Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

[Tangled up in Blue]

I do not like him, he seems to be an arrogant bully who models himself on Prescott without the working background and also with little class. I also don't like how he (and his wife, although she seems ok) must have a policy of avoiding media attention as a couple.
He did say some sound words BUT my impression was that he would say whatever sounded good, his "speeches" were often much better than his responses to questioning; where he was too often muddled and used tired rhetoric instead of answering the question - like most MPs!

I suspect a lot of his arrogance is tied up with beating a speech defect (he stuttered badly ) as a kid.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.firstrows.eu/#www.thegua...rns-against-labour-lurch-to-the-left-or-right

Yvette Cooper makes her bid for the centre ground.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32881677

Chuka backs Liz.

 

[Benfleet A1]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32881677

Chuka backs Liz.

Got over his shyness again has he?

 

[Benfleet A1]

I suspect a lot of his arrogance is tied up with beating a speech defect (he stuttered badly ) as a kid.

Nice to see you backing another winner, as usual.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Got over his shyness again has he?

If he's a secret Blairite, I'd say it's a good thing he's "come out".

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32893956

Nice to see you backing another winner, as usual.

Balls is history,obviously.Though his wife will be around for a little while yet.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/04/jeremy-corbyn-vital-labour-leadership-debate

A genuine left-winger throws his hat in the ring.

Like Dianne Abbott though, JC has no chance of winning.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Perfect choice. A left wing IRA supporting filth bag, should keep the Reds out for decades.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Perfect choice. A left wing IRA supporting filth bag, should keep the Reds out for decades.

You're missing the point.He probably won't even get enough nominations from the PLP even to run.The fact that he's gutsy enough to stand is the point.

 

[Benfleet A1]

That's like entering a marathon knowing full well you can't run one. What's the point? Sounds more like self promotion to me.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

That's like entering a marathon knowing full well you can't run one. What's the point? Sounds more like self promotion to me.

Dunno.The whole Labour leadership circus sort of reminds me of Bertolt Brecht's famous comment on the 1953 uprising in East Germany:-

"the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?"

Anyway,to answer your question seriously,surely the point is to make sure that the left-wing case against austerity gets at least a token hearing?

 

[Benfleet A1]

I'd say the outcome of the election tells us that perhaps this austerity isn't as deep as the left have been telling us. Just an observation.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I'd say the outcome of the election tells us that perhaps this austerity isn't as deep as the left have been telling us. Just an observation.

Not so sure I'd agree with that.Indeed,I have plenty of anecdotal evidence from Spain,France and the UK, which suggests otherwise.

FWIW,I'd say that the outcome of the election suggests that the Tories, (and Cameron in particular), managed to convince at least 25% of the electorate (in England), that they were the party best equipped to manage the economy successfully, (despite failing to meet their own deficit reduction target, set in 2010).

Labour,for its part,never managed to overcome the Tory jibe that they'd car-crashed the economy before 2010, (despite there being a world-wide recession starting in 2008).If it is to recover in 2015 (or even by 2020), it will have to confront this argument head-on,rather than just avoiding it and hopefully the Labour leadership election will be the start of the fight back.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

Who the next Labour leader is will need the following attributes for any GE success against the new leader (in the Boris) Tory Party;- hard talking on Europe, spout strong anti immigration talk, embrace city finance, big on low paid worker rights, committed to NHS, Education (aside from Univ), defence & be anti SNP but pro Scotland/Wales.
Which is none of the current persons.
I predict a short term person for a few years and a back bencher or Chucka in 2018/9.

 

[Neil_F]

Labour,for its part,never managed to overcome the Tory jibe that they'd car-crashed the economy before 2010, (despite there being a world-wide recession starting in 2008).If it is to recover in 2015 (or even by 2020), it will have to confront this argument head-on,rather than just avoiding it and hopefully the Labour leadership election will be the start of the fight back.

Labour are still fighting the 2010 election, as are you, Barna. This total denial of responsibility for the economy is so damaging to the Labour Party that it will be very difficult for them to regain power until they get over it.

whenever challenged on spending Labour put up this straw man about spending causing the crash. Miliband did it in the final TV debate. No one is saying that overspending caused the crash. What is being said is that Labour overspending left the economy in a perilous state when the economy did crash.

The problem was that Gordon Brown genuinely believed the economy could never decline on his watch (the end of boom and bust) so spending restraint wasn't required. He was clearly wrong.

the only person who seems to get this in the labour leadership race is Liz Kendall.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Not so sure I'd agree with that.Indeed,I have plenty of anecdotal evidence from Spain,France and the UK, which suggests otherwise

FWIW,I'd say that the outcome of the election suggests that the Tories, (and Cameron in particular), managed to convince at least 25% of the electorate (in England), that they were the party best equipped to manage the economy successfully, (despite failing to meet their own deficit reduction target, set in 2010).

Labour,for its part,never managed to overcome the Tory jibe that they'd car-crashed the economy before 2010, (despite there being a world-wide recession starting in 2008).If it is to recover in 2015 (or even by 2020), it will have to confront this argument head-on,rather than just avoiding it and hopefully the Labour leadership election will be the start of the fight back.

I'd suggest that the anecdotal evidence you provide from France would prove that left wing polices fail dismally, Spain should think very carefully about who they elect and the UK rejected the Labour Party because they have longer memories than the likes of you give them credit for. Labour's economy polices fall flat on their face and the voters of Britain obviously agree. Tories might be nasty but at least they aren't completely biased.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Labour are still fighting the 2010 election, as are you, Barna. This total denial of responsibility for the economy is so damaging to the Labour Party that it will be very difficult for them to regain power until they get over it.

whenever challenged on spending Labour put up this straw man about spending causing the crash. Miliband did it in the final TV debate. No one is saying that overspending caused the crash. What is being said is that Labour overspending left the economy in a perilous state when the economy did crash.

The problem was that Gordon Brown genuinely believed the economy could never decline on his watch (the end of boom and bust) so spending restraint wasn't required. He was clearly wrong.

the only person who seems to get this in the labour leadership race is Liz Kendall.

You are quite right to criticise Gordon Brown for claiming that he'd abolished boom and bust.Obviously he didn't.Labour politicians have only ever admitted this in private (c.f. Bruce Grocott,formerly Tony Blair's PPS, quoted in Chris Mullen's diaries).Until someone in the Labour leadership race comes clean about this, Labour are doomed to defeat in 2020.

Nobody in the current Labour leadership race, however, should feel the need to apologise for public spending on much needed new schools and hospitals, (shame on you Liz Kendall), during the Blair/Brown years.
What should have been done with the benefit of hindsight, (always a wonderful thing in politics), was for Labour to have run a small balance of payments surplus in the boom years,which (as you would know), is classical Keynesian economics.(Roy Jenkins certainly managed to do this as Wilson's Chancellor).It wouldn't have made much difference to the actual running of the economy after 2008 (and personally I happen to think that Brown/Darling responded well to the crisis),though it would certainly have absolved Labour from the Tory charge that they'd "done nothing to fix the roof while the sun was shining",which effectively won the 2010 election for them.

Like the late Ralph Miliband, (and he was a much more astute observer of the British political scene than either of his sons), I'm not much of a fan of British Parliamentary Socialism.However, as Winson Churchill used to say:-
"Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

I'd suggest that the anecdotal evidence you provide from France would prove that left wing polices fail dismally, Spain should think very carefully about who they elect and the UK rejected the Labour Party because they have longer memories than the likes of you give them credit for. Labour's economy polices fall flat on their face and the voters of Britain obviously agree. Tories might be nasty but at least they aren't completely biased.

As far as France is concerned, Hollande gave up on trying to impose any genuine left wing policies some time ago,round about the time that his attempts to tax the super-rich failed so miserably.

As far is Spain is concerned, the hated right wing PP will be deposed in elections at the end of this year (probably by a coalition between the Spanish Socialist Party (POSE) and the ultra-left Podemos.

It's certainly true that the British electorate decisively rejected the Labour Party in this year's G/E but not for the reasons you suggest.

I would certainly agree with you that the Tories remain the "nasty" party, as the British electorate will shortly find out,when the next round of Tory cuts are imposed.

The idea that the Tories "aren't completely biased" would, of course, be laughable if it weren't so deluded.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

Nobody in the current Labour leadership race, however, should feel the need to apologise for public spending on much needed new schools and hospitals, (shame on you Liz Kendall), during the Blair/Brown years.



I would certainly agree with you that the Tories remain the "nasty" party, as the British electorate will shortly find out,when the next round of Tory cuts are imposed.

The idea that the Tories "aren't completely biased" would, of course, be laughable if it weren't so deluded.

A partial apology IS needed for the way in which private money was allowed to build/run hospital/NHS buildings at HUGE pay back rates for ever after; AND this is part of the reason for the continuing shortfall. There is wise and needed way of spending: and then there is what the Reds did; all in all they made a right mess of most fiscal things didn't they? with good intentions maybe but they left a sorry old state.

 

[Benfleet A1]

You are quite right to criticise Gordon Brown for claiming that he'd abolished boom and bust.Obviously he didn't.Labour politicians have only ever admitted this in private (c.f. Bruce Grocott,formerly Tony Blair's PPS, quoted in Chris Mullen's diaries).Until someone in the Labour leadership race comes clean about this, Labour are doomed to defeat in 2020.

Nobody in the current Labour leadership race, however, should feel the need to apologise for public spending on much needed new schools and hospitals, (shame on you Liz Kendall), during the Blair/Brown years.
What should have been done with the benefit of hindsight, (always a wonderful thing in politics), was for Labour to have run a small balance of payments surplus in the boom years,which (as you would know), is classical Keynesian economics.(Roy Jenkins certainly managed to do this as Wilson's Chancellor).It wouldn't have made much difference to the actual running of the economy after 2008 (and personally I happen to think that Brown/Darling responded well to the crisis),though it would certainly have absolved Labour from the Tory charge that they'd "done nothing to fix the roof while the sun was shining",which effectively won the 2010 election for them.

Like the late Ralph Miliband, (and he was a much more astute observer of the British political scene than either of his sons), I'm not much of a fan of British Parliamentary Socialism.However, as Winson Churchill used to say:-
"Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."





As far as France is concerned, Hollande gave up on trying to impose any genuine left wing policies some time ago,round about the time that his attempts to tax the super-rich failed so miserably.

As far is Spain is concerned, the hated right wing PP will be deposed in elections at the end of this year (probably by a coalition between the Spanish Socialist Party (POSE) and the ultra-left Podemos.

It's certainly true that the British electorate decisively rejected the Labour Party in this year's G/E but not for the reasons you suggest.

I would certainly agree with you that the Tories remain the "nasty" party, as the British electorate will shortly find out,when the next round of Tory cuts are imposed.

The idea that the Tories "aren't completely biased" would, of course, be laughable if it weren't so deluded.

What were the reasons then? Thrill me with your analogy.

 

[Neil_F]

Nobody in the current Labour leadership race, however, should feel the need to apologise for public spending on much needed new schools and hospitals, (shame on you Liz Kendall), during the Blair/Brown years.

What about the £400bn odd that wasn't spent on health or education?

So given that you agree it was wrong to claim the economic cycle was abolished, do you agree that Labour overspent?

What should have been done with the benefit of hindsight, (always a wonderful thing in politics), was for Labour to have run a small balance of payments surplus in the boom years,which (as you would know), is classical Keynesian economics.

The whole point of the economic cycle is that the worst case should be expected and planned for. Classic Keynesian economics acknowledges that there is an economic cycle such that a budget surplus should be run in the good times so that there is room for a fiscal stimulus in the bad times. Labour were running a deficit from 2003ish onwards. By the way, a current account surplus is something completely different to a budget surplus.

It wouldn't have made much difference to the actual running of the economy after 2008

It really would. The deficit in 2008 was about £180bn. Labour were running a deficit of £30bn prior to the crash. If they had been running a surplus of £15bn immediately prior then that would have been £45bn of cuts that weren't required, which is pretty much the entire defence budget. If that had have been the case the current deficit would be nominal by now and there would have been a lot less pain.

it would certainly have absolved Labour from the Tory charge that they'd "done nothing to fix the roof while the sun was shining",which effectively won the 2010 election for them.

So given that why did Miliband fight the 2015 election promising higher spending and why did you support him?