Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Labour Leadership Contest; merged thread
Topic Started: May 15 2015, 01:02 PM (2,222 Views)
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Chuka Umunna withdraws Labour leader bid, Who is left to lead them? The BBC has been attacking UKIP and Farrage for days, but at least they have a leader. Labour are in a state of uncertainty, and we do need a good opposition in the HOC,
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Replies:
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 14 2015, 12:03 PM
Steve K
Aug 14 2015, 11:39 AM
Excuse me but just to show you're not posting BS, can you show where I posted either that "the State cannot manage public utilties" or that "only privatisation can deliver good quality cost effective services "


Your post implied both ........... and I'm in no doubt intentionally so.
If you really do want to disown having such opinions, state so unambiguously.

So you posted false statements, refuse to apologise and want to blame me  ::)

I could suggest you are too thick to read what others post but actually I believe the problem is in your own probity. You feel any false projection is OK as you are an "ends justifies the means" person.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Lets get one thing straight here, the most successful Labour leader in history has been Tony Blair, he swept to power with a record 418 seats in 1997, the defeat inflicted upon the Tories was massive and crushing.

Two key reasons why Tony Blair won that election with a massive majority, (1) he moved Labour to the centre ground making it appealing and attractive to a much wider audience, and (2) because people were utterly fed up of the Tories.

He then went on to another two election victories, another record for a Labour government.

The government of Tony Blair and New Labour invested significantly in health and education, WITHOUT borrowing unsustainable amounts, indeed the deficit in 2007 was lower than in 1997 when Major was defeated ten years previously.

These years saw the longest ever period of year on year growth, the economy was stable, unemployment low, living standards improved significantly and meaningful and real improvements were made to the NHS, education, and for people on low incomes, aswell as pensioners.

The recipe for success is "The Third Way", combining most of the elements of a free market economy with social protections, not particularly left wing, but certainly not Conservative either.

It looks as though Mr Jeremy Corbyn is to be elected to leader of the Labour Party in September, and if this is the case then Labour are well and truly doomed, because with all his baggage - ban the bomb, anti monarchy, bring in the money printing machines together with his discredited advisor Mr Richard Murphy, he will be torn to pieces by the Tories, by the media and by commentators everywhere.

But not only that, the old far left argument does not stack up, how on earth do they believe that all those constituencies which are now Tory, and which were Labour in 2009 are going to come back to Labour by shifting left ?

I am afraid Tony Blair is 100% correct, the grass roots members are marching happily towards the cliff edge.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
marybrown
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Oh come on..it's a lot of wanabees having a bitch fight..

I'm from a working class family..but there is no way I would ever vote for these tosspots again..

How can you vote for a party who are arguing amongst themselves....
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I would be surprised to see a leadership cont3est where the party didn't argue amongst itself. Isn't that kind of the point when you are trying to decide the direction of travel?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
marybrown
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Aug 14 2015, 02:51 PM
I would be surprised to see a leadership cont3est where the party didn't argue amongst itself. Isn't that kind of the point when you are trying to decide the direction of travel?
Well no..usually before a leader is voted in..they have the full support of their party behind them..
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 14 2015, 01:31 PM
Affa
Aug 14 2015, 12:03 PM
Steve K
Aug 14 2015, 11:39 AM
Excuse me but just to show you're not posting BS, can you show where I posted either that "the State cannot manage public utilties" or that "only privatisation can deliver good quality cost effective services "


Your post implied both ........... and I'm in no doubt intentionally so.
If you really do want to disown having such opinions, state so unambiguously.

So you posted false statements, refuse to apologise and want to blame me  ::)

I could suggest you are too thick to read what others post but actually I believe the problem is in your own probity. You feel any false projection is OK as you are an "ends justifies the means" person.

So no unambiguous denial of the validity of my comments in regards to the EXPRESSED opinion that re-nationalisation would return public services to the bad old days - days when Tory governments ensured their failure.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Aug 14 2015, 02:23 PM


It looks as though Mr Jeremy Corbyn is to be elected to leader of the Labour Party in September, .......... he will be torn to pieces by the Tories, by the media and by commentators everywhere.

As sure as eggs is eggs!
That does not make him wrong in his aims nor his methods ..... it just means he's unpopular with the Establishment - the same Establishment that created this social injustice, wealth gap, and Austerity crisis that he refuses to kneel to ......... so far.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
marybrown
Aug 14 2015, 02:31 PM
Oh come on..it's a lot of wanabees having a bitch fight..

I'm from a working class family..but there is no way I would ever vote for these tosspots again..

How can you vote for a party who are arguing amongst themselves....

Or one that doesn't argue amongst itself?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Aug 14 2015, 02:23 PM
Lets get one thing straight here, the most successful Labour leader in history has been Tony Blair, he swept to power with a record 418 seats in 1997, the defeat inflicted upon the Tories was massive and crushing.
Tony Blair didn't defeat the Tories.

The Tories did.

By then the country was so sick and fed up with Thatcherism that Tony BENN could have led the Labour party to power.

And the country would be a far better place now had it been Mr Benn, rather than Tony "Tory-Lite" Blair.

Most "modern (by which I mean NuLab Tory-Lite)" Labour supporters think that 1997 was the high point of Labour's political trajectory; those of us who know what Real Labour stands for know for a fact that 1997 was the low point.

From 1997 through to 2007 Tony Blair presided over the longest and biggest betrayal of the Working Class that has EVER happened in this country.

Anyone who thinks that betraying the working class is a "Labour" value really needs to go get a lobotomy - it'll double their IQ.

All The Best
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
You mean a return to those Clause Four ideals of production and wealth creation in the hands of "The People", meaning the state, true socialism.

Where the promised land is just around the corner, and where the treasury is full of printing machines which print money, that utopia which has eluded socialists for generations, because it dosent exist.

Did you know that British Steel made it into the Guinness Book of Records for been the company which lost the most money, and did you know that at one point in the 1970s every British Leyland car which was sold, was done so with a government subsidy.

The Tories couldn't give a toss about the social side of society, and socialists never understand basic economics, the tories destroy lives and socialists destroy wealth creation.

Corbyn's style of politics is our version of Alexis Tsipras and Syriza

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Cymru
Alt-Right
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Aug 14 2015, 04:38 PM
Where the promised land is just around the corner, and where the treasury is full of printing machines which print money, that utopia which has eluded socialists for generations, because it dosent exist.
Oh it does exist. The difference is they call it capitalism and confine the money printing to benefit the few not the many.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 14 2015, 03:25 PM
krugerman
Aug 14 2015, 02:23 PM


It looks as though Mr Jeremy Corbyn is to be elected to leader of the Labour Party in September, .......... he will be torn to pieces by the Tories, by the media and by commentators everywhere.

As sure as eggs is eggs!
That does not make him wrong in his aims nor his methods ..... it just means he's unpopular with the Establishment - the same Establishment that created this social injustice, wealth gap, and Austerity crisis that he refuses to kneel to ......... so far.

It may not make his aims and methods wrong, but, IMO, it will certainly make sure they are never put into practice.

Labour has to win an election first, and if the opposition propaganda is so superior to that of Labour, then Labour has to find a way around it. Corbyn does not offer a way around this problem.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Cymru
Aug 14 2015, 04:43 PM
krugerman
Aug 14 2015, 04:38 PM
Where the promised land is just around the corner, and where the treasury is full of printing machines which print money, that utopia which has eluded socialists for generations, because it dosent exist.
Oh it does exist. The difference is they call it capitalism and confine the money printing to benefit the few not the many.
That would be capitalism aided and abetted by the money power/media.

There is also the fact that we live in a capitalist society, it follows that capitalism needs to function as best it can, if it is handicapped by left wing socialism then everyone suffers.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Oddball
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Well now it looks like Corbyn has got the poison chalice, I just wonder how his social largesse programme will get paid for should Labour actually get into office with him at the tiller?

Got nothing much against the principle of social generosity so long as it is reasonably affordable.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 14 2015, 04:57 PM
There is also the fact that we live in a capitalist society, it follows that capitalism needs to function as best it can, if it is handicapped by left wing socialism then everyone suffers.
Are you saying we should have no regulation at all of the capitalist market?

Because for many capitalists anything less than that is some form of capitalism "handicapped by left wing socialism ".

For the record anyone who advocates free market capitalism simply isn't Labour - end of.

It would be like claiming to be a Muslim and then eating bacon, or claiming to be Catholic and denying the need for confession.

All The Best


Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
PV.
Tony Blair didn't defeat the Tories.

The Tories did.

By then the country was so sick and fed up with Thatcherism that Tony BENN could have led the Labour party to power.
In terms of improvements for the many that was in fact, in a rather stunted way, happening under Major. Major's regime was an improvement on Thatcher's madness.

If the country was really fed up with Tory callousness the end of Thatcher's crap period in office was the time to boot them out. The problem for the Tories in 1997 was the fact that the so called newspapers backed Blair.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Aug 14 2015, 04:38 PM
You mean a return to those Clause Four ideals of production and wealth creation in the hands of "The People", meaning the state, true socialism.
No I don't actually.

I really don't care about privatisation in 99% of cases. Let whoever wants to provide the service do so and then let the consumer choose a) if they want that service/good at all, and b) who to buy it from if they do want it.

I do have a problem with privatisation in the key areas of publicly subsidised public service provision - trains, buses, etc, and core essentials such as water, electricity, gas and arguably basic telecoms.

I might, in extremis, also be persuaded that certain "essential" food goods should be subject to reasonable price increase controls.

All The Best
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Are you saying we should have no regulation at all of the capitalist market?
Fk in hell, what a crazy fk question to ask.
Edited by C-too, Aug 14 2015, 05:35 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 14 2015, 05:21 PM
Quote:
 
Are you saying we should have no regulation at all of the capitalist market?
Fk in hell, what a crazy fk question to ask.
No, it is not a fk crazy question.

You said, and I quote:

Quote:
 
There is also the fact that we live in a capitalist society, it follows that capitalism needs to function as best it can, if it is handicapped by left wing socialism then everyone suffers.


Capitalism functions best with NO regulation.

Where the market sets the price and the rules.

Problem is what you think capitalism "functioning the best it can" isn't remotely related to what Capitalists understand that to be.

All The Best
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Nonsense
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 14 2015, 04:52 PM
Affa
Aug 14 2015, 03:25 PM
krugerman
Aug 14 2015, 02:23 PM


It looks as though Mr Jeremy Corbyn is to be elected to leader of the Labour Party in September, .......... he will be torn to pieces by the Tories, by the media and by commentators everywhere.

As sure as eggs is eggs!
That does not make him wrong in his aims nor his methods ..... it just means he's unpopular with the Establishment - the same Establishment that created this social injustice, wealth gap, and Austerity crisis that he refuses to kneel to ......... so far.

It may not make his aims and methods wrong, but, IMO, it will certainly make sure they are never put into practice.

Labour has to win an election first, and if the opposition propaganda is so superior to that of Labour, then Labour has to find a way around it. Corbyn does not offer a way around this problem.
"Labour has to win an election first, and if the opposition propaganda is so superior to that of Labour, then Labour has to find a way around it. Corbyn does not offer a way around this problem".

The problem of electibility is not solely Corbyn's,REMEMBER, he NEVER lost the last election,MILLIBAND did,it was MILLIBAND who was offering something 'different'(in fact, he wasn't),YET, he was sticking by the TORY agenda of cuts for the poorest in society.

Read the party manifesto's, if you can download them,haha, they have been taken offline,because they are so embarrassing to all the parties.

These so-called contenders for the leadership, are ganging up on CORBYN, even ridiculing his policies,when he hasn't even revealed them,worst of all, those who criticise him, have no policies of their own, least not any that the public would support.

At least,if true, one good 'policy' of CORBYN's, would be ditching Labour's 'internationalism'.

I can virtually guarantee that no one will elect Labour, if COOPER,BURNHAM OR KENDALL are in charge.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Aug 14 2015, 05:31 PM
C-too
Aug 14 2015, 05:21 PM
Quote:
 
Are you saying we should have no regulation at all of the capitalist market?
Fk in hell, what a crazy fk question to ask.
No, it is not a fk crazy question.

You said, and I quote:

Quote:
 
There is also the fact that we live in a capitalist society, it follows that capitalism needs to function as best it can, if it is handicapped by left wing socialism then everyone suffers.


Capitalism functions best with NO regulation.

Where the market sets the price and the rules.

Problem is what you think capitalism "functioning the best it can" isn't remotely related to what Capitalists understand that to be.

All The Best
As best it can in the situation that exists. Your extrapolation of the comment is nonsense.

I have argued long and hard that unbridled Capitalism would be a disaster. I thought that was pretty much an axiom for thinking people.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
OK, as much as I hate to link to The Sun I have no choice because that is where this Boris Johnson article was published:


Speaking of Corbyn he says:
Quote:
 
And if we look back at the past 32 years since he came into Parliament, can we really say he has been as eccentric as all that?

Yes, he was one of the early campaigners against apartheid. Quite right, too — these days Mandela is regarded as a kind of modern saint.

Yes, he was in favour of bringing the IRA to the negotiating table, a view treated as semi-treacherous at the time.

These days he looks prescient — Martin McGuinness meets the Queen and no one bats an eyelid. Yes, he abominated the Iraq war and rebelled countless times against the government of Tony Blair.

But these days you look at what is happening in Iraq and Syria — the almost daily bombings and massacres — and you have to respect his judgment.

Sure, he spent decades campaigning for higher minimum wages for workers — and yet that ambition is now at the heart of Tory government policy.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/suncolumnists/6559996/Jeremy-Corbyn-gets-top-Marx-for-caring.html


And for those who think he is still unelectable I suggest a quick listen to this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/video/?videoid=4386570428001

If he really was as bat-shit crazy as the NuLab Fanbois would have us believe do you really think he would have that kind of election record?

All The Best
Edited by Pro Veritas, Aug 14 2015, 05:49 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 14 2015, 05:39 PM
As best it can in the situation that exists.
OK.

Who defines the "situation that exists"?

The world economy "as it is now" is just the product of decades of man made decisions and policy.

Ergo if we want to change it we can.

You are starting to sound like RJD with his abject terror of "The Market" as though it is some Leviathan from the deepest recesses of myth-made-real and we must appease it or be devoured.

I have some news for you: we made "The Market" what it is and we CAN change it if we want to.

You appear not to want to just so you can keep telling us Blair was right. He wasn't.

All The Best
Edited by Pro Veritas, Aug 14 2015, 05:50 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nonsense
Aug 14 2015, 05:35 PM
C-too
Aug 14 2015, 04:52 PM
Affa
Aug 14 2015, 03:25 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepAs sure as eggs is eggs!
That does not make him wrong in his aims nor his methods ..... it just means he's unpopular with the Establishment - the same Establishment that created this social injustice, wealth gap, and Austerity crisis that he refuses to kneel to ......... so far.

It may not make his aims and methods wrong, but, IMO, it will certainly make sure they are never put into practice.

Labour has to win an election first, and if the opposition propaganda is so superior to that of Labour, then Labour has to find a way around it. Corbyn does not offer a way around this problem.
"Labour has to win an election first, and if the opposition propaganda is so superior to that of Labour, then Labour has to find a way around it. Corbyn does not offer a way around this problem".

The problem of electibility is not solely Corbyn's,REMEMBER, he NEVER lost the last election,MILLIBAND did,it was MILLIBAND who was offering something 'different'(in fact, he wasn't),YET, he was sticking by the TORY agenda of cuts for the poorest in society.

Read the party manifesto's, if you can download them,haha, they have been taken offline,because they are so embarrassing to all the parties.

These so-called contenders for the leadership, are ganging up on CORBYN, even ridiculing his policies,when he hasn't even revealed them,worst of all, those who criticise him, have no policies of their own, least not any that the public would support.

At least,if true, one good 'policy' of CORBYN's, would be ditching Labour's 'internationalism'.

I can virtually guarantee that no one will elect Labour, if COOPER,BURNHAM OR KENDALL are in charge.
Corbyn is just a more capable version of Milliband with more appeal than Milliband. The end result WILL the same, i.e. Labour in opposition.

You may be right in that Labour may not be elected for a long time. The Conservatives will get away with their sh!te for a long period just as happened in the 80s and 90s. That is why people like yourself should think about how to get Labour elected, not how left wing they can be.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Aug 14 2015, 02:23 PM
Lets get one thing straight here, the most successful Labour leader in history has been Tony Blair, he swept to power with a record 418 seats in 1997, the defeat inflicted upon the Tories was massive and crushing. . .
It was impressive and yes he kicked old school Toryism into the long grass for nearly 2 two generations. But success isn't just or even most about majorities, it's about what you do with that.

To that end I suggest Clement Attlee is heads and shoulders above Blair. Attlee was excellent as a coalition partner running the country while Churchill focussed on the war and he built on that as subsequent PM to deliver the biggest social changes for good of the 20th century.

And he also won a massive majority too!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 14 2015, 05:39 PM
. .I have argued long and hard that unbridled Capitalism would be a disaster. I thought that was pretty much an axiom for thinking people.
True

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 14 2015, 05:50 PM

You may be right in that Labour may not be elected for a long time. The Conservatives will get away with their sh!te for a long period just as happened in the 80s and 90s. That is why people like yourself should think about how to get Labour elected, not how left wing they can be.
But if in electing Labour all we get (as we did with NuLab) is Tory-Lite what is the point of getting them elected?

People vote against the incumbent when they want change.

People didn't vote for Ed because voting for Ed would have got them "more of the same".

All The Best
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Aug 14 2015, 05:44 PM
OK, as much as I hate to link to The Sun I have no choice because that is where this Boris Johnson article was published:

Speaking of Corbyn he says:
Quote:
 
And if we look back at the past 32 years since he came into Parliament, can we really say he has been as eccentric as all that?

Yes, he was one of the early campaigners against apartheid. Quite right, too — these days Mandela is regarded as a kind of modern saint.

Yes, he was in favour of bringing the IRA to the negotiating table, a view treated as semi-treacherous at the time.

These days he looks prescient — Martin McGuinness meets the Queen and no one bats an eyelid. Yes, he abominated the Iraq war and rebelled countless times against the government of Tony Blair.

But these days you look at what is happening in Iraq and Syria — the almost daily bombings and massacres — and you have to respect his judgment.

Sure, he spent decades campaigning for higher minimum wages for workers — and yet that ambition is now at the heart of Tory government policy.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/suncolumnists/6559996/Jeremy-Corbyn-gets-top-Marx-for-caring.html


And for those who think he is still unelectable I suggest a quick listen to this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/video/?videoid=4386570428001

If he really was as bat-shit crazy as the NuLab Fanbois would have us believe do you really think he would have that kind of election record?

All The Best
If Corbyn is elected as the leader of the Labour party, then Labour will have plenty of time to wallow in the sh!te of Old Labour opposition. 40 years of it since 1951. Will it become 50 years ? or 60 years ?

I don't think it will be 60 years because even for the most stupid and the most biased political idiots, the penny must drop before then. Hopefully.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 14 2015, 03:19 PM
Steve K
Aug 14 2015, 01:31 PM
Affa
Aug 14 2015, 12:03 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep"the State cannot manage public utilties" or that "only privatisation can deliver good quality cost effective services "


Your post implied both ........... and I'm in no doubt intentionally so.
If you really do want to disown having such opinions, state so unambiguously.

So you posted false statements, refuse to apologise and want to blame me  ::)

I could suggest you are too thick to read what others post but actually I believe the problem is in your own probity. You feel any false projection is OK as you are an "ends justifies the means" person.

So no unambiguous denial of the validity of my comments in regards to the EXPRESSED opinion that re-nationalisation would return public services to the bad old days - days when Tory governments ensured their failure.

Well I could waste my time looking at what I'm supposed to deny if I already haven't by calling your comments false. I suggest even the thickest thickie in Thick Town would have got that.

I figure you'll only go twisting and misrepresenting my posts. So I'm focussing on the grown ups for now. I may get back to you on this if I feel like the debate equivalent of clubbing seals.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 14 2015, 06:00 PM
If Corbyn is elected as the leader of the Labour party, then Labour will have plenty of time to wallow in the sh!te of Old Labour opposition. 40 years of it since 1951. Will it become 50 years ? or 60 years ?

I don't think it will be 60 years because even for the most stupid and the most biased political idiots, the penny must drop before then. Hopefully.
So you didn't read any of the point I posted and didn't try and prove any of them wrong; just trotted out the same old Blairite Fanboi doom-mongering.

And you think I am the one with "idiotic bias".

Hmmmm, interesting.

If Corbyn is so bad why has he been re-elected for the 32 years?

All The Best
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Aug 14 2015, 05:59 PM
C-too
Aug 14 2015, 05:50 PM

You may be right in that Labour may not be elected for a long time. The Conservatives will get away with their sh!te for a long period just as happened in the 80s and 90s. That is why people like yourself should think about how to get Labour elected, not how left wing they can be.
But if in electing Labour all we get (as we did with NuLab) is Tory-Lite what is the point of getting them elected?

People vote against the incumbent when they want change.

People didn't vote for Ed because voting for Ed would have got them "more of the same".

All The Best
Your insult of "Tory-Lite" is just your way of denying the good that NL did "for the majority not the few".

I have news for you, there is no possibility of any government, or any mixture of politically different MPs, giving you what you personally want. Politics for you is about you, I would suggest that you give politics a miss and concentrate on doing what you can for yourself.

Ed was as New Labour as you are, that would be a great big zero.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
The only good possibility coming out of a Corbyn win would be that he lasts 3 years and a Labour revolt deposes him in time for a Chukka Milliband the elder ticket to take over.

That really would keep Osborne and May from their worst excesses and who knows maybe deliver a credible new government in 2020

Yes I know I'm clutching at straws.
Edited by Steve K, Aug 14 2015, 06:12 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Aug 14 2015, 06:08 PM
C-too
Aug 14 2015, 06:00 PM
If Corbyn is elected as the leader of the Labour party, then Labour will have plenty of time to wallow in the sh!te of Old Labour opposition. 40 years of it since 1951. Will it become 50 years ? or 60 years ?

I don't think it will be 60 years because even for the most stupid and the most biased political idiots, the penny must drop before then. Hopefully.
So you didn't read any of the point I posted and didn't try and prove any of them wrong; just trotted out the same old Blairite Fanboi doom-mongering.

And you think I am the one with "idiotic bias".

Hmmmm, interesting.

If Corbyn is so bad why has he been re-elected for the 32 years?

All The Best
Corbyn represents the neediness of many people. Unfortunately when people put need before possible acquirement then it works against what they need.

I don't have to prove the truth of historical reality.

NL proved improvements could be and were, made.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Nonsense
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 14 2015, 05:55 PM
krugerman
Aug 14 2015, 02:23 PM
Lets get one thing straight here, the most successful Labour leader in history has been Tony Blair, he swept to power with a record 418 seats in 1997, the defeat inflicted upon the Tories was massive and crushing. . .
It was impressive and yes he kicked old school Toryism into the long grass for nearly 2 two generations. But success isn't just or even most about majorities, it's about what you do with that.

To that end I suggest Clement Attlee is heads and shoulders above Blair. Attlee was excellent as a coalition partner running the country while Churchill focussed on the war and he built on that as subsequent PM to deliver the biggest social changes for good of the 20th century.

And he also won a massive majority too!
Yes,Attlee was head & shoulders above anything since.

Like Churchill, he was the right man, in the right place, at the right time.

It was during Attlee's time in office, that the,arguably, first divisions appear,with self-serving right-wingers in that party undermining the core basis on which the party was founded & which continues today.
It was Gaitskell,whom Attlee disliked,who started the schism between left-right,with the right undermining the left's struggles,again,it was Blair who not only abolished Clause 4 ,but marginilised the unions,who, in decades before, had exerted a 'moderating' influence in the party.

The 'right' wing of that party are the one's that abandoned & betrayed the working class.

They are the one's that have changed Labour's values,it's only right that they pay the price for those failures.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 14 2015, 06:08 PM
Your insult of "Tory-Lite" is just your way of denying the good that NL did "for the majority not the few".

I have news for you, there is no possibility of any government, or any mixture of politically different MPs, giving you what you personally want. Politics for you is about you, I would suggest that you give politics a miss and concentrate on doing what you can for yourself.

Ed was as New Labour as you are, that would be a great big zero.
My comment of Tory-Lite would only be considered an "insult" by someone who believed there was some truth in it; if you truly believed it to be false you would have called it a lie.

You have no idea what I want politically.
But I'll tell you so you can stop making yourself look silly.

I want politicians to stop doing what is best for them and their party and start doing what is best for the country. That means having principles, and Corbyn seems to me to be the most principled MP I have been aware of since Tony Benn. Blair certainly had no principles.

I never said Ed was NuLab - but he was.

My comment was about people not voting for Ed (Labour) at the last general election because they knew he was offering nothing different to what Cameron (Tory) was offering; and that, I'm afraid make him very NuLab - Tory-Lite behind a different colour tie.

All The Best
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
PV.

Who defines the "situation that exists"?
In the context to which I was referring, the "situation that exists" is defined by the rules that control capitalism in this country.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nonsense
Aug 14 2015, 06:15 PM
Steve K
Aug 14 2015, 05:55 PM
krugerman
Aug 14 2015, 02:23 PM
Lets get one thing straight here, the most successful Labour leader in history has been Tony Blair, he swept to power with a record 418 seats in 1997, the defeat inflicted upon the Tories was massive and crushing. . .
It was impressive and yes he kicked old school Toryism into the long grass for nearly 2 two generations. But success isn't just or even most about majorities, it's about what you do with that.

To that end I suggest Clement Attlee is heads and shoulders above Blair. Attlee was excellent as a coalition partner running the country while Churchill focussed on the war and he built on that as subsequent PM to deliver the biggest social changes for good of the 20th century.

And he also won a massive majority too!
Yes,Attlee was head & shoulders above anything since.

Like Churchill, he was the right man, in the right place, at the right time.

It was during Attlee's time in office, that the,arguably, first divisions appear,with self-serving right-wingers in that party undermining the core basis on which the party was founded & which continues today.
It was Gaitskell,whom Attlee disliked,who started the schism between left-right,with the right undermining the left's struggles,again,it was Blair who not only abolished Clause 4 ,but marginilised the unions,who, in decades before, had exerted a 'moderating' influence in the party.

The 'right' wing of that party are the one's that abandoned & betrayed the working class.

They are the one's that have changed Labour's values,it's only right that they pay the price for those failures.
You have fallen behind the times. Anyone who was not a socialist before WWII was either a Philistine or was controlled by threats from his employer. Anyone who is still a socialist is fighting a war that has already been won. All that is required now in the upkeep and the improvements already made.

If we could bring the elders from before WWII into todays situation they would think they were in paradise.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 14 2015, 03:25 PM
krugerman
Aug 14 2015, 02:23 PM


It looks as though Mr Jeremy Corbyn is to be elected to leader of the Labour Party in September, .......... he will be torn to pieces by the Tories, by the media and by commentators everywhere.

As sure as eggs is eggs!
That does not make him wrong in his aims nor his methods ..... it just means he's unpopular with the Establishment - the same Establishment that created this social injustice, wealth gap, and Austerity crisis that he refuses to kneel to ......... so far.

He is not unpopular with me, I hope he wins the leadership contest.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Aug 14 2015, 10:49 AM
marybrown
Aug 13 2015, 03:29 PM
ACH1967
Aug 13 2015, 03:23 PM
what is starnge about that
Because Diane Abbot is a black racist...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-hlQGrUes
Can't access you tube from here.

I do not know much about Dian apart from seeing her on the andrew Niel programme occasionally where she does not come across as particularly racist.
Oh c'mon, her partner in racist remarks was Bernie Grant, the sooner she joins him the better, as far as she is concerned, the world begins and ends with Hackney, I would be interested to know how many people in Hackney actually work and pay taxes but not being a techie I need some guidance as to how to source the info......any tips and help would be most appreciated.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 14 2015, 06:39 PM
Pro Veritas
Aug 14 2015, 06:17 PM
C-too
Aug 14 2015, 06:08 PM
Your insult of "Tory-Lite" is just your way of denying the good that NL did "for the majority not the few".

I have news for you, there is no possibility of any government, or any mixture of politically different MPs, giving you what you personally want. Politics for you is about you, I would suggest that you give politics a miss and concentrate on doing what you can for yourself.

Ed was as New Labour as you are, that would be a great big zero.
My comment of Tory-Lite would only be considered an "insult" by someone who believed there was some truth in it; if you truly believed it to be false you would have called it a lie.

You have no idea what I want politically.
But I'll tell you so you can stop making yourself look silly.

I want politicians to stop doing what is best for them and their party and start doing what is best for the country. That means having principles, and Corbyn seems to me to be the most principled MP I have been aware of since Tony Benn. Blair certainly had no principles.

I never said Ed was NuLab - but he was.

My comment was about people not voting for Ed (Labour) at the last general election because they knew he was offering nothing different to what Cameron (Tory) was offering; and that, I'm afraid make him very NuLab - Tory-Lite behind a different colour tie.

All The Best
You have already previously posted that your politics are about YOU. The fact that Blair/NL improved life for millions, has in your own posts meant NOTHING to you because you personally didn't feel any benefit.

I would suggest that it is pretty bloody obvious that no government can fulfil the needs of every single individual. That's why support NL and their attempt to improve the lot of the many. An intention which is in itself an anti-Tory position.
Paying people NOT to work is not improving their lot and reduces the living standards of those that DO pay taxes.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Locked Topic