Discussion
MrCarPark said:
I think having a firebrand with a few principles as leader of the opposition is going to make PMQs very entertaining.
Bring it on
I agree but the press will no doubt just make him a figure of fun. I prefer it when we have three parties which represent left,right and centre with Politicians who have a measure of conviction. Bring it on
rovermorris999 said:
Corbyn seems to be like Michael Foot only with a bad temper. Utterly unelectable. The danger for the Conservatives is complacency. Interesting times.
but its great to have someone who says what he thinks regardless of his Politics. This current lot look like they have just come from the set oy "Yes Prime Minster" .I would have Jim in a heart beatSnozzwangler said:
MrCarPark said:
I think having a firebrand with a few principles as leader of the opposition is going to make PMQs very entertaining.
Bring it on
It'll be great!Bring it on
(Not for labour
)Here's my take on it:
Shadow Chancellor: Dennis Skinner
Home Secretary: Keith Vaz
Foreign Secretary: George Galloway (assuming re-election)
Defence: Jon Cruddas
Justice: Harriet Harman
Education: Diane Abbott
Great fun
MrCarPark said:
The shadow cabinet could be interesting.
Here's my take on it:
Shadow Chancellor: Dennis Skinner
Home Secretary: Keith Vaz
Foreign Secretary: George Galloway (assuming re-election)
Defence: Jon Cruddas
Justice: Harriet Harman
Education: Diane Abbott
Great fun
It will get the great British people re-connected to politics. Here's my take on it:
Shadow Chancellor: Dennis Skinner
Home Secretary: Keith Vaz
Foreign Secretary: George Galloway (assuming re-election)
Defence: Jon Cruddas
Justice: Harriet Harman
Education: Diane Abbott
Great fun
rovermorris999 said:
Corbyn seems to be like Michael Foot only with a bad temper. Utterly unelectable.
Why do people keep repeating this phrase? It makes no sense. The last important metric we had about whether Labour is electable was the GE and look how that turned out. The other candidates, with positions that aren't easy to tell apart from the last (losing) Labour leadership wouldn't be electable, just because... that route has been tried and proven lacking. Corbyn's hasn't. His policies aren't like the 80's ones (they are merely perceived as such, he does need to work on perception), before you trot that one out. He's been consistently elected in his constituency. All I'm seeing is 3 new dogs with proven bad tricks and one old dog with unproven... well I'm loathe to call them tricks, as he doesn't seem to be of that school of though.An interesting parallel was drawn between Corbyn and Ian Duncan-Smith on Radio 4 today. Duncan-Smith was seen as a rebel before being voted leader, much like Corbyn now. This created huge problems for him with party discipline when he became leader. The same is likely to happen to Corbyn.
Renationalisation of industry, big tax rises, higher public spending and more redistribution, unilateral nuclear disarmament - in what way is he different from the old Labour diehards who hoped to roll back Thatcher's reforms? The only difference now is that there are relatively few people who remember why the public (even the working class public, outside of those areas with pretend "industries") so strongly supported those reforms. Which unfortunately might be sufficient to allow the country to be ruined again.
otolith said:
Renationalisation of industry, big tax rises, higher public spending and more redistribution, unilateral nuclear disarmament - in what way is he different from the old Labour diehards who hoped to roll back Thatcher's reforms? The only difference now is that there are relatively few people who remember why the public (even the working class public, outside of those areas with pretend "industries") so strongly supported those reforms. Which unfortunately might be sufficient to allow the country to be ruined again.
Absolutely, he's old school Labour redux. I remember the 70's and 80's politics, it seems the Labour members don't.wst said:
... It's just that I feel that the importance of the value of that number (over other metrics, like quality of life indicators)....
Try and measure those other metrics you speak of without ending up largely dependent on the relative wealth and prosperity economically of the country. Until we properly control our deficit and debt, any notion of our wealth or prosperity is false.Take a look at Greece for what happens when you continue blindly down a spend, spend, spend path with little/no control.
Those other metrics are also incredibly subjective (unlike numbers
). I wonder what the general quality of life actually is in this country even with increased austerity measures. Relative to all other countries in the world and also the UK over the decades. My guess is we aren't doing too badly, and if we get our finances under control that will improve. We do need to stop fixating over what small numbers of people earn(/what they have) though IMO. rovermorris999 said:
otolith said:
Renationalisation of industry, big tax rises, higher public spending and more redistribution, unilateral nuclear disarmament - in what way is he different from the old Labour diehards who hoped to roll back Thatcher's reforms? The only difference now is that there are relatively few people who remember why the public (even the working class public, outside of those areas with pretend "industries") so strongly supported those reforms. Which unfortunately might be sufficient to allow the country to be ruined again.
Absolutely, he's old school Labour redux. I remember the 70's and 80's politics, it seems the Labour members don't.
)otolith said:
The only difference now is that there are relatively few people who remember why the public (even the working class public, outside of those areas with pretend "industries") so strongly supported those reforms.
Because those with the money had the chance make a fast buck thanks to underpriced shares?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff