All things Labour Party

But it was due to the Prawn sandwich brigade who had something to gain from 'New' Labour that let them in during the 90's in the first place. How can you blow a chance if you had to betray your very principles to get it in the first place?

That's a description a Lib Dem councillor friend/ former Labour campaigner gave me once. His view was that Labour had to basically destroy itself to gain power so he might as well join a "proper" Liberal party...which kinda backs up the theory that Labour assumed in 1997 that they were heading towards a Lib/Lab coalition. We know Kinnock and Foot lost, we'll never know about Smith, he seemed like he was essentially heading Labour towards power with a centre kinda Scottish presbetarian outlook. So I'm not one to rush to think that they were totally unelectable if they held those views but had the right leader....it's far too easy to come to that conclusion.

New thinking is required on the part of Labour, but I don't think it's New Labour that's needed as it's as toxic a brand as Tony Blair is.

That's a description a Lib Dem councillor friend/ former Labour campaigner gave me once. His view was that Labour had to basically destroy itself to gain power so he might as well join a "proper" Liberal party...which kinda backs up the theory that Labour assumed in 1997 that they were heading towards a Lib/Lab coalition. We know Kinnock and Foot lost, we'll never know about Smith, he seemed like he was essentially heading Labour towards power with a centre kinda Scottish presbetarian outlook. So I'm not one to rush to think that they were totally unelectable if they held those views but had the right leader....it's far too easy to come to that conclusion.

 

New thinking is required on the part of Labour, but I don't think it's New Labour that's needed as it's as toxic a brand as Tony Blair is.

New thinking.

What do the Labour supporters here see as a viable future plan? Firstly, to make their party electable (A crucial difference to an idealistic view...) and then to make a beneficial difference to the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

See, since the days of Ramsay MacDonald, Labour have tried to not present a view of itself as anything "too far" left...i.e. electable but my view is that they've played it rather too cautious, they've sat back whilst the con-dem coalition blamed everything (literally everything) on them ad nauseum so I think a lot of people we see it as time to "punish the interlopers" because I think a lot of labour voters consider a lot of new labour to be champagne socialists, the prawn sandwich brigade of socialism as it were.

 

A new direction is needed for the UK Labour party, I'm not completely sold on Corbyn but out of the bunch he is the only one who comes across as honorable and with good intentions...if misguided intentions. I also think if the new labourites do indeed stage a coup, that'll be Labour's chance of election success blown maybe for 20-odd years.

The point is that the Labour party of Ramsay MacDonald, Wilson, Kinnock, Brown, Blair, Milliband IS the Labour party.

The idea that the "real" Labour party is the one exclusively represented by Corbyn and a cluster of hard left MPs is misguided.

Corbyn has spent 30 years rebelling and fighting against the Labour party. He doesn't represent Labour any more than any of the other candidates.

At least Michael Foot had the bo llocks to serve on the front benches, run government department and try and change lives. For 30 years Corbyn could have applied Labour thinking to opposition and government and he didn't.

The point is that the Labour party of Ramsay MacDonald, Wilson, Kinnock, Brown, Blair, Milliband IS the Labour party.

 

The idea that the "real" Labour party is the one represented by Corbyn and a cluster of hard left MPs is misguided.

 

Corbyn has spent 30 years rebelling and fighting against the Labour party. He doesn't represent Labour any more than any of the other candidates.

 

At least Michael Foot had the bo llocks to serve on the front benches, run government department and try and change lives. For 30 years Corbyn could have applied Labour thinking to opposition and government and he didn't.

Critically now though, is that it 'was' the perceived establishment of the labour party. What is that now?

Unfortunately (depending on your perspective) its the hundreds of thousands eligible to vote for the leadership. They are the Labour party..... Ed Milliband's party of the people.

Critically now though, is that it 'was' the perceived establishment of the labour party. What is that now?

 

Unfortunately (depending on your perspective) its the hundreds of thousands eligible to vote for the leadership. They are the Labour party..... Ed Milliband's party of the people.

The irony of course being that this was all brought about by the right-wing media's (and frankly anyone else who could see his brother stood a better chance) demonisation of the union's push for Ed Milliband. I certainly think left-of-centre is required and I've said that Burnham is probably their best chance but the problem with the candidates...Corbyn aside...and the party itself, is that they are running around like a bunch of headless chickens with no clear strategy or agenda of their own. This needs to change.

They need to be tougher I think is the bottom line and come up with policies that challenge the government and don't particularly in general support them because that I think is the main issue here.

The irony of course being that this was all brought about by the right-wing media's (and frankly anyone else who could see his brother stood a better chance) demonisation of the union's push for Ed Milliband. I certainly think left-of-centre is required and I've said that Burnham is probably their best chance but the problem with the candidates...Corbyn aside...and the party itself, is that they are running around like a bunch of headless chickens with no clear strategy or agenda of their own. This needs to change.

 

They need to be tougher I think is the bottom line and come up with policies that challenge the government and don't particularly in general support them because that I think is the main issue here.

My personal perspective (as someone who started cheering loudly and openly in Malta International Airport when I saw the Labour leadership result in September 2010...... It was clearly stupid at the time, both my understated reaction and the result) was that a focus on Union politics just highlights how marginalised Labour are becoming. Lost in themselves. So, is it simply natural for them to be a party of protest to try and moderate rather then be a party of power?

That a parties most successful leader is a pariah is never going to be a positive or cement any credibility.

Corbyn's election will be a great story.

 

It's mainly that you can't expect the entire party membership to vote for its chief executive in this way.

 

Of course this is notwithstanding the idiot MPs who let him on the ballot paper, which is the fundamental flaw and led to this mess.

 

The Conservative process worked fine - get to two candidates that the parliamentary party are ostensibly happy to lead them - Davis or Cameron - and then let the membership vote. Either candidate was different but had enough to be a credible leader. A sensibly de-risked process.

 

Being a leader of an organisation is not like winning a talent or popularity contest. The new Labour party leader actually has to chair meetings, lead a cabinet, agree strategy, sit down and talk to foreign leaders, find compromise, speak to business and civic leaders, review different perspectives, make decisions and drive them through, driving discipline in his team and party to stick to his vision etc etc. All at the same time articulate a vision for the future that will keep MPs in constituencies and maybe gain new ones.

 

Nothing in his past suggests Corbyn is remotely capable of that. He's a stupid choice for leader.

Hockey , take note . This is the fundemental problem with Corbyn as leader that you can't seem to grasp . There was a threshold for a reason , the leader has to have the confidence of a significant % of mp's . All this lending of votes to " broaden the debate" is feeble minded in the extreme . Labour do broaden the debate by letting as many mp's on the ballot who reach that threshold , as opposed to the Tories who just send 2.

The irony of course being that this was all brought about by the right-wing media's (and frankly anyone else who could see his brother stood a better chance) demonisation of the union's push for Ed Milliband. I certainly think left-of-centre is required and I've said that Burnham is probably their best chance but the problem with the candidates...Corbyn aside...and the party itself, is that they are running around like a bunch of headless chickens with no clear strategy or agenda of their own. This needs to change.

 

They need to be tougher I think is the bottom line and come up with policies that challenge the government and don't particularly in general support them because that I think is the main issue here.

Are you suggesting that the Union's push for Ed didn't really happen?

Or that it did happen, but it was actually a good thing for the Party?

Are you suggesting that the Union's push for Ed didn't really happen?

 

Or that it did happen, but it was actually a good thing for the Party?

Did it sound like it? Sorry for the misunderstanding. The world and it's mother could see that Ed Milliband was the wrong choice. I also see what you mean Lord Duckhunter.

Did it sound like it? Sorry for the misunderstanding. The world and it's mother could see that Ed Milliband was the wrong choice. I also see what you mean Lord Duckhunter.

Do tell us. The "world and his mother" thought he was the wrong choice because....?

Do tell us. The "world and his mother" thought he was the wrong choice because....?

He was pushed in by the unions....His brother at the time was clearly the more popular choice and it's the reason the current voting system is in place....I think most people could see he was the wrong choice.

I'm not going to give you any evidence based argument as to why but it was pretty clear from the outset.

He was pushed in by the unions....His brother at the time was clearly the more popular choice and it's the reason the current voting system is in place....I think most people could see he was the wrong choice.

 

I'm not going to give you any evidence based argument as to why but it was pretty clear from the outset.

and it appears this time, corbyn is the 'right chocie'....?

jesus christ

Corbyn is everything the Electorate didn't like about Ed multiplied by 10. He's very much the wrong choice for you red chaps.

At least, he is if he survives until 2020. I don't think there's a cat in hell's chance that he will though.

The appeal of Corbyn lies in his no-nonsense, clear-headed, straightforward presentation. On Radio 4 this week he was asked, Yes or No, whether he wanted to be prime minister. His answer:

JC: Look, I put myself forward in this leadership contest knowing there was difficulty getting on the ballot paper, and I’m grateful to colleagues that nominated me, genuinely so, even though they perhaps weren’t so keen on the process. OK? We’re there. We’re now in a very strong position, I’m enjoying this campaign, and…

 

Interviewer: Do you want to be prime minister?

 

JC: Hang on, let me finish! I wouldn’t be doing this if I wasn’t wanting and prepared to take on this position, and the consequences that flow from it, in the general election that follows after that.

I can see his supporters’ point. 89 words where one would do make him the soul of brevity.

He never did utter the word Yes.

and it appears this time, corbyn is the 'right chocie'....?

 

 

jesus christ

Maybe Louise Mensch would be a better choice...jesus you Tories. Desperation.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/22/louise-menschs-bid-to-smear-jeremy-corbyn-backfires

Maybe Louise Mensch would be a better choice...jesus you Tories. Desperation.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/22/louise-menschs-bid-to-smear-jeremy-corbyn-backfires

'you tories'....I am exactly the sort of casual voter corbyn needs to get on side

I voted Labour in 2001 and 2005...I have voted Tory 2010 and 2015.....

with corbyn, I have absolutely 1 option only now (and looks like it will be Boris next time)

'you tories'....I am exactly the sort of casual voter corbyn needs to get on side

I voted Labour in 2001 and 2005...I have voted Tory 2010 and 2015.....

 

with corbyn, I have absolutely 1 option only now (and looks like it will be Boris next time)

I do hope it is Boris...Even that bumbling buffoon has actively spoken out against a lot of the idiotic and dogmatic things this current regime are doing.

He was pushed in by the unions....His brother at the time was clearly the more popular choice and it's the reason the current voting system is in place....I think most people could see he was the wrong choice.

 

I'm not going to give you any evidence based argument as to why but it was pretty clear from the outset.

Err, okay. So yesterday you dismissed the 1997 Labour administration as "Tory-lite you might as well vote for the Tories" despite containing world famous Tories like Margaret Beckett, David Blunkett, Robin Cook, John Prescott, Frank Dobson, Claire Short, Frank Field and so on. One big old Thatcher fan club.

But today you're saying Ed was the wrong choice compared to David Miliband because Ed was the choice of the unions.

Bizarre.

The appeal of Corbyn lies in his no-nonsense, clear-headed, straightforward presentation. On Radio 4 this week he was asked, Yes or No, whether he wanted to be prime minister. His answer:

 

 

I can see his supporters’ point. 89 words where one would do make him the soul of brevity.

 

He never did utter the word Yes.

He's absolutely petrified of winning.

A lovely little student debate he thought he was having has completely spiralled out of control.

Err, okay. So yesterday you dismissed the 1997 Labour administration as "Tory-lite you might as well vote for the Tories" despite containing world famous Tories like Margaret Beckett, David Blunkett, Robin Cook, John Prescott, Frank Dobson, Claire Short, Frank Field and so on. One big old Thatcher fan club.

 

But today you're saying Ed was the wrong choice compared to David Miliband because Ed was the choice of the unions.

 

Bizarre.

Not really, it's only bizarre since you think I'm some hard left voter. The amount of tory MP's parachuted in during the 97 election and obviously Tony Blair was what made it a "tory-lite" party. Not the list of names you give. Milliband at the time was the wrong choice; it's as simple as that. His brother had charisma, even if he was clearly new Labour; it's also something Corbyn seems to have but Corbyn however is very different to Ed.

Not really, it's only bizarre since you think I'm some hard left voter. The amount of tory MP's parachuted in during the 97 election and obviously Tony Blair was what made it a "tory-lite" party. Not the list of names you give. Milliband at the time was the wrong choice; it's as simple as that. His brother had charisma, even if he was clearly new Labour; it's also something Corbyn seems to have but Corbyn however is very different to Ed.

Here's the 1997 Labour Party manifesto. Could you list all the things that make it 'Tory-lite'?

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab97.htm

Not really, it's only bizarre since you think I'm some hard left voter. The amount of tory MP's parachuted in during the 97 election and obviously Tony Blair was what made it a "tory-lite" party. Not the list of names you give. Milliband at the time was the wrong choice; it's as simple as that. His brother had charisma, even if he was clearly new Labour; it's also something Corbyn seems to have but Corbyn however is very different to Ed.

Well the names I mentioned was the cabinet - the people who actually were the government. So was that government "Tory-lite" or not? Yes or no?

And you're now saying you support David Miliband, pretty much the poster boy of next generation New Labour, a Blair protégé and centrist social democrat who also supported the war in Iraq. So you like him, so I'll assume your Tory-lite smear doesn't apply to him.

So my question is, can you please name the members of the government between 1997-2005 in influential positions to the right of David Miliband that cause you to dismiss the entire administration as "Tory-lite".

I, like most people, don't purely think of an ideological basis...there are people I warm to and there are people I don't...their politics may be similar; they may not either, I think you're just trying to get a rise but either way, this article sounds interesting...I don't much I'd place economic theory trust ona former footballer though

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/22/jeremy-corbyn-economists-backing-anti-austerity-policies-corbynomics

I, like most people, don't purely think of an ideological basis...there are people I warm to and there are people I don't...their politics may be similar; they may not either, I think you're just trying to get a rise but either way, this article sounds interesting...I don't much I'd place economic theory trust ona former footballer though

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/22/jeremy-corbyn-economists-backing-anti-austerity-policies-corbynomics

What is the point of quoting an article about a letter, in which there is no sign of the actual letter?

I'd like to see what is being said by these 'prominent' economists, and who the signatories are, yet despite the fact that the letter appeared in a sister paper to the Guardian there's nothing, no links, no names except for Blanchflower (a usual suspect if there was one).

What is the point of quoting an article about a letter, in which there is no sign of the actual letter?

 

I'd like to see what is being said by these 'prominent' economists, and who the signatories are, yet despite the fact that the letter appeared in a sister paper to the Guardian there's nothing, no links, no names except for Blanchflower (a usual suspect if there was one).

I was thinking that too actually. It did seem like an advert for "amazing hair replacement gel" in that it says "experts swear by it" with not a great deal of evidence to back it up.

I, like most people, don't purely think of an ideological basis...there are people I warm to and there are people I don't...their politics may be similar; they may not either, I think you're just trying to get a rise but either way, this article sounds interesting...I don't much I'd place economic theory trust ona former footballer though [emoji14]

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/22/jeremy-corbyn-economists-backing-anti-austerity-policies-corbynomics

So when you complain about the labour administration to 2005 being "Tory-lite you might as well vote for the Tories" you don't really know who you mean or what you mean?

Clear.

So when you complain about the labour administration to 2005 being "Tory-lite you might as well vote for the Tories" you don't really know who you mean or what you mean?

 

Clear.

Come on CB, I'm never that clear....I suppose what I meant was that they were scrabbling around for some sort of purpose, a meaning and they ended seemingly like nothing more than a copy of the conservatives.(I.e. Tory-lite). It irritated me that they ignored issues such as immigration...more that they blatantly just called whoever mentioned it racists (when as you probably know, their stance was very different until Bevan changed his mind). I was annoyed when they chose Ed over David as, at that time, I felt he had a better chance at being elected. But today, I just see Corbyn, so radically different that I think "ok, maybe we could do with a big change in politics as he certainly does seem popular".

People can change their mind and it depends what the politician plays on, I mean, the campaigning he's doing against hitting the disabled with all kinds of cuts resonates with me. I pay my taxes and would prefer them to go to them and not members of the Burlington club (I've gone off on a tangent there). But to say "ohh, you believed in it then but not now" is just too simplistic.

Good article by my old buddy Bryan Gould

http://www.bryangould.com/who-is-jeremy-corbyn/

I, like most people, don't purely think of an ideological basis...there are people I warm to and there are people I don't...their politics may be similar; they may not either, I think you're just trying to get a rise but either way, this article sounds interesting...I don't much I'd place economic theory trust ona former footballer though

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/22/jeremy-corbyn-economists-backing-anti-austerity-policies-corbynomics

I smell a rat. Having now seen the letter and the list of signatories, I instantly recognise two of them as nowhere near economists at all, let alone 'leading' ones. John Roberts is a sociologist at Brunel who publishes on subjects like fetishism, and Hilary Wainwright is a well-known socialist feminist whose background is also in sociology and who presently edits Red Pepper. I'll have a look at the rest, but this list of signatories looks way off.

Besides, the main point of the letter is to quibble with the 'barrage of media coverage' - a favourite theme in academia where resentment of the media is endemic - that Corbynomics is 'extremist'. No evidence is offered for this claim of a 'barrage', but in any case, not all of these signatories is even a supporter of Corbyn (they don't say who is and who isn't).

It's all a bit feeble. Here's a link to the actual letter:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics

Good article by my old buddy Bryan Gould

 

http://www.bryangould.com/who-is-jeremy-corbyn/

Odd that in an article asking the question Who is Corbyn? it doesn't mention his upbringing in a 7-bedroom Shropshire manor house on the Duke of Sutherland's estate. It also makes uncritical reference to the 'leading economists' letter. I can't believe Gould, of all people, doesn't know that that 'leading economists' tag is sailing close to being blatantly untrue.

Odd that in an article asking the question Who is Corbyn? it doesn't mention his upbringing in a 7-bedroom Shropshire manor house on the Duke of Sutherland's estate. It also makes uncritical reference to the 'leading economists' letter. I can't believe Gould, of all people, doesn't know that that 'leading economists' tag is sailing close to being blatantly untrue.

Does that matter? I mean, look at Tony Benn....so they're rich people with consciences? My old mum noted a while ago that Karl Marx himself was rich and that perhaps he didn't completely follow his own advice but is it not better to try (maybe fail) at making things more equal than to (and this is my main gripe with the current government) when you see desperate cuts needing to be made, to first of all sh&t on the weakest in society?

Come on CB, I'm never that clear....I suppose what I meant was that they were scrabbling around for some sort of purpose, a meaning and they ended seemingly like nothing more than a copy of the conservatives.(I.e. Tory-lite). It irritated me that they ignored issues such as immigration...more that they blatantly just called whoever mentioned it racists (when as you probably know, their stance was very different until Bevan changed his mind). I was annoyed when they chose Ed over David as, at that time, I felt he had a better chance at being elected. But today, I just see Corbyn, so radically different that I think "ok, maybe we could do with a big change in politics as he certainly does seem popular".

 

People can change their mind and it depends what the politician plays on, I mean, the campaigning he's doing against hitting the disabled with all kinds of cuts resonates with me. I pay my taxes and would prefer them to go to them and not members of the Burlington club (I've gone off on a tangent there). But to say "ohh, you believed in it then but not now" is just too simplistic.

What did you want them to say about immigration? You seem to be saying you wanted them to be more hardline which would be a typically right wing stance, so that would mean you actually wanted the last Labour government to be even more Tory. So you might as well have voted Tory yourself.

The start of this thread was basically you calling people like me "Tories" for saying they didn't want Corbyn and they did want a centre-left leader to take the Conservatives on. The kind of thing that David Miliband would agree with. The kind of leader David Miliband would have been and would be.

So you've changed your mind to such an extent that you have decided the person you wanted to be leader five years ago is actually a Tory and anyone who thinks like him (centre left) is also a Tory.

New thinking.

 

What do the Labour supporters here see as a viable future plan? Firstly, to make their party electable (A crucial difference to an idealistic view...) and then to make a beneficial difference to the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

There is no reason why Labour can't be electable, just need to be left of centre like Blair. Ed Milliband was just unelectable, get a credible leader and a decent team and they should do OK - it all depends on the state of the economy at the time of the next election.

If there is another bank crash and we end up bailing out the banks again and austerity no 2 there will probably be a massive swing to the left.

There is no reason why Labour can't be electable, just need to be left of centre like Blair. Ed Milliband was just unelectable, get a credible leader and a decent team and they should do OK - it all depends on the state of the economy at the time of the next election.

 

If there is another bank crash and we end up bailing out the banks again and austerity no 2 there will probably be a massive swing to the left.

Now assume the opposite, that there will not be another crash (Not saying there will not be, just hypotheticals, as things can only be in this type of discussion) what is Labour's USP?

What did you want them to say about immigration? You seem to be saying you wanted them to be more hardline which would be a typically right wing stance, so that would mean you actually wanted the last Labour government to be even more Tory. So you might as well have voted Tory yourself.

 

The start of this thread was basically you calling people like me "Tories" for saying they didn't want Corbyn and they did want a centre-left leader to take the Conservatives on. The kind of thing that David Miliband would agree with. The kind of leader David Miliband would have been and would be.

 

So you've changed your mind to such an extent that you have decided the person you wanted to be leader five years ago is actually a Tory and anyone who thinks like him (centre left) is also a Tory.

I think it was Tony Blair or even Corbyn who said that everyone has bits of left and bits of right in them, It's tricky but there is a thin line and I think Labour recently crossed it; was it when Liz Kendall decided to tell the unemployed on benefits that Labour wasn't the party for them? I don't know....but did you see that Bevan reference? You know Enoch Powell told everyone to vote Labour as they felt the UK workforce, at the time, would be hurt by free roaming EU membership...That's what I meant, to change such a view and then just look at people who took that view as virtual vermin offended me. I like some aspects of New Labour, but what I do not like is this scramble for virtually the right; which they are doing now. I think a lot of votes were lost because it seemed "New Labour" had reached an impasse and had no clue where to go but to support whatever the tories say. If this is what New Labour is, then I want no part of that.

Regarding the prominently left economists

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11814767/Jeremy-Corbyns-plan-to-turn-Britain-into-Zimbabwe.html

Sent from my HTC Desire 310 using Tapatalk

Regarding the prominently left economists

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11814767/Jeremy-Corbyns-plan-to-turn-Britain-into-Zimbabwe.html

 

Sent from my HTC Desire 310 using Tapatalk

You really are very special.

Good article in yesterday's Times from Matthew Parris of all people asking what exactly is Labour standing for these days? Obviously it had some Tory bias in it, but it is a valid point; one that I think Hockey was coming from. While Blair had unrivalled success with a Labour government, it was definitely centre left; perhaps a perception it was almost centre right. At least, that was how I interpreted his words.

David Milliband would have continued with this theme, Corbyn probably won't but he isn't stupid, he will know that the Corbyn of the back benches cannot be the same person who is going to be the leader. Compromise within the party and his policy will be the name of the game, choosing policies that he can be more radical with, in the same way that Cameron has to keep the various factions onside within his party over Europe for example. Trident will be an interesting one, rail and energy are others. I am quite looking forward to it, of course, one the others could always win but it promises to be fun.

Good article in yesterday's Times from Matthew Parris of all people asking what exactly is Labour standing for these days? Obviously it had some Tory bias in it, but it is a valid point; one that I think Hockey was coming from. While Blair had unrivalled success with a Labour government, it was definitely centre left; perhaps a perception it was almost centre right. At least, that was how I interpreted his words.

 

David Milliband would have continued with this theme, Corbyn probably won't but he isn't stupid, he will know that the Corbyn of the back benches cannot be the same person who is going to be the leader. Compromise within the party and his policy will be the name of the game, choosing policies that he can be more radical with, in the same way that Cameron has to keep the various factions onside within his party over Europe for example. Trident will be an interesting one, rail and energy are others. I am quite looking forward to it, of course, one the others could always win but it promises to be fun.

Exactly. It may have been foolish of me to think Labour wouldn't eventually come to this impasse, this virtual conservative model but it has and as far as New Labour goes, I don't think I'm alone in saying that if you wish to have more of the same, then like a lot of the Liberal voters, you might as well switch to the conservative party because the difference is pretty vague and the only people that can "do" conservatism are...surprisingly....the conservatives.

I think it was Tony Blair or even Corbyn who said that everyone has bits of left and bits of right in them, It's tricky but there is a thin line and I think Labour recently crossed it; was it when Liz Kendall decided to tell the unemployed on benefits that Labour wasn't the party for them? I don't know....but did you see that Bevan reference? You know Enoch Powell told everyone to vote Labour as they felt the UK workforce, at the time, would be hurt by free roaming EU membership...That's what I meant, to change such a view and then just look at people who took that view as virtual vermin offended me. I like some aspects of New Labour, but what I do not like is this scramble for virtually the right; which they are doing now. I think a lot of votes were lost because it seemed "New Labour" had reached an impasse and had no clue where to go but to support whatever the tories say. If this is what New Labour is, then I want no part of that.

During the election campaign I think I must have missed all those occasions when Ed Miliband and the rest of the shadow cabinet "supported whatever the Tories say".

You've got upset by Liz Kendall which has turned you into shouting "Tory" at every single person that doesn't support Jeremy Corbyn. Fine.

During the election campaign I think I must have missed all those occasions when Ed Miliband and the rest of the shadow cabinet "supported whatever the Tories say".

 

You've got upset by Liz Kendall which has turned you into shouting "Tory" at every single person that doesn't support Jeremy Corbyn. Fine.

I'd be happy for people voting Burnham...I've said that before on here but the other candidates are directionless. career politicians who have no real values that I would ascribe to that of Labour.

Now assume the opposite, that there will not be another crash (Not saying there will not be, just hypotheticals, as things can only be in this type of discussion) what is Labour's USP?

They just need a credible leader and decent team behind him/her and they will get more votes than the Milliband/Balls circus. They don't need a USP, like I said it all depends how the economy is, if people feel they are doing OK they won't vote for change. Even if the next crash doesn't happen before the next election, if the Tories austerity is not working then people may vote for a credible alternative.

The problem with Labour is all their own doing, I personally don't give a ****e because they helped cause the Iraq war and all the problems that followed so deserve whatever they get. If they shift to the left it might actually open up room for a better alternative liberal party that does not have the baggage of the unions and all the history that goes with it.

Another interesting read from the Institute of economic affairs.

http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/no-leading-economists-are-not-supporting-corbyn’s-far-left-agenda

Sent from my HTC Desire 310 using Tapatalk

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/jeremy-corbyn-is-a-stranger-to-responsibility-and-will-loathe-leadership-10471438.html

Nicely covers a point I've made on here.

The daily grind of responsibility will destroy Corbyn.

From the minute he takes over he'll have half an eye on how he can quit, blameless, "on principle".

I feel sorry for all the Corbynistas dutifully voting for a man who clearly doesn't want the job, and definitely has no interest in being prime minister at all.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/jeremy-corbyn-is-a-stranger-to-responsibility-and-will-loathe-leadership-10471438.html

 

Nicely covers a point I've made on here.

 

The daily grind of responsibility will destroy Corbyn.

 

From the minute he takes over he'll have half an eye on how he can quit, blameless, "on principle".

 

I feel sorry for all the Corbynistas dutifully voting for a man who clearly doesn't want the job, and definitely has no interest in being prime minister at all.

A Corbyn win will be good for Labour in the longer term imo. The next general election is nearly five full years away. We'll have 2.5 years of Corbyn convincing people that whilst he is too dogmatic to be electable Labour does at least have the commitment to people instead of companies that many thought it had lost. Labour will be differentiated from the Tories again, a Cooper / Burnham win would only have re-inforced the perception of Labour as Tory lite. Corbyn will be ditched in plenty of time for the 2020 election and Miliband (D) will ride in on a populist wave.

Well Blair's just given Corbyn a further popularity boost http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34100741

Blair accusing other people of living in a parallel reality is one of the funniest things I've read all year.

Tells you all you need to know about the man.

A Corbyn win will be good for Labour in the longer term imo. The next general election is nearly five full years away. We'll have 2.5 years of Corbyn convincing people that whilst he is too dogmatic to be electable Labour does at least have the commitment to people instead of companies that many thought it had lost. Labour will be differentiated from the Tories again, a Cooper / Burnham win would only have re-inforced the perception of Labour as Tory lite. Corbyn will be ditched in plenty of time for the 2020 election and Miliband (D) will ride in on a populist wave.

Yeah, I think that it might play out like that. Not necessarily D Miliband but someone young and new to take Boris on.

That's a best case scenario.

Yeah, I think that it might play out like that. Not necessarily D Miliband but someone young and new to take Boris on.

 

That's a best case scenario.

That was pretty much my interpretation of it. Although have you seen this?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/29/yvette-cooper-legal-challenge-trade-union-bill-labour-leadership

I think this sounds like a hornet's nest that could potentially make this all pretty pointless if we essentially end up with a right-wing engineered one party state.

That was pretty much my interpretation of it. Although have you seen this?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/29/yvette-cooper-legal-challenge-trade-union-bill-labour-leadership

 

I think this sounds like a hornet's nest that could potentially make this all pretty pointless if we essentially end up with a right-wing engineered one party state.

" Engineered" by the right , what you on about man ? If we end up with your " one party state " the only engineering involved was by the clowns that " engineered " Old Jezzas nomination.

here is a good idea from Jezza.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11844594/Jeremy-Corbyn-Let-taxpayers-opt-out-of-funding-the-Army.html