Labour Leadership

[Otta]

Yeah that's one way to look at it (and the reason I've not counted out a Corbyn vote).

People say he's unelectable, but I am not sure I can see any of the others winning in 2020, so perhaps Cobyn should mix things up and then let someone new come and mount a real challenge...

[Jah Lush]

Do it Otta! Vote for Jezza!

Send unelected loonies like this back to the dustbin.

 

[Phil.]

I'll admit that my knowledge of British politics is limited (I moved here from Australia 1.5 years ago) but if it were at all possible, wouldn't be great to have David Miliband make a dramatic return and run for the leadership?!!

[Blah Blah]

I think David Miliband is happier where he is stateside.

I think I'm going to do it and tick the Corbyn box.

[????]

= 10 years of Tory rule...but At least you've voted with your conscience based on someone not being one of them but with a bunch of policies which would have us all in penury. Bravo.

[Blah Blah]

I disagree ????. I'm voting against the bunch of victorians in power who seem to thinkgs it's ok to take us back to the workhouse, to erode away social services and just about every safety net the most vulnerable have.

You strike me as a bit of an I'm all right Jack anyway. Clearly you like inequality, and upward social mobility for the few. You like 90% of the UKs wealth being owned by the 1%. Bravo to you as well.

[Otta]

Phil. Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'll admit that my knowledge of British politics

> is limited (I moved here from Australia 1.5 years

> ago) but if it were at all possible, wouldn't be

> great to have David Miliband make a dramatic

> return and run for the leadership?!!

He;s supporting Liz Kendall, so no, I'm pleased he's nowhere near the party.

[Sue]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I think I'm going to do it and tick the Corbyn

> box.

So am I. When I get a box to tick (hasn't arrived yet).

Have read this thread with interest. I have always voted Labour (except once SNP when I lived in Scotland) but I had to do it with gritted teeth at the last election. It was a matter of voting for the least bad, rather than with any kind of conviction.

It feels to me like JC (!) is bringing Labour back to what it is supposed to be about (in my opinion) - decency, morality and caring for others. I'm sick to the core of what this country has become, and I actually don't think JC is unelectable. I think many people who didn't vote at the last election eg because they didn't see any of the parties as relevant to them, may do so next time.

It is of course in many politicians' interests to portray him as unelectable.

[Jeremy]

I'm starting to feel like "Corbynmania" has taken such a hold, that if you don't support him you're automatically a right wing, Thatcherite, "I'm Alright Jack", selfish pig. FACT.

Actually I quite like David Milliband. This is a man I could actually vote for:

These ideas focus, for example, on how to tackle the secular stagnation in median wages; how to redistribute power to cities to spread economic wealth; how to modernise the education curriculum for a creative age; how to build a secure, low-carbon European energy future; how to make the welfare state an effective springboard out of poverty; how to combat humanitarian catastrophe where it occurs and before it becomes an immigration crisis on the shores of Europe.

[miga]

In some not too distant past (when my parents were my age), jobs were relatively safe, houses were affordable, the (state) education system wasn't in a constant state of unknowable flux, and government debt to GDP was ~40%, university education was free. (There were also allegedly much less savoury aspects of this rose-tinted past which I'm omitting). You could afford to buy a house in a middle class part of London on two professional salaries (gasp! unimaginable!).

I'm not sure the previous state of the economy and society is retrievable, given the competition from the rest of the world, current state of government debt (with deficit removal always on the horizon) and a wages race to the bottom for all kinds of work. Despite finding myself nodding along to both Corbyn and Farage (the latter much less so, admittedly), I can't see how either of these guys can wind the clock back. I think the most useful contribution Corbyn will make as leader, for what will prove to be a short time, is to move the Overton window back to the left a little and along it reel in the Tories (who, let's face it, can't afford to get rid of the welfare state anyway, but might reel in the RTB, "Help to buy" populism).

[Burbage]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually I quite like David Milliband. This is a

> man I could actually vote for:

> These ideas focus, for example, on how to tackle

> the secular stagnation in median wages; how to

> redistribute power to cities to spread economic

> wealth; how to modernise the education curriculum

> for a creative age; how to build a secure,

> low-carbon European energy future; how to make the

> welfare state an effective springboard out of

> poverty; how to combat humanitarian catastrophe

> where it occurs and before it becomes an

> immigration crisis on the shores of Europe.

All lovely stuff. But these are questions and aspirations rather than proposals, and tediously familiar to anyone old enough to have voted more than once. This isn't vision. It's vacuous wibble. An empty list of aspirational hogswind which gives potential voters no idea what they'd actually do. (And what, incidentally, is 'secular stagnation' supposed to mean?)

With Corbyn, at least for the moment, you can more-or-less guess, and that plays well with voters. People like progress, fairness and prosperity, but they also like stability and, when it comes to the crunch, voters tend to choose the predictable. That's why, in recent decades, parties have tended to stay in power until the leadership's become unhinged.

Labour's in its current mess not because it screwed up the economy but because it's chosen not to oppose. The impression taken by the public, and many supporters, is that's because it doesn't really know what it is.

To tackle that, Labour would have to work out what it stands for, and find a snappy way of saying it. Corbyn, by going with "anti-austerity" and "renationalization", has taken the high ground. They're almost perfect, encapsulating what, in the public mind, are defining aspects of the left, and though you might not like the underlying idea of quantitative easing, even the Tories have used that as a tool to provoke the investment of stagnant cash.

Compare that stance with "Focussing on modernising the education curriculum for a creative age". It's indistinct, tedious and promises only more education reforms - just as the last lot of Labour education reforms are landing half our graduates in a market that neither values nor needs their talents.

There is, however, a good reason why Labour's grandees are firmly standing by such twaddle. They know their prospects depend almost entirely on who becomes the next Tory leader and so, for the moment, want a bland caretaker who'll not force them to take sides before launching their own leadership campaigns. It is politically canny. But it's also dishonest, and it does their their party, their supporters and a nation that sorely needs a proper opposition, little good.

[DaveR]

"I'm starting to feel like "Corbynmania" has taken such a hold, that if you don't support him you're automatically a right wing, Thatcherite, "I'm Alright Jack", selfish pig. FACT."

Not so difficult to understand you feeling that way when three posts before yours we find:

"You strike me as a bit of an I'm all right Jack anyway. Clearly you like inequality, and upward social mobility for the few. You like 90% of the UKs wealth being owned by the 1%. Bravo to you as well."

Yet again, a comfortably off urban lefty with (I suspect) close to zero actual experience of the reality of inequality and/or social mobility dismisses anybody who believes that the poor are simply not well served by bloated big state high pending policies, that the recent history of NHS care scandals compared to flourishing free-ish schools throws real doubt on the general principle of centrally directed state provision of public services, and that Corbyn's hysterical anti-imperialism is actually offensive as well as being wrong. If you vote Corbyn I will think you are a fool, not for any reasons concerning his electability or my self-interest, but because I think he is obviously wrong about essentially everything important, and that behind the apparent decency and beige clothing he has exactly the same intolerant, anti-individual, ultimately anti-freedom tendencies as all of his ilk on the left.

[Jeremy]

Burbage Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> All lovely stuff. But these are questions and

> aspirations rather than proposals, and tediously

> familiar to anyone old enough to have voted more

> than once. This isn't vision. It's vacuous wibble.

> An empty list of aspirational hogswind which gives

> potential voters no idea what they'd actually do.

Erm... he's not standing. There are not potential DM voters. Yes if he was standing I'd want this backed up with rather more substance. But for me, this thinking is at least on the right track.

[miga]

Jeremy, while I agree with you that DM's "mission statement" sounds good, if you dissect it point by point, I think there's no significant difference to what Cameron stands for. E.g. decentralisation to the cities - this thinking is strongly pushed by a non-partisan think tank both parties are friendly with; stopping the flow of immigration (one from DM's Moses tablet), reducing welfare dependence, energy self-reliance etc.

[Jeremy]

I'm sure there is substantial overlap. But regarding the welfare state - the Tories main objective seems to be to reduce spending and reduce the role of the government.

[david_carnell]

Jeremy - without you actually telling me I wouldn't have know which politician said that or even which party they were from.

The old adage of whether you can sensibly say the opposite and it still be feasible also springs to mind.

"These ideas focus, for example, on how to tackle the secular stagnation in median wages (I don't actually know what this means!); how to centralise power to cities to narrow economic wealth; how to antiquate the education curriculum for a creative age; how to build a insecure, high-carbon European energy future; how to make the welfare state an ineffective springboard into poverty; how to combat humanitarian catastrophe somewhere it doesn't occurs and after it becomes an immigration crisis on the shores of Europe.

[miga]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm sure there is substantial overlap. But

> regarding the welfare state - the Tories main

> objective seems to be to reduce spending and

> reduce the role of the government.

No one at the last election, to my knowledge, supported an increase in spending, apart from the Greens.

On their list of priorities the Tories had a reduction in spending (or "balancing the books") further up, but when DM says something like "make welfare a springboard out of poverty", what he means is, "reduce amount of time people spend in welfare and get them into work ASAP". The words are different but the substance is the same.

[Jeremy]

DC - the point isn't whether you'd suggest the opposite.. it's about what issues you consider to be key.

[Blah Blah]

I completely agree Sue. I don't think he's unelectable either. It will all depend on how the next four years go. I think Corbyn can take some of the electorate back to a sense of collectivism, as well as engaging with those that have felt disengaged by Westminster for a while now.

Jeremy, the battle between right and left in terms of Corbyn, is something that the right (including some in the Labour Party themselves) have shouted from the rooftops, not the other way round. Only those doing best by the current system think there is no better alternative. No-one in their right mind could argue that society is fairer than 30 years ago, or that prosperity and upward social mobility is something open to the many.

There are many elephants in the room that could destroy the myth that the Tories have brought us back from economic disaster. What do you think will happen when interest rates go up for example (as they will have to)? When the housing bubble bursts (and it will)? Corbyn IS going to provide a challenge to every word uttered by Cameron. There will be no opportunity for the Tories to get away with conning the public into believing myths about the economy this time. That imo is a good thing.

David Milliband had plenty of opportunity to do all of those things when he was in cabinet.

I agree Miga, that is exactly what I think Corbyn will bring in effect to the Labour Party - a slight move away from being Tory -lite. I don't even see him alienating too many Blairite supporters either because as you say, even the middle classes are feeling the squeeze of the costs of housing and living. And change comes usually when the middle classes start to suffer. There's only one reason why the Tories ringfenced all pensioner benefits and shafted the young. Votes votes votes. There's plenty for Corbyn to go after in terms of support AND there are many older people who only have the pensions they do because of the value placed on employee rights by post war governments. His message might strike a chord with them too.

DaveR, I can take any reply out of context too. Take a look at the post I was responding to and then tell me who was being dismissive. ???? has a tendancy to completely dismiss views that are not his own. He IS someone who likes the current economic system and I disagree with him, that's all. I was simply throwing back his style at him, which is all anyone can do to a comment like - " = 10 years of Tory rule...but At least you've voted with your conscience based on someone not being one of them but with a bunch of policies which would have us all in penury. Bravo." I find his fear of a fairer society mystifying, just as I find your dismissal of everything he says mystifing.

Let's look at this....

"he has exactly the same intolerant, anti-individual, ultimately anti-freedom tendencies as all of his ilk on the left."

That's a big statement. Intolerant of what? Isn't it the left that delivers equal rights and fights discrimination traditionally?

Anti_individual? Really? When corporate greed has hoovered wealth away from ordinary people? When the planets resources are bing wasted away whilst we engage on a binge of inbuilt obsolescence? When we are increasingly being told what to think, trapped by cameras and surveillance and the options for escape to a free way of life are being increasingly narrowed by falling wages and higher costs of living? We are being turned into robots. What is the individual is a whole debate in itself but communities that work together often function better than ones that hide in gated compounds.

Anti-freedom? Again really? The Housing Crisis, the banking crashes of the last 30 years, higher unemployment, the richest getting richer whilst the masses get comparative poorer. These are all the consequences of removing regulation for private corporations, whilst the state increase the regulation on the rest of us, the right to protest, the right to park, the right to even fart.

You see how making blanket statements about right and left gets you into trouble? Life, societies and economies are never that black and white. We do need some regeulation back - not all of it of course - but we do need some because we are on a trajectory that is making a lot of ordinary people poorer and ill. And the young, who have their whole lives ahead of them, are looking into an abyss of stundent debt, rip off landlords, low wages, no pension or employment protections and who knows, even a world without state healthcare and welfare. They will kick back and when they do, it won't be pretty.

[Jeremy]

Blah Blah.. there you go again. Not thinking that Corbyn is the right solution is NOT the same as saying that everything's just fine as it is. Not being a Corbyn supporter is not the same as believing the tories have done a great job of rescuing our economy.

Take those blinkers off.

[DaveR]

"Anti_individual? Really? When corporate greed has hoovered wealth away from ordinary people? When the planets resources are bing wasted away whilst we engage on a binge of inbuilt obecelence? When we are increasingly being told what to think, trapped by cameras and surveillance and the options for escape to a free way of live are being increasingly narrowed by falling wages and higher costs of living? We are being turned into robots. What is the individual is a whole debate in itself but communities that work together often function better than ones that hide in gated compounds.

Anti-freedom? Again really? The Housing Crisis, the banking crashes of the last 30 years, higher unemployment, the richest getting richer whilst the masses get comparative poorer. These are all the consequences of removing regulation for private corporations, whilst the state increase the regulation on the rest of us, the right to protest, the right park, the right to even fart.

You see how making blanket statements about right and left gets you into trouble? Life, societies and economies are never that black and white. We do need some regeulation back - not all of it of course - but we do need some because we are on a trajectory that is making a lot of ordinary people poorer and ill. And the young, who have their whole lives ahead of them, are looking into an abyss of stundent debt, rip off landlords, low wages, no pension or employment protections and who knows, even a world without state healthcare and welfare. They will kick back and when they do, it won't be pretty."

I'm afraid that my reaction to that it that it's soundbite rhetoric that fails to engage with the reality of the modern world, and actual evidence both from the UK and other countries about policies that work, and those that don't. It's easy to be apocalyptic, but if you want real-time chaos and disaster, look at Venezuela, a country that Corbyn and his fellow travellers have consistently held up as an ideal.

Let's just say we disagree about most things, and, I hope, that you are happy to accept that my views are as sincere, considered and disinterested as yours.

[Otta]

Thing is, even if Corbyn ended up ad PM. He still wouldn't get most of hospices through, so I can't see there being that mich major change.

Hope someone gets rid if free schools though, because they really are a recipe for further inequality, and the most vulnerable just being refused a place. Very much one of those things that sounds good on paper, bit actually really isn't unless you're a healthy middle class kid with suitably aspirational parents.

[Burbage]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Erm... he's not standing. There are not potential

> DM voters. Yes if he was standing I'd want this

> backed up with rather more substance. But for me,

> this thinking is at least on the right track.

No. Not yet. But those are the ideas he's presenting (in this article) as the 'alternative' to Corbyn. In short, that's what he reckons the near-indistinguishable Burnham/Cooper/Kendall camps have to offer. He's siding with Kendall presumably because the others have more obvious New Labour ties, but there won't be much in it.

What I suspect he'll want is for inoffensive placeholder to keep Labour all beige and united and safe from the union vultures until the Tories have got a new leader, when it'll be time for a more experienced character to take charge.

[????]

It?s a forum Blah, people who have been here long enough know my style so sorry if you find it annoying, but the reason I tend to oppose the ?left? on here is based on my intellectual interpretation on the outcomes of left wing economic ideas, for society as a whole rather than the absolutely meaningless emotional stuff hinged on such nebulous concepts as ?conscience? ?what?s right? ?from the heart?. This emotional stuff leads many on the left to really believe that they are right and ultimately ?good? that all who oppose, or even question their ?ideals? are operating either entirely out of self-interest and are ?bad? or are mindless proles acting on false consciousness persuades so by the ?corporate media? etc, etc. Tedious, unthinking, unintellectual, dogmatic.

Of course these beliefs are largely held my middle-class metropolitan types.

I like outcomes not ideals.

I?ll reiterate, I never ever voted conservative; I have impeccable liberal views on the death penalty and racism for example. I just don?t believe in left wing economics very much - and socialism not at all - as I think they result in outcomes that are bad for us all ? inefficient industry, stifled innovation/enterprise, reduced tax takes, higher unemployment, reduction in freedom; sure, eventually some equality but a lower common denominator one and I don?t support the nebulous concept of ?equality? either. My beliefs are based on thinking about it myself, not self-interest, and I may be wrong.

I?m very uncomfortable about how and where the conservatives are imposing some of the spending cuts and sharing the burden out ? but generally I think cuts are needed; I?d rather middleclass pensioners has lost some benefits rather than working families ; I think a govt that lies about the outcome of its work program, needs bringing to account. All these need a strong opposition. I don?t believe Corybn is it or ever will be, I get the sense his support is largely Union and metropolitan younger age groups and the 'howlers' on social media ? both pretty middleclass nowadays. (just anectdotally I?ve not seen any support for Corbyn on my working class social media but plenty on the middleclass bits) And 10 years of Tory rule, which I think is a given with Corbyn, will not hurt these middleclass types much but more likely the poorest 10%. But, hey, it?s a vote from the heart??

I?d consider voting Labour (again) with another leader but just felt Ed was actually nearer to Corbyn but without the balls to say so. I?d vote Conservative to keep Corbyn out because I think he?d be a disaster for us all.

[Blah Blah]

I always respect others views Dave but comparing the uk or anything Corbyn is talking about to Venezuela is equally ridiculous. Let's talk about Sweden instead eh? With it's high taxes and great social care. A failed state? I don't think so.

You might think that showing the flaws in what we have is soundbite rhetoric but you don't see the people I deal with every day through my job and how miserable their lives are BECAUSE of the the policies of this country and the trend of the last 30 years, which I will be the first to admit has had positives but equally has flaws that has turned us into a country of self interested individuals that lead to the kind of politics we have dominating Westminster, and the kind of lazyness we have dominating some aspects of our population. It's a quality of life thing. We are not the only country like that. America is even worse. Corbyn wants to have a debate about those things, and suggest another way (whether he is right or wrong). I don't see anyone else in Westminster coming to the fore to raise that debate.

????, I respect and accept all that. And you do engage in a debate which is great. I guess it's just my aversion to seeing politics and economics as black and white. They are not. All any party ever does is tinker at the edges anyway because we are dependent on other things going on in the world, and it also takes a generation or two to change anything. Things come about by stealth and equally tend to be dismantled by stealth. I doubt if Corbyn will be leader by the next election anyway. Cameron has also said he's not going to run another term (we'll see if he keeps to that). Will we end up with Osbourne vs DM? Who knows. It takes time for a party to find a right leader after falling from years in government. It was exactly the same for the Tories after Thatcher, and some might say they still haven't got there yet.