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?

marcolucco wrote:Penderyn, for the record I detest the Murdoch press. I admire the points you make - apart from telling me I'm sozzled -
and you are absolutely right about people believing all they read. It happens with people here too.  I wish you all the best.

If some of the Labour MPs try to get rid of JC there would be trouble marco, I will not vote for any Labour MP for leader because we will get a Labour leader then get Tory policies people are SICK & TIRED of Austerity for the few while those that caused the problem get huge salaries & bonuses while the rest of us have had pay freezes or the huge amount of 1% in pay rises ( EXCEPT MPs) who got 11% pay rise which tells me its one law for us and another for the Elite of the UK.

Also since JC became leader of the Labour party people can see the difference between the parties that is why so many people have came back to the Labour party, in my opinion if we change leader for a Tory Lite one WE WILL lose the 2020 general election. IS THAT WHAT THE UK WANT or maybe it is what YOU WANT ??

Well said, Redflag. When future historians come to write about the Labour Party between 1997 and 2015, I think they might draw comparisons with the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire.

marcolucco wrote:Penderyn, for the record I detest the Murdoch press. I admire the points you make - apart from telling me I'm sozzled -
and you are absolutely right about people believing all they read. It happens with people here too.  I wish you all the best.

Nadolig Llawen/Merry Christmas

oftenwrong wrote:Well said, Redflag.  When future historians come to write about the Labour Party between 1997 and 2015, I think they might draw comparisons with the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire.

That is the reason that the right wing media have never been off JC back from the hour his win was annonced, they know if he gets into power as our next PM they will not have so much to stuff in there off shore accounts while our public services including OUR NHS goes to the private sector which includes lots of Tory donors the rest will go to to the USA and there TTIP agreement between the EU & USA and the UK will end up as a little USA.

".... the UK will end up as a little USA."

I think that situation began and was completed well in the past, Redflag, but it's not just us that have been colonised and pacified by American influences; Coca-Cola/Kelloggs/Ford/McDonalds/Starbucks/Microsoft/Google/Hollywood, where does it end?

In the recent distressing pictures we have seen of refugees, the unifying image is of clothing bearing American-English writing on it.  The "special relationship" means that we eagerly buy whatever the USA is selling.

Though individually, of course, Americans can be charming, warm and generous.  Just don't mess with the Capitalist ethic.

I agree OW more so with the last line of your post, most of those American companies you mention in your post most of them are not paying there share of tax to the UK treasury.

those American companies you mention in your post most of them are not paying there share of tax to the UK treasury.

....apparently they have 'special arrangements' with UK tax authorities that allows them to pay nominal amounts that are nowhere near the sums they should be paying. They are omitted from following the tax rules most of us have to adhere to, and are allowed to haggle, make token offers, and generally flout any rules governing the collection of the taxes they owe.

I think its time that those that pay via PAYE should be looking for ways & means to do the same as the American companies sickchip.

I don't think the Banks, or big business in general, seem very keen on the idea of a Corbyn government. Whatever could be the reason?

That OW is the easiest question to answer, they know that Jermy Corbyn & the Labour party will not allow them to get away with not paying there correct amount of TAX, which will effect there HUGE profits and since they have come to expect since the Tories came into power in 2010.

In fairness to the tories, they totally represent their paymasters, who have got richer and richer. The sad thing is the mugs who voted against and SNP government in England and Mr Milleband's teeth; the hope that a real Labour Party will help these mugs consult their own interest.

The "mugs" you refer to represent about 70% of the British electorate, Penderyn. Should we not accept the will of the majority then?

oftenwrong wrote:The "mugs" you refer to represent about 70% of the British electorate, Penderyn.  Should we not accept the will of the majority then?

Will of Mr Murdoch. No - we have to convert the mugs back to democracy - though I am damned if I can see where your 70% comes from. About the same proportion of British support the Cameron regime as of Syrians support the Assad one.

I suspect he’s talking about the 69.6% of voters who didn’t vote Labour in May – or the 80% of those who were entitled to vote.

This is why I think the right-wingers, Blairites, ‘moderates’ (or whatever you want to call them) are quite wrong in thinking that a victory is likely to be achieved by persuading about 4% of Tory voters in the marginals to switch to a Tory-lite Labour Party. Why would such people choose a pale imitation when they can continue with the real McCoy? There’s a much bigger pool to be dipped into of non-voters (34% of the electorate), not to mention disillusioned souls who felt that Labour had abandoned its roots and protested in May by voting for UKIP or the Green Party.

I do think that's right - just after the General Election it seemed clear to me that Labour didn't lose by not being 'central' enough, but by not being different enough from the Tories - lots of people I spoke to referred to the idea that all political parties are the same - many used this as their reason for not voting at all - those who did vote found difficulty being clear about what Labour stood for - and voted UKIP or Tory because you could see clearly what those parties believed in - I guess if you're on a journey you want the driver to have a map - even if you don't think you'll like where he takes you.

Some clear messages are now starting to emerge about what the party believes in - if we could just get the in-house detractors to shut up

IVAN & BOATLADY I agree with both of you when I was going around doing my door stepping I heard the same phase TOO OFTEN why should I vote Labour when all the UK will get is Tory Lite policies. If these so called anti-corbyn do not wake up soon there will be NO LABOUR party JC election and the size of the vote proves that, if they make a move on JC to oust him they will also OUST thousands of Labour members and the FBU would have just come back to Labour after 20 years absense.

Those Re-shuffle Decisions

( independent)
" In those days when I opposed the leadership, I called it 'principled', but now I've decided such action is definitely 'disloyal'..."        

The flaw in that argument is that Corbyn wasn't in either a Labour government or a shadow cabinet when he was being 'disloyal' to the party leadership. He would also no doubt argue that he was being 'loyal' to Labour principles and Labour policies passed at party conferences.

I'm sure Corbyn would be portrayed by the media as 'weak' if he allowed members of his team to criticise him publicly and then did nothing about it.

That's an untypically flimsy argument.

Hypocrisy is unpalatable and is highlighted when it comes - as it does so often - from Tory sources and the same must apply when Labour does it.

If he is not very careful, Corbyn is going to preside over the biggest calamity Labour has seen for many a decade. There is a growing tendency for anyone who dares to question his wisdom to be denounced as being' Blairite'- as if a mark of success is somehow something to be shunned!

The British public deserve better than this dismal apology for opposition politics...

PH You told this forum just before May's general election that would NOT be voting at ALL, who do you want to lead the Labour party you refused to vote for Ed Miliband & you also say Jermy Corbyn is unelectable what the HELL do yoou want ??

This does not just apply to you Labour MPs and the same voters that did not vote for Ed Miliband the ones that are now carping about this nasty Tory party gov,t forgetting they where well warned what would happen if they voted Tory.

I am not sure the Labour Party has anyone in Parliament who looks like a convincing leader at present.

Hilary Benn talks a good game and may be better at avoiding a humiliating pasting by Cameron at each PMQs, but even then I am not convinced.

Indeed, there is no reason why I need to be convinced , since I am not a natural 'traditional Labour' supporter. I would really prefer to see the emergence of a social democratic-style party including the electable rump of the current Labour Party. It would not surprise me if much of the non-Tory-loving public would favour the same. In the absence of such an option many simply go for they mistakenly believe will be the least painful option - those well propaganda-varnished Tories.

But elections over the medium term will show whether the Corbynieri have convinced as many voters as is alleged...

Phil Hornby wrote:Those Re-shuffle Decisions
(Photo)
" In those days when I opposed the leadership, I called it 'principled', but now I've decided such action is definitely 'disloyal'..."        

It can probably be assumed that any regular consumer of "Cutting Edge" has more than just a passing interest in Politics. It could also be assumed that such a person might have rather more than a slight knowledge of the subject - anyway, more than the average bloke in the street.

Which is where I must "come out" and confess that prior to Labour's crushing defeat in last May's election, and the consequent events, I had never heard of Jeremy Corbyn, or if I had come across the name I would have mentally pigeonholed anyone called Jeremy in blue rosette territory. Why do I think this matters a tinker's cuss? It's because anything and everything I (and thousands like me) know about Jeremy Corbyn is what has been conveyed by the British media since his nomination for Leadership of the Labour Party.

What we think we "know" is what the right-wing Press, and Rightist propagandists have been dripping into us like a sophisticated water torture. If Mr Corbyn has consistently rebelled against the Party whip, I only know of that through what his opponents have been assiduous in publicising. His judgment looks sound enough to me, so why all the negative attitudes?

Methinks they do protest too much.

Elections over the medium term will show whether the Corbynieri have convinced as many voters as is alleged...

Phil. The Oldham by-election would have been sold as the voters’ verdict on Corbyn had Labour performed badly. But as Labour did astonishingly well (the incumbent party increasing its share of the vote in a by-election is extremely rare), the media soon lost interest. Opinion polls in London are currently suggesting that Sadiq Khan is 7-10% ahead of Zac Goldsmith, suggesting that the recent chaos in the party is not being reflected there.

If you’re looking for a flimsy argument, try this one: Blair won three elections (for whatever reasons), therefore the only way to ever win again is to be a Blairite, even if Blair is now toxic to most people, and even if it means following the Tories ever further to the right and changing Labour to be whatever people who hate it want it to be. I’m surprised that an intelligent chap like you has swallowed that stale and hackneyed line. As I listed on the ‘barking up the wrong tree’ thread, there is nothing in the last sixty years to suggest that the left, right or centre stance of the Labour leader has been the determining factor in elections. Blair was lucky; he was in the right place at the right time to feed off disarray in the Tory Party. Do you think he would win an election now?

Whether or not someone is ‘electable’ depends on what label they’re wearing and which constituency they’re fighting. Tony Blair could have fought Horsham a dozen times as a Labour candidate, and he wouldn’t have come near to being elected once. Of course the Tories can be as right-wing as they like and it doesn’t matter. They vacated what was then the centre ground when Thatcher became their leader in 1975, but it didn’t stop her winning three elections in a row. Most voters don’t care about this left/right business, it’s about how parties make them feel.

‘Blairite’ is not synonymous with ‘successful’, as you seem to be implying. Blair was hardly successful when he tried to stop Ken Livingstone from becoming London mayor, with the Blairite candidate (Frank Dobson) coming a poor third in the poll. Blairites have just lost two general elections, and many of them – for example, Chuka Umunna, Tristram Hunt and Liz Kendall – weren’t even in Parliament when Blair and Brown were in power. I’m afraid that most of these people are careerists, with little fire in their belly, people prepared to abstain on a welfare cap which will impose further hardship on those who are already struggling. Why? Because it’s easier to pander to prejudices garnered from the Tory tabloids than tackle such issues head-on and attempt to convince the public that such measures are wrong.

Corbyn is not complaining about backbenchers expressing different opinions, his concern was with shadow cabinet ministers criticising both him and party policy in public. Shouldn’t all that be done behind closed doors in shadow cabinet meetings? Do you really think Blair would have kept people in his team if they’d behaved like that? I don’t quite see where the hypocrisy is, except maybe when Corbyn (unlike Cameron) allowed a free vote on Syria and then took exception when some of the shadow cabinet spoke and voted in a different way from him.

There clearly is a wide gulf between Labour MPs and the party membership. We’ve discussed before how it’s happened – a large number of members wanted a change from Tory-lite policies and saw the other candidates as offering more of the same, or as one wag on Twitter put it “three people arguing over their favourite shade of magnolia”. You’ve said “I am not sure the Labour Party has anyone in Parliament who looks like a convincing leader at present” (and the Tories certainly haven’t), and that was probably why so many members voted on policies rather than personalities in the leadership election.

I suppose we could blame poor old Ed Miliband for coming up with a new plan – and a much wider electorate – for choosing Labour leaders, or we can blame the party conference for accepting it. However, the result was such a landslide that it would almost certainly have been the same under the old rules. In my book, the salient points are these:-
1. Labour MPs were elected because they stood on a Labour ticket after being chosen by local Labour members. I doubt if any of them would be in Parliament now if they had stood as independents.
2. Jeremy Corbyn was elected with the largest mandate any party leader in this country has ever received.
3. If you’re a Labour MP, you should accept Labour Party democracy, fall into line behind the elected leader and end the public displays of disunity which have created the current shambles. If you can’t do that, you should resign, not just from the party, but from Parliament, and stand in a by-election under a different label.

Thanks to the Tories and their fixed-term parliaments, we only get the chance to express our opinion on the government once in every five years. I still find it baffling that someone who detests the Tories and what they’re doing to this country could forego that rare opportunity to vote against them, but that’s your prerogative. You say that you’d like a social democratic party in this country, and I would suggest that Labour under Ed Miliband was in that place, but clearly it was not to your liking. And it wasn’t to the liking of all those Labour members who don’t want their party to keep following the Tories further and further to the right.

I don't regard myself as intelligent in the way some people genuinely are : I rely far more on instinct than the impressive array of researched facts, historical precedents and learned hypotheses that some produce.

Neither am I an especial fan of Blair the man per se -what I am taken with is the ability he generated to find a winning formula to outflank the Tories. To say that anyone could have defeated a sleaze-ridden Tory Party in 1997 is too easy - one might well assert that this Tory Party was also ripe for defeat with all the despicable practices it has visited upon much of the electorate, but it didn't happen - twice!

Some political grouping has to construct a compelling case and formula to oust the Tories. This might even, in these Tory-dominated times, initially require a bit of supping with the devil ( as Blair did) , some inventive packaging, a touch of seeking coalition with other Tory-hating parties and an effective propaganda offensive along with some key attractive promises to woo the masses. Those masses, incidentally, have a track record of not being particularly fond of left-wing socialism, abandoning nuclear weapons at a stroke and moving too far from what many consider as traditional British values.

Once the door has been opened by such a skilfully-designed ( some may say craftily-constructed)package, there is scope for gradually educating the public into the benefits of sensible socialist policies.

But it seems to me - and my much-maligned and flawed instincts - that, for example , nobody will convince the British public to buy a spread for their morning toast if the product is starkly and unashamedly presented as uninspiring margarine rather than a product more closely-aligned to smooth and appetising butter...

Jeremy Corbyn was elected with the largest mandate any party leader in this country has ever received.

'nuff said

 ©youknowyourmeme.com

" 'nuff said"

In which case, resounding success for Labour at the Polls can but be a heartbeat away...

Phil Hornby wrote:Some political grouping has to construct a compelling case and formula to oust the Tories. This might even, in these Tory-dominated times, initially require a bit of supping with the devil ( as Blair did) , some inventive packaging, a touch of seeking coalition with other Tory-hating parties and an effective propaganda offensive along with some key attractive promises to woo the masses.......Once the door has been opened by such a skilfully-designed (some may say craftily-constructed) package, there is scope for gradually educating the public into the benefits of sensible socialist policies.

But it seems to me - and my much-maligned and flawed instincts - that, for example , nobody will convince the British public to buy a spread for their morning toast if the product is starkly and unashamedly presented as uninspiring margarine rather than a product more closely-aligned to smooth and appetising butter...

The British people have the habit of reading newspapers owned by rich right-wing extremists, and you can't educate anyone if, like Blair, you know nothing.

oftenwrong wrote:
It can probably be assumed that any regular consumer of "Cutting Edge" has more than just a passing interest in Politics.  It could also be assumed that such a person might have rather more than a slight knowledge of the subject - anyway, more than the average bloke in the street.

Which is where I must "come out" and confess that prior to Labour's crushing defeat in last May's election, and the consequent events, I had never heard of Jeremy Corbyn, or if I had come across the name I would have mentally pigeonholed anyone called Jeremy in blue rosette territory.  Why do I think this matters a tinker's cuss?  It's because anything and everything I (and thousands like me) know about Jeremy Corbyn is what has been conveyed by the British media since his nomination for Leadership of the Labour Party.

OW I had heard about Jeremy Corbyn before he became Labour Leader, he used to sit at the far corner (above where the SNP sit now) and could be very out spoken specially when the Tories came into power he would be the one Labour MP that would vote against the Tory & coalition cuts while other Labour MPs went through the yes lobby with the Tories.

The reason I know this is I watched the debates of the HOC on the parliament channel trying to find out how politics worked, knowing SFA about politics, I now know more that what I did so if people had watched the parliament channel they would have known who JC was.

Penderyn wrote:The British people have the habit of reading newspapers owned by rich right-wing extremists, and you can't educate anyone if, like Blair, you know nothing.

Penderyn I agree if you read my post to OW you will see how I learned about politics, when the Tories came into power in 2010 I knew Nothing at all so I joined the Labour party attended my local CLP with a blank mind but soon learned through listening and watching the Parliament channel.

I seem to recall that our forum sage has already said something similar to this?  

Corbyn Unelectable? Don’t Believe A Word Of It – The Tories Clearly Don’t

From an article by Bernie Evans:-

We are still being told by the Tory-dominated media, and by ‘The Guardian’ and ‘The Observer’ too, that a Labour Party going into the 2020 election with Corbyn as its leader is unelectable. Huge exaggerations are inevitably included: differences in opinion among Labour MPs will be inflated to “civil war” status, perfectly normal shadow cabinet changes become “revenge reshuffles”, a need for more unity suddenly leads to a “one-party state”.

If Corbyn is really so unelectable, why do Murdoch’s minions and the rest go to all this trouble? And, perhaps more significantly, why do Cameron and his cronies adopt a similar approach?

If the election in 2020 is going to be such an easy landslide victory for the Tories, why are they hell-bent on changing electoral rules to benefit themselves? Is there really any need to go to so much trouble to reduce the number of non-Tory supporters eligible to vote, by rushing through individual electoral registration? Indeed, there can be no need to change constituency boundaries in their favour when they face no real opposition, or to cut ‘Short money’ going to opposition parties.

Of course, Corbyn is electable and the Tories know it; his policies alone set him apart, as a politician who cares about the well-being of people, and the need for fairness in society, with all paying their fair share; and his character and personality make Corbyn different from the usual stock of fantastically rich, Eton/Winchester-educated, uncaring Bullingdon bullies imposing unnecessary austerity on those least able to defend themselves.

For the whole article:-
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-489e-Corbyn-unelectable-Dont-believe-a-word-of-it-the-Tories-clearly-dont

IVAN I do not believe that JC is unelectable but agree the Tories are WETTING themselves in case he gets into power, because they know the first people he will hit with tax rises will be Tory donors and people like Davy boy and Osborne not forgetting the banks & hedge funds.

The right wing press & media started on JC the minute the announcement was made of his win of Leader of the Labour party with nearly 60% of the Labour membership voting for him and it was not just the £3.00 members 85% of Labour party membership voted for JC, I am sorry to say I was not one of them but there is nothing you can do about spilt milk but defend his right to be leader of the Labour party.

The surprise is how many MPs elected on a "Labour" ticket are still living in the belief that Tony Blair was the Messiah, rather than epitomising Meet the new boss, same as the old Tory boss.

IVAN Its not just Dan Jarvis that is disappointing the Labour membership, look at the Labour MPs who went back to the back benches when JC won the leadership election, they should have got behind JC knowing we had another 5 years of Tory nastiness.

So what exactly does Jeremy Corbyn stand for?

• Ending austerity
• Protecting workers' rights
• Blocking welfare cuts
• Scrapping tuition fees
• Creating a National Education Service (like the NHS for healthcare)
• Ensuring the NHS is completely publicly run
• Renationalising railways
• Introducing rent controls in unaffordable areas
• Abolishing Trident
• Withdrawing from NATO
• Investing more in the arts

I'd need convincing that withdrawing from NATO is a good idea, and I don't see investing more in the arts as a priority when we now have more than a million visits to foodbanks a year. However, I support all the other policies on that list, and many of them were accepted by the Tories until Thatcher became their leader. It just shows how far the so-called 'centre ground' has shifted to the right in the past forty years, and how a swing back to the left is well overdue.

"Since the 1980s, one has only had to stand still to become a radical.” (Alan Bennett)

On the other hand, investing more in the arts will create employment if done in the right way - investing in local artistic endeavour (repertory theatre, community arts projects etc) , rather than the West End, opera, ballet and buying the work of established artists for prestige displays.

Local investment in the arts tends to improve environments, raise aspirations and foster community spirit - all good stuff, if managed correctly.

Just saying

Sorry boatlady cannot agree with your post reason is what the Tories are investing will only benefit those that can afford a seat at the balet or to be able to buy the art.

However, we were talking about Jeremy Corbyn's proposal to invest in the arts - I wonder if he was thinking along the lines I have discussed? if so, it might be a jolly good thing - subsidies for regional theatre and the like, large community art projects (murals, poetry readings, local orchestras, good stuff like that ) - I'd love to have that kind of stuff going on in my town, and it would provide employment for lots of people of all ages and varied skills, and increase civic pride, give young people something to be proud of, and bring together all generations.

... and perhaps make sure that the London Theatre Owners consortium actually use their fabric of the building ticket-levy to modernise their property for the benefit of patrons.

Ivan wrote:I'd need convincing that withdrawing from NATO is a good idea, and I don't see investing more in the arts as a priority when we now have more than a million visits to foodbanks a year. However, I support all the other policies on that list, and many of them were accepted by the Tories until Thatcher became their leader. It just shows how far the so-called 'centre ground' has shifted to the right in the past forty years, and how a swing back to the left is well overdue.

"Since the 1980s, one has only had to stand still to become a radical.” (Alan Bennett)

How exactly do you see any of us benefiting from NATO?