Corbyn did win, what's next?

[ComfySlippers]

No, quit serious. Bases in Northern Ireland weren't needed any more than bases on the west coast of Scotland or NE England. They don't give any advantage over any other location in the Irish Sea. Northern Ireland has no coast on to The Atlantic.

I'm sure you're still joking.
I lived on The West Coast of Scotland for 12 years.
Next to an anti submarine mine control tower and also next to where the first transatlantic telephone cable was and still is.
It's an important place geographically.

 

[Aber]

Not "the rest of the world". Only those eager to make cheap subjective points instead of addressing actual details of policy on their merits. Not, for instance, this writer:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/10/labour.margaretthatcher
- who makes a cogent case that the 1983 Labour manifesto was correct for the economics of the time. You don't have to agree with him, of course, but it's a far more measured and mature outlook than quoting Gerald Kaufman's soundbite.

So a Corbyn supporting blogger writes a piece acclaiming the manifesto that Corbyn says is still an appropriate approach. Neil Clark probably can't even remember 1983, seems to hold some controversial views (eg Serbia), and writes for an interesting range of publications - that article looks like Guardian clickbait.

In reality, of course, had it not been for the Falklands invasion - or had the conflict not ended in Britain's favour - and being able to cash in on the patriotic euphoria of the time, Thatcher would almost certainly have lost the election in 1983 (or 1984 as it would have been). Prior to the Falklands campaign, she was the most unpopular PM we had ever had. It's a regrettable comment on democracy, that there is no vote-winner like a (successful) war.

Any particular reason you failed to mention that Labour had split over the leftward direction the party was taking before 1983? In the 1983 election the SDP–Liberal Alliance won more than 25% of the national vote, close behind Labour's 28%, both well behind the 44% secured by the Conservatives.

So why do you claim to speak for him, declaring that he has not changed his views since the 1980s?

Because Corbyn himself said recently that the 1983 Labour manifesto is still an appropriate approach.

If you look at history, all the major wars of Europe involved nations that are currently in NATO (and the EU): England, France, Spain, Germany, Netherlands.

All the major wars in Europe involved the major nations in Europe - a truly shocking discovery.

Are you going to address the details of the specific policies that Corbyn supports on their merits?

 

[MikeG]

What if Brits see what the Tories are doing in those fields........

They'll still vote Tory because the alternative is worse, but in other ways. The Labour party's own report on why they lost said that economic credibility was their number one problem. Do you think that is getting better of worse under Corbyn?

As for tax credits...........well, they're very new. It's a Labour party idea (introduced by Brown), and it is really silly: government subsidising employers by topping up low wages. Scrapping them is sensible as part of a rebalancing of welfare, alongside moves to force employers to pay higher wages. I'd have preferred there to have been some interim arrangements that drew the sting a little more.

I suggest that there is an element of wishful thinking on your behalf if you think the government is already starting to fall apart. I see no signs of any such thing.

 

[Antony]

So a Corbyn supporting blogger writes a piece acclaiming the manifesto that Corbyn says is still an appropriate approach.

The piece is from June 2008, so Corbyn supporting is hardly a consideration.

Neil Clark probably can't even remember 1983, seems to hold some controversial views (eg Serbia), and writes for an interesting range of publications - that article looks like Guardian clickbait.

Ad hominem. This response simply illustrates my point below, that discussion isn't an option for the anti-Corbyn faction. I cited it as a contrast to the glibness from Kaufman, quoted by MikeG.

Any particular reason you failed to mention that Labour had split over the leftward direction the party was taking before 1983? In the 1983 election the SDP–Liberal Alliance won more than 25% of the national vote, close behind Labour's 28%, both well behind the 44% secured by the Conservatives.

So you agree there were other factors than the 1983 manifesto? As for the SDP, they were even more vacuous than the New Labour leadership candidates. "Let's set up a political party - we'll decide what we stand for later (maybe)." They thought they could gain support on personalities alone - even more so than New Labour.

Because Corbyn himself said recently that the 1983 Labour manifesto is still an appropriate approach.

I've seen nothing from the anti-Corbyn faction to suggest that it wasn't - all you have bland, analysis-free assertions in subjective terms (e.g. "leftward direction"), and ignoring other factors at the time.

All the major wars in Europe involved the major nations in Europe - a truly shocking discovery.

Which underlines my point that nuclear weapons are irrelevant to our security, given that all of our historical enemies are now in NATO and the EU.

Are you going to address the details of the specific policies that Corbyn supports on their merits?

Why should I? I'm not the one stating absolutes in subjective terms. I would be delighted if the anti-Corbyn faction would talk in specifics so that there could be proper, dispassionate, discussion. Instead, what we have is endless second-guessing of the 2020 electorate, expressed with a certainty that precludes discussion.

 

[MikeG]

.....As for the SDP, they were even more vacuous than the New Labour leadership candidates. "Let's set up a political party - we'll decide what we stand for later (maybe)." They thought they could gain support on personalities alone - even more so than New Labour.........

It's getting hard to take repeated your re-writing of history seriously. If you don't think that David Owen, Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams knew what they (and the new party) stood for then you're not thinking.

The 1983 manifesto didn't come as a bolt from the blue. The party had been heading more and more left wing for 3 years before that, at least. They had large Trotskyist elements, and their leading centre-left politicians had been squirming for some time. So your repeated use of "there were other factors than the 1983 manifesto" is irrelevent: it wasn't the manifesto itself that was the problem, because it merely encapsulated everything that had been going on under Foot for the previous 3 years.

 

[Aber]

This response simply illustrates my point below, that discussion isn't an option for the anti-Corbyn faction.

I've seen nothing from the anti-Corbyn faction to suggest that it wasn't - all you have bland, analysis-free assertions in subjective terms (e.g. "leftward direction"), and ignoring other factors at the time.

I would be delighted if the anti-Corbyn faction would talk in specifics so that there could be proper, dispassionate, discussion.

OK so what specifics would you like to discuss dispassionately and properly?

Labour's swing leftwards after losing the 1979 election led to a large number of defections from the party that didn't agree with the change of direction, a 1983 manifesto that was described by their own side as 'the longest suicide note in history', and an appalling performance in that election.

Corbyn still believes that the 1983 manifesto was an appropriate approach, and supports wide spread nationalisation, unilateral nuclear disarmament and removal of NATO.

all of our historical enemies are now in NATO and the EU.

Russia perhaps, and there are a few others around the world.

 

[Darat]

They'll still vote Tory because the alternative is worse, but in other ways. The Labour party's own report on why they lost said that economic credibility was their number one problem. Do you think that is getting better of worse under Corbyn?

As for tax credits...........well, they're very new. It's a Labour party idea (introduced by Brown), and it is really silly: government subsidising employers by topping up low wages. Scrapping them is sensible as part of a rebalancing of welfare, alongside moves to force employers to pay higher wages. I'd have preferred there to have been some interim arrangements that drew the sting a little more.

I suggest that there is an element of wishful thinking on your behalf if you think the government is already starting to fall apart. I see no signs of any such thing.

The only objective evidence based research indicated that the more Labour moved away from " the left" the more support they lost.

The economic issue they "lost" on was the perception and they lost that in the first 6 months of the 2010 coalition government. Actual policies didn't come into .

We are now starting to see the outcomes of the delayed cuts of the last government, and they will only get worse as this term progresses. For example he NHS will be soon in a worse mess than it was when the 1997 Labour government came into power.

 

[MikeG]

The only objective evidence based research indicated that the more Labour moved away from " the left" the more support they lost.......

You are joking. Have you so completely erased Tony Blair from your mind that you've forgotten his 3 consecutive massive victories?

 

[Andy_Ross]

I'm sure you're still joking.
I lived on The West Coast of Scotland for 12 years.
Next to an anti submarine mine control tower and also next to where the first transatlantic telephone cable was and still is.
It's an important place geographically.

I agree, but bases in Northern Ireland aren't essential to patrolling the Northern Approaches.

 

[Antony]

It's getting hard to take repeated your re-writing of history seriously.

Let's not be discourteous. It's clear that your perceptions are not the same as mine; that doesn't make them superior.

If you don't think that David Owen, Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams knew what they (and the new party) stood for then you're not thinking.

So you ignore the rest of my post and the unanswered questions placed to you, and latch onto this point. Our perception is different: the driving force for the SDP was an objection to the so-called "left-wing" trends in the Labour Party of the time, with nothing really of substance beyond that.

Someone, like you, who imagines that "left-wing" is an objective, measurable attribute would no doubt see that as sufficient basis - however, those of us who are interested in the effect of politics on people's lives will not. "Vacuous" is an entirely accurate description.

 

[MikeG]

......those of us who are interested in the effect of politics on people's lives will not

The clear implication is that I don't have an interest in the effect of politics on people's life, and of course that is nonsense. It's just that I happen to think that the a well run economy in which people are encouraged to stand on their own two feet without government subsidy is better for people than one in which people become dependent upon handouts.

"Vacuous" is an entirely accurate description.

Let's not be discourteous

Well, that didn't last long.

 

[ComfySlippers]

I agree, but bases in Northern Ireland aren't essential to patrolling the Northern Approaches.

Ok.
But the two bases in N.I. did serve an important role.
They serviced the ships charged with escorting the merchant vessels, and was a base for some 2000 British, American and Canadian Navy personnel whose job that was.

 

[Henri McPhee]

"Fact" was it? That's an interesting use of the word.

In any case, it ignores the rest of my post. Labour lost in 1983 because of the Falklands factor, not because of their manifesto programme.

I agree with Antony. Mrs. Thatcher took all the credit for the Falklands war, and of Noth Sea oil revenues. It was her lack of due and careful thought to scrap, I think, HMS Endurance, and cuts and closures to the defence of the Falklands that started it. She must have known Argentina was full of Nazi war criminals on the run. Just becoming pals with the fascist beast Pinochet is not good enough.

This country still had some military clout in those days. I don't know what would happen now if Spain invaded Gibraltar. America doesn't deem it necessary to invade Bermuda, or the British Virgin Islands, though I think they invaded Grenada once.

At the time there were race riots in Liverpool, and Bristol ,and Brixton in London. The Revolutionary Socialist party were gaining ground in Liverpool. The SDP breakaway party from the Labour party were riding high in the opinion polls.

I think only about one hundred people are capable of being prime minister and I don't think Michael Foot, or Mrs Thatcher, were one of them. Michael Foot was just a journalist.

I had one brother who was in the Revolutionary Socialist party in his youth. I don't think it was a good idea. He used to say there were strange men from the secret political police attending his political meetings. He later started going on skiing holidays, and then inherited money from the father of his wife, so he is not short of money. I don't know what he thinks about Jeremy Corbyn.

 

[Antony]

OK so what specifics would you like to discuss dispassionately and properly?

The ball's not in my court. It's for the anti-Corbyn faction to say what it is that they are criticising in term of meaningful policies - but all we get are slippery subjective terms like "left-wing", "unelectable", "centre-ground" etc.

Labour's swing leftwards after losing the 1979 election led to a large number of defections from the party that didn't agree with the change of direction, a 1983 manifesto that was described by their own side as 'the longest suicide note in history', and an appalling performance in that election.

Corbyn still believes that the 1983 manifesto was an appropriate approach, and supports wide spread nationalisation, unilateral nuclear disarmament and removal of NATO.

"Swing leftwards"? There you go again. I've already addressed these points, but you post them again as though nothing has been said.

Russia perhaps, and there are a few others around the world.

"Around the world", is it? When there are no enemies close by, we need to go looking for them.

 

[Darat]

You are joking. Have you so completely erased Tony Blair from your mind that you've forgotten his 3 consecutive massive victories?

Let me clarify my comment, the only evidence based research into the last general election that I have seen to date showed Labour lost support when it moved away from the "left ".

 

[Antony]

The clear implication is that I don't have an interest in the effect of politics on people's life, and of course that is nonsense. It's just that I happen to think that the a well run economy ...

That's an admirable aspiration, and one that no-one can disagree with. What you don't say is how it is to be achieved, and why you think that your favoured leadership is a better route to it than Labour under Corbyn.

... in which people are encouraged to stand on their own two feet without government subsidy is better for people than one in which people become dependent upon handouts.

That sounds remarkably like Tory code for "leave them destitute when they don't have jobs, fall ill or get old".

"Vacuous" is an entirely accurate description.

Let's not be discourteous

Well, that didn't last long.

There is no discourtesy to you or anyone involved in this discussion, in describing the SDP policies as vacuous. In reply, you called into question my capacity for thinking, which is what I was referring to with my comment about being discourteous. From the start of this discussion, you have been talking as though your way of thinking is the only one possible. It is getting rather tiresome.

 

[Antony]

I think only about one hundred people are capable of being prime minister and I don't think Michael Foot, or Mrs Thatcher, were one of them. Michael Foot was just a journalist.

Sadly, there is truth in this. Michael Foot was a great orator and a man of principle, but as a leadership figure he didn't cut the mustard. He was too melodramatic, just as Kinnock later on was too emotional. And as for his appearance ... forgot to button his coat at the Cenotaph, and relied on his wife to cut his hair. Corbyn is chic by comparison. That's another factor, other than the alleged "suicide note", that worked against Labour in 1983.

As for Thatcher, that's an interesting judgement. She made up for in plausibility what she lacked as a unifying figure. But nobody can disagree that she worked incredibly hard. "She's a strong leader!" her fans used to crow - I found myself thinking that we don't need strong leadership as much as wise leadership.

On the other hand, we elect a government, not just a Prime Minister. What the "he's unelectable!" chorus ignore is that the Tory machine will do anything rather than focus on policies.

 

[GlennB]

Of the Tories "creaking at the seams" :

"Boris piles tax credits pressure on Osborne" link

"The Chancellor is facing a possible last-ditch bid to kill off the cuts in the House of Lords.

Peers are expected to table a rare "fatal" motion opposing the cuts this week with a vote likely next Monday, which could kill off the measures." Read: Osborne has created a monumental *************** here.

 

[MikeG]

Of the Tories "creaking at the seams" :

"Boris piles tax credits pressure on Osborne" link

"The Chancellor is facing a possible last-ditch bid to kill off the cuts in the House of Lords.

Peers are expected to table a rare "fatal" motion opposing the cuts this week with a vote likely next Monday, which could kill off the measures." Read: Osborne has created a monumental *************** here.

That's business as usual for all governments, isn't it? I well remember the New Labour warfare, Brownites versus Blairites, constantly briefing against the other faction, year in, year out, yet I don't recall anyone in the outside world, suggesting the various Labour governments were creaking at the seams. This stuff is small beer in comparison.

 

[MikeG]

........the "he's unelectable!" chorus ignore is that the Tory machine will do anything rather than focus on policies.

Rubbish. They can't wait to tackle Corbyn on actual policies, once he has some. However, I reckon they'll go lightly for a while, to make sure that Corbyn isn't deposed prior to the next election. He is, after all, the Conservatives greatest asset.