Originally posted by @CB-Saint
Out of interest - can anyone else throw their hat into the ring or has that door been closed.
I think the nominations are now closed for this round of voting.
The Blairites not wanting to serve on the same front bench as Corbyn highlights just how much they fear a jolt left. They dont want to be tarred by association.
Yeah, maybe the Labour Party is not for them.
Could the rise of Corbyn and the resurgence of the left in Labour trigger a breakaway party? There are going to be a lot of disaffected MPs whoever wins this.
Originally posted by @CB-Saint
Could the rise of Corbyn and the resurgence of the left in Labour trigger a breakaway party? There are going to be a lot of disaffected MPs whoever wins this.
I donât think so. What would the breakaway rump party even be about? Slightly nicer austerity?
Sent to me by a mate - Billy Braggâs take on Blairâs wise counsel.
What a load of Billy Bragg Bollocks. Grandstanding if not of the worst kind then the most feeble. If you want to live your life spouting slogans this makes sense. If you want to be in politics on the left to deal with issues of social justice you need to deal calculatedly with the practicalities of political life in Britain.
And in what world, by what test of evidence, is Corbyn the âpolitician the public have been looking forâ? I havenât seen a single piece of polling to suggest that Corbyn would win anything more than a village hall tombola.
Syriza this is not - in so many ways.
Ah câmon, Furbs. What world are you living in? The one where the majority of the public are poltiically engaged? Or the one where weâve seen a succession of slimy motherfuckers vie for, and achieve, the highest political office that itâs possible for a commoner to land? Political appearances by representatives of either party usually parroting the message theyâve been given by party HQ.
The choice lately hasnât even been ideological. Itâs red neo-liberal versus blue-neoliberal, with tussles restricted to relative garnish like zero hours contracts or bedroom tax. No-one in power, or realistically able to attain power, has really questioned the legitimacy of the approach itself. Every government, no matter how it has presented itself, has actually said âmore marketâ is the answer when it comes down to it, whether thatâs PFIâs or more privatisation.
Who the fuck has been around to challenge that dogma? Because it really needs challenging. The primacy of the market is a load of shit. The canards that the private sector is automatically efficient than the public sector, or indeed, that financial efficiency ( profit ) is anything to aim for, need to be destroyed.
There are plenty of financially efficient businesses out there that are fucking dysfunctional. They just pass the costs down to the customer, and pretend they have âno burden on the taxpayerâ.
I canât imagine any of the other three candidates challenging that orthodoxy. Corbyn has repeatedly done so.
Good to see Billyây copying my type, Bazzaâs knows his stuff in the 3rd person, Labour or the Labour movement is a coalition of broadbased leftist thinkers, the thing is why not split the party between leftists and centrists? Is that so bad? Coalition is going to be the future regardless of our backward thinkers here in this Country.
TUSC and Nu Labour has a nice ring to it.
Originally posted by @Furball
What a load of Billy Bragg Bollocks. Grandstanding if not of the worst kind then the most feeble. If you want to live your life spouting slogans this makes sense. If you want to be in politics on the left to deal with issues of social justice you need to deal calculatedly with the practicalities of political life in Britain.
And in what world, by what test of evidence, is Corbyn the âpolitician the public have been looking forâ? I havenât seen a single piece of polling to suggest that Corbyn would win anything more than a village hall tombola.
Syriza this is not - in so many ways.
Who is saying it is? I donât actually agree with Corbyn but he is showing the faultlines in the Party and that is a good thng, why? Because we need to realign ourselves the left and working classes and then go from there, core votes and core principles of social justice, social mobility and equality, minus that do gooder right on shit.
Braggâs simplified it too much so that itâs attractive/palatable for his audience, thatâs fâsure.
I agree with your (and Blairâs) assessment that left-ish principles are likely to keep Labour out of power, but Iâve simply had enough of our system that sees me turn my back on my principles and tactically prostitute myself in a vain attempt to get representation.
At what point did a political party start with the desire to be in power, and then work back from that point to the principles they would need in order to achieve it?
Thatâs arse about face.
Surely?
Iâm not so naive that I donât know why that is the case, but it sickens me that the largest left-of-centre party is debating what will get them into power to the extent that they will vote for the welfare cuts - presumably so that they can put off deciding what they actually believe until there has been a focus group to support the new leader.
Again, I understand that they can vote against the bill in its subsequent readings, but what manner of hedging of bets sees Labour vote for scandalous cuts to those most in need?
I think if I genuinely felt that Andy Burnhamâs Labour party was the answer, I might feel different. But without some unforeseen political depth-charge going off, Iâve resigned myself to Labour being in opposition for a decade.
In that context, I see Corbynâs rise as a wake-up call for the other candidates. I hope he wins.
I guess that with the vote on Europe coming up, pressure due to cuts, and with the shenanigans in Scotland there might be a political depth-charge coming. But until that time, Iâd like Labour dragged to the left, and a short Corbyn tenure will either do that or will force Labour to completely reinvent itself from principles that lead to power and not the other way round.
Where Bragg was correct was in highlighting the hypocrisy of Blair claiming that heâd sooner lose an election where Labour stood on a left platform, whilst also suggesting that those that prefer principles to power were in some way defective.
Beautifully put Mr Bletch.
Blair turned labour into a slightly more palatable version of the tories. Unbelievable (or is it) that he thinks just getting into power is more important than the main principles that govern what the labour party should and did stand for.
At least, and I hope he does, get in, then Corbyn combined with snp can make things very uncomfortable for the Eton elite and may stir up some passion in people.
The problem is, unless you govern, you cannot help those your purport to respresent. Principles are great, but ultimately they wonât help anyone unless you get a chance to shape policy around them.
Originally posted by @CB-Saint
The problem is, unless you govern, you cannot help those your purport to respresent. Principles are great, but ultimately they wonât help anyone unless you get a chance to shape policy around them.
I donât think thatâs true. Recent example being the lack of military intervention in Syria, perhaps the thing that history will remember most about Ed Miliband. That madness was averted outside of government, led by the leader of the opposition. The Conservatives are also operating on a slender majority.
Itâs also a pretty short-term view. I agree with bletch; I donât think Labour are going to get in anytime soon, so why not at least try to recast the party as something closer to the principles it was founded upon, something that might win back working class voters. Itâs not like a Corbyn-led Labour would be a lone voice on that front. Heâd get backing from the SNP, even if some of his own MPs bung their toys out of the pram.
Iâd disagree with the idea that this country is naturally Conservative, and use the results of the General Election as proof. Sure, they got their majority, but everyone knows thatâs as much to do with the electoral system as anything else. It was the least proportional victory ever, I believe.
Pendulum has to start swinging back the other way at some point. Would be nice if it was now.
This is wrong on so many levels. Firstly, CB is right: we can all wave our principles in the air but they mean not a damn thing if we canât (a) communicate those principles to an electorate and (b) fashion some actual policies from those principles that make peopleâs lives better.
The examples you quote are mere marginal details - they donât undermine CBâs point. Thereâs even an argument that Labour has got both decisions wrong about Iraq/Syria: there was clearly no case to invade Iraq (or a false one); and the West has stood by while genocidal assaults have been unleashed in the Middle East.
It is not âshort-termismâ to think of a route back to power. It may not be possible in the short-term, but itâs not short termism. Condemning the party to decades in the wilderness while preferring to luxuriate in âprinciplesâ, and then simply praying that the electorate will eventually meet you appprovingly in the ballot box is the historic road to defeat of European socialism.
Itâs also fanciful to suggest that Corbyn âhas the backing of the SNPâ. Backing for what? They are and will remain poilitical enemies electorally. Corbyn is not going to give the SNP any kind of free electoral ride in Scotland in return for support in the HoC - and nor is anyone else in the Labour Party. Nor should they.
And the âprinciples on which [the Labour Party] was foundedâ no longer translate into relevant political programmes. There is no working class solidarity to build on not least because the working class has become a rump social class in post-industrial capitalism. The days of workers streaming out of the factory gates and into the voting booths have long gone. This kind of argument is sadly reminiscent of so many socialist nostalgists, including Karl Marx who fatally failed to notice that the capitalism of the early nineteenth century had fundamentally changed by the time he came to write Capital.
So any party determined to rediscover its class roots in the proletariat is on a fast track to the political museum.
This - I hasten to add because you and Bletch may jump to the conclusion - does NOT mean that Blair was right. Blairâs neo-liberalism was calculating but fatally undermined by a psychological flaw: his Anglo-Catholic belief that good intentions lead to good outcomes. To underline, Blair was as guilty as Corbyn will be in being âtrueâ to his beliefs - his principles - to the point of self-destructiveness. (Anyone who denies Blair had principles simply doesnât understand how those principles, far too uncompromisngly adhered to, destroyed his reputation.)
So, in the words of V I Lenin, what is to be done? The Party needs urgently to convene an inclusive rolling conference of supporters, fellow-travellers and sympathetic experts (economic, social, technological) to devise a programme based on a post-neo-liberal agenda. Defining that post-neo-liberalism isnât that hard (the principles are the easy part!): it means re-energising the concept of the âpublic goodâ. There is an absolutely receptive audience for this: people like their NHS to be designed around this principle, as well as their education, their housing, their railways, their energy (water especially). And the public good includes the notion that the degrees of inequality existing in Britain today are unsustainable. It doesnât mean nationalising everything, but it does mean that these utilitires (in the broadest sense) must have the public good as their ultimate organsiational goal.
The other strand is that Labour - as a post -working-class party - must work in a close alliance with the Liberals, who are set on a course of leftward renewal thatâs more modern, and who are already showing signs of resurgence (membership levels have soared since the election). The two parties in tandem - not splitting each othersâ precious votes - will deliver an effective, attractive alternative to the miserable elitists of the Tory party.
None of this need take a long time. Two to three years max. And the process itself will draw people progressively towards it. Labour must be part of something new - not sit back and wait for the principles of a dinosaur workersâ party to usher them into hopeless obscurity.
I also found the words blair used to put down a genuine labour candidate to be completely u necessary and unpleasant. He is an arrogant man who in my humble opinion should be in prison.
Which candidate would you suggest we back, Furball?
Liz âif found, please return to Conservative Central Officeâ Kendall.
Andy âtwo flatsâ Burnham.
Yvette âBallsâ Cooper
Theyâre all fairly brittle, but theyâre your only choice if you donât want Corbyn. So stick your next out old chum, because I reckon them choices are shit, mush.
The Jeremy Corbyn policies that most people actually agree with:-
The least worst candidate is Burnham. But heâs no budding PM. Of the available candidates who could stand next time, Chuka is a possibility, and he could certainly do business with Farron, who will surprise a few.
Corbyn excluded, I agree, but heâs not going to be looking too rosy today after it emerged that heâs been claiming 17K p.a. in rent for a flat when heâs got another in Westminster. Iâm sure his camp will clarify the oversight in due course, like.
Originally posted by @pap
The Jeremy Corbyn policies that most people actually agree with:-
This is disingenuous. You can do exactly the same with UKIP policies - or even some BNP ones.