Why can't Corbyn connect with public?

[The Don]

yeah but that wasn't the point. The point was whether you could better trust May or Corbyn to implement what they promise after the election. Your concern was that Corbyn might abandon the manifesto and do his own thing. It seems patently obvious that this is equally a risk with May as she and her party have shown that is exactly what they will do AND May is clearly able to get the party/public to go along with her.

I think you are, somewhat understandably, holding Corbyn to a closer standard of scrutiny than you are May and the Tories and noticeably applying different measures to both.

If May had anything like Corbyn's record of defying the party whip then I'd agree with you but she doesn't.

If she had anything like the track record of imposing her own views against part policy and/or the will of her party I'd agree with you but she doesn't

To be honest I'm getting tired of talking about Corbyn. May is the problem here.

Then start a thread on it, this one is "Why can't Corbyn connect with the public ?"

To me she looks like a pretty run-of-the-mill Conservative Party leader from somewhere in the centre of her own party.

 

[3point14]

Someone I know who was in the area of government IT contracts for a company that'll be unnamed likened the whole thing to dodgy builders putting one over an OAP.

The editorial I read pointed out that the private sector negotiators had years and years of experience in ensuring financial responsibility for cock-ups was not theirs and their public sector counterparts had none of this and, therefore, understandably, the public got shafted.

 

[The Don]

Someone I know who was in the area of government IT contracts for a company that'll be unnamed likened the whole thing to dodgy builders putting one over an OAP.

A million times this ^

My first employer was Arthur Andersen which became Andersen Consulting and eventually Accenture. I was involved with a number of government projects. The Andersen partners and their lawyers ran rings around the government contractually. Whether the project was fixed-price or time and materials, the client ended up with almost all the risk.

Things may have changed in the last 30 years, but from what I've seen it hasn't.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If May had anything like Corbyn's record of defying the party whip then I'd agree with you but she doesn't.

If she had anything like the track record of imposing her own views against part policy and/or the will of her party I'd agree with you but she doesn't



Then start a thread on it, this one is "Why can't Corbyn connect with the public ?"

To me she looks like a pretty run-of-the-mill Conservative Party leader from somewhere in the centre of her own party.

You are the only one using this defying the party whip measure as important. I'm making a completely different point.

If May looks run of the mill I think your judgement is being clouded.

 

[MikeG]

........To me she looks like a pretty run-of-the-mill Conservative Party leader from somewhere in the centre of her own party.

Yep. Her speech on entering Downing Street would put her towards her party's left wing. Her actual location on the spectrum will be easier to judge once we have a manifesto with her fingerprints all over it.

 

[The Don]

You are the only one using this defying the party whip measure as important.

Is is if you're following the conversation and understand that what I'm trying to demonstrate one of the (many) reasons why Corbyn is unfit to be Prime Minister is that he has a long history of unilateral action against party policy both as a backbencher and party leader.

You claim that I hold him to a different standard than May - in this case there is an objective measure.

I'm making a completely different point.

If your point is that if it gets elected, the Labour Party will follow its manifesto pledges because Corbyn's attempts to derail them will be ineffective then I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

Corbyn will continue to follow his 1970's socialist dogma even if it's against Labour Party policy and breaks manifesto pledges. Even if he doesn't manage to get his own alternative policies enacted, it would not be out of character for he, and his cronies, to vote against the Labour Party while they are in government. We'd be in the position where the Prime Minister and his closest colleagues side against the government and with the opposition.

It's an interesting hypothetical because, black swan events aside, Labour aren't going to form, or be part of, any government any time soon. Indeed, I doubt whether I'll see another Labour government in my lifetime, especially if Scotland gets independence.

If May looks run of the mill I think your judgement is being clouded.

For a Tory leader ? Yup pretty much par for the course, certainly in my lifetime.

 

[MikeG]

Corbyn has just said that if he wins the election he'll have a Minister of Peace. Funny how every government around the world has managed without one of those.

Jeremy Corbyn has said he will appoint a minister for peace if he wins power, but insisted he was "not a pacifist".

.........the use of force should be sanctioned beforehand by the United Nations.

Which he is too stupid to realise hands Russia and China (and the USA of course) a veto over the use of force by the UK. Well done Jeremy.

 

[The Don]

Which he is too stupid to realise hands Russia and China (and the USA of course) a veto over the use of force by the UK. Well done Jeremy.

So there's a humanitarian crisis in Syria, Assad is killing tens of thousands of defenceless civilians, the UK is asked to join the humanitarian effort by providing armed forces to secure the safety of the refugees. It's referred to the UN, Russia vetoes and Corbyn is bound not to help

Priceless.

Another demonstration about why he's unfit to be PM. His heart is in the right place (he doesn't want to get involved in Trump-led overseas military adventures) but his understanding of how things work is so poor that there are significant unintended consequences.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If your point is that if it gets elected, the Labour Party will follow its manifesto pledges because Corbyn's attempts to derail them will be ineffective then I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

Corbyn will continue to follow his 1970's socialist dogma even if it's against Labour Party policy and breaks manifesto pledges. Even if he doesn't manage to get his own alternative policies enacted, it would not be out of character for he, and his cronies, to vote against the Labour Party while they are in government. We'd be in the position where the Prime Minister and his closest colleagues side against the government and with the opposition.

It's an interesting hypothetical because, black swan events aside, Labour aren't going to form, or be part of, any government any time soon. Indeed, I doubt whether I'll see another Labour government in my lifetime, especially if Scotland gets independence.

My point is that it seems to be contradictory to suggest that Corbyn is a bumbling fool that nobody pays attention to and nobody follows while at the same time suggesting that he would be able to shape government policy to his personal whims if elected.

I'm interested to know which hypothetical policies would see Corbyn and the Tories siding against the Labour Party and how exactly that situation arises.

If you don't want Scotland to seek independence you should probably hope that Corbyn DOES get elected because May seems to be doing her damnedest to make it happen currently.

Do you actually think that Labour needs Scottish seats to ever form another UK government? I'd be interested to know how you think they go about that - especially if the big picture involves a rebound to the right to appeal to Middle England voters.

It seems that just about everyone is looking for a return to better days - it just depends if you prefer the 50s the 70s or the 90s.

 

[The Don]

My point is that it seems to be contradictory to suggest that Corbyn is a bumbling fool that nobody pays attention to and nobody follows while at the same time suggesting that he would be able to shape government policy to his personal whims if elected.

Corbyn would have two opportunities, he could either attempt to impose his own policies or he could seek to frustrate the party by voting against official party policy.

I'm interested to know which hypothetical policies would see Corbyn and the Tories siding against the Labour Party and how exactly that situation arises.

His long history of voting against the party whip gives a lot of examples where he has done so in the past - and presumably would be prepared to in the future.

If you don't want Scotland to seek independence you should probably hope that Corbyn DOES get elected because May seems to be doing her damnedest to make it happen currently.

Before the independence referendum I had an emotional attachment to the union. It wasn't explainable in objective terms.

Since the independence referendum, the government's failure to meet its obligations and in particular the Scottish response to the Brexit referendum and its result it's become apparent to me that Scotland and England (and Wales) are on divergent course and so, should the Scottish electorate choose it, independence is the best course.

Do you actually think that Labour needs Scottish seats to ever form another UK government? I'd be interested to know how you think they go about that - especially if the big picture involves a rebound to the right to appeal to Middle England voters.

I think that if Scotland were part of the UK then it could contribute to Labour forming a government. Either the SNP is the dominant party in Scotland - in which case a coalition may be a possibility or the SNP has significantly fallen out of favour for some reason in which case Labour could resume its dominant position in Scotland.

Given a choice between working in coalition with (or at the very least giving support on specific votes) Labour or The Conservatives, the SNP IMO would be more likely to work with the former - though they would and could expect significant concessions for their support.

It seems that just about everyone is looking for a return to better days - it just depends if you prefer the 50s the 70s or the 90s.

Not me, I want to look forward.

 

[Aber]

Bolded mine. This is where we're going to differ I expect. Do you really believe the various watchdogs are acting robustly.

In most cases yes. The key point is that they have not been captured by the industries they are regulating.

One areas that is problematic is the intention that regulation could be made redundant by competition between suppliers. This works well when you have frequent purchases, or a clear renewal point (car insurance). It has worked less well for electricity, gas etc.

Also, whilst I have absolutely nothing against the profit motive as a way of driving / rewarding good business, it has no place in the provision of utilities that form the very basis of a civilised society.

You want to nationalise mobile phones?

Of course a measured amount of over-recovery of costs for re-investment is fine but not the obscene profits we're seeing - including from some companies whose infrastructure sorely needs that re-investment eg the amount of water lost by leaking pipes and then hosepipe bans brought in.

OK - examples of obscene profits please.

I'm not saying the utilities were perfect when under national control - far from it - they definitely needed a shake-up and better management. That does not mean they needed to be privatised to achieve that.

I'm on the board of a housing association which took over housing from a council. Key things that the board is always concerned about are "is this being done for the benefits of the tenants, or the befit of the management", and the budget being set at a very comfortable level, so difficult decisions do not have to be made. Both seem typical of public sector organisations.

Similarly there were concerns that the electricity industry was run by and for the engineers.

The fact that many of our utilities are now part or wholly owned by foreign utility companies (some with a measure of state ownership) should be a matter of shame for us.

As long as they are doing a decent job, does it matter who owns them?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Corbyn would have two opportunities, he could either attempt to impose his own policies or he could seek to frustrate the party by voting against official party policy.



His long history of voting against the party whip gives a lot of examples where he has done so in the past - and presumably would be prepared to in the future.



Before the independence referendum I had an emotional attachment to the union. It wasn't explainable in objective terms.

Since the independence referendum, the government's failure to meet its obligations and in particular the Scottish response to the Brexit referendum and its result it's become apparent to me that Scotland and England (and Wales) are on divergent course and so, should the Scottish electorate choose it, independence is the best course.



I think that if Scotland were part of the UK then it could contribute to Labour forming a government. Either the SNP is the dominant party in Scotland - in which case a coalition may be a possibility or the SNP has significantly fallen out of favour for some reason in which case Labour could resume its dominant position in Scotland.

Given a choice between working in coalition with (or at the very least giving support on specific votes) Labour or The Conservatives, the SNP IMO would be more likely to work with the former - though they would and could expect significant concessions for their support.




Not me, I want to look forward.

I really don't think the maths works on your Corbyn hypothetical. He's not going to be able to stay in power without support from almost all his party.

 

[The Don]

I really don't think the maths works on your Corbyn hypothetical. He's not going to be able to stay in power without support from almost all his party.

In which case he demonstrates how unfit he is to be Prime Minister

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I really don't think the maths works on your Corbyn hypothetical. He's not going to be able to stay in power without support from almost all his party.

The problem is, Labour are heading for a split. My bet, the Centrists will form the SDP with the LDs and the Momentum faction will become labour.

 

[The Don]

The problem is, Labour are heading for a split. My bet, the Centrists will form the SDP with the LDs and the Momentum faction will become labour.

Unfortunately that's a replay of the SDP experience in the 1980s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_(UK)

Eventually they merged with the Liberal party and scaled the giddy heights of being well and truly ****** by the Conservatives by being the junior party in the 2010 coalition.

Meanwhile the leftist Labour Party reinvented itself as New Labour, adopted some electable policies and did a great deal to undo a lot of the Thatcher era damage to public services and the welfare state.

If it plays out the way you suggest with Labour becoming a hardline left wing party and an SDP II emerging and merging with the Liberals is that large numbers of people would refuse to vote for "splitters" and so the SDP wouldn't garner enough support - at least for a generation. So while the centreist party may indeed have some excellent policies, British political tribalism may deny them a shot a government for decades.

That's why I'd much prefer it if the Labour Party would come to its senses. They already benefit from a "tribal" vote and could realistically form a (probably coalition) government in a couple of elections.


edited to add....

The SDP narrative is almost word for word what you're suggesting. Quoting from the Wiki article linked above:

Many original members of the future Social Democratic Party had been members of The Manifesto Group within the Labour Party. This group opposed what they saw as a leftward shift in Labour policy, the increasing prominence within the party of Tony Benn, and the involvement of trade unions in choosing the leader of the Labour Party. They argued that a new type of political force was needed to challenge the Conservative Party.

That force did emerge but it was a reinvented Labour party, not the SDP

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Unfortunately that's a replay of the SDP experience in the 1980s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_(UK)

Eventually they merged with the Liberal party and scaled the giddy heights of being well and truly ****** by the Conservatives by being the junior party in the 2010 coalition.

Meanwhile the leftist Labour Party reinvented itself as New Labour, adopted some electable policies and did a great deal to undo a lot of the Thatcher era damage to public services and the welfare state.

If it plays out the way you suggest with Labour becoming a hardline left wing party and an SDP II emerging and merging with the Liberals is that large numbers of people would refuse to vote for "splitters" and so the SDP wouldn't garner enough support - at least for a generation. So while the centreist party may indeed have some excellent policies, British political tribalism may deny them a shot a government for decades.

That's why I'd much prefer it if the Labour Party would come to its senses. They already benefit from a "tribal" vote and could realistically form a (probably coalition) government in a couple of elections.

Unfortunately, Momentum ARE the labour party at this point, and they can just say "PLP are splitters! Corbyn was cheated by the media"

 

[The Don]

Unfortunately, Momentum ARE the labour party at this point, and they can just say "PLP are splitters! Corbyn was cheated by the media"

This is exactly what happened in the 80's. Back then they were called Militant but they hijacked the party and dragged it to the left politically.

A group split off and formed the SDP and amounted to little, which is what I would expect from a split off party from Labour today too. They may have the policies but they wouldn't have the "brand" so important in UK tribal politics.

Even UKIP's meteoric rise to having one MP took a couple of decades.

That's not to say that a split is futile, just that it didn't work in the past but what did work was getting the Labour Party back on track.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

This is exactly what happened in the 80's. Back then they were called Militant but they hijacked the party and dragged it to the left politically.

A group split off and formed the SDP and amounted to little, which is what I would expect from a split off party from Labour today too. They may have the policies but they wouldn't have the "brand" so important in UK tribal politics.

Even UKIP's meteoric rise to having one MP took a couple of decades.

That's not to say that a split is futile, just that it didn't work in the past but what did work was getting the Labour Party back on track.

Unfortunately this time, the Centrists have tainted their reputation with PFI and Iraq. If Centrism is to have any chance of being electable it MUST divorce itself completely from the toxic influence of Tony Blair.

 

[MikeG]

Unfortunately this time, the Centrists have tainted their reputation with PFI and Iraq.......

I don't think is so. I think that these policies are associated with Blair personally, not with a whole spectrum of UK politics. A good dynamic and refreshing leader from the centrist wing of the Labour Party wouldn't be tainted with Iraq (I don't think PFI would be held against Blair quite so much if it hadn't been for Iraq, which changed everyone's perspective of everything that new Labour stood for. Besides, PPP, as it was then, was Gordon Brown's idea).

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I don't think is so. I think that these policies are associated with Blair personally, not with a whole spectrum of UK politics. A good dynamic and refreshing leader from the centrist wing of the Labour Party wouldn't be tainted with Iraq (I don't think PFI would be held against Blair quite so much if it hadn't been for Iraq, which changed everyone's perspective of everything that new Labour stood for. Besides, PPP, as it was then, was Gordon Brown's idea).

The New Labour wing is Synonymous with "Blairite", and are tainted by association. Blair is so thoroughly despised (and detestable) that even describing yourself as a centrist is going to make you unelectable in the Labour Party. Any centrists who go against momentum are going to be smeared as "tony blair 2.0" from the starting position (look at how Corbyn consistently got supermajorities in the leadership elections).

"I'm a centrist who thinks that Blair's met-"

"IRAQ WAR! RED TORY!"

Face it, Labour are finished. Blair had introduced an unimaginable level of poison into the Labour party that allowed Momentum to take over, declaring quite rightly "Labour has lost its purpose, and Blair has forever sullied the centrists". Unfortunately, they bring in Corbyn, a man with so much baggage his flights from Heathrow would have to be delayed by a week.