Labour leadership race - Corbyn elected leader

Reasonably serious discussion
441

Lest we forget, it isn’t just the NHS that is saddled with unsustainable Public Private Partnership (PPP) contracts (there are, in fact, a whole slew of them, PFI being the most obvious). Roads, schools, libraries, prisons - all sorts of public infrastructure was delivered by PFI and its variants and in all cases, the funding departments are struggling to ensure payments. Worse still, it is a very successful export which means other countries around the world have jumped on the PPP bandwagon. You’ll find them all over the world and you’ll find worried budget holders wondering how they’re going to continue the payments and not default. And if they do default, what then?

In some ways, PPPs make a lot of sense. Their purpose is to link longterm service with infrastructure delivery. It means that those delivering the projects can’t just cut and run, leaving the owner to deal with the problems they have left. This was, undeniably, a major problem for some large projects, particularly civil engineering projects.

And Ruth is right, it was the brainchild of the Thatcher government, seen as the epitome of New Public Management, in some quarters, a much-derided theory that private sector business is necessarily better (more efficient, more effective) than the public sector. Nevertheless, (and despite evidence to the contrary e.g. the East Coast Mainline) the assumption among a lot of politicians is that public sector = bad/ private sector = good.

But philosophical perspectives put to one side, the real disaster came when PPPs were leapt on as a solution to ensuring a lot of much-needed infrastructure expenditure appeared off balance sheet. Although it was the brainchild of the Tories, Brown was the one who jumped on the off balance sheet aspect as a political expediency, and so Corbyn is right in that sense – the mess is partially Labour’s fault.

As with all things, PPPs, and the role of Labour in creating the problems faced by the NHS and other public sector organizations is more nuanced than, at first, it might appear.

3 Likes
442

Better start minting that Policy Wonk badge, pap.

443

Originally posted by @hoofinruth

It is a good read Pap. But I do wish that commentators would refer to the fact that it was actually the Tory government of the early to mid 90s that first mooted the idea of PFI. OK Labour took it on in 97 but its just plain wrong to assume they started it.

I’ve read your arguments before on this and have done some research myself since. I agree. Back when it was dubbed Privatisation 2.0, it was seen as an even more aggressive version of the original. Corbyn’s description, that it’s like buying your house with a credit card, is as good a way as describing it as anything. At least with Privatisation 1.0, we were only selling stuff off at rock bottom prices :laughing:

Your point fully taken on and absorbed, I still don’t think that this absolves the Labour Party of the mess of PFI. Before they came to power, they were railing against it, enumerating all the stuff we now know to be true, but they went along with it anyway. Did they really have no alternative means of funding? I’d argue they did. They were in power, and could have pulled all kinds of levers with the mandate that they’d received in '97.

That’s why even though I acknowledge that it wasn’t their idea in the first place, they knowingly pursued it even though it wasn’t a good long term deal for the country. Blair would have been better presenting a costed package of say, how he was going to introduce a tax hike specifically to pay for infrastructure; people would have gone for it. They shouldn’t be let off this hook.

3 Likes
444

Frankie Boyle in the Guardian.

Every photo of the candidates looks like the staff room of a failing comprehensive feigning amusement at being photobombed by the janitor. Liz Kendall, with her permanent air of an office manager who has just come back from a course, couldn’t lure a voter out of a burning building – and her whole campaign is based on changing Labour to be whatever people who hate it want it to be. Meanwhile, Burnham, who looks as if he has carved Fireman Sam’s face off and laid it carelessly across his own skull – and would soon have Labour polling lower than Mrs Brown’s balls – wants to change the party into something bold and exciting. You’ve got to ask the question: well, why hasn’t he? It’s not as if he’s spent the last 15 years working at Asda.

Yvette Cooper, whose name sounds like something Jeremy Corbyn drove in the 1960s, says Corbyn doesn’t have answers for the future. She doesn’t have a particularly firm grasp of the future either, as she spent the first three months of this year telling us that Ed Miliband would be prime minister. Of course, as Cooper and Kendall have pointed out, there is sexism in the coverage of the contest, as there is everywhere. Cooper must wonder just how entrenched it is when her call to end detention for asylum seekers was overshadowed by Jeremy Corbyn taking the night bus.

2 Likes
445

Going back to the women only carriages, there’s a blog in the Huffpost today that’s worth a perusal

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/anneliese-midgley/we-need-to-stop-street-harassment_b_8044470.html

2 Likes
446

Originally posted by @hoofinruth

Going back to the women only carriages, there’s a blog in the Huffpost today that’s worth a perusal

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/anneliese-midgley/we-need-to-stop-street-harassment_b_8044470.html

Gives a great illustration of why it is worth reading behind the headlines.

One of the proposals is a consultation on public transport, including consulting on a pilot of a women’s only carriage late at night in harassment hotspots. This has grabbed the headlines. We proposed this because, while working on putting together these ideas, some women felt that they would like a safer space if they are being harassed on public transport. Others thought it would be counter-productive and needed a different solution. Hence, a consultation.

447

So my understanding was, that Corbyn suggested having a consultation to see if women would prefer this at night, so they could feel safer?

How the fuck can any sensible person have a problem with that?

I also don’t truly subscribe to the idea that we shouldn’t do this, and should better educate men. I think pap said this earlier, it really needn’t be an either or situation. We can implement spaces for women to a) feel safer & b) stick together (in a way) whilst at the same time educating people on the proper way to behave in public.

It’s pretty sad that people actually need to be educated not to grope people in public, but it is clearly neccessary. The carriage proposal is by no means a silver bullet, but it could be a stop gap. If it can help harrassment and sexual offences, I see no reason to at least not consider/trial it.

What’s the reaction been over there?

Sour Mouth: “But what about my boner?”

Hippo: “There’s no sexual harrassment on trains, it’s all just lies”

Bucktooth Tom: “My ex-wife used to love being felt up by men on the train without her knowing”

etc.

2 Likes
448

I do wonder, if a slightly less dogmatic approach could be viable. Perhaps, instead of segregating, women travelling on their own late at night are encouraged to use the first carriage of the train?

I have no idea if this would be any better, but it may provide some form of safety in numbers, where passengers could look out for each other - and being at the front of the train are close to the driver should anything happen? I dunno, I’m just spitballin’ here. I’m certainly no policy advisor.

But yes, there needs to be a push on educateing men, particularly young men about harrassment, assualt & consent. If the other place taught me anything, it’s that men really don’t understand what any of these things are.

Dudes, your boner is not more important than a womans safety. It’s really not hard.

449

Originally posted by @KRG

What’s the reaction been over there?

Sour Mouth: “But what about my boner?”

Hippo: “There’s no sexual harrassment on trains, it’s all just lies”

Bucktooth Tom: “My ex-wife used to love being felt up by men on the train without her knowing”

etc.

There’s been nowt on Corbyn since Tuesday. But I enjoyed your inventions!

450

Originally posted by @KRG

So my understanding was, that Corbyn suggested having a consultation to see if women would prefer this at night, so they could feel safer?

How the fuck can any sensible person have a problem with that?

I agree with you on most things KRG, but not this.

If Corbyn wanted to suggest a consultation on the issue of women’s safety on public transport, then fantastic, I’d be backing him all the way. But he’s not - he’s put forward a solution (based on what I’m not sure, beyond ‘women he’s spoken to’), which in my view is a very negative, and non progressive solution, and said let’s have a consultation on it.

I like Corbyn, I like the fact he’s trying hard on various issues. He’s my MP, I’ve voted for him. But this is plain daft in my view, regardless of whether or not I think he’d make an effective leader of the Labour Party.

2 Likes
451

Originally posted by @KRG

So my understanding was, that Corbyn suggested having a consultation to see if women would prefer this at night, so they could feel safer?

How the fuck can any sensible person have a problem with that?

I also don’t truly subscribe to the idea that we shouldn’t do this, and should better educate men. I think pap said this earlier, it really needn’t be an either or situation. We can implement spaces for women to a) feel safer & b) stick together (in a way) whilst at the same time educating people on the proper way to behave in public.

It’s pretty sad that people actually need to be educated not to grope people in public, but it is clearly neccessary. The carriage proposal is by no means a silver bullet, but it could be a stop gap. If it can help harrassment and sexual offences, I see no reason to at least not consider/trial it.

I don’t understand your point. The often-repeated slogan of the Corbynites (and I have no idea whether you are or are not one of these) is that he’s putting stuff out there for disucssion. It’s been discussed. The overwhelming opinion, although not unanimous, is it’s a really terrible idea. What’s the problem with that?

Beneath this rather characteristic thin-skinnedness among Corbynites in general is the suspicion that they actually only really want acclaim for words handed down from Himself.

If you disagree with anything he says, you get one of three - and sometimes all - responses:

  1. He’s only putting stuff up for discussion so why are you opposing this? (That is, don’t disagree.)

  2. You know if you oppose Him you’ll only drive up His support. (That is, to say you oppose Him it is merely adding another vote for Him.)

  3. You’re just joining a media campaign to destroy Him!! (That is, any published argument against His non-policies is just part of an establishment conspiracy.)

I’m sure I’m not the only one to think this, but there’s a lot in Corbyn’s platform that I could sign up to, but I would never vote for him in this leadership election, precisely because his supporters are so sanctimoniously smug.

He leads a narrow rainbow coalition of disaffected middle-class voters who adore his consequence-free, never-tested grandstanding. He has no connection with disaffected voters in general. The losers in all of this will be all of us - His accession will cement the Tories in power for another generation.

1 Like
452

Why are you under impression that this is a cast iron, gonna-be-implemented-whatever solution?

Corbyn has stated time and again that everything is a proposal, to be debated by the wider party before being taken on. I think the article that hoofinruth linked provides excellent context to the debate. It’s a million miles away from your take.

2 Likes
453

Spot on, Lou.

454

Originally posted by @Furball

He leads a narrow rainbow coalition of disaffected middle-class voters who adore his consequence-free, never-tested grandstanding. He has no connection with disaffected voters in general. The losers in all of this will be all of us - His accession will cement the Tories in power for another generation.

I think we’ve established that every incoming government is untested. That’s one of the reasons that unless things are going really badly, floating voters will go for the status quo.

I know you’ve mentioned Alan Johnson, but the other three candidates aren’t going to win a majority against the Tories. They can’t even win their own leadership contest, so i’ve got to ask, if they’re this far away from their own party, what do they really know about what the public want, or are after? All three have, in their own way, ran a terrible campaign. The Tories will make mincemeat of any of them, for all the reasons that people are rejecting them now. They’ve also demonstrated that they care more about their own skins, and the potential death of neo-liberal Blairism, than they do about democracy.

A Corbyn victory is the only way the party emerges with any credibility and any chance at victory, even if your hunch is right and they end up ditching him for someone else in the interim. The rest have not only failed to make their case; they’ve brought their party into disrepute. None of them would be capable of securing the support of their own membership, let alone the country.

2 Likes
455

Originally posted by @pap

Why are you under impression that this is a cast iron, gonna-be-implemented-whatever solution?

Corbyn has stated time and again that everything is a proposal, to be debated by the wider party before being taken on. I think the article that hoofinruth linked provides excellent context to the debate. It’s a million miles away from your take.

I’m not, not at all, you misunderstand me. My take on it is: this isn’t on any level the right approach to finding a solution to a problem. Don’t start with an answer, then encourage debate around it. Start with understanding the problem.

And frankly, I don’t want any party debating whether or not women should have their own carriages on public transport, unless there’s really strong evidence this would be a progressive step forward. Just feeding that idea out to the wider public feels like a step back in terms of wider perceptions of women.

456

Originally posted by @pap

I think we’ve established that every incoming government is untested. That’s one of the reasons that unless things are going really badly, floating voters will go for the status quo.

I know you’ve mentioned Alan Johnson, but the other three candidates aren’t going to win a majority against the Tories. They can’t even win their own leadership contest, so i’ve got to ask, if they’re this far away from their own party, what do they really know about what the public want, or are after? All three have, in their own way, ran a terrible campaign. The Tories will make mincemeat of any of them, for all the reasons that people are rejecting them now. They’ve also demonstrated that they care more about their own skins, and the potential death of neo-liberal Blairism, than they do about democracy.

A Corbyn victory is the only way the party emerges with any credibility and any chance at victory, even if your hunch is right and they end up ditching him for someone else in the interim. The rest have not only failed to make their case; they’ve brought their party into disrepute. None of them would be capable of securing the support of their own membership, let alone the country.

Why should it matter to you which one of the candidates wins? You’re not a member of the Labour Party and you voted against it just three months ago in the General Election. Shortly before that, you were a delegate at the Left Unity annual conference.

I take it therefore that you don’t have a vote in this leadership election.

457

Here’s one for the policy optionists in the Corbyn campaign. What’s the answer to this?

458

You don’t understand my point, or you just want another chance to have a pop at ‘Corbynites’, again? I’ve already told you, I am not one and not a member of the labour party.

Lou: I see your point. It’s hard to see exactly what is going on, as the message appears to be distorted everywhere. People had approached him, and offered this as a suggestion and it was one he was willing to listen to if it was what people wanted. If it is more as you say, I can understand your misgivings.

459

KRG: all I can say is Corbyn has to get savvier at managing the media if he wants to be more in control of these conversations. Willingness to listen is nice, but it needs to be done in the right way. He needs to get smarter. Hopefully this little furore will help him do so.

2 Likes
460

Originally posted by @KRG

Originally posted by @Furball

I don’t understand your point. The often-repeated slogan of the Corbynites (and I have no idea whether you are or are not one of these) is that he’s putting stuff out there for disucssion. It’s been discussed. The overwhelming opinion, although not unanimous, is it’s a really terrible idea. What’s the problem with that?

Beneath this rather characteristic thin-skinnedness among Corbynites in general is the suspicion that they actually only really want acclaim for words handed down from Himself.

If you disagree with anything he says, you get one of three - and sometimes all - responses:

  1. He’s only putting stuff up for discussion so why are you opposing this? (That is, don’t disagree.)

  2. You know if you oppose Him you’ll only drive up His support. (That is, to say you oppose Him it is merely adding another vote for Him.)

  3. You’re just joining a media campaign to destroy Him!! (That is, any published argument against His non-policies is just part of an establishment conspiracy.)

I’m sure I’m not the only one to think this, but there’s a lot in Corbyn’s platform that I could sign up to, but I would never vote for him in this leadership election, precisely because his supporters are so sanctimoniously smug.

He leads a narrow rainbow coalition of disaffected middle-class voters who adore his consequence-free, never-tested grandstanding. He has no connection with disaffected voters in general. The losers in all of this will be all of us - His accession will cement the Tories in power for another generation.

** You don’t understand my point, or you just want another chance to have a pop at ‘Corbynites’, again? **

See above, points 1 & 2.