I'm hardly his biggest fan but calling it a "temporary" rise in living standards is selling his government very short. There were massive improvements across the board, aided by huge investment in public services. Another five years of Cameron will really start to eat into that, but that only goes to show how big a change it was.

that's a fair point, yes. put it down to me being mid-rant!

Can we rename this thread 'Polarising things Labour are doing' so we can have a general Labour thread please

 

And to INDUCT we have John McDonnell LITERALLY QUOTING FROM MAO in the response to the Autumn Statement. Tom Watson's face is a treat.

 

 

http://media.tumblr.com/f697966ecb7b76c0107323430292f487/tumblr_inline_mpjfv8Dhou1qz4rgp.gif

For many years, voters have been complaining about career politicians. Now, we are seeing what can happen when a party is led by someone who didn't even have leadership ambitions at the beginning of the year, let alone when he entered parliament. Yes, there is too much spin in politics at the moment, but Corbyn and McDonnell's performances show that some degree of media savviness is essential.

Having the moral high ground is lovely (and I've said from the start I agree with much Jezzer says - though he also strays into the nutty) but you have to have credibility if you want to persuade people over to your point of view. If people can't imagine you look Prime Ministerial, say a bit Mr Bean-ish, or the local tramp on a park bench, then you really are on a loser. You could probably over-ride image if you had the eloquence and strength of character to sweep people along with you (history is full of horrific leaders with charisma) but without that....sadly, sound-bite politicians will stay in charge cos they know how the media can crucify the unwary.

 

Some lost Labour voters seem to want to stop foreigners coming into the UK. I propose we give them what they want starting with those foreigners taking up well-paid jobs that UK citizens could do with - say Governor of the Bank Of England, Mrs Farage, Canary Wharf bankers, Directors of companies, foreign property owners, all of the footballers in the Premier League not born in the UK - before we start picking on the cleaners and people at the bottom of the pile who do the crappy jobs no-one else wants to do. Just a suggestion for a useful position Labour might wish to consider taking.......

The Blairites, or the 'moderates' as the Establishment likes to call them as they protect the Thatcher post-war Establishment-favouring Status Quo, need to get behind Corbyn, his huge mandate AND the PEOPLE who DON'T WANT more airstikes in Syria.

Some lost Labour voters seem to want to stop foreigners coming into the UK. I propose we give them what they want starting with those foreigners taking up well-paid jobs that UK citizens could do with - say Governor of the Bank Of England, Mrs Farage, Canary Wharf bankers, Directors of companies, foreign property owners, all of the footballers in the Premier League not born in the UK - before we start picking on the cleaners and people at the bottom of the pile who do the crappy jobs no-one else wants to do. Just a suggestion for a useful position Labour might wish to consider taking.......

You're joking, right?

The Blairites, or the 'moderates' as the Establishment likes to call them as they protect the Thatcher post-war Establishment-favouring Status Quo, need to get behind Corbyn, his huge mandate AND the PEOPLE who DON'T WANT more airstikes in Syria.

 

I hate the way the media calls Ummuna/Hunt/Cooper the 'moderates' immediately planting a view in the viewers minds that Corbyn etc are extremists. I'm sure corbynistas would say they are moderate!

I'm sure corbynistas would say they are moderate!

And they'd be wrong by pretty much any objective measure of political positioning. There is not, and has never been, a moderate centre-left leader or party in any country which has proposed paying for its policies by printing money, seriously floated the idea of scrapping the military, questioned the idea of shoot-to-kill in the event of an ongoing terrorist attack, supported homeopathy in the NHS...I could go on. Politics may have moved to the right over the last thirty years, but Corbyn would have unambiguously been on the radical left at pretty much any time in the Labour Party's history. For crying out loud - we're talking here about a man who thought the 1983 manifesto only lost because it wasn't left-wing enough!

Does that mean he is wrong though?

 

If you went back in time a lot of views are very extreme but now they are mainstream it doesn't mean he is wrong or wrong to even air them. The problem with blairite Labour members is they are so in awe of the media and the tories positioning that they lose sight of their actual values and get stuck in a triangulation they can't get out of or in some cases don't want to get out of as it ends up leading the Tory agenda.

And they'd be wrong by pretty much any objective measure of political positioning. There is not, and has never been, a moderate centre-left leader or party in any country which has proposed paying for its policies by printing money, seriously floated the idea of scrapping the military, questioned the idea of shoot-to-kill in the event of an ongoing terrorist attack, supported homeopathy in the NHS

All of these ideas are fucking mental on principle, regardless of whether they're popular or not (which they aren't). They are not 'real Labour values' and it isn't 'Blairites being in awe of the media' that is causing the disagreement here. They're all woolly-headed, naive nonsense, and will still be considered as such in fifty years time, in a hundred years time, in two hundred years time. That they are wrong ideas is enough in itself, but it is made even worse by the fact that these are *staggeringly* unpopular wrong ideas, outside of the deluded coterie of people who seem to think that just because they have come together to vote for someone who believes it, such views are now mainstream. They are not. The very fact that we are even discussing the possibility of Labour losing its first by-election of the parliament in one of the safest seats it has with one of the most impressive council leaders in the country as its candidate should be ample clue of that.

 

Anti-austerity *could* notionally be a popular proposition - and it is something where I think the bird has long flown but if you had a candidate who otherwise commanded confidence in the public I think it would be enough of a right thing to do on balance that it could be worth a shot. So long as it is shackled to someone espousing the above bollocks, it never will be. It generally doesn't help to convert you to an idea that you had sympathy for when its highest profile proponent is a crank.

I agree they are unpopular but it is a matter of opinion whether they are 'the wrong ideas' IMO.

 

I think the problems with this weeks by-election were planted long ago and you could definately say are a result of new labour policies over the last 25 years.

Edited November 29, 20159 yr by Christmaseve201

You can hide unpopular ideas behind popular ones. It's quite difficult to do when one of the unpopular policies is the basis for your entire economic programme.

I think the problems with this weeks by-election were planted long ago and you could definately say are a result of new labour policies over the last 25 years.

 

Careful now, you're starting to sound like a Tory.

And they'd be wrong by pretty much any objective measure of political positioning. There is not, and has never been, a moderate centre-left leader or party in any country which has proposed paying for its policies by printing money, seriously floated the idea of scrapping the military, questioned the idea of shoot-to-kill in the event of an ongoing terrorist attack, supported homeopathy in the NHS...I could go on. Politics may have moved to the right over the last thirty years, but Corbyn would have unambiguously been on the radical left at pretty much any time in the Labour Party's history. For crying out loud - we're talking here about a man who thought the 1983 manifesto only lost because it wasn't left-wing enough!

You're partly playing the Tory press game here. He questioned the validity of a general shoot-to-kill policy, a policy which doesn't currently apply. The problem goes back to my point which started this discussion. He fell into a trap and failed the express his views coherently. He has little experience or training in handling interviews, and it shows nearly every time. In his attempts to answer the question he was asked, rather than answering a completely different question, he just makes himself look a fool.

 

This is all very worrying. At the moment, anything the Lib Dems say goes unreported. The media in England act as if only two parties exist in the country. With Corbyn making so many basic mistakes, the prospect of the Tories winning a larger majority in 2020 is all too real. Even if they split over the EU referendum, we all know that will be down-played if the press can still portray Labour as a shambles.

 

McDonnell, of course, has also shown his lack of experience as a senior politician. His attempted Mao "joke" might have worked better if his delivery was better, but probably not. There are better ways of attacking Osborne for costing up to China than quoting a murderous maniac. While Osborne was speaking, McDonnell should have torn up his script, including the Mao "joke", and ridiculed Osborne for a massive U-turn. Of course, the Budget and the Autumn Statement are two of the hardest parliamentary occasions for the opposition as they don't see the statement in advance. That's why you need "grown-up" politicians to do the job. Assuming he is still leader by then, Corbyn needs to do a lot better when he responds to Osborne's next Budget.

I agree they are unpopular but it is a matter of opinion whether they are 'the wrong ideas' IMO.

 

I think the problems with this weeks by-election were planted long ago and you could definately say are a result of new labour policies over the last 25 years.

I'll give a little ground here and say it's certainly a matter of opinion whether scrapping the military and shoot-to-kill in the midst of a terrorist attack are 'wrong' ideas, but the People's QE and homeopathy are both without a shadow of a doubt wrong and immoral ideas that have been tested infinitely before now and never worked.

 

And it's funny how we didn't seem to have any trouble whatsoever holding Oldham West at either of the last two elections after New Labour...

He is surely going to have to allow a free vote - I feel like Cameron didn't make the case for air strikes being extended to Syria but on the consciences of those MPs who support the PM and his planned action.

I'll give a little ground here and say it's certainly a matter of opinion whether scrapping the military and shoot-to-kill in the midst of a terrorist attack are 'wrong' ideas, but the People's QE and homeopathy are both without a shadow of a doubt wrong and immoral ideas that have been tested infinitely before now and never worked.

 

And it's funny how we didn't seem to have any trouble whatsoever holding Oldham West at either of the last two elections after New Labour...

 

 

Im Oldham will be held on thursday but it was held easily because Meacher had been MP for 30 years and was popular locally with an agenda similar to Corbyns if thats a fair way of putting it.

 

Now the field is all open simply due to UKIPs sucesses in labour heartlands in May where they came 2nd in ALOT of old working class constituencies.

 

With regards to Syria and keeping Britain safe Corbyn gave a good persuavive interview with Marr yesterday about the best way he thought to keep Britain safe which i agree with. I totally understand his views regarding Shoot to Kill as well considering what happened to Charles De Menzies a few years back. Also im from N.Ireland where the SAS pursued this policy with the IRA.

Edited November 30, 20159 yr by Christmaseve201

Im Oldham will be held on thursday but it was held easily because Meacher had been MP for 30 years and was popular locally with an agenda similar to Corbyns if thats a fair way of putting it.

My point is that if Meacher was popular locally because of his Corbynesque agenda, why are people suddenly turning away now they have the chance to vote for that agenda nationally?

Glad that a free vote has been offered, now to see how many Labour MPs are going to be EVIL TRAITORS. :D