Corbyn did win, what's next?

Matthew Best said:
Hah! That's basically saying that he shoulders the blame for being right and everyone else being wrong, isn't it?
Click to expand...

For certain meanings of "factual", "rational", "right" and "wrong", yes.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Nope but then no one has argued that the Shadow Chancellor is fit for high office because he made a joke.
Click to expand...

ummmm okay this argument has strayed far too far off the reservation.

You thought it was funny, I didn't.

End of.
 
Craig B said:
Did the Shadow Chancellor make disparaging comments about Thatcher because of her being a women. Or were his jokes about matters specific to her biological femininity? Is it misogynistic to attack a woman politician, on the grounds that such a criticism is a disparagement of a woman?

Thatcher attacked all kinds of male "wets" for being "frit". Was she then a misandrist?
Click to expand...

yeaaah, not really what I was saying.

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous post.
 
I see one of the papers tomorrow is going with scathing criticism of...his great great grandfather.
 
It's refreshing to hear someone (In this case Corbyn) opposing Western countries support for tyrants in the Middle East and elsewhere, but little else.

The main problem is this baffling disregard from Corbyn and his supporters for people (Blair, Mandelson, Brown etc) who delivered three consecutive electoral wins and undeniably enacted Labour Policies during their time in office. Can anyone dispute that? I remember 1997 - 2005 broadly as a good time, money was pumping into public services, unemployment was consistently low, jobs were secure, and the concept of the State for a force for good was popular. This is very different to Cameron's Britain.

The shame that they can take away was the inequality gap widening, Blair sliming up to tyrants and an unregulated banking sector. I'm sure many more can be added, but does this really warrant a return to old school Socialism more popular in the early 80s?

I don't see what is so objectionable to move Labour towards the centre ground where a majority of the electorate are, in order to win elections and actually do some good. What good is it to continue with policy that cannot get you elected and then blame the electorate for not being left wing enough when you lose? Surely politicians need to be humble enough to recognise the wishes and beliefs of a plurality of the electorate, rather than being arrogant and sticking to policy that is only popular to a small but vocal group. It appears that a majority of the Corbynites are white, middle class socialists, not representative of those who go to the ballot in 2020.

The only good thing about all of this is that the ball is finally in the Left's court. No longer will we have to hear the boring mantra of Labour abandoning its 'true values' (It's worth looking up how centre ground a lot of Attlee's policies were) and how mainstream politicians lack conviction. When Corbyn implodes, and the Tories' miserable reign continues, they will only have themselves to blame. Although I am certain the press will be blamed, as if ordinary working British people are too thick to form their own opinions.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
The main problem is this baffling disregard from Corbyn and his supporters for people (Blair, Mandelson, Brown etc) who delivered three consecutive electoral wins and undeniably enacted Labour Policies during their time in office. Can anyone dispute that?
Click to expand...

Sadly the fashionable perception is that Blair lied about Iraq so he's a naughty boy and never mind all the good things New Labour did because they were just like the tories anyway and now the real Labour supporters have regained the party and we can call each other 'comrade' again.

ETA:
Sorry - I was smiling when I typed this. Humour and all.
 
I don't object to people slamming Blair, it happens to everyone when they leave office. What I object to is the bizarre idea that hatred of Blair = unelectable 1980s old white man socialism.
 
Lothian said:
These policies (and others of his) may be "radical" but they are supported by the majority of the public,. Indy article
Click to expand...

Sure, but if you believe several polls more of the electorate support the death penalty than oppose. When it comes to actually being in a position to implement these more radical changes, I've found the populace tend to run away back to the centre.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
I remember 1997 - 2005 broadly as a good time, money was pumping into public services, unemployment was consistently low, jobs were secure, and the concept of the State for a force for good was popular. This is very different to Cameron's Britain.
Click to expand...

Beware of Rose tinted spectacles. It's quite easy for time to distort memories of past times. Cantankerous old sods frequently opine about the "good old days" when had you asked them at the time...

I remember the first Blair govt. being a decent one, the subsequent terms not so good. In particular Robin Cooks resignation in '03 was a particular low/turning point, for me.

I think Cook was one of the best politicians we've ever had. Sadly missed.

Cameron has had the fall out of the banking debacle to deal with, the seeds of which were sown by Blair/Brown. I think he could have done a lot better, but he was dealt a fairly crap hand when he came to power. I think in years to come the Cameron years will be looked back on fairly well.

I don't see what is so objectionable to move Labour towards the centre ground where a majority of the electorate are, in order to win elections and actually do some good. What good is it to continue with policy that cannot get you elected and then blame the electorate for not being left wing enough when you lose?
Click to expand...

I prefer Labour to be left of centre, and the Tories right of centre. Recently we've seen both parties move closer to the centre, Labour moved so far that it's not unreasonable to describe their recent policies as little right of centre even.

Things tend to go in cycles and I think that politics in general has shifted right in the past decade as politicians have been chasing votes.

There's no reason to assume that Labour under Corbyn will start pushing loony left wing policies. While Corbyn himself might be further left than most, he doesn't decide party policy by himself, and he needs to get his party to back his policies. I think that will temper the Labour parties output in the coming months and Labour policy as a whole will shift back to being a little left of centre overall.
 
In the next election I'm going to vote for Ambrosia.
I've no idea if that makes me a leftist, a rightist, a turtle or game of Cluedo.
I hope to live to the day when common sense prevails.
Dam, I must be a Marxist.
 
Lothian said:
Out of interest, what would you consider to be a fair process for electing the leader of a political party.

To clarify the support he got.

Turnout for the vote was 422,871 (76.3%) of the 554,272 eligible voters

Corbyn got 59.5% of the total vote (45.35% of the eligible vote) split as follows

49.59% of Labour members
83.76% of "supporters" (£3 payers) and
57.61% of affiliates (union Members)

Take the £3 supporters out and he still got 51.45% of the vote more than the 3 losing candidates put together.

Note: since the election over 1/3 of the "supporters" have joined the party.

Seems to me to be a pretty comprehensive and fair election result. Certainly he was elected by the members as opposed to people who may have voted labour in the General election. However I am unaware of any electoral systems where party leaders are elected by the general public.

Am I correct that only 54 people voted for the winner in the Australian Liberal party leadership contest, to also decide the Prime Minister of Australia?
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly right. Ignore Lionking on this issue.
 
Sorry, but did Corbyn supporters miss the bit where the dude is into homeopathy and herbal remedies?
 
Damien Evans said:
That wasn't ignorance, it was a 100% factual statement.
Click to expand...

Have you been following this thread? A number of people have contended that Corbyn couldn't win an election. It was crystal clear that the reference was to a national election. Some piped up that Cirbyn had actually won an election. Just play the "one thing is not like the other" game for a bit....
 
lionking said:
Have you been following this thread? A number of people have contended that Corbyn couldn't win an election. It was crystal clear that the reference was to a national election. Some piped up that Cirbyn had actually won an election. Just play the "one thing is not like the other" game for a bit....
Click to expand...

I was referring to his comment about Turnbull.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom