Jeremy Corbyn

[gazza285]

turbobloke said:

gazza285 said:

Rovinghawk said:

gazza285 said:

Then why don't more workers vote Labour?

Tory lies, don'cha know?

I'd forgotten the right wing media as well...

Good points but this must be Thatcher's fault somehow.

Probably for undermining all Jim Callahan's good work for the candle industry.

[technodup]

JawKnee said:

Labour are very much about workers rights. Making work worthwhile so that everyone earns a high enough wage to live on. The welfare state should be a safety net, nothing more, nothing less.

Don't talk ste. Tony and Gordon could have raised the NMW, incentivised businesses to pay more, or controlled immigration to limit labour supply and boost low wages. What they actually did was have the state step in to top up low wages via an unnecessary, expensive and bureaucratic tax credit system.

So people who aren't 'on benefits' and shouldn't be actually are. And mass immigration means little chance of the jobless moving from out of work benefits to in work benefits. Genius. Well it would be if they vote Labour as intended.

Why is it that every Labour stronghold is a sthole? If Labour's so great for the working man why are the safe seats of Sunderland or Barnsley such run down tips with high unemployment?

In Scotland they've seen the light. It's the wrong light, but Labour voters and Labour areas got fed up with empty promises, and were tempted elsewhere. It's not too far a stretch to imagine it happening in England as well. UKIP are after them in many areas.

[tim0409]

technodup said:

on't talk ste. Tony and Gordon could have raised the NMW, incentivised businesses to pay more, or controlled immigration to limit labour supply and boost low wages. What they actually did was have the state step in to top up low wages via an unnecessary, expensive and bureaucratic tax credit system.

I've just finished reading Tom Bower's biography of Tony Blair and it paints an incredibly bleak picture of "new" Labour and particularly the dysfunctional Blair/Brown relationship. I find it incredible the impact it had on Blair's ability to reform public services, and it also sets out the genesis of the "open doors" approach to immigration. Well worth a read.

[irocfan]

JawKnee said:

That tired old excuse again. They've had over 6 years to make things better but have failed. The abandonment of Osbourne's economic policy recently is an admission that the country was on the wrong economic path under the Conservative government. Can't say I hold much optimism for the new chancellor either tbh but hey ho... 4 more years.

that's rich coming from Labia who still blame the sainted Mrs T for every ill this country had

[gruffalo]

JawKnee said:

Labour are very much about workers rights. Making work worthwhile so that everyone earns a high enough wage to live on. The welfare state should be a safety net, nothing more, nothing less. Oh and they aren't too keen on benefit scroungers either, including the ones living in Buckingham Palace who seem to think waving counts as a proper job.

Labour hey, for around 100 years they have been promising to make the poor wealthier.

There are still poor so as far as I can make out for about 100 years they have failed!

Why the hell would anyone vote for a 100 year track record of failure?

[The Hypno-Toad]

Corbyn doesn't want to make the poor richer.

He wants to bring everyone else down to their level.

[JawKnee]

technodup said:

JawKnee said:

Labour are very much about workers rights. Making work worthwhile so that everyone earns a high enough wage to live on. The welfare state should be a safety net, nothing more, nothing less.

Don't talk ste. Tony and Gordon could have raised the NMW, incentivised businesses to pay more, or controlled immigration to limit labour supply and boost low wages. What they actually did was have the state step in to top up low wages via an unnecessary, expensive and bureaucratic tax credit system.

So people who aren't 'on benefits' and shouldn't be actually are. And mass immigration means little chance of the jobless moving from out of work benefits to in work benefits. Genius. Well it would be if they vote Labour as intended.

Why is it that every Labour stronghold is a sthole? If Labour's so great for the working man why are the safe seats of Sunderland or Barnsley such run down tips with high unemployment?

In Scotland they've seen the light. It's the wrong light, but Labour voters and Labour areas got fed up with empty promises, and were tempted elsewhere. It's not too far a stretch to imagine it happening in England as well. UKIP are after them in many areas.

Every Labour stronghold is a sthole? What about London?

You seem to be complaining about Blairism (which I fully get) but at the same time complaining that the Blairites aren't running the party. If Blairism is the path back to power for Labour then god help us all. Corbyn's election is a move swiftly away from the still very unpopular years under the last Labour Govt. Nobody wants that again, hence this rocky period of change within the party. The people vs the PLP. There can only be one winner. It will take a bit of time but the party will settle and eventually sing from the same hymn sheet. Then we'll have a proper opposition.

[zarjaz1991]

JawKnee said:

Every Labour stronghold is a sthole? What about London?

You seem to be complaining about Blairism (which I fully get) but at the same time complaining that the Blairites aren't running the party. If Blairism is the path back to power for Labour then god help us all. Corbyn's election is a move swiftly away from the still very unpopular years under the last Labour Govt. Nobody wants that again, hence this rocky period of change within the party. The people vs the PLP. There can only be one winner. It will take a bit of time but the party will settle and eventually sing from the same hymn sheet. Then we'll have a proper opposition.

Thing is though, those 'very unpopular years' returned huge Labour majorities for three elections running. So it wasn't very unpopular at the time.

I'm no fan of Blair but this is inescapable. If it was so bad, why did people keep voting for it?

[johnxjsc1985]

gruffalo said:

Labour hey, for around 100 years they have been promising to make the poor wealthier.

There are still poor so as far as I can make out for about 100 years they have failed!

Why the hell would anyone vote for a 100 year track record of failure?

Wonder what would happen if we look at the Labour MP's net worth when they enter Westminster and then look again when they leave or like Blair and others Kinnock for instance a few years after leaving.
It seems to me that all leaders of Socialist Parties end up far richer after their tenure as leader has ended

[technodup]

JawKnee said:

Every Labour stronghold is a sthole? What about London?

FFS stop going on about London, it's an anomaly. Large parts of London are stholes that vote Labour. Some nicer bits populated with lefty media types and luvvies but are next door to stholes also vote Labour. The really nice bits vote Tory. Obviously.

You can't win an GE in London.

JawKnee said:

You seem to be complaining about Blairism (which I fully get) but at the same time complaining that the Blairites aren't running the party.

I'm not complaining about anything, I think the whole thing's brilliant.

JawKnee said:

If Blairism is the path back to power for Labour then god help us all.

Without the actual stain of Blair's name re Iraq it almost certainly is.

JawKnee said:

Corbyn's election is a move swiftly away from the still very unpopular years under the last Labour Govt.

Corbyn's election is a move swiftly away from electability.

FTFY.

You're seriously overestimating the unpopularity of the Labour government. They voted for them repeatedly. And you're seriously overestimating the ability of an old lefty to convert a predominately centre right electorate to his way of thinking, given it will cost the majority of them money.

[JawKnee]

technodup said:

JawKnee said:

If Blairism is the path back to power for Labour then god help us all.

Without the actual stain of Blair's name re Iraq it almost certainly is.

Your last post was moaning about Tax Credits introduced by the last government and their inaction on upping wages. Make your mind up.

I think you are overrestimating the appetite for another Blairite PM running this country. PFI, presidential style government, pointless war. The country will not vote for that again. You're misguided if you think otherwise.

[VolvoT5]

JawKnee said:

Your last post was moaning about Tax Credits introduced by the last government and their inaction on upping wages. Make your mind up.

I think you are overrestimating the appetite for another Blairite PM running this country. PFI, presidential style government, pointless war. The country will not vote for that again. You're misguided if you think otherwise.

I understand your apparent frustration on this thread because there is an awful lot of bks written about Corbyn here... most of it echoing what is in the media..... which as already pointed out is not actually painting an accurate or factual version of him, what he stands for or what is going on.

However the country did vote for Cameron, the "heir to Blair", and he carried on running the show in a very Blairite fashion.... a bit more right wing but handcuffed a bit by the Lib Dems and his own inability to convince the house to bomb the st out of foreign places.

One of the biggest issues I have with Corbyn and his supporters is that he is preaching to the converted - that is he has life long democratic socialists convinced but how does he win over people in places like Nuneaton? This idea that there are millions of people who don't vote because there is no socialist option is flawed IMO and the idea that people voted for Cameron because Miliband wasn't left wing enough is also a strange logic.

[technodup]

JawKnee said:

Your last post was moaning about Tax Credits introduced by the last government and their inaction on upping wages. Make your mind up.

I'm not saying I want another Blair. I'm saying the country probably does. They voted for Cameron twice, and Blair three times, what part aren't you getting here?

We didn't vote for Foot. Or Kinnock. Or Miliband. And we won't vote for Corbyn.

JawKnee said:

You're misguided

The irony is strong.

The people on this thread are more typical of the voters he has to win over than the residents of Hull. How's that going for you?

[Cobnapint]

The Hypno-Toad said:

Corbyn doesn't want to make the poor richer.

He wants to bring everyone else down to their level.

This is the whole concept of Labour. Without their base of poor people - they are nothing. So they do everything they can to maintain that situation by promising them the earth, and then quietly slipping the knife in once they get in office.

Labour's message is perverse. They tell the poor that Labour hates the rich, and in the same breath tell their supporters that if Labour gets voted into power they'll make the poor rich too - whereupon they too will become hated.

[Johnnytheboy]

JawKnee said:

If Blairism is the path back to power for Labour then god help us all. Corbyn's election is a move swiftly away from the still very unpopular years under the last Labour Govt. Nobody wants that again, hence this rocky period of change within the party. The people vs the PLP. There can only be one winner. It will take a bit of time but the party will settle and eventually sing from the same hymn sheet. Then we'll have a proper opposition.

Blair's the only Labour leader who has won a general election in 42 years.

Are you acknowledging that you don't want Labour to be a party of government, just a "proper opposition"?

[Smollet]

Johnnytheboy said:

Blair's the only Labour leader who has won a general election in 42 years.

He had to become Tory Lite to achieve that. No one wants a left wing government that Corbynistas are in favour of.

[Halb]

Blairism isn't the only way. Back in the late 90's Labour were set to win. John Smith would have won, but when Blair got in, he didn't just win, he Hulk smashed, and the size of that destruction was what held for another two goes as his dominance slowly slipped.

[Johnnytheboy]

What I'm trying to tease out is whether winning general elections is important to supporters of Corbyn.

Either:

1. it is, and they are deluded on his chances of winning, or

2. it isn't and they don't understand what representative democracy is.

[Smollet]

Johnnytheboy said:

What I'm trying to tease out is whether winning general elections is important to supporters of Corbyn.

Either:

1. it is, and they are deluded on his chances of winning, or

2. it isn't and they don't understand what representative democracy is.

I honestly don't think they do want to win an election. They just want to be left wing militants who can moan endlessly yet never be in a position to change what they whinge about as it requires making difficult decisions and actually having some sort of coherent workable policies.

[Smollet]

Halb said:

Blairism isn't the only way. Back in the late 90's Labour were set to win. John Smith would have won, but when Blair got in, he didn't just win, he Hulk smashed, and the size of that destruction was what held for another two goes as his dominance slowly slipped.

Smith was decent man compared to Blair. Labour's end came when Brown took over and the populace woke up.