|
Post by jamo on Aug 13, 2015 20:35:12 GMT 1
I wouldn't put it past them, but that would be the end of the Labour Party for far longer than if Corbyn won. I agree Nick, hence my comment about it being massively counter productive. The best chance they have to defeat Corbyn is to engage with him and his supporters on the hustings and point to a counter argument but for some reasonthey seem paralysed by fear.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Aug 13, 2015 20:35:52 GMT 1
I wouldn't put it past them, but that would be the end of the Labour Party for far longer than if Corbyn won. My point would be that I don't see the Labour Party as anymore electable if any of the other three candidates won. The usefulness of the Labour Party for people of the left is that it has a national infrastructure. Other than that it is a mess. The suspension of the process would be solidified by restarting the process from the beginning: Corbyn would not be nominated.
|
|
|
Post by thesensationaljt on Aug 13, 2015 20:38:02 GMT 1
I shall be casting my UNITE (Not For Profit and Voluntary Section - Faith Workers Branch) vote for Jeremy as soon as I have my ballot paper. :-)
In other words, you'll be "Keeping The Dream Alive", then Mike. Although it's a bit of a nightmare at the moment.
These Polly Tichens do make me loff. Because they're not winning, some of them want the election suspended!
I hadn't thought of that. We could have suspended the Millwall match, then when it was played again, we might win! Sounds fair to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 20:47:42 GMT 1
I wouldn't put it past them, but that would be the end of the Labour Party for far longer than if Corbyn won. My point would be that I don't see the Labour Party as anymore electable if any of the other three candidates won. The usefulness of the Labour Party for people of the left is that it has a national infrastructure. Exactly, the grass roots broad left would find, or form, an alternative. The the party's democratic process would have zero credibility within that faction.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Aug 13, 2015 21:02:59 GMT 1
Rather than spend all their time saying how bad Corbyn will be for Labour I would like to know quite what it is New Labour and the Blairites think their new policies should be and why they are needed
Corbyn has been brave enough to state his policies for members to judge but I'm honestly not clear what the other candidates propose to do if they win
|
|
|
Post by blazey on Aug 13, 2015 23:06:49 GMT 1
If only the Blairites had spent as half as much energy in the last five years attacking Cameron and his bunch of spivs as they have Corbyn over the last week, how different the election result in May could have been.
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 13, 2015 23:46:31 GMT 1
Rather than spend all their time saying how bad Corbyn will be for Labour I would like to know quite what it is New Labour and the Blairites think their new policies should be and why they are needed Corbyn has been brave enough to state his policies for members to judge but I'm honestly not clear what the other candidates propose to do if they win Yvette Cooper told you today, mattmw. "Change the World!" Oh yes... and churn out more fatuous soundbites.
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 14, 2015 0:12:13 GMT 1
Blair is the most reviled ex Prime Minister ever, and as he struts around the world hoovering up more money and houses for his personal wealth, he seems totally unaware of how hated he is.]s. Whatever the merits of the rest of your post, this nugget is quite clearly absurd. Which part of this nugget is quite clearly absurd. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/10551183/Tony-Blairs-fortune-boosted-13m-by-bumper-year.htmlwww.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33849764news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/tony-blair-the-man-brits-love-to-hate-partly-because-he-wont-shut-upAnd if we think that every bit of business that he does with some of the kind of people he does business with is accounted for... we are all clearly absurd. Perhaps I should have said that he is the most reviled Prime Minister since 1945; Chamberlain is probably more reviled, although whether that is fully deserved I am not sure... and before that, I don't know, I wasn't there. But apart from that one omission, please tell me, Matron, not which part of "that nugget" you disagree with, for that is your personal choice, but which part is "clearly absurd"?
|
|
|
Post by Bilbo on Aug 14, 2015 1:14:42 GMT 1
Jeremy Corbyn is probably the best thing to happen to the Labour Party. It's proven in Scotland that Socialist supporters are fed up with centre ground politics. Tony Blair was a scurge in my opinion of the labour party and caused my eventual resignation from them. Corbyn will restore Labour to their ideology of true left wing and give the public a chance to vote from the crappy centre right/cntre left scenario. Don't let the press influence you and support true socialism rather than the current "We are slightly left of being a Tory" Party.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Aug 14, 2015 6:59:20 GMT 1
Whatever the merits of the rest of your post, this nugget is quite clearly absurd. Perhaps I should have said that he is the most reviled Prime Minister since 1945; Chamberlain is probably more reviled, although whether that is fully deserved I am not sure... and before that, I don't know, I wasn't there. But apart from that one omission, please tell me, Matron, not which part of "that nugget" you disagree with, for that is your personal choice, but which part is "clearly absurd"? It's all a bit subjective though isn't it ? I too thought that particular comment absurd given that within living memory we have had Margaret Hilda Thatcher as our Prime Minister.
|
|
|
Post by percy on Aug 14, 2015 7:01:49 GMT 1
How are people defining credible? Credible from the frame of reference of the press and the Blairite faction? Or the millions of voters who may support his Social Democratic stance? Credible like George Osborne, of course. The problem with Labour is they're addicted to borrowing - so George proved how credible he is by borrowing more than every Labour government in history put together, then slagging off Labour for being 'addicted to debt'. Then of course he had that plan to protect our AAA rating, then lost it and said it didn't matter, it just proved how serious things were and how awful it would be if Labour were allowed back in. But at least he delivered on his central pledge of eliminating the deficit within five years which proved he had a 'strong, long-term economic plan' ...no, come to think of it he failed at that too! Lesson being it's easy to be 'credible' when the media lets you move the goalposts around without saying a dickie bird because they support your bulls**t! Exactly my point - credible is a perception. If the labour party continue to slag off the last labour government; the Tories don't need to because we destroy its credibility ourselves. To have been a voter for the last labour government before that you need to have been born in 1958 or prior.
|
|
|
Post by percy on Aug 14, 2015 7:04:51 GMT 1
So you preferred Maggie Thatcher to Tony Blair ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 8:47:32 GMT 1
So credibility is based around economic competence as opposed to social equality and conscious.
|
|
oranjemob
Midland League Division One
Posts: 486
|
Post by oranjemob on Aug 14, 2015 9:13:08 GMT 1
Jeremy Corbyn is probably the best thing to happen to the Labour Party. It's proven in Scotland that Socialist supporters are fed up with centre ground politics. Tony Blair was a scurge in my opinion of the labour party and caused my eventual resignation from them. Corbyn will restore Labour to their ideology of true left wing and give the public a chance to vote from the cr@ppy centre right/cntre left scenario. Don't let the press influence you and support true socialism rather than the current "We are slightly left of being a Tory" Party. Well that exactly sums up my position. Back after many years and not stupid, naive, a Tory or a Trot but somome who believes there might just be a glimmer of hope
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Aug 14, 2015 9:21:23 GMT 1
Welcome back Oranjemob,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 9:35:00 GMT 1
Whatever the merits of the rest of your post, this nugget is quite clearly absurd. Which part of this nugget is quite clearly absurd. well you quote chamberlain for a start! And as has been pointed out to you, ill go with thatcher to, but then, maybe she was more your cup of tea?
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 14, 2015 9:58:39 GMT 1
Perhaps I should have said that he is the most reviled Prime Minister since 1945; Chamberlain is probably more reviled, although whether that is fully deserved I am not sure... and before that, I don't know, I wasn't there. But apart from that one omission, please tell me, Matron, not which part of "that nugget" you disagree with, for that is your personal choice, but which part is "clearly absurd"? It's all a bit subjective though isn't it ? I too thought that particular comment absurd given that within living memory we have had Margaret Hilda Thatcher as our Prime Minister. But Jamo, I think you will find that Margaret Hilda Batty is still deeply loved by many, many, if not by most Tories and advocates of right wing politics. Not by you... and certainly not by me. However her funeral and the rush of those who, with the odd caveat or two, were virtually elevating her to Sainthood, shows that in death as in life, she was hugely divisive, but held by many as one of our greatest leaders. Regarding Blair as being reviled, it is hardly just my view, but the view of most modern historians, even those who champion him. You may disagree with me, and them, but for something to be "absurd" it must be clearly wrong, it must be the absolute opposite of the truth, it cannot be even considered. Well the opposite of widely reviled is widely loved and respected. So if you really think that I was absurd in saying he was reviled, you must believe that he is in fact widely loved and respected. Now I know that there are some people, including on this board who do still respect him, perhaps including yourself... and that is indeed a subjective thing... and so you may disagree with me for personally disliking him so... but my claim that he is the most reviled Prime Minister in (modern) times, is the view of historians, looking at it objectively. You may think that it is absurd that he is, you may think he doesn't deserve to be... but surely not the fact that he is... and that is what I stated. If I had said "Tony Blair is one of the most loved and respected ex Prime-Ministers, both in the Country and amongst Labour members", wouldn't you have said that was an absurd thing to say, but it's surely not absurd to state a widely accepted fact.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 10:13:02 GMT 1
So credibility is based around economic competence as opposed to social equality and conscious. No, its based upon communication. In this case, actually getting the message through that we don't need to lurch to the left or right. What we where doing under Mr Blair / Brown was ok. The problems wherent caused by economic incompetence, but by financial greed and recklessness by the very people who are being let of scot free now and still getting multi million pound bonuses whilst doctors, nurses, policemen and firemen are being made to pay the price. The Gulf war was wrong, i know that now, it me a while, but i finally got it. But the overwhelming legacy in my opinion of the Blair / Brown years is a positive one. A positive one that has slowly but surely, been very cleverly demonised by the media and the conservative party and people have fallen for it left right and centre. The centrist policies of Tony Blair, including the biggest system of wealth redistribution in our history (tax credits, take the taxes and give it to those on low incomes), gave us the longest period of labour government ever. That message quite simply, has not been communicated to the masses. We allow tales of waste and fraud to dominate the narrative instead. We allow the tories and the tory press to set the agenda with tales of families with 12 kids, 20 dads, 30000 housing benefit blah blah blah. Exceptions, not the rule. We don't here from the millions who have a decent standard of living on s**t wages because of it. That is why we are having this conversation. There would be no tory government if the people had been told the truth, if labour had had the balls (no pun) to stick up for its real legacy, stand by what it did for the people and the country. And now we are stuck in a situation where the only real answer seems to be a return to the 70s. Unfortunately JC is the only candidate who doesn't make me want to wretch. The others are like manikin dolls in a shop window, all basically the same, dressed a little differently, but all selling the same line. There isn't a fresh idea amongst them. They all talk but say nothing. JC will not get labour into power. He will give us a decade of great principles and good old fashioned socialist ideals.........in opposition. A labour government needs to have the middle classes on board. The whole working class thing doesn't work anymore. The working class that gave power to labour in decades gone by doesn't exist anymore. Todays working man, has a decent car or two, a holiday abroad, kids in uni, sky telly, and he aint going to give any of it up to help his fellow man climb the ladder. So, you have to get the support of the middle classes to, and so talk of JC reconnecting with the "core vote" is nonsense, it doesn't exist anymore and no amount of posturing will ever change.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 10:20:43 GMT 1
It's all a bit subjective though isn't it ? I too thought that particular comment absurd given that within living memory we have had Margaret Hilda Thatcher as our Prime Minister. But Jamo, I think you will find that Margaret Hilda Batty is still deeply loved by many, many, if not by most Tories and advocates of right wing politics. Not by you... and certainly not by me. However her funeral and the rush of those who, with the odd caveat or two, were virtually elevating her to Sainthood, shows that in death as in life, she was hugely divisive 25 years after she left office, peoples memories fade, history gets rewritten. people don't remember the bitterness and hatred, many of those whose lives and communities she destroyed are dead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 10:43:43 GMT 1
So credibility is based around economic competence as opposed to social equality and conscious. No, its based upon communication. In this case, actually getting the message through that we don't need to lurch to the left or right. What we where doing under Mr Blair / Brown was ok. The problems wherent caused by economic incompetence, but by financial greed and recklessness by the very people who are being let of scot free now and still getting multi million pound bonuses whilst doctors, nurses, policemen and firemen are being made to pay the price. The Gulf war was wrong, i know that now, it me a while, but i finally got it. But the overwhelming legacy in my opinion of the Blair / Brown years is a positive one. A positive one that has slowly but surely, been very cleverly demonised by the media and the conservative party and people have fallen for it left right and centre. The centrist policies of Tony Blair, including the biggest system of wealth redistribution in our history (tax credits, take the taxes and give it to those on low incomes), gave us the longest period of labour government ever. That message quite simply, has not been communicated to the masses. We allow tales of waste and fraud to dominate the narrative instead. We allow the tories and the tory press to set the agenda with tales of families with 12 kids, 20 dads, 30000 housing benefit blah blah blah. Exceptions, not the rule. We don't here from the millions who have a decent standard of living on s**t wages because of it. That is why we are having this conversation. There would be no tory government if the people had been told the truth, if labour had had the balls (no pun) to stick up for its real legacy, stand by what it did for the people and the country. And now we are stuck in a situation where the only real answer seems to be a return to the 70s. Unfortunately JC is the only candidate who doesn't make me want to wretch. The others are like manikin dolls in a shop window, all basically the same, dressed a little differently, but all selling the same line. There isn't a fresh idea amongst them. They all talk but say nothing. JC will not get labour into power. He will give us a decade of great principles and good old fashioned socialist ideals.........in opposition. A labour government needs to have the middle classes on board. The whole working class thing doesn't work anymore. The working class that gave power to labour in decades gone by doesn't exist anymore. Todays working man, has a decent car or two, a holiday abroad, kids in uni, sky telly, and he aint going to give any of it up to help his fellow man climb the ladder. So, you have to get the support of the middle classes to, and so talk of JC reconnecting with the "core vote" is nonsense, it doesn't exist anymore and no amount of posturing will ever change. It was a lack of regulation that allowed people to get greedy in the first please. Where I live working people don't have two cars and my 63 plate is the 'newest' by a margin. The only people who have gone on foreign holidays are the retired couple across the road. All the kids in my street have gone straight into vocational apprenticeships, the army, building sites or, unfortunately , crime. Only one has gone onto FE with a view to getting work after her course. The majority of the young people I work with have actually followed their parents into jobs, or industries, that their parents did. Your post sums up everything that is wrong with the modern Labour Party, to say that working class people don't exist ignores a large part of the electorate. Quiet frankly the Labour Party deserves everything it gets. Also Corbyn is a Social Democrat and not a Socialist.
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 14, 2015 10:45:08 GMT 1
Which part of this nugget is quite clearly absurd. well you quote chamberlain for a start! And as has been pointed out to you, ill go with thatcher to, but then, maybe she was more your cup of tea? That was a daft thing to say Matron and beneath you. You know very well from all that I have written on politics, that I am a staunch socialist and detested all that Thatcher stood for. But I never voted for her and so feel no collective guilt for what she did. Blair I did vote for, although not again after Iraq. And I will never forget the wall of noise when the marchers from the north met the marchers from the south, when we converged at Piccadilly circus. My post was in reply to the OP's topic of whether Blair's intervention over Jeremy Corbyn is counter-productive, and my view was that it is, because he is the most widely reviled ex PM of modern times. It was not a personal view as to which ex PM I dislike the most or who deserves to be disliked the most. It was stating a widely held academic fact. And as I said to Jamo, if I had said it is a great idea for Blair to speak out so strongly against Corbyn because he is such a deeply loved and respected exPM, surely that would have been absurd. I know that some Labour supporters do still hold Blair in esteem, feeling he made the party more a party of the center and that was what was needed. I accept their views. I personally don't. I feel he is no longer a socialist at all. And when I saw him being given the task of Middle East Peace Envoy, for me his stock went down further. He should have declined. How could the people of Gaza see him as being even handed, this architect of the invasion of Iraq, on a stipendiary of $3 million dollars from two Jewish banks! But he is Tony Blair.... surely everybody sees what a straight up guy he is. And regarding Chamberlain, I don't know enough about him. I think he was a naive man, out of his depth, who genuinely wanted to prevent us from War and all of the horrors that live and die within that beast. Whether you should be reviled for that, I don't know, although of course I do understand that the cost to others in Europe for that attempted deal was less than noble. But as I said, I don't know enough about him. There is an occasional excellent historian who posts on this board, who may be able to give his views. But at least he was trying to prevent War, unlike Blair and Thatcher who appeared to want it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 10:54:29 GMT 1
I thought it was well known that Blair and Thatcher had a mutual respect based around policies. Back in the 90s my late father used called call Blair son of Thatcher. This was before '97.
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 14, 2015 10:58:58 GMT 1
But Jamo, I think you will find that Margaret Hilda Batty is still deeply loved by many, many, if not by most Tories and advocates of right wing politics. Not by you... and certainly not by me. However her funeral and the rush of those who, with the odd caveat or two, were virtually elevating her to Sainthood, shows that in death as in life, she was hugely divisive 25 years after she left office, peoples memories fade, history gets rewritten. people don't remember the bitterness and hatred, many of those whose lives and communities she destroyed are dead. Sadly Matron, after 25 years, there are still many who hold exactly the same view about Thatcher as they did then. They still see her as their flagbearer. They still see the miners and working people as "the enemy within"; they still love her for selling council houses... but forbidding councils to replace them; still love her for selling shares in water, electricity and gas and for making money a God. They still love her for Thatcherism. But yes, history has been kind to her, but with a mostly Tory Press, what else would you expect. And no, we seldom remember the communities she destroyed, because the media don't want us to. Boudicca in a headscarf atop a tank is how they want us to remember her.
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 14, 2015 11:02:53 GMT 1
I thought it was well known that Blair and Thatcher had a mutual respect based around policies. Back in the 90s my late father used called call Blair son of Thatcher. This was before '97. Certainly Blair has praised Thatcher on several occasions.
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 14, 2015 11:10:57 GMT 1
Perhaps the Labour Party should put their money where there mouth is and commission a poll. Not just for Labour members but for the general public.
Either:
If Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the Labour party, would you be more likely or less likely to vote Labour.
Or...
Which of the 4 candidates would make you more likely to vote Labour if they became Labour Leader.
The results, if they concurred with the Labour Hierarchy's views, may persuade Jezza to withdraw, if it was clear he would be a disaster for the party, leaving the other three luminaries to slug it out.
After all, Yvette Cooper is going to "change the World".
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Aug 14, 2015 12:31:12 GMT 1
If only the Blairites had spent as half as much energy in the last five years attacking Cameron and his bunch of spivs as they have Corbyn over the last week, how different the election result in May could have been. This to shows why Labour lose so many elections. Lots of non Labour supporters don't like the tactics Labour regularly use in attacking their opponents rather that trying to get elected on their policies. You have to be slightly cleverly in the way you put your opponents down. Let's face it the Conservative Party won the last election by saying a vote for anyone else in England was a vote for the SNP running the country. They didn't outwardly attack the Labour Party.
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Aug 14, 2015 13:30:57 GMT 1
Can someone remind this lot that the Nags Beer garden is still open, despite adverse weather conditions, and that they can continue clinking glasses with each other and reliving their marxist, largely drug addled adolescent years there and not here.
I genuinely believe 90% of the people who have so far voted for Corbyn with honorable intentions are well known to this board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 13:37:30 GMT 1
Can someone remind this lot that the Nags Beer garden is still open, despite adverse weather conditions, and that they can continue clinking glasses with each other and reliving their marxist, largely drug addled adolescent years there and not here. I genuinely believe 90% of the people who have so far voted for Corbyn with honorable intentions are well known to this board. Has anyone voted for corbyn yet? The ballot papers only went out today?
|
|
|
Post by shrewder on Aug 14, 2015 13:54:07 GMT 1
A non of the above box is beginning to look an attractive option to have on ballot papers at the next election.
|
|
|
Post by jiayou salop on Aug 14, 2015 15:10:39 GMT 1
Corbyn will attract voters as he will give Labour an Identity and focus which they have been lacking since the 'New Labour' movement.
Many people like me couldn't bring themselves to vote labour we didn't understand who the party were and Labour were unwilling to tell us. I emailed Labour during the election regarding spousal visa regulations , whilst I know this isn't a vote winning issue the response angered me and put me off voting Labour entirely :
This nameless response ignored by issue entirely and instead patronizingly assumed it could win my vote with pointless rhetoric. This encapsulated what was wrong with Miliband Labour. I would prefer someone who is less left than Corbyn, but as thing stand he is the only candidate which seems to understand that Labour needs to be more than rhetoric churning machine.
|
|