what Labour has accomplished in the past, and that's why I'm so worried that Corbyn is destroying the party and thus laying all those achievements wide open to being dismantled.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I
    If the moderates can wrest control away from the extremists then Labour will return to playing its vital role as the oversight mechanism to ensure fairness in our society and save capitalism from itself. Labour has been the driving force behind the most important reforms that characterise the British state today; the NHS and welfare provision, employment protections (minimum wage, materniy/paternity leave, unfair dismissal protection, TUPE provisions,etc etc) NATO, a strong US-UK alliance, the independent nuclear deterrent, the redistributive system of tax credits and child benefit, the Human Rights Act and protection from discrimination, and many other things.

    There are around 3 million to 5 million Britons who can look after themselves and are doing well and do not need assistance, whose social and financial advantages allow them a great deal of consideration of their interests by politicians. For the other 55 million people, who can't afford to hire a lobbyist, who don't know how to make effective representations to politicians, who do not have the expertise or bargaining power to negotiate a fair employment contract or mortgage, for those people there is the Labour Party. The interests of these people is Labour's core business; considering their employment terms, their need for consumer protections, the necessity for health and safety legislation for the workplace, giving attention to the need to enact into law provisions that protect people with mortgages, people who are injured at work, people with disabilities. There are all these basic safeguards that you have as a British citizen, enactments that afford you basic fairness and protections in most spheres of life. The Labour Party is there to think about such things, to engage the experts and the talent who know about these subjects and who can make policy for it. More fundamentally,the Labour Party is there to ensure that when you are ill, there is a health system that won't ask for your wallet when they treat you. Labour is there to ensure that if you have a disability, or are unlucky with work and get made redundant, that there is a system that exists to give you a helping hand up and make sure you don't starve. That is what Labour is about, to provide a civilising force in society that mitigates the harshness of pure capitalism. I am proud of what Labour has accomplished in the past, and that's why I'm so worried that Corbyn is destroying the party and thus laying all those achievements wide open to being dismantled.
    Interesting.

    I absolutely don't know very much about the intricacies of Labour policy formulation. Well before the last election I did get into a short email discussion with Jon Cruddas, who I read is a "blue Labour" guy, but I found it a bit disappointing. He wasn't nearly as radical, or willing to think the unthinkable as portrayed in the media when you actually probed him.

    Cards on the table, I am a former Labour Party member, but although I admire your enthusiasm and spirit I am more discouraged than you. I won't be rejoining any time soon, I feel the Party left me.

    And, I can't see beyond the internecine civil war getting worse, and it lasting for years. The next GE is a write off whatever happens it seems to me, and by the time of the one after that, Britain will be well nigh unrecognisable, and any policy formulation made now will be out of date, sadly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    Interesting.

    I absolutely don't know very much about the intricacies of Labour policy formulation. Well before the last election I did get into a short email discussion with Jon Cruddas, who I read is a "blue Labour" guy, but I found it a bit disappointing. He wasn't nearly as radical, or willing to think the unthinkable as portrayed in the media when you actually probed him.
    I think Lord Glasman is much more radical, Jon Cruddas was in the Blue Labour camp but I think his conversion was perhaps slightly superficial; he didn't really take on board the Blue Labour ideas and the important considerations and necessary changes to party policy that have to flow freom that.

    Cards on the table, I am a former Labour Party member, but although I admire your enthusiasm and spirit I am more discouraged than you. I won't be rejoining any time soon, I feel the Party left me.
    Do you mind if I ask when and why you left?

    As for discouragement, I am extremely discouraged. I have stopped attending CLP meeting because of his aggressive, scornful and arrogant Corbynista are when they are in groups, and the unbearable way they strut around with a "We are the masters, now" attitude. Add to that their utterly supercilious belief that they know the "real truth" and their fanatical, quasi-religious commitment to Jezbollah and it has created an atmosphere that would be familiar to anyone who has read about the history of communist parties in the West.

    There is a very high likelihood I will resign my membership after the leadership election is over. And I do not think I could cast a ballot for Labour led by Corbyn. But for me that doesn't undermine the fundamental ideas, beliefs and aspirations that have guided Labour from the late 1930s until 2015 (with a short period of madness under Michael Foot). Labour exists to ensure that capitalism is not a hostile environment for ordinary working people, but a system in which they can enjoy a good standard of living and have secured by law reasonable expectations of fairness in their dealings as an employee, citizen and consumer. Going forward I don't know if Labour is the vehicle through which to carry forward those ideas, but I do know that the ideas remain sound and, for the good of the country and the people who live in it, they must be heard in the public debate.

    And, I can't see beyond the internecine civil war getting worse, and it lasting for years. The next GE is a write off whatever happens it seems to me, and by the time of the one after that, Britain will be well nigh unrecognisable, and any policy formulation made now will be out of date, sadly.
    I wouldn't write off the next election so quickly, four years is a very long time in politics. The moderates plan to challenge Corbyn each year, they only have to win once, he has to win every time. Say a credible challenger emerges next year, someone like Dan Jarvis, and he wins the leadership election. Very quickly the PLP organises to put all that unused talent on the backbenches (Sir Keir Starmer, Alan Johnson, Yvette Cooper, Tristram Hunt, Chuka Umunna, Caroline Flint, Liz Kendall, Vernon Coaker, Chris Bryant, Michael Dugher) to work and slots them into front bench positions. Very quickly you see Labour get its act together and after almost ten years of poor performance (since the Blair-Brown handover), Labour has a dynamic young leader who appeals across parties.

    At that point of the election cycle the Tories have been in power for 7 years, they have a small majority of 12 and will be stuck in the political wasteland of managing Brexit. Many who voters for Labour during the Blair years and then went over to the Lib Dems as a centrist liberal voter or to the Tories as an economic liberal, particularly those who are broadly pro-EU, start supporting the Labour Party again. The Tory Party starts to get into fights with UKIP over the terms of Brexit. And there's another three years to go to the election. In such a scenario I could well see the Tories losing in 2020. But it is predicated on a candidate beating Corbyn for the top job.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I think Lord Glasman is much more radical, Jon Cruddas was in the Blue Labour camp but I think his conversion was perhaps slightly superficial; he didn't really take on board the Blue Labour ideas and the important considerations and necessary changes to party policy that have to flow freom that.



    Do you mind if I ask when and why you left?

    As for discouragement, I am extremely discouraged. I have stopped attending CLP meeting because of his aggressive, scornful and arrogant Corbynista are when they are in groups, and the unbearable way they strut around with a "We are the masters, now" attitude. Add to that their utterly supercilious belief that they know the "real truth" and their fanatical, quasi-religious commitment to Jezbollah and it has created an atmosphere that would be familiar to anyone who has read about the history of communist parties in the West.

    There is a very high likelihood I will resign my membership after the leadership election is over. And I do not think I could cast a ballot for Labour led by Corbyn. But for me that doesn't undermine the fundamental ideas, beliefs and aspirations that have guided Labour from the late 1930s until 2015 (with a short period of madness under Michael Foot). Labour exists to ensure that capitalism is not a hostile environment for ordinary working people, but a system in which they can enjoy a good standard of living and have secured by law reasonable expectations of fairness in their dealings as an employee, citizen and consumer. Going forward I don't know if Labour is the vehicle through which to carry forward those ideas, but I do know that the ideas remain sound and, for the good of the country and the people who live in it, they must be heard in the public debate.



    I wouldn't write off the next election so quickly, four years is a very long time in politics. The moderates plan to challenge Corbyn each year, they only have to win once, he has to win every time. Say a credible challenger emerges next year, someone like Dan Jarvis, and he wins the leadership election. Very quickly the PLP organises to put all that unused talent on the backbenches (Sir Keir Starmer, Alan Johnson, Yvette Cooper, Tristram Hunt, Chuka Umunna, Caroline Flint, Liz Kendall, Vernon Coaker, Chris Bryant, Michael Dugher) to work and slots them into front bench positions. Very quickly you see Labour get its act together and after almost ten years of poor performance (since the Blair-Brown handover), Labour has a dynamic young leader who appeals across parties.

    At that point of the election cycle the Tories have been in power for 7 years, they have a small majority of 12 and will be stuck in the political wasteland of managing Brexit. Many who voters for Labour during the Blair years and then went over to the Lib Dems as a centrist liberal voter or to the Tories as an economic liberal, particularly those who are broadly pro-EU, start supporting the Labour Party again. The Tory Party starts to get into fights with UKIP over the terms of Brexit. And there's another three years to go to the election. In such a scenario I could well see the Tories losing in 2020. But it is predicated on a candidate beating Corbyn for the top job.
    I am quite a bit older than you I suspect, and left several years ago even before the last election defeat and the rise of the left.

    I voted Brexit and only a very small handful of Labour figures agreed with me. that kind of sums it up. I am a patriot, I believe in this country, and in defending it.

    Labour used to agree with me, but few in the party seem to nowadays. Of course the Corbynistas are risible but it goes even beyond them.

    Can you imagine Ernie Bevin, mind, suppoorting a nuclear deterrence system of submarines sailing around without missiles?c "I will not go naked into the conference chamber..."

    Laughable.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    Can you imagine Ernie Bevin, mind, suppoorting a nuclear deterrence system of submarines sailing around without missiles?c "I will not go naked into the conference chamber..."

    Laughable.
    Of course, it's an absolute disgrace. And remember Ernie Bevin was born in a poverty-stricken mining community, left school at 13, educated himself in the lending libraries of working mens' clubs and worked his way up to the exalted office of Foreign Secretary.

    Can you imagine such a person doing well in Labour these days? (though in fairness, the fact that such people probably don't even exist anymore is to some degree thanks to the Labour Party).

    It's idiotic when Corbynites wear shirts saying, "What would Clem do?". Clement Attlee despised the kind of intellectual, middle-class hard left who were always attacking the leadership of the Labour movement as insufficiently radical. Attlee implemented a blistering austerity so that he could build the NHS, the welfare state, pay nationalisation compensation, build an atomic weapons industrial complex and maintain Britain's imperial commitments. He was a true patriot, and he understand that the English working-class have a kind of gut patriotism (remember earlier in the century when the working-classes were demanding more dreadnoughts be built; "We want eight and we won't wait", was the cry).

    Attlee also was instrumental in the creation of NATO, maintained a close alliance with the Americans, sent troops onto the docks to smash a communist-orchestrated strike, deployed tens of thousands to the far east to fight communist aggression in Korea (and introduced prescription charges to pay for it). So when you put all of that together with Attlee's grinding but necessary austerity, his creation of the welfare state and his underlying patriotism and real politik approach, there was certainly a kind of patriotic socialist radicalism that is almost impossible to imagine among the Corbynites.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    Based on the current landscape it would be the Lib Dems as opposed to Cameron's Tories. They get a lot of flack over tuition fees but did help keep a lid on a lot of the more right-wing Tory policies.

    http://www.markpack.org.uk/129190/wh...-tories-doing/
    What the Lib Dems did was insignificant.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasharAssad)
    Cool story bro but nobody cares about what you think
    Not an argument.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cato the Elder)
    Not an argument.
    my post was a response to the OP opinion.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.