5 Live Husting…
I was warming to Burnham again until he described his abstention in the Welfare Bill vote as “a form of protest”.
Weasel words, Andy.
3 Likes
The only things those hustings did for me was make me more entrenched in my support of Corbyn. They talk about credibility, yet have nothing to offer save vague words about what this country needs, most of which Corbyn has outlined in detail.
1 Like
I also noticed that the other three were echoing Furball’s position that what the country needs is a vibrant, exciting and visionary alternative to vote for.
But I also noticed that none of them described what that vibrant, exciting and visionary alternative might be.
It made me think that the spin doctors and pollsters had told them each that what is needed is a vibrant, exciting and visionary alternative, but that they could stand on that platform without first having to work out what that vibrant, exciting and visionary thing was.
I think the problem is that they’ve completely underestimated both Corbyn and the strength lent to him by others. Not only has he come tearing out of the blocks with popular support, his policy proposals are actually published.
1 Like
I can’t speak for the not-Corbyns because I’m not a voter for them. In any case, I thought I HAD said what the basis for a radical alternative was. That’s why I repeat-posted the link to my colleague’s estimate of cororate welfare (£93 billion pa).
Without boring people to death, the point is this. £93 billion is an awful lot of leverage - leverage which at the moment is simply not exercised, whether it’s flogging off state assets at a pittance (banking shares - or even the small but telling example of West Ham’s stadium), or doling out billions to incompetent (eg G4S) state-dependant ‘privatisers’.
This leverage could have many aspects. It includes fixing the maximum ratio between the highest and lowest paid employee (including directors) of any bidding contractor; employing ‘living wage’ criteria rather than minimum wages; precluding contracts on worse terms to employees; liabilities for cost overruns to be borne entirely by the contractor or face penalties including exclusion from bidding; union recognition; transparency in the bidding process itself; and so on.
This is one tool available of quite a few. It’s actually quite an old idea in the philosophical sense: the idea of the benevolent state, working in tandem with (not subsumed under) the private sector. This was around in the 1930s and is neatly expressed in this classic film:
Another aspect is the recognition of public sector innovation: the idea, in essence, that your iPhone wouldn’t work were it not for public sector - and public sector only - investment in longer-term technological advances (graphene, which will change the world, is only the latest example - this was developed at Manchester University). There is an echo here of Wildson’s ‘white heat of technology’ - but the simple fact is the Americans have stolen a march on us because they’ve not been shy at all of public sector innovation, even though it’s cloaked in ways to make it acceptable to swivel-eyed Republicans.
So that’s just a couple of things - but there’s absolutely an alternative to the brain-dead traditionalism and sectarianism (as you’re about to see) of the Corbynistas. So while the ‘people’s QE’ unravels in the face of the current market meltdown, we might lift our eyes beyond the simple, simplistic answers of money-printing alone, and ask what truly works in a society in the early 21st century, rather than Corbyn’s fight with Harold Macmillan.
On the separate issue of welfare reform, this needs careful debate, and sadly the trench warfare presently underway militates against any such rational discussion.
By the way, I happen to think that social privilege SHOULD be an issue in this campaign. Three of the four candidates standing are Oxbridge-educated. That’s too elitist.
Corbyn isn’t Oxbridge, but was brought up in a 7-bedroom manor house on an aristocrat’s estate, and has done nothing all his life but represent the ludicrously privileged and entitled People’s Republic of Islington. If he’s supposed to be a token of someone who’s not of the white, metropolitan, middle-class elite, then I’m clearly not getting something.
It’s not surprising therefore that the Corbyn, man-of-the-people camapign has not focused on the Labour political class (which includes the richest woman in the Commons, for heaven’s sake, the other Islington-mafiosi Marget Hodge).
There’s a reason why Prescott, regardless of his lack of fit with New Labour, was wheeled out by Blairites during elections - it was because he connected with people (even if a little too forcefully at times). None of the present candidate-elitists - Corbyn included - connect. (Yes, I know Corbyn has filled a few village halls; it doesn’t count - I saw Foot do it much better, much bigger, and look what happened at crunch time).
There is a candidate who would have cleaned up in this leadership election and would have had wide popular support. Alan Johnson. (He’s younger than Corbyn too). My prediction is that by 2020, or well before, he’ll be leading the party.
3 Likes
Furball, about to get on a plane, so haven’t read your stuff in detail. My point however was that the three candidates didn’t say what the big idea was, simply said that we need one to inspire voters.
You very much put your case forward.
Alan Johnson has always hesitated (if I remember right, in the past for ‘family reasons’?). I’ve met him, he definitely has the charisma and the everyman status. I’ve always assumed the reason that held him back from leadership is a reason that will hold him back indefinitely.
Alan Johnson would have walked it, a shame as he would have been a class opposition leader.
1 Like
Indeed, Barry.
Also, This Boy is one of the finest autobiographies I’ve ever read. The guy is pure working class talent.
Women only carriages - what an odd thing for Corbyn to suggest!
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
Women only carriages - what an odd thing for Corbyn to suggest!
Yeah, the Cooper campaign has already gone to town on this. There may actually be demand for it. I guess that’s why it’s under consideration instead of being on his policy page. The other thing to remember, which Cooper’s lot don’t seem to get, is that this isn’t an either-or proposal. The government can make women safer in all kinds of other ways while introducing a pragmatic stop-gap solution for those that want to use it.
If there’s no demand, there’s no issue.
I’ve got mixed feelings about this one.
On the one hand, I can see an argument for women only carriages late at night (the discussion he’s proposing) if it makes women feel safer and cuts down the number of predatory attacks on women on public transport.
On the other hand I think women and men should be treated equally and, in any event, I bet there are a fair few men groped on the underground.
I was groped at a football match but there’s no way I’d support ‘women only’ areas at grounds.
The over-riding message to me is, instead of making women feel at fault for being groped, resources should be directed at the sad inadequate fuckers who feel the need to grope / harrass / assault in the first place.
6 Likes
He’s offering a consultation on women-only carriages rather than announcing it as an official policy, which I think is fair. People seem to be treating it as some farcical loony-lefty policy but if there’s demand for it then fine. I do think it’ll be quite polarising though - I think some may see it as quite patronising.
4 Likes
Indeed, this BBC article shows that the idea about reintroducing women only carriages has been regurgitated quite recently by others (shock horror it’s not a ‘loony left’ idea!) Final two paragraphs
OK, I can understand the reasons behind why it would be mooted but where would you stop?
Black only carriages? Muslim only carriages? LGBT only carriages?
As hoofinruth says the root cause should be tackled…
The root cause complaint is invalid unless you think that this is going to be a Corbyn government’s only contribution to improving the safety of women.
The other problem is that while it is nice to say we should sort out root cause, _should _is as far as it gets.
You would stop at the point where people weren’t at risk travelling on public transport. The stats show a 25% increase in sexual offences on trains and at stations, so something clearly has to be done. A properly funded police force would do, but they’ve already faced 20%+ cuts in the last 4 years meaning that we’ve already lost approximately 40,000 police officers in that time, and with 5% off this year and even more funding cuts to police over the next several years I think we’ll be seeing many more stories like this in the future. It’s hellish to think of the effects that these cuts have had on people who have now been victims of sex crimes.
3 Likes