So, Labour leadership contest?

[Rolfe]

...and you'll probably soon see said taxi driver once again. But this time on a select committee or quango. Or even in Mr. Brown's next cabinet.

For most of the journey I was only looking at the back of his head, so I wouldn't recognise him again. But depressingly, you're probably right.

Rolfe.

 

[Lucky]

For instance, a lot of people (especially ex-members) would join the Labour Party just to vote (I might do that myself).

Can that even happen?

I was surprised to find that anyone joining by June 1st can vote - I thought you had to have been a member for six months. (I would double-check before actually joining.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6457597.stm

No it wouldn't it would at best stimulate a bit of media attention on so called socialist polices such as unilateral nuclear disarmament (which is not a policy that rises out of socialist or leftwing principles but is a tacked on idea from a quite different ideology i.e. pacifism)

There's not much point quibbling about the precise meaning of 'socialist' (though I agree that nuclear disarmament isn't specifically socialist). The kinds of policy McDonnell wants to talk about are the ownership and management of public services, local democracy, pensions, the minimum wage, and responsibility for the environment. A public debate on these issues can only be beneficial (though not to Nu-Labour).

Rubbish - thankfully the time of the loony left has long gone (and I know of what I speak - I was thrown out of the Labour party many years ago for belonging to loony left groups).
...
Nope - it would not be close, the Labour Party is no longer full of loonies, it's full of people who want to get elected.

Why do you write off people who might vote for McDonnell, or be inspired by him to become politically active, as the 'loony left'? I am truly puzzled. Do you have some evidence of anything he's said or done that would deserve that label? How far to the left of Blair/Brown need one be to be a 'loony'?

As for Brown being an electoral asset ... hmm ...

There is nothing more scary than politics dictated by ideology rather than reality, I fervently hope we never go back to the politics of ideologies.

But what makes an 'ideology'? Socialism and capitalism are both economic systems; why is socialism an ideology, but not capitalism (or Thatcherism, or Blairism)?

You seem to be saying that maintaining the status quo, with all its miseries and inequalities, is 'reality', and changing the system enough to make a serious improvement in general living conditions (I don't just mean materially) is ideology, and therefore wrong. If so, I strongly disagree. Many people are doing very badly in our Thatcherite/Blairite society – old people, ill people, long-term unemployed people, people on low wages, people living on run-down, crime-ridden estates. Don't these people matter? What does Nu-Labour have to offer them?

At least some genuine belief and vision for improving the country would be nice to see in our politicians. The only concern of our current shower seems to be for self-serving preservation and advancement, spouting whatever cr*p they (or their advisors) think will get them a vote or a good by-line. Any notion of doing what's good for the country seems to come a very poor second best.

Only too true.

 

[Darat]

I was surprised to find that anyone joining by June 1st can vote - I thought you had to have been a member for six months. (I would double-check before actually joining.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6457597.stm

Hmm... How much do the Tories have in the bank right now... ?

There's not much point quibbling about the precise meaning of 'socialist' (though I agree that nuclear disarmament isn't specifically socialist). The kinds of policy McDonnell wants to talk about are the ownership and management of public services, local democracy, pensions, the minimum wage, and responsibility for the environment. A public debate on these issues can only be beneficial (though not to Nu-Labour).

I agree BUT that is not what the "public" aka "media" debate would be about - it would be focused on the extreme policies. What McDonnell wants to talk about doesn't - very unfortunately - come into it. The media is not on the whole known for being concerned about carefully nuanced and considered debate - the headlines are much more likely to be "Loony Left McDonnell wants to scrap our boys in uniform".

Why do you write off people who might vote for McDonnell, or be inspired by him to become politically active, as the 'loony left'? I am truly puzzled. Do you have some evidence of anything he's said or done that would deserve that label? How far to the left of Blair/Brown need one be to be a 'loony'?

Well that was a bit of hyperbole because I'm thinking in terms of how the media will portray him - however as an apt description "the loony left" still does describe the silliness of many of the current activists I know that want a "return" to so-called "old" Labour. They just can't seem to grasp the world has moved on.

As for Brown being an electoral asset ... hmm ...

Oh don't think I'm a Brownite or even supporter however we are talking about a choice (although it does not look like it will happen now) and between McDonnell and Brown I am as sure as I can be that Brown is more likely to be able to beat Cameron then McDonnell.

But what makes an 'ideology'? Socialism and capitalism are both economic systems; why is socialism an ideology, but not capitalism (or Thatcherism, or Blairism)?

Capitalism and socialism are both ideologies that also incorporate their principles into how they think the economy should be run. Thankfully we do not live in a socialist or capitalist system.

Thatcherism cannot be described as an ideology since it doesn't exist - any analysis of Thatcher's premiership will show that she had no consistent set of principles that could be described as an ideology that she applied to her governing of the UK. The same goes for Blair. The reason people see similarities between Blair and Thatcher is that they did both espouse some principles but their governing was not based on an ideology.

You seem to be saying that maintaining the status quo, with all its miseries and inequalities, is 'reality', and changing the system enough to make a serious improvement in general living conditions (I don't just mean materially) is ideology, and therefore wrong. If so, I strongly disagree. Many people are doing very badly in our Thatcherite/Blairite society – old people, ill people, long-term unemployed people, people on low wages, people living on run-down, crime-ridden estates. Don't these people matter? What does Nu-Labour have to offer them?

...snip...

Not what I am saying at all - what I am saying is that (as a for instance) the decision whether public transport should be owned by the state or private companies should not be based on an ideology - it should be based on what will deliver the best for the country (caveat I know best can mean many different things).

 

[Architect]

Not what I am saying at all - what I am saying is that (as a for instance) the decision whether public transport should be owned by the state or private companies should not be based on an ideology - it should be based on what will deliver the best for the country (caveat I know best can mean many different things).

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

But just to be pernicketty regarding this example - you may want to bear in mind that the Westminster parliament does not, in fact, have responsibility for public transport policy over the whole of the United Kingdom.

 

[brodski]

Agreed. But you may want to bear in mind that the Westminster leadership contest will not, in fact, have complete responsibility for public transport over the whole of the United Kingdom.

Westminster leadership contests will not even have responsibility for public transport in Westminster.

 

[Architect]

Westminster leadership contests will not even have responsibility for public transport in Westminster.

Indeed!

 

[a_unique_person]

Hello a_u_p. I guess you're not especially interested in the UK Labour leadership, but perhaps someone will manage to turn the discussion into an Israel/Palestine brawl (I thought I'd done that myself with my OP).

Didn't you hear, we voted to stay a Monarchy. Tony Blair has been front page news for a few day over here. I am interested to see what comes next. If the Tories win, what will they do about Iraq?

 

[Rolfe]

The Tories cannot possibly win a Labour leadership contest.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

The Tories cannot possibly win a Labour leadership contest.

Rolfe.

They have done in the past ....

 

[Darat]

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

But just to be pernicketty regarding this example - you may want to bear in mind that the Westminster parliament does not, in fact, have responsibility for public transport policy over the whole of the United Kingdom.

Did you mean to say the United Kingdom's Parliaments?

 

[Lothian]

This labour leadership election is a non starter. The big race in the Labour party is to find the successor to Gordon Brown not Tony Bliar.

The expectation within the party is that whoever takes over will lead Labour to second place in the next election.

The cunning plan the serious candidates have is to support Gordon now but they will be subtly distancing themselves from him as the election approaches so when Gordon resigns thereafter they are in a strong position to take over.

 

[Darat]

You really think Menzies will lead the LibDems to a victory?

 

[Architect]

Did you mean to say the United Kingdom's Parliaments?

Touche.

Mea culpa. I was copying the example of the Scottish broadsheets who now talk about "the Parliament" (ie Holyrood) and "the Westminster Parliament" (meaning the UK parliament).

 

[Rolfe]

Look, "Westminster" and "Holyrood" are quicker to type, and perfectly unambiguous.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

Touche.

Mea culpa. I was copying the example of the Scottish broadsheets who now talk about "the Parliament" (ie Holyrood) and "the Westminster Parliament" (meaning the UK parliament).

?



And I'm sure you keep writing letters to the editors and proprietors to get them to stop this inexcusable snubbing of the rest of the UK?

Shall we call a truce? It's a fact that there is never a very simple way to describe the governance of the UK that is totally accurate and represents everyone in the UK.

 

[Rolfe]

No, but we can be unambigious about which talking-shop we're talking about. Just saying "parliament" without clarifying which is insufficient whichever you're talking about.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

Look, "Westminster" and "Holyrood" are quicker to type, and perfectly unambiguous.

Rolfe.

Are you referring to the House of Commons or the House of Lords when you say "Westminster"? Seriously it can be depending on the context at least a bit ambiguous.

It does all depends on the context. After all it is just as unambiguous to just say "Parliament" if you are if discussing the UK, and to be blunt all the powers that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh & NI Assemblies have are devolved from Westminster ( ) and as unlikely as it seems could of course all be undevolved if the Parliaments of the UK wished to. Which is of course one of the few rational reasons for independence for countries like Wales i.e. it means the devolved powers can't ever (well might of arms or another "union") be removed.

 

[Darat]

No, but we can be unambigious about which talking-shop we're talking about. Just saying "parliament" without clarifying which is insufficient whichever you're talking about.

Rolfe.

No it's not - for instance when we are talking about a General Election (part of the topic of this thread) there is no need to mention the Scottish parliament or Welsh & NI assemblies since we are talking about a General Election in the UK and there is only one parliament and government of the UK.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, OK then. Context-sensitive. Pedant.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

Guilty.

To get back on track - it appears that he ain't going to get the nominations: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6660565.stm