Corbyn. Do they not get it?

[Newchodge]

I used to be a member of the Labour party. I marched with over a million people in Florence and over 100,000 people in Glasgow, imploring that Tony Blair should not attack Iraq. I wrote to the Labour party and explained that if the government of the day embarked on an illegal war in Iraq I would resign my membership. I got a 6 page letter back ignoring all my comments and explaining why we had to carry out an illegal war.

We illegally invaded Iraq. I resigned from the Labour party.

Last year something happened that mattered to me.

A Labour party leader candidate stood for the party who said everything that I believed in. In particular, he said that one should stand for what one believes in and not temper those beliefs for short-term political gain. I rejoined the Labour party and voted for Jeremy Corbyn.

His election as leader was poison to the career politicians in the Labour party. To them it was more important that the party be electable than that it should stand for what it believed in. Those career politicians, whose only interest was in gaining power for themselves, have conspired against the elected leader of their party ever since. Culminating, this week, in a disgraceful attempted coup at a time when the country needed strong and sensible alternatives to the idiots who have, through their own self interest, brought us to this position.

Do they not get it? the reason the labour party has lost it core support is because the labour party, as a self-serving power-hungry group, had already lost all connection with its core supporters. by ignoring their needs and wants and concentrating on winning power.

And now they have done it again.

An unelectable labour party that is true to its own beliefs is worth far more than a middle ground of power hungry self serving bastards who will change their beliefs in order to get power. That power does not help the labour party supporters, so it is meaningless. It only helps the political class who have let down those who need a voice, a voice which Jeremy Corbyn gave them.

/Rant off.

 

[KM-Tiger]

In particular, he said that one should stand for what one believes in and not temper those beliefs for short-term political gain.

It's a shame he didn't stick to that in respect of leave/remain. He would have reconnected with thousands and thousands of core supporters. Would have upset the PLP, but he has done that anyway. Sadly he transformed what could have been win/win into lose/lose.

I think Labour will have to split, the Corbynistas and the Blairites cannot co exist.

 

[Scott@KarmaContent]

An unelectable labour party that is true to its own beliefs is worth far more than a middle ground of power hungry self serving bastards who will change their beliefs in order to get power.

Vote Corbyn, get Conservative. OK.

 

[Newchodge]

It's a shame he didn't stick to that in respect of leave/remain. He would have reconnected with thousands and thousands of core supporters. Would have upset the PLP, but he has done that anyway. Sadly he transformed what could have been win/win into lose/lose.

I think Labour will have to split, the Corbynistas and the Blairites cannot co exist.

I think he did do that. He told people what he thought which included the fact that there are huge problems with the EU, but staying was probably better. That is why he is now being blamed.

 

[Newchodge]

Vote Corbyn, get Conservative. OK.

Yes, but you get a viable opposition that people actually believe in.

 

[Scott@KarmaContent]

Yes, but you get a viable opposition that people actually believe in.

That's the problem with the left of the Labour Party, you'd rather be in opposition than in power. Looks like you are going to have your wish for a long time if Corbyn doesn't do the decent thing and fall on his sword.

Corbyn speaks for large parts of the Labour Party membership, many of whom have hijacked the party, coming from the radical left and other loony leftie groups. He doesn't speak for the core vote of the Labour Party and nor does he speak for middle England, the votes Labour need to win if they ever are to regain power.

 

[Newchodge]

That's the problem with the left of the Labour Party, you'd rather be in opposition than in power. Looks like you are going to have your wish for a long time if Corbyn doesn't do the decent thing and fall on his sword.

Corbyn speaks for large parts of the Labour Party membership, many of whom have hijacked the party, coming from the radical left and other loony leftie groups. He doesn't speak for the core vote of the Labour Party and nor does he speak for middle England, the votes Labour need to win if they ever are to regain power.

That's the problem with dishonest self-serving politicians. They would rather be in power than stand up for what they believe to be right.

I know which side I stand on.

 

[The Byre]

"I have no spur
To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself,
And falls on th'other. . . ."

 

[Newchodge]

"I have no spur
To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself,
And falls on th'other. . . ."

The old bloke was often quite right, wasn't he.

 

[The Byre]

As one of my fellow thespians said "He's full of quotes!"

 

[Matt1959]

who would want to be in a party that would never be in Government? Thats what we have with Corbyn's Labour...

 

[Newchodge]

who would want to be in a party that would never be in Government? Thats what we have with Corbyn's Labour...

Who would want to be in a party that never tells the truth? That's what we have with current party politics

 

[Matt1959]

Who would want to be in a party that never tells the truth? That's what we have with current party politics

well I know what you're saying.... but I'm not sure politicians are consistently as economical with the truth as you say. They all have a core belief but out of necessity have to fit that in with how a political party seeks Government so sometimes there needs to be a compromise.

 

[Newchodge]

well I know what you're saying.... but I'm not sure politicians are consistently as economical with the truth as you say. They all have a core belief but out of necessity have to fit that in with how a political party seeks Government so sometimes there needs to be a compromise.

But isn't that exactly why people don't trust politicians? they appear to say only what they expect their audience want them to say or what they need to say to get power.

Are you happy with that?

 

[Matt1959]

personally? yes I'm happy with how it is generally but then I've not got a jaundiced view of politicians as a whole (not implying you have btw).

To do things your way, you will get the extreme views and thats whats happening with Corbyn - great for the vocal die hard supporters but all they can do is shout from the sidelines

 

[billmccallum1957]

I'm not a labour supporter, but their leader was elected by their members - almost 60% of the vote, so all of their MP's should stand behind that vote, or they should resign as MP's.

 

[Clinton]

...so all of their MP's should stand behind that vote, or they should resign as MP's.

What? And give up the generous salary and perks?!

Let me be the first to welcome you to planet earth

 

[paulears]

I'm not a Labour supporter, but my impression was that Corbyn is a decent man with strong morals and beliefs. Sadly, nowadays this is not how politics works. Spin, outright lies and deceit is common, plus clever people good at manipulating the people.

Trouble is, he cannot survive with his style of politics. The quiet approach just gets blown away by the other career politicians. I genuinely feel sorry for the man - but look at his colleagues first. How can his team turn away from him so fast? Seems that loyalty in Politics is measured in days now.

 

[Carl "Excel-Expert" Nixon]

I think Crobyn and Watson have talked Labour themselves in to a bit of a corner when it comes to supporting Brexit. Both have said we should respect the voters that voted in Corbyn - I have to presume that transfers to respect for Brexit voters as well.

Personally I think Corbyn is a very weak leader who alienates a lot of potential supporters. His role was to promote a remain vote and he failed miserably to mobilise any Labour strongholds to vote for remain. Not only that he went AWOL 2 days before the referendum and only popped up again to promote a random city tax. That to me shows a complete lack of commitment to the party line and really poor leadership.

Having said that he is a really good policy maker and alternative thinker. There is a massive Corbyn shaped role in the cross party group that is planned for running the implementation of Brexit. In that role he would be a massive asset to the country. As a leader he will leave the door open for another Tory government and he will be out of a leaders job anyway

 

[ffox]

I'm not a political animal. I try to vote when I'm given the opportunity, but my X goes in the box that best supports my understanding of the issue and not habitually for any individual or party.
It seems that there are many like me and that the career politicians are massively out of sync with the people they are supposed to represent.
Less than a year ago Corbyn was elected labour party leader by 'the grass roots' and it is the career polititians who are wrong in thier rebellion against him.
Regardless of individual likes and dislikes of his politics and leadership, and of his performance, he has been placed in leadership by labour followers and he should remain until the majority reject him.

The Brexit referendum result was, in my opinion, not about migration, or even about staying in or out of europe. It was about the public saying that they have no faith in the, so called, elected representatives.
Cameron and Osbourn have managed to create a population that is massivly divided. Brexit came in with a small majority in favout of 'out' and that is the will of the people. Interestingly,
Cameron and Osbourn have accepted this and are departing with dignity. The rest of Britain should accept this also, the maxim is that if you accept the power to vote and have your say, then you must also accept the consequences, both good and bad, resulting from your exercise of power.
Whatever happens now the lesson learned should be that the people should be given more say in major issues in the future.
With modern technology this is entirely possible, as is the eventual disbanding of the Palace of Westminster old boys club.
Electronic voting can enable public participation in all major decision making, video conferencing can be the medium of goverment debate, without the need for politicians to be present in London.
Who knows, such a system might lead to 'real' people taking active part in politics, people who work for a living and 'do politics' because they desire to serve, rather than the current bunch who only desire power and wealth.

 

[quikshop]

Corbyn is a throw-back to a socialism that will only ever exist on the fringes of politics thankfully. More than happy for you and your ilk to remain a noisy minority without the ability to impact anything.

Or, you get a left of centre moderate leader who appeals to the silent majority of UK voters and can implement progressive policies over time without bringing the current economic framework crashing down around us.

My party is still in the wilderness, so until that changes the only hope for a stop to the Tories ideological drive to destroy the public sector is a moderate Labour leader.

A vote for Corbyn is a vote for austerity.

 

[Newchodge]

I read an interesting conspiracy theory earlier.

The Chilcott report is due out next week. Many expect it to slate Blair and his supporters for their actions. Many of the current PLP supported the war. With Corbyn as leader they will have a rough time of it as he will not equivocate in his reaction to such a report. If the coup had worked he would have been ranting as a backbencher and could have been ignored. As he will still be leader his comments will be heard.

Is that why the coup had to happen at the worst possible time for the Labour party and the country; it had to happen to protect Blair and his cronies

 

[paulears]

I'm no expert on parliamentary process, but is it possible labour could lose their formal opposition status as a result of this? How does it work? Can another unified and cohesive party claim to be the official defence, or is it simply weight of numbers?

 

[Newchodge]

It is simply weight of numbers. All the disaffected MP's are still Labour party MP's, unless they resign the whip or have it withdrawn, at which point they become independents. The next biggest party is SNP, with 50 seats, so Labour would have to lose an awful lot of MP's to lose its opposition status.

 

[Cobby]

Vote Corbyn, get Conservative. OK.

Vote Labour without Corbyn and you're actually voting conservative, so what does it matter?

Also good to see your support for Proportional Representation.

 

[Cobby]

It's a shame he didn't stick to that in respect of leave/remain.

He did, and in doing so demonstrated why the main campaigns were in a race to the bottom; if you offer a nuanced view with reasonable language and moderate ideas then the public cannot follow. They need to see foaming-at-the-mouth zealotry to understand a message, which they got in spades from both campaigns but not from JC.

 

[Cobby]

That's the problem with the left of the Labour Party, you'd rather be in opposition than in power.

Thanks for the Conservative Party Conference strawman soundbite. I love seeing people express second-hand opinions, it moves the debate along so nicely.

Corbyn speaks for large parts of the Labour Party membership, many of whom have hijacked the party, coming from the radical left and other loony leftie groups.

Couching your description of the opposition in condescending language undermines the validity of your argument; as if being anything other than centre or extreme right-wing are the only sensible, non-'loony' positions one can take.

 

[paulears]

I have a friend who works in Parliament, and although allowed to express his own views, doesn't actually seem to have any? Perhaps working there spoils your hope/desire that any party can do very much? The only person he seems to actually think does something is the Speaker, who from what he tells me is extremely involved with everything, very helpful and supportive to the House itself - and a decent fella!

 

[Ian J]

Thanks for the Conservative Party Conference strawman soundbite. I love seeing people express second-hand opinions, it moves the debate along so nicely.

Couching your description of the opposition in condescending language undermines the validity of your argument;

Talk about pots and kettles

 

[The Byre]

Cyndy, if you marched in Glasgow, perhaps you might contemplate a membership of the SNP. They have managed to combine idealism with popularity and therefore with power. That is, in fact, their secret weapon! Good men and women are driven from the cesspool that is Westminster politics, but some of the brightest brains in Scotland are working for the SNP, either on the benches, or in the background.

Opposing them is a motley collection of whatever did not make the grade to succeed in politics and tread the well-worn pathway down to London. Labour's brightest Scottish brains went to Westminster, where they learned to play the game in what could be seen as a very un-Scottish way.

As I pointed out in my Byretorial, Labour behaved very foolishly after the war and the Atlee and Wilson governments were undiluted disasters. Attlee actually wanted to create Soviet-style giant farming collectives - and if the money had not run out, would have done so!

But they kept their biggest mistake for the auto industry - a massive 60% luxury tax on cars! The long term effects of that was to kill off the long-term future of every British car manufacturer.

(It was the core of that piece, that, IMO, Britain has had the poorest leadership possible after the war. Every left and right wing prime minister and their motely collection of lieutenants - with the possible exceptions of Churchill and MacMillan - was a complete idiot.)

BUT

Britain has a massive economic problem and it is one we just do not discuss.

In my Byretorial, I pointed out that the wholesale privatisation of nationalised industries by Thatcher was every bit as disastrous as Attlee's nationalisation of them in the first place.

But she did something far, far worse!

She did something that all UK politicians seem to have done after the war - she allowed herself to be hoodwinked by various interest groups into believing in one or more economic fallacies. If the pathway to Hades is paved with good intentions, the signposts are economic fallacies. For example, the French government believed in the 'lump of labour' fallacy, when they introduced the 35-hour working week. Attlee believed what is good for the individual, must be good for all society - another gross fallacy!

You know when someone is swallowing a gross fallacy, be that economic, social, psychological or physical, when they say "It stands to reason, that . . . " and then they spout some half-truth about a subject that they do not understand.

We are experiencing a government today that has swallowed the 'thrift paradox' hook, line and sinker. They (and the ECB) believe you can bring about prosperity by cutting back on spending. The opposite is true - or as it says in the Bible "There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty."

In plain English, if you cut back, you decrease economic activity.

But the fallacy that Thatcher believed (and sadly was also believed by Major, Blair, Brown and now Cameron) was the easy-fix of popularising monetarists 'The Trickle-Down Effect'.

There are no easy fixes in life and a damn sight fewer in economics. There is no trickle-down effect, but there is a slow percolate-up effect. Privatising huge swathes of industry and utilities makes the rich even richer - but they do not spread that wealth into the economy or in any way, try to share it with the population at large. Quite the opposite, they are sensible and clever (or at least their accountants are!) and they seek to protect their wealth by saving in one form or another, or by moving their wealth off-shore.

(If they are REALLY wealthy, they move themselves and everything they do off-shore and then all that wealth that society has given them, is transferred to outside our economy, i.e. it's gone!)

The poor spend their money quickly and locally on food, housing and consumer goods, all of which have high multiplier effects. The rich save: what little they spend, is more likely to be spent of foreign goods. Or they move away altogether, maintaining a palace in Scotland as a 'Summer House'!

Inequality is measured in something know as the 'Gini Coefficient' (named after an Italian professor) and the higher the number, the greater is the difference between rich and poor. Measuring inequality is a much debated topic and it is a far from perfect process, but one measure (from one to 100, where one is perfect equality and 100, total ownership of all wealth by one person) had nearly all European societies after the war at between 25 and 30. The UK was at 25 until Thatcher came to power and that is about the figure enjoyed by Germany, Sweden, etc., today.

As soon as Thatcher came to power, inequality began to climb at a very steady rate and continues to do so. The corresponding figure for the UK today is 40. The UK is now the most unequal society in the whole of Europe!

It matters not one jot if you are a rabid Corbynite socialist, or a bloated fat-cat Cameronian, having a society that is so grossly unequal is a big, big problem for everybody.

Poor people cost money and pay less tax. They are more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of crime. They cost the NHS more and contribute less. They are more likely to be unemployed and when they are in employment, they are considerably less productive.

If you are looking for a reason why UK companies are so unproductive, it is because there is a large swathe of the population that is either partially or totally economically inactive and lives from the transfer income of social benefits.

If you are a business person, it places you at a severe disadvantage if a large part of your customer base is too poor to afford your products.

It is time that UK politicians woke up to reality and started espousing normal European standards of social decency. We should start with rent control!

High rents transfer wealth from the poor to the rich more efficiently, than if we just robbed them at gun-point!

 

[quikshop]

Cyndy, if you marched in Glasgow, perhaps you might contemplate a membership of the SNP. They have managed to combine idealism with popularity and therefore with power. That is, in fact, their secret weapon! Good men and women are driven from the cesspool that is Westminster politics, but some of the brightest brains in Scotland are working for the SNP, either on the benches, or in the background.

Do you mean their grand plan of exiting the UK only to get a minority representation based on population density in the EU where Scotland will wield the same influence on policy as Flanders?

I don't think your brightest brains have really thought this though.

 

[Newchodge]

@The Byre I marched in Glasgow because I live in Newcastle and the next nearest march waas London.

I absolutely agree with your economic fallacy theory. I think the politicians fell for it because they all come from families which, at least by the time they entered Parliament, were not poor and therefore they could not understand the concept of having to spend every penny that you own. In their families it was normal to be able to save, and saving was a GOOD THING. If it was good for the families, it must be good for the country.

I want to see two things:

Rent control. the government has complained about rising Housing Benefit costs and dealt with it by reducing how much benefit families can claim. Their theory was that if families could only claim 90% of their rent in benefits, then landlords generally would reduce rents to that 90% level. Thatcher said the same thing when she removed rent control and capped housing benefits in the 80's. Didn't work then, doesn't work now. It just means that some people cannot afford to rent privately. Given the lack of social housing that just leads to homelessness. Not living on the streets homelessness but staying with friends, sharing housing, overcrowding, accepting the only places that can be afforded which are damp and unhealthy.

I have heard the arguments that rent control would reduce the number of places available to rent. Great, either the landlords get no income and leave the places empty, which is unlikely, or they sell them, creating a glut on the market and a downward trend in house prices.

Wages control. At its simplest you set a level at which all workers must be paid in comparison to the highest paid. The highest paid would include all income, pension contributions, bonuses, benefits in kind, everything. If you think that your CEO is worth £16 million a year, then pay that, as long as you pay the cleaner £160,000.

I am also aware that there would be attempts to get round it by outsourcing the low paid work, but there could easily be rules to get round that.

There you go, Utopia.

 

[Carl "Excel-Expert" Nixon]

He did, and in doing so demonstrated why the main campaigns were in a race to the bottom; if you offer a nuanced view with reasonable language and moderate ideas then the public cannot follow. They need to see foaming-at-the-mouth zealotry to understand a message, which they got in spades from both campaigns but not from JC.

He stuck to his line, I will give him that, but he did nothing to promote it and went AWOL for 2 key days. So for me there is a lack of conviction about him which is not a good trait in a leader. Personally I would love to see him moved to the cross party Brexit team - I think his policy making and brand of honesty would lead to him making a huge mark on the UK - probably far more of a historical mark than if he became MP

 

[ffox]

Britain has a massive economic problem and it is one we just do not discuss.

Absolutely. We need a leader who will not disown and disenfranchise half the population. Only problem is, I don't see one from where I'm sitting.

 

[The Byre]

I read an interesting conspiracy theory earlier.

The Chilcott report is due out next week. Many expect it to slate Blair and his supporters for their actions. Many of the current PLP supported the war. With Corbyn as leader they will have a rough time of it as he will not equivocate in his reaction to such a report. If the coup had worked he would have been ranting as a backbencher and could have been ignored. As he will still be leader his comments will be heard.

Is that why the coup had to happen at the worst possible time for the Labour party and the country; it had to happen to protect Blair and his cronies.

I read that out in the office and a debate broke out that lasted nearly half-an-hour. As no work was done, I shall be sending you the bill.

I shall make a suitable deduction for writing a sentence containing a semicolon!

 

[Newchodge]

I read that out in the office and a debate broke out that lasted nearly half-an-hour. As no work was done, I shall be sending you the bill.

I shall make a suitable deduction for writing a sentence containing a semicolon!

Tom Watson and Angela Eagle, allegedly, did not vote for the Iraq war, as they weren't around. But they did vote against setting up the Chilcott enquiry.

Please don't raise this in the office as I cannot afford to pay for all the downtime; even though I have again used a semi colon, appropriately.

 

[UKSBD]

I want to see two things:

Rent control. the government has complained about rising Housing Benefit costs and dealt with it by reducing how much benefit families can claim. Their theory was that if families could only claim 90% of their rent in benefits, then landlords generally would reduce rents to that 90% level. Thatcher said the same thing when she removed rent control and capped housing benefits in the 80's. Didn't work then, doesn't work now. It just means that some people cannot afford to rent privately. Given the lack of social housing that just leads to homelessness. Not living on the streets homelessness but staying with friends, sharing housing, overcrowding, accepting the only places that can be afforded which are damp and unhealthy.

I have heard the arguments that rent control would reduce the number of places available to rent. Great, either the landlords get no income and leave the places empty, which is unlikely, or they sell them, creating a glut on the market and a downward trend in house prices.

What would really help would be if bad eggs could be removed from social housing estates.

Not a lot wrong with a terrace block of 20 cheap social houses with small backyards, small front gardens, 20 minute bike ride from place of work.

Have a family of scum in number 10 and all 20 of those perfectly acceptable homes become horrible places that no one wants to live in.

 

[Newchodge]

What would really help would be if bad eggs could be removed from social housing estates.

Not a lot wrong with a terrace block of 20 cheap social houses with small backyards, small front gardens, 20 minute bike ride from place of work.

Have a family of scum in number 10 and all 20 of those perfectly acceptable homes become horrible places that no one wants to live in.

I understand the sentiment. However are you really saying that there are 20 reasonable properties available to be lived in, in any housing area, where no-one will take the property? Really?

 

[Newchodge]

I read that out in the office and a debate broke out that lasted nearly half-an-hour. As no work was done, I shall be sending you the bill.

I shall make a suitable deduction for writing a sentence containing a semicolon!

Incidentally, what was the result of the debate, apart from an extreme downturn in productivity?

 

[UKSBD]

I understand the sentiment. However are you really saying that there are 20 reasonable properties available to be lived in, in any housing area, where no-one will take the property? Really?

No, but it means anyone who can afford it will move out in to private accommodation (even if this means cutting down on other things), which then pushes up the cost of private accommodation even more.

It then wouldn't take long for those 20 reasonable properties to become 20 unreasonable properties.

People don't want social housing built near them, not so much because of the majority of people who live in social housing, but because there's a possibility a scum family may move in and drag everything else down.

When there is a big gulf between social housing and low value private accommodation you know you've got problems.