What now for Labour? (Part 2)

First topic message reminder :

Phil Hornby wrote:I feel that Corbyn is sincere, polite, interesting and likeable - so are my neighbours but, like them, he isn't electable as Prime Minister.

In which case, why should we pay some phoney twicer to be something else?

 Have you heard the latest, the word gullible has been removed from the English Dictionary?.......
and replaced by corbynistic?

Sickchip - were I alone I would accept your criticism. The world is laughing.  If it is simply the case he says things that give the press ammunition, then he is gullible and foolish. The media can destroy a party's chances - so it is stupid to let them. His words are open to interpretation; his timing is invariably wrong; he has a record of being a party  rebel....all this is bad news for Labour. It's nothing to do with media lies. Thankfully Labour does have sensible MPs.

marcolucco wrote:.... The world is laughing.  If it is simply the case he says things that give the press ammunition, then he is gullible and foolish.....His words are open to interpretation; his timing is invariably wrong; he has a record of being a party  rebel....all this is bad news ...

There are whole chunks of the New Testament that make strikingly similar comments about a different person who also experienced a certain amount of criticism during His lifetime.

marcolucco wrote:If it is simply the case he says things that give the press ammunition, then he is gullible and foolish. The media can destroy a party's chances - so it is stupid to let them.

So you would rather we listen to the BLANTANT LIES that comes out of the GOB of Davy boy & his OINKS, also you are saying that its alright for the 66 Labour MPs to rebel but not Jermy Corbyn in his 30 years in the HOC he has rebelled 534 times that averages out at 16 times every Parliamentry year.

The only bad news is for the Tory party and the money men that CONTROL the Tory gov't, as for the right wing media including LBC radio since the hour JC was elected as leader jumped on him within an hour of the result being annonced not just by the people that paid £3.00 but by 85% of the Labour party members voted for JC.     I tend to think you are a disgruntled Blairite Ed Miliband was a Blairite and look what happened there, so it turns my mind too what you are doing on this forum and result is you are a TRUE BLUE TORY & do not like people on this forum telling you the truth about your VILE shower of P**CKS the Tory party.

marcolucco wrote:I am impressed by your loyalty but believe it is misplaced. I'm not sure what his incredible patience involved -waiting, watching, doing nothing? Is the People's Party not something out of China? He does give the impression that he would not be unhappy if the West sank. I see his mouth has got him into trouble again. He may for some have the attractiveness of a golden retriever but do we want a dog to lead the nation? You express a hope - - -  dreamers and hopers can dream and hope. Corbyn is going nowhere.

I re-joined because he was elected fuhrer, though I don't believe in fuhrers.   It is nothing to do with loyalty or China, and everything to do with ordinary working people in this country, who have been regarded as expendable rubbish for years.    As a result, I don't give a two-penny whatsit for all your worked-up pretend about how shocking it is ever to say what you think.   We have had too many years of bloody Murdoch-prudery. and it is time we got back to sensible, serious politics.

oftenwrong wrote:There are whole chunks of the New Testament that make strikingly similar comments about a different person who also experienced a certain amount of criticism during His lifetime.

Clever observation, oftenwrong. I hadn't realised that you saw Jeremy as Jesus. Even so, Jesus isn't the best person to lead Labour; he will be crucified.

redflag wrote:So you would rather we listen to the BLANTANT LIES that comes out of the GOB of Davy boy & his OINKS,

I restrain myself, redflag, from being unkind to you but if you're going to throw together what you have of vocabulary in an insulting way then my generosity will run out. To set you right, an oink is an onomatopoetic word for the noise a pig makes and so an oink doesn't possess a mouth. The word that you are looking for is oik.

redflag wrote:Jermy Corbyn in his 30 years in the HOC he has rebelled 534 times that averages out at 16 times every Parliamentry year.

Yes, your arithmetic is almost right.


 " I tend to think you are a disgruntled Blairite"
You do, do you?

"...my generosity will run out"

A gentleman is a man who can play the accordion - but doesn't.
( author unknown)

"A gentleman is a man who can play the accordion - but doesn't."

Exactly, Phil. Your "Supper with Jeremy Christ" is amusing. One swallow maketh not a summer, of course.

Indeed - one imagines that even a whole flock bearing duty-free purchases from an African holiday would barely signal the first signs of Spring, marco ...

marcolucco wrote:Clever observation, oftenwrong. I hadn't realised that you saw Jeremy as Jesus. Even so, Jesus isn't the best person to lead Labour; he will be crucified.

Thank you, Mr Worldly Wiseman.   Do you believe, though, that anyone is ever likely to vote for the likes of you?   What is in it for them, as opposed to you?

O, my worldly wisdom is rather flawed, Penderyn. As for being voted for -  - I would never seek such an honour. I don't have the ability to lie enough.  So no one would vote for me. Your final question - what's in it for those who would not be voting because I would not be contending? - the old man of the mountains knows that.
      You obviously thought that the parallel of Corbyn and God was not too far fetched.
You may find that he is all too human and if not pushed out, will find the pressure too much and resign.  That would be a less ignominious way to go and save Labour lots of pain.

Penderyn wrote:Thank you, Mr Worldly Wiseman.   Do you believe, though, that anyone is ever likely to vote for the likes of you?   What is in it for them, as opposed to you?

Penderyn you may have discovered marco reason for coming  to a left wing forum looking for people to vote for him, Jeremy Corbyn we know he is not Jesus but what we do know is that he is an HONOURABLE man unlike Davy boy and his OINKS who are a bunch of Dick Heads and have brought dishonour to the UK political system.

marcolucco wrote:O, my worldly wisdom is rather flawed, Penderyn. As for being voted for -  - I would never seek such an honour. I don't have the ability to lie enough.  So no one would vote for me. Your final question - what's in it for those who would not be voting because I would not be contending? - the old man of the mountains knows that.
      You obviously thought that the parallel of Corbyn and God was not too far fetched.
You may find that he is all too human and if not pushed out, will find the pressure too much and resign.  That would be a less ignominious way to go and save Labour lots of pain.

I don't believe, as I have pointed out, in fuhrers of any kind, and the discussion concerned Jesus, not your self-projection. I take you as fairly typical of the Murdoch=worshippers actually, the keenest of whom are MPs, and who all believe in the holy scriptures created by that lying shithouse.

Redflag wrote:Penderyn you may have discovered marco reason for coming  to a left wing forum looking for people to vote for him, Jeremy Corbyn we know he is not Jesus but what we do know is that he is an HONOURABLE man unlike Davy boy and his OINKS who are a bunch of Dick Heads and have brought dishonour to the UK political system.

Well put!

marcolucco wrote:
 " I tend to think you are a disgruntled Blairite"
   You do, do you?  

Do you know your own mind marco ?     Since you came on to this forum I have been a Tory voter & an SNP voter, let me put you out of your misery I AM A PROUD CARD carrying Labour party member and always will be.         I will explain as plainly as I can for your benefit so you can understand where I am coming from, I believe in FAIRNESS all round, I did not vote for Ed Miliband or did I vote for Jermy Corbyn BUT will defend there right to be leader of my party because the majority of the membership said that is what they wanted.       I did not agree with all that Tony Blair did but will give him credit for the good he did for the ENTIRE UK not just the chosen few which we are getting from Davy boy and his shower of OINKS.

As for Ed Miliband the people of this forum know what I did to help him and the Labour party Feb 2013 by-election in Eastleigh, and in April 2015 Hallam Sheffield, Carlisle, & Wirral West where my little bit of help got rid of Fester Mcvey in Wirral West and gave us Margaret Greenwood Labour MP.

I will be doing my bit for  Jermy Corbyn when the time comes, I am not a spitefull like the Tories are but then again its Tory MPs that select a leader not Tory party members that is the difference between Labour and the Tory party, maybe you should take that back to your Tory party friends.

It would be useful if Corbyn's critics attempted to back up their criticism with points about issues he has actually been wrong on, or tell us why they disagree with him. All the criticism - including Tory Blairs (former warmonger and a godparent to Rupert Murdoch's child) recent comments, and assorted media commentators, is empty and based around twisted interpretations of what Corbyn stands for.......the purpose for which I can only assume is to wrestle power back into the hands of their own clique.

Was Corbyn wrong on Tax Credits? Police funding? Are his ideas on health and education wrong? I acknowledge the issue over Syria can be debated; but Corbyn did offer practical suggestions regarding sanctions against those financially supporting terrorists, cutting off their cash flow, negotiating with other nations to enable the overthrow at ground level of ISIS / Daesh. The question of whether bombing achieves anything alone, or even in conjunction with other actions, is still open.....and to condemn Corbyn for being against bombing is rather reactionary - I happen to think his was a more sensible approach.

So less of the empty criticism - which is just a subtly malicious propaganda campaign by his enemies to engender a certain impression of Mr. Corbyn as a Trotsky/Marxist/loony left protester to the electorate; and a bit more counter argument about why you think he has been wrong on issues thus far into his leadership. Because, as far as I can see, he makes a lot of sense and has been right about a number of major issues thus far, and has made life uncomfortable for Cameron and his cohorts.

....or you can of course side with those in the Labour party that voted through Osborne's tax credit cuts, and every other Tory welfare reform including the 'bedroom tax'......if that's the type of Labour party you want.

Sickchip the only place to which I disagree with your post is the money people are scared of JC policies because it would mean there profits, other wise great post.

Redflag wrote:Do you know your own mind marco ?     Since you came on to this forum I have been a Tory voter & an SNP voter .....
I will be doing my bit for Jeremy Corbyn when the time comes.

I used to think I knew my own mind, Redflag, but truth can sometimes slap us in the face. You have convinced me you are not a Tory nor a Nat and if Jeremy has supporters as loyal as you, he has little to fear. You and Penderyn possess sincerity, seldom encountered in the wild fields of politics. What you envisage for Labour and the direction it takes are probably two different things but who knows? I offer my best wishes, even if, as you wrongly suppose, they are wrapped in blue paper. Gang well.

Only some are wrapped up in blue paper marco, what a difference in this post to others you have penned. It is up to card carrying Labour party members that will give us the Labour party this country NEEDS. Otherwise we will end up with a one party state if we allow the likes Murdoch the Bankers and the Tories to get away with there Blatant LIES and people allowing them to pull the wool over there eyes.

marcolucco wrote:-
I have (unsuccessfully it seems) tried to illustrate how badly off Labour is with Corbyn……...The media can destroy a party's chances - so it is stupid to let them.

I can’t quite see how calling Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters names illustrates anything other than your failure to engage in a reasoned argument on this subject. Labour has doubled its membership in six months and paid off its debts. Now the Fire Brigades Union has re-affiliated to the party. I have a suspicion that some of that is due to Corbyn.

James Callaghan never said “Crisis, what crisis?” in 1979, but it didn’t stop 'The Sun' from reporting that he did. The right-wing press didn’t like Foot or Kinnock or Brown or Miliband. There wasn’t really time for journalists to give John Smith a good kicking before his untimely death in 1994. Blair was the exception, but only in some parts of the press; Murdoch said he "could do business" with him, though he doesn’t like him nowadays because of his alleged affair with Wendi Deng, Murdoch’s wife.

Does anyone seriously believe that if one of the other candidates had been elected Labour leader, the press would have been kinder to them? I’m quite sure that Andy Burnham would have been blamed repeatedly for Mid Staffs, and that dirt (true or false) would have been raked up on Liz Kendall’s private life (there were the beginnings of that during the leadership campaign). If Ed Miliband could be attacked with lies about his late father, I’m quite sure that Yvette Cooper would have been rubbished because of her husband who, according to Tory mythology, helped Gordon Brown to bring on a global credit crunch when he was education secretary!  

Sadly, being abused by the media is part of the job description for becoming Labour leader, regardless of whether you’re on the left or right or in the centre of the party. Even when a right-winger like Chuka Umunna threw his hat in the ring, the harassment which his relatives received caused him to withdraw very quickly. How a Labour leader eats a bacon sandwich is given more prominence than a Tory PM sexually abusing the head of a dead pig. The press and the BBC make sure everyone is aware that Jeremy Corbyn spoke to someone from Hamas six years ago, yet when Iain Duncan Smith was Tory leader, only ‘The Guardian’ bothered to report his links with French fascists, apartheid supporters  and even the KKK:-
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/28/uk.conservatives

Labour Party members should pay no attention to the attitude of the media when choosing their leaders or policies. Most of our press is owned by a few foreign billionaires who still wouldn’t give fair coverage if Kendall or Umunna had been elected. They want the Tories in power because Tories love big business, largely ignore corporate tax evasion and privatise large chunks of the state at knock-down prices. There’s no way that such vested interests will ever settle for a ‘moderate’ (that is, right-wing) Labour leader, because what they want is a rabid Tory government of the kind we’ve been suffering since 2010.

Yes - way back in the 'seventies (when it was still possible) many of us were trying to get organised to establish a free press here, but, alas, the Right lacked the guts for a serious fight. So what's new.

Ivan I never have I did not vote for Ed Miliband because I thought there was too much hype around both him and his brother but as you know it did not stop me from giving him and the Labour party my help at by-elections and the May 2015 general election.

Also I did NOT vote for Jermy Corbyn but will defend his right to lead the Labour party because the majority of card holding Labour party members voted for him, and once again will do what I can for him at by-elections and general elections.

Redflag wrote:....  I did NOT vote for Jermy Corbyn but will defend his right to lead the Labour party because the majority of card holding Labour party members voted for him ....

The democratically-elected Leader ought to have the support of all members of the Party except those whose conscientiously-held beliefs make resignation their only choice.  The rightwards-inclined rump of Blairites are not entitled to challenge a majority decision just because they wish it were 1997 again next year.

Mr Corbyn represents the best chance there has been for a genuinely Socialist Labour Party since the untimely demise of John Smith.  

I hear more and more people saying that, or something very like it.

In accordance with our safeguards to prevent possible breaches of copyright laws, I can only post 15 lines from this article by Tom Clark. However, I strongly recommend that members read all of it:-

Blair’s frail legacy shows why Labour must win arguments as well as votes

The 1997 landslide suggested a country that was open to new arguments, but it heard too few of them. What MPs are not reckoning with is the activists’ frustration at everything that didn’t change in 13 Labour years – in particular Britain’s political discourse. Yes, many progressive policies were pursued, but instead of being won, progressive arguments were dodged around. The result is a frail legacy that is now being unravelled with extraordinary speed.

Think of the governments that have left deep marks on society – Franklin D Roosevelt’s administration in the US, say, or those of Attlee and Thatcher in Britain. They first challenged the inherited discourse, and then created institutions to cement a new one. Roosevelt, for example, established a social security system, entrenching new ideas about entitlement in much the same way as Attlee’s NHS. Thatcher’s privatised industries likewise established new economic facts of life, and cemented a new conventional wisdom.

As they look on at shuttered Sure Start centres, pragmatic Labour MPs are understandably fixated on the imperative of winning back the power that got those centres built. The Corbynistas, however, reason instead that it is always going to be easy to pull the shutters down on achievements that rest on arguments ducked, instead of arguments won. Labour MPs should give some thought to the doctrine of power at any price, and the transient nature of its legacy.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/11/blair-frail-legacy-labour-corbynistas

It's the apparent current desire for opposition at any price which ought to concern Labour voters.

The way things are looking, there won't be anything 'transient' about the wilderness in which their party finds itself.

But, hey - why am I worrying...?

Phil. Perhaps you’re missing the point of the article. Roosevelt had his New Deal, Attlee his NHS, what great reform did Blair achieve with those massive majorities? As Clark reminds us, many progressive measures were put in place, such as shrinking class sizes, rescuing children from poverty, eliminating long NHS waits and setting up Sure Start centres. But sadly, all of them were all undermined as soon as the Tories got their grubby hands on power again.  

There has to be more point to achieving power than making some cosmetic improvements which can be destroyed easily. With hindsight it just looks as if New Labour was holding the fort from 1997 until 2010, while the Tories regrouped before returning to power and carrying on from where Thatcher left off. The centre of gravity in British politics moves ever rightwards, but half a million Labour members and supporters have decided that enough is enough!

Justin Quirk sums up where we are now: “For his supporters, Corbyn is a necessary corrective to a political establishment that has moved too far to the right over the last 20 years. Corbyn represents Labour supporters who feel that the party abandoned its principles to get elected, and new supporters who finally feel somebody is offering an alternative.”
http://uk.askmen.com/money/professional/jeremy-corbyn-everything-you-need-to-know.html

"Corbyn represents Labour supporters who feel that the party abandoned its principles to get elected."

Many former supporters of the Lib-Dems may share a similar view about their party. Not readily apparent how they are going to find their way back into the Garden.

Ivan - that article makes a lot of sense to me - I have often puzzled why talking to voters about the achievements of the Blair government seems less convincing than I would expect, but on reflection it is true that none of these achievements was in any way paradigm breaking, just a slight improvement and softening of the basic ethos.

This also explains a lot about why Corbyn's supporters are so passionate and are increasingly convincing to the 'moderate' supporters - in my local party, I'm having more and more quiet conversations with members acknowledging that Corbyn may just have something.

My mum thinks he is a hero and the first proper Labour politician she has seen for years

Something else to tell your local Labour party boatlady, some of the Labour MPs where telling JC not to attend the Christmas party for "Stop the War" yet those same MPs went to a meeting for the WARMONGERS those that make the weapons of war and make great profits from these weapons.

Redflag wrote:.... those that make the weapons of war and make great profits from these weapons.

You'll know that the Westminster Parliament tolerates a "lobby system" whereby the paid representatives of Manufacturers, Retailers, Financiers and the like, seek to influence MPs by providing them with information.
The lobby addresses its concerns to opposition politicians as well as those in Government.

In the USA it is sometimes said that the only honest politician is one who stays "bought".

marcolucco wrote: ....  We need someone strong - not a saint - .... who would bring more terror to the Tories than ever Jeremy would.

I'm not sure whether Jeremy Corbyn would laugh or cry at hearing himself depicted as a "saint", but leaving aside journalistic hyperbole it is a fact that right-wing commentators are like a rabbit caught in the headlights when it comes to the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.  There is anti-Corbyn vitriol on every alternate page of today's Sunday Times , and as Oscar Wilde said, "The only thing worse than being talked about is NOT being talked about."

Only Robin Cook had that paralysing effect on the Tory machine up to now, and we do actually need Jeremy Corbyn or someone like him if we are to avoid becoming a One-Party State.

oftenwrong wrote:The democratically-elected Leader ought to have the support of all members of the Party except those whose conscientiously-held beliefs make resignation their only choice.  The rightwards-inclined rump of Blairites are not entitled to challenge a majority decision just because they wish it were 1997 again next year.

Mr Corbyn represents the best chance there has been for a genuinely Socialist Labour Party since the untimely demise of John Smith.      

Many of the Labour MPs, unfortunately, represent nobody.    They were elected not for their individual virtues but as 'Labour', and since they are not that, it is time they went

" Phil. Perhaps you’re missing the point ..."

It wouldn't be the first time - and. doubtless, won't be the last...  

"  We need someone strong - not a saint - "

oftenwrong wrote:I'm not sure whether Jeremy Corbyn would laugh or cry at hearing himself depicted as a "saint"

I wasn't canonising Corbyn or anyone else; I was simply modifying "strong" and I had written originally "not necessarily a saint" but felt the adverb was redundant. Obviously it wasn't. As it happens, it might suit his purpose to be thought a saint.
Incidentally, there are those who think Corbyn is remarkably duplicitous, using a veil of principle and sincerity so as not to frighten off too many supporters. It seems odd that someone in apparent possession of principles has climbed the unprincipled ladder, but stranger things have happened, I suppose. As for the vitriol, some would say there's no smoke without fire.

"Phil Perhaps you’re missing the point ..."

I don't see that you've missed any point, Phil. It is ludicrous to take two outstanding examples of reform and question why Blair cannot vie with them, omitting all the positives the man did - and there were many. He is the only Labour prime minister to serve three terms, which suggests that he did NOT lose support. He wasn't a failure: he quite courageously brought about the Good Friday Agreement, where many before him had indeed failed. Importantly, he knew what people wanted and wasn't there to serve the interests of a few extremists in the Labour Party. You could take any Labour Prime Minister and subject his government to the same standards and find failure where you want to find it.
With Corbyn, aided by McDonnell and Livingstone, it won't be a question of transience - they won't get anywhere near the seat of power unless they do a Lenin; (which, given their nature, is not quite out of the question.)
It is one thing to whistle for peace and wealth for the world, or sing from Mao's hymn book - quite another to govern effectively. Opinion seems to be that the triad I've named would ruin our country.

Ivan wrote:I can’t quite see how calling Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters names illustrates anything other than your failure to engage in a reasoned argument on this subject.

The Labour MPs who oppose him know him better than I do - they see behind his smile. He has chosen atrocious working mates. His reaction to the Paris murders was muted, for his history shows him in alignment with those who rebel against the rich West. Despite the majority verdict about war in Syria, he goes his own way and openly aligns with Stop the War. He is not so much a pacifist as a man who opposes any war the West would wage; but when it comes from what he sees as rebels opposing, say, Israel, then it's ok. He is in fact given a better press than he deserves. Militant Tendency nearly destroyed Labour - this creature is worse in that his loyalty is not to Britain, but to an international brigade of rebel thinkers, the type that defends Putin's warmongering as justified because of NATO's provocations. He is of course a blessing for the Tories.

Marco "ATROCIOUS" to whom the money men around the world, because most of us know that the same money men have this Tory gov't in there pockets and some of the others in Westminister that includes some in the Labour party.

You talk about Stop the War campaign but nothing about Cameron and his OINKS going to a ARM'S Fair and Labour MPs, these people that sell the weapons will make Millions in profit & I call that BLOOD MONEY

As for Jermy Corbyn not having loyalties to the UK, your loyaty is to the likes of the money men or could it be to the USA ??

oftenwrong wrote:

marcolucco wrote: ....  We need someone strong - not a saint - .... who would bring more terror to the Tories than ever Jeremy would.

I'm not sure whether Jeremy Corbyn would laugh or cry at hearing himself depicted as a "saint", but leaving aside journalistic hyperbole it is a fact that right-wing commentators are like a rabbit caught in the headlights when it comes to the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.  There is anti-Corbyn vitriol on every alternate page of today's Sunday Times , and as Oscar Wilde said, "The only thing worse than being talked about is NOT being talked about."

Only Robin Cook had that paralysing effect on the Tory machine up to now, and we do actually need Jeremy Corbyn or someone like him if we are to avoid becoming a One-Party State.

You have hit the nail the head OW, the reason the right wing Tory controlled media has never been off Jermy Corbyn back is because they want a PERMANANT Tory gov't who will give them tax breaks and put into law tax LOOPHOLES so the people who do not want to pay there fair share of tax can hide there millions in other countries.