Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[Drifter]

This would be pretty extraordinary. This would make his position completely untenable.

This is probably just Labour not taking things for granted.

 

[Sweet Square]

And this isn't only the case with Labour either. From centre-left to centre-right the electorate was getting a diminishing return on many of the questions/challenges of the present era. Worst still, they weren't even exploring any.

I was listening the the latest episode of Politics Weekly yesterday, and the opinion of one contributor was that it will take defeat in Stoke to before MPs shocked awake so to speak.

Diminishing returns is a good way to put it. As for the future I have very little faith that even if Labour were to lose Stoke anything would change and thats for both wings of the party. A big problem is that the Labour Party is just well......rubbish. Both Corbyn victories should have been lifeline for the party but it's doing it's best to completely feck it up(That includes Corbyn). Which is very disspointing as there are plenty of people who actually want Labour to succeed, so this country can be a better place for everyone.

This is a bizarre, blinkered opinion, considering the alternatives we've had in the last 40 or so years. It's easily been the best government in my lifetime, warts and all. Iraq was a colossal feck up, but the Corbynite faction's inability to separate it from anything else New Labour did is faintly ridiculous, and the kind of thing that gets the left accused of ideological naivety.

Iraq isn't the only example, but it always needs to be brought up as the people connected with that government(Most notable Tony Blair)don't seem to understand what a colossal feck up it was. Although it seems most MP's today still fail to grasp this.

But heres a few things

.The privatisation of services. NHS privatisation flourish under New Labour, School privatisation was pushed by New Labour and the privatisation of the Underground.

.The parachuting of Labour MPs into safe constituencies. Not only stopping local democracy and a feeling that people could change their local area through politics but with such greats as Angela Eargle, Tristram Britain’s least popular MP Hunt, David Miliband(You know the one who couldn't beat Ed)and feck they even tried it with ******* Harman's husband, New Labour actively push forward the resentment that all politicians are the same and none of them give a shit about their constituencies.

.New Labour stance on Immigration. While one of the criticism(From the right) of New Labour was that they were pro immigration and multiculturalism, it's worth going back and listening to some of the things New Labour were saying at the time. Blair speech on Immgration and Race which was held(And I'm not making this up)on the White Cliff Of Dover, a question from a jurno after the speech ''Why were all the faces behind you white for a speech about race ?'", Gordon Browns ''British Jobs for British People'' being another example.

This article from 2004 gives some lowlights of New Labour immigration policy.

Spoiler

The government’s asylum and citizenship policies have resulted in an upsurge in racially motivated violence and police harassment.

We are now faced with the end of asylum as we know it in this country. Asylum seekers’ rights and protections have been gradually abolished and are being replaced by a system of managed migration. At the same time, after taking some early tentative steps towards tackling institutional racism following the Macpherson report in 1999, the government has turned full circle to cultivate a virulent institutional racism of its own.

Until recently, at the heart of the debate about asylum there was an artificial distinction between politically oppressed asylum seekers and ‘economic migrants’. The former were deserving of our protection, while the latter, according to the government and the press, were ‘bogus’. In reality, it is the way the government has framed the debate that is bogus.

Last year Britain granted 175,000 migrant workers temporary work permits. These permits afford the people who possess them very few rights. Their number is due to expand under the Home Office’s managed-migration strategy. Arun Kundnani, of the Institute for Race Relations (IRR), says: ‘Figures for the number of people applying for and… being granted asylum have been halved over the past two years. At the same time, the number of people brought in as workers has increased dramatically.’ Migrants are being invited here at the behest of British business. The parallels with the Windrush era are obvious. Those workers are imported either because they are desperately needed to fill understaffed professions such as nursing, or because the agriculture, construction and catering industries need them to do the dirtiest, most dangerous and lowest paid jobs. Often they are virtually indentured and forced to work on poverty wages.

In public debate, however, government anti-asylum policies are rarely discussed in the context of a restructured labour market. On the contrary, the ‘asylum crisis’ has somehow come to symbolise a disintegrating social order. And so we have a new enemy within. In typically indiscriminate fashion, Muslims and those who look like Muslims are the principal targets of a new racism. But since we are being ‘swamped’ or submerged by a refugee ‘tidal wave’, this is a discourse that enables all non-Western foreigners to be drawn into a great big racist melting pot. The new racism reserves its most poisonous venom for Muslims, but is, as IRR director A. Sivanandan has pointed out, also a more widely targeted ‘xeno-racism’.

In July figures released by the Home Office showed a 300 per cent rise in the number of Asians stopped and searched under anti-terrorism legislation. This was despite the fact that the 609 arrests made under the Terrorist Act 2000 led to the conviction of just three Muslims. In the meantime, racist attacks on asylum seekers and on British Asians are universally being reported as exhibiting a sharp increase. The Crown Prosecution Service recently reported a 20 per cent surge in racially motivated attacks. And all the indications are that Black people in the UK are more economically excluded than they were 30 years ago: the unemployment rate for British Bangladeshis is more than four times that for Whites; British Africans and Caribbeans are around three times as likely to be unemployed.

This is Britain little more than five years after the Macpherson report was published. Remember the Macpherson report? Published in 1999, and commissioned by Blunkett’s predecessor as home secretary, Jack Straw, it was supposed to be a watershed for race relations in the UK. It was, indeed, a landmark moment, as it forced an official acknowledgment that the institutional pillars of the British state were infected with systematically racist attitudes and practice.

At first New Labour enthusiastically and unquestioningly accepted Macpherson. Yet less than four years later, in January 2003, David Blunkett declared: ‘I think the slogan created a year or two ago about institutional racism missed the point. It’s not the structures created in the past; it’s the processes to change structures in the future, and it is individuals at all levels who do that.’

Blunkett may have been right to highlight the fact that racism at an individual level can be obscured by pointing a finger in the general direction of ‘the system’ or ‘the powers that be’. But a very different rationale lay behind his attempt at a summary execution of the concept of institutional racism. His version of the ‘bad apples’ theory – that racism in institutions like the police is the fault of a few errant individuals, and is, therefore, best solved by dealing with that minority of bad apples – was a convenient position for the government to take. It shifts responsibility and blame for the production of racist ideas and practice away from those who direct and formulate policy. Denial of institutional racism also rejects the idea that policy-makers and politicians have a direct impact upon the social conditions that encourage or discourage racist ideas and practice.

The home secretary’s denial came at a crucial moment: at a time when the political assault on asylum seekers was at its height. Instead of providing a political lead against tabloid race hate, the government responded by launching a state clampdown on the rights of refugees. Perhaps we should have seen the writing on the wall. For when the major piece of post-Macpherson legislation, the Race Relations Act 2000, was passed, immigration officers were exempt form it and were to be allowed to discriminate against ‘undesirable aliens’ identified by the Home Office. Since then Blunkett has licensed the targeting of Roma Gypsies, Kurds, Albanians, Tamils, Pontic Greeks, Somalis and Afghans.

Since 1997 three major pieces of legislation on asylum and immigration have passed through Parliament. Those acts have created 28 new offences that apply exclusively to immigrants or those seeking asylum. That figure more than quadruples if we add in the number of new offences that are also aimed at those seeking to employ, aid or assist those who are designated ‘illegal’. Tough new powers to enforce these laws have been introduced: new powers to detain and imprison; the separation of children from their families; and the denial of benefits. The insistence that failed asylum seekers will be made to work without pay while they await deportation should be read as a harbinger of the more extreme excesses of New Labour’s ‘workfare state’. It is this kind of explicitly xeno-racist reform that has prompted Amnesty to accuse the British government of ignoring its responsibilities under the Geneva Convention.

This year the chair of the Commission for Racial Equality Trevor Phillips came out to declare ‘community cohesion’ (a phrase that Blunkett had been touting since 2001) as the solution to increasingly fractious race relations in the UK. Multiculturalism, we were told, was dead. Following its demise, Phillips argued, we were to pay our respects to a ‘core of Britishness’, even though no one in the country seems to know what that core might look like.

Like so much of New Labour’s double-speak, the term ‘community cohesion’ masks a double-edged sword. The rhetoric proposes an agenda for revitalising community and improving social and economic opportunities for all. The sharp edge of the sword explicitly seeks to rid the country of difference. Blunkett’s obsession with English language classes as a means of coercive assimilation for those who do not ‘integrate’ makes Norman Tebbit’s racist cricket test seem rather quaint and benign. Citizenship ceremonies, those most bizarre and archaic of rituals imposed from above, require prospective citizens to pledge allegiance to the Queen, the national anthem and the Union flag. Even Tebbit couldn’t have dreamt that one up. And much of the community-cohesion agenda is not optional, but compulsory. Witness the recent pledge by the government that imams who fail to project a positive image of Britain will be removed from mosques. We should, therefore, not lose sight of the umbilical link between New Labour’s nationalism and good old-fashioned British imperialism. As Lee Jasper, the secretary of the National Assembly Against Racism, has observed: ‘The English in Gibraltar do not speak Spanish. The English in India did not learn to speak Hindi. The British descendants living in Australia have not adopted the native tongue of the Aboriginal people.’

A UN Human Rights Commission report last year quoted a British National Party official on asylum: ‘There’s an old saying that you need a bit of luck in politics. Well, we’ve had quite a bit of luck in that newspapers have become obsessed with the asylum issue. I have not been able to believe the Daily Express. Issue after issue, day after day, asylum this, asylum that. So we now have the luxury of banging on people’s doors with the mainstream issue of the day.’ New Labour has actively colluded in this process.

The fact is New Labour(And every Labour Party since)policy on Immgration has to been to stoke anti immigration/racist views in the attempt to win some cheap votes in the North and South, while at the same giving a cheeky wink to it's core voters in the city. I think now we are seeing the cost of this.

So yeah I'm not much of a fan.

 

[Sweet Square]

Of course not... Its clearly all Blairs fault

Former MP for Stoke On Trent - Labour MP Tristram Hunt(Britain’s least popular MP - 19 per cent of constituents voted for him)

Spoiler: How Tristram Became an MP

http://novaramedia.com/2016/09/26/how-did-tristram-hunt-get-to-be-an-mp-anyway/
Hunt entered parliament in 2010, having being selected for the safe seat Stoke-on-Trent Central by the Labour national executive committee (NEC) – not by the local constituency Labour party (CLP). The NEC had taken over the process and imposed three non-local candidates (Hunt was London-based and was born in Cambridge, and his father, a Cambridge university fellow, was made a Baron by Tony Blair in 2000). The local Labour party, which had expected local candidates to be put forward, demanded a new shortlist, but this was ignored and Hunt won the ballot. In protest, the former CLP secretary changed his name to ‘Gary Labour Candidate Born in Stoke-on-Trent Elsby’ and ran as an independent, subsequently receiving legal threats from the Labour party because he used red on his rosettes.

In 2008 Peter Mandelson was made a Lord so he could return to government as business secretary, and in 2010 he was charged with coordinating the general election campaign. Downing Street described the imposition of Hunt on Stoke as a ‘Mandelson ask’. Mandelson had previously done similar when he successfully pressured for Jonathan Reynolds’s placement on the shortlist for Stalybridge and Hyde (also a safe seat) even though the NEC had already prepared a shortlist that favoured a Brownite Unite official.

The motivations for this were clear. Mandelson expected to lose the general election he was overseeing – a fact he himself admitted in his memoirs. As he had completely written-off Brown as a prime minister, he was eager to give power to the new generation of Blairites clustered around David Miliband. Reynolds and Hunt were brought into parliament to grow this generation and to aid Miliband by supporting the campaign to be Labour leader that would inevitably follow the general election defeat. They duly nominated him in the 2010 leadership contest.

Mandelson joked with cabinet colleagues that the election campaign should be based around the ‘three Fs’: futile, finished, and fecked. For the Labour right the purpose of the 2010 election was a regenerative defeat. Tristram Hunt was forced on his constituency to pack the parliamentary Labour party (PLP) with young Blairites untainted by the 1997-2010 government. With this in mind, when people like Hunt attack the Labour left’s ‘threats’, they’re not doing it as a point of principle. Party democracy is not particularly sacred to them, and the imposition of candidates was a complaint directed at Blair since the first years of his leadership. Instead, they represent a faction far to the right of the Labour party which possesses a bleak and racist social vision that will entrench poverty and inequality, and they strongly believe this vision is the only one that can and should be implemented.

The context of Hunt’s selection in 2010 therefore illustrates why there are no moral arguments against deselection. If anti-Corbyn Labour MPs, members and supporters think ‘Mandelson asks’ were fine – examples of normal politicking that people have to be realists about – then they also have to accept that similar moves by so-called Corbnyites are also fine. If Mandelson can force candidates on CLPs in authoritarian gestures from the top of the party, then surely Corbynites can similarly replace candidates through democratic processes coming from the bottom.

On the other hand, if those MPs, members and supporters think the top-down interventions of the Blair years were wrong, then to be consistent they must be in favour of more democratic control. This may well require them to accept Corbynite majorities in elections, CLP meetings and ultimately votes for parliamentary candidates.

Constituency-led selection is an inherently democratic way of choosing candidates; the way Hunt was selected was not. If the Labour members in Stoke want to choose a local candidate who better represent their politics, then that is their right. It will likely be revealed that for a number of anti-Corbynites party democracy is the problem, and that candidates should be imposed by the ‘realist’ right of the party – who should also form its leadership. To effectively defend themselves from the next onslaughts from the Labour right, members on the left should emphasise this discrepancy between the professed principles of figures like Hunt and their own pasts.

Such common working folk quotes as :

To Cambridge students - You are the top one per cent. The Labour Party is in the shit. It is your job and your responsibility to take leadership going forward.”

''Labour need to show they are also on the side of families who want to shop at John Lewis, go on holiday and get a new extension”.

'Labour should appeal to the “John Lewis couple” and those who aspire to shop in Waitrose.''

We can actually sort of blame this one on Blair/Blairism.

 

[Smores]

1. Pressure on NHS exits not because of immigrants, but because of an aging population and increased medical costs. In fact, in theory immigrants should decrease the pressure on the NHS because they are the least likely use its services. It's the OAP's, of which a large majority voted Brexit ironically enough, who are the ones most likely to use its services and demand ever more expensive medical treatment.

2. The vast majority of immigrants arrive in the UK whithout children. Again in theory immigration should decrease the pressure on education. And again here we see the enormous toll that government cuts have had on its services, teachers being made redundant and thus forcing increased class sizes upon schools, combined with decades of neglect & lack of investment in school infrastructures.


To conclude, the current immigration levels in the UK do not cause a significant increase of pressure on public services. Decades of lack of investment, lack of foresight and complete incompetence do increase the pressure on public services.

You're still discussing majority
blame rather than accepting immigration is a contributory factor worthy of discussion. If you honestly believe there isn't a significant factor then you're blinkered by your idealism.

I'm at work so can't source just yet so ill throw in a couple and come back . The below does not factor in immigration by way of increasing the population adds to the elderly count.

Again showing they're not net contributors even if you factor in the less use of services as you've tried to do to discount it. Increasing our population of people who are a net drag on the public purse (thats the majority of natives obviously) is not a benefit and its okay to say so.

There's a point where immigration could become an issue or do you deny that and think it'll always be a benefit?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Prove to me that immigration pressure exits and what the immigration pressure exactly is. Because over the past year I've read a lot about it on the Caf but I haven't seen one iota of proof to back up the argument.

All the evidence (facts & numbers) I've actually seen on here points towards the fact that immigration brings a net gain that can help resolve those funding issues. But hey, if you're unemployed, white and live in a shit hole like Stoke ,then you probably don't what to hear about the benefits of immigration and much rather prefer to blame the Paki's across the road for your troubles.

Immigration is a tricky one. It definitely brings a net gain to the economy. Any (sensible) economist will tell you that. Let's not ignore the word "net", though. There are upsides and downsides, with the upsides dominating and providing an overall economic positive for the country as a whole. They aren't distributed equally, however. There will be segments of society (and geographic regions) who primarily experience the downside (typically the poor and disadvantaged) while others are more likely to reap the benefits (typically employers and landlords)

It can be very hard for someone who is mainly experiencing the downsides of immigration to listen to rhetoric about "net benefits" when that's not been your personal experience. It's the refusal of the left to acknowledge this phenomenon that has added fuel to the Brexit/Trump fires IMO.

 

[berbatrick]

Immigration is a tricky one. It definitely brings a net gain to the economy. Any (sensible) economist will tell you that. Let's not ignore the word "net", though. There are upsides and downsides, with the upsides dominating and providing an overall economic positive for the country as a whole. They aren't distributed equally, however. There will be segments of society (and geographic regions) who primarily experience the downside (typically the poor and disadvantaged) while others are more likely to reap the benefits (typically employers and landlords)

It can be very hard for someone who is mainly experiencing the downsides of immigration to listen to rhetoric about "net benefits" when that's not been your personal experience. It's the refusal of the left to acknowledge this phenomenon that has added fuel to the Brexit/Trump fires IMO.

This speech makes the point (very well) that phrases like net benefits or America is already great or white privilege are counterproductive: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/trump-black-lives-racism-sexism-anti-inauguration/

 

[Flying high]

Immigration is a tricky one. It definitely brings a net gain to the economy. Any (sensible) economist will tell you that. Let's not ignore the word "net", though. There are upsides and downsides, with the upsides dominating and providing an overall economic positive for the country as a whole. They aren't distributed equally, however. There will be segments of society (and geographic regions) who primarily experience the downside (typically the poor and disadvantaged) while others are more likely to reap the benefits (typically employers and landlords)

It can be very hard for someone who is mainly experiencing the downsides of immigration to listen to rhetoric about "net benefits" when that's not been your personal experience. It's the refusal of the left to acknowledge this phenomenon that has added fuel to the Brexit/Trump fires IMO.

I don't believe the left has ignored this issue. I think they are the ones constantly trying to get more money for the NHS education and housing. It's the right that had been preventing any tax rises on big business and the super rich.

It's all well and good encouraging mass immigration with the many benefits that can bring(even Cameron refused to cut it). But not to use the resultant increase in gdp to provide the services required is clearly, to me at least, the origin of so many of our problems right now. Couple that with the systematic selling off of anything of value and I firmly blame the tories. Even if it has been made too easy for them at times.

 

[Rams]

You're still discussing majority
blame rather than accepting immigration is a contributory factor worthy of discussion. If you honestly believe there isn't a significant factor then you're blinkered by your idealism.

I'm at work so can't source just yet so ill throw in a couple and come back . The below does not factor in immigration by way of increasing the population adds to the elderly count.

Again showing they're not net contributors even if you factor in the less use of services as you've tried to do to discount it. Increasing our population of people who are a net drag on the public purse (thats the majority of natives obviously) is not a benefit and its okay to say so.

There's a point where immigration could become an issue or do you deny that and think it'll always be a benefit?

Neither chart proves that immigration is a significant factor in increased pressure on services, in fact the first chart shows that immigration is only a very small part of the additional cost pressure (whatever that might say about the NHS). But, we can let each poster make up their mind I guess. Anyway, I look forward to studying the data on the effect that immigration has on the UK's public services, tax revenues and the economy in general, as well as the figures on government spending and its effect on public services.

Btw, although I believe in social justice, tolerance and equality, I do not think that immigration is always beneficial and I'm not against control of immigration per se. The point I'm making is that people argue against immigration based upon prejudice and lies, it's all based on emotion and not on the facts & figures. Immigrants have become the cause of all of Britain's problems, or so it seems.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I don't believe the left has ignored this issue. I think they are the ones constantly trying to get more money for the NHS education and housing. It's the right that had been preventing any tax rises on big business and the super rich.

It's all well and good encouraging mass immigration with the many benefits that can bring(even Cameron refused to cut it). But not to use the resultant increase in gdp to provide the services required is clearly, to me at least, the origin of so many of our problems right now. Couple that with the systematic selling off of anything of value and I firmly blame the tories. Even if it has been made too easy for them at times.

I'm not really trying to blame anyone. There's no doubt that more investment in the NHS, education and housing would mitigate the negative effects of immigration being experienced by the poor. And this will be a neverending challenge. Less of an issue when the economy is booming but much harder to implement during a recession.

My main point is that it feels as though the refusal to even acknowledge that, yes, immigration does pose a lot of of challenges to certain sections of society that has lost votes for Labour and gained votes for UKIP. Which is a shitty state of affairs.

 

[Flying high]

I'm not really trying to blame anyone. There's no doubt that more investment in the NHS, education and housing would mitigate the negative effects of immigration being experienced by the poor. And this will be a neverending challenge. Less of an issue when the economy is booming but much harder to implement during a recession.

My main point is that it feels as though the refusal to even acknowledge that, yes, immigration does pose a lot of of challenges to certain sections of society that has lost votes for Labour and gained votes for UKIP. Which is a shitty state of affairs.

I guess it's a matter of perception. The way I see it is that while it's implied in the lefts calls for greater spending, they are reluctant to say it's due to immigration because just the use of that word in the context of spending is fuel for daily mail headline writers.

I can't deny that in the UK and USA, the right has had a clearer message for a long time now.

 

[Smores]

I guess it's a matter of perception. The way I see it is that while it's implied in the lefts calls for greater spending, they are reluctant to say it's due to immigration because just the use of that word in the context of spending is fuel for daily mail headline writers.

I can't deny that in the UK and USA, the right has had a clearer message for a long time now.

Thats exactly spot on. Corbyn tried with his proposal to revive the Immigration impact fund but thats gone quiet really.

Id have much more confidence in this country being tolerant if the goverment showed active measures to balance things out. Its a PR game and Labour in the past has tried to keep quiet on this issue as they know it doesnt play well with them, all thats done is create a UKIP sized hole.

I've said before Labour should repackage existing migration controls, the public wouldn't have a clue and it would create at least some sense that they recognise the issue.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I guess it's a matter of perception. The way I see it is that while it's implied in the lefts calls for greater spending, they are reluctant to say it's due to immigration because just the use of that word in the context of spending is fuel for daily mail headline writers.

I can't deny that in the UK and USA, the right has had a clearer message for a long time now.

Yeah, that's the nub of the issue. Trying to solve a problem of scarce resources during an economic downturn in a way that is inclusive and compassionate AND good for the economy requires complicated and nuanced strategies that don't make good sound-bites. Far easier to sell a pitch that involves fecking over foreign countries/people to "MAGA" or "Bring our Britain back".

 

[Untied]

Immigration is a tricky one. It definitely brings a net gain to the economy. Any (sensible) economist will tell you that. Let's not ignore the word "net", though. There are upsides and downsides, with the upsides dominating and providing an overall economic positive for the country as a whole. They aren't distributed equally, however. There will be segments of society (and geographic regions) who primarily experience the downside (typically the poor and disadvantaged) while others are more likely to reap the benefits (typically employers and landlords)

It can be very hard for someone who is mainly experiencing the downsides of immigration to listen to rhetoric about "net benefits" when that's not been your personal experience. It's the refusal of the left to acknowledge this phenomenon that has added fuel to the Brexit/Trump fires IMO.

1. I think the centre let has been falling over itself to "listen to concerns" about immigration for years, and it hasn't helped, it's just legitimised more and more baseless anti-immigration sentiment

2. The areas with the highest anti-immigration sentiment are, broadly, those with the lowest levels of immigration

3. Many of the downsides of immigration that people perceive are more rooted in toxic cultural identity politics than legitimate anxieties. e.g. "I hear too many foreign languages on the high street", "there's too many polish shops", "my supermarket has a polish section", etc. We can have a serious discussion about the important of cultural belonging and identity — it clearly is an deep rooted human trait — and how people can start to feel alienated in their home country (a feeling many pro-Europeans have felt acutely since June). But when someone opposes immigration because of the signs of immigration they see, e.g. polish shops, well that ship has sailed. Unless we are discussing deportations. I wonder how long until the British right starts fanning those flames.

 

[Fener1907]

I can see this subject means a lot to you. Like you said, I didn't quote you or make this a response to you or anyone in particular. But I am interested to know if you won't vote labour, then who? No politician will ever get 100% agreement on all policies from anyone, why is it impossible to vote labour with Corbyn in charge, when, if you are even slightly left of centre, I doubt you'd agree with even half of May's policies.

My analysis could hardly be described as a glowing endorsement of Corbyn. It just seems to me that he is being held to so much higher standards than everyone else, just because he doesn't act like the normal Westminster politician. For me, he is a great deal closer to what I would like to see in a leader. The world should be about cooperation, not competition. Compromise, not war.

People lead in different ways. If we, as a country, can only handle someone who can regurgitate platitudes without substance to be our PM, then that is just sad and needs addressing before we all end up living in Idiocracy.

I completely detest Theresa May, believing that she's one of the worst possible by-products Brexit could have produced. If anybody was familiar with her prior to becoming PM, they should certainly be worried now. That said, with her riding the crest of the Brexit wave, it's utterly incomprehensible to me that somebody can so recklessly entrust her with guiding the UK forward. Even though he was more in favour of leaving the EU than people would have cared to admit, his showing in holding the government accountable and getting the best possible deal has been uninspiring. It told me everything I needed to show about his lack of leadership abilities.

I don't want an idiot who regurgitates nonsense. Being a leader is much more than that, and it's completely disingenuous of anybody if they frame it as a case of being absolute substance vs. absolute style. Similarly, for anybody to ever think we'd realistically have a politician in power based solely on policies is wishful thinking to the extreme. Without a shadow of a doubt in my mind, the leader who strikes the best balance in the UK right now is Nicola Sturgeon. Although I haven't done any extensive reading about her, it's apparent enough why she'd appeal to the swing voters like Corbyn never could. South of the border and nobody stands out. It's a very depressing time for British politics.

 

[Flying high]

I completely detest Theresa May, believing that she's one of the worst possible by-products Brexit could have produced. If anybody was familiar with her prior to becoming PM, they should certainly be worried now. That said, with her riding the crest of the Brexit wave, it's utterly incomprehensible to me that somebody can so recklessly entrust her with guiding the UK forward. Even though he was more in favour of leaving the EU than people would have cared to admit, his showing in holding the government accountable and getting the best possible deal has been uninspiring. It told me everything I needed to show about his lack of leadership abilities.

I don't want an idiot who regurgitates nonsense. Being a leader is much more than that, and it's completely disingenuous of anybody if they frame it as a case of being absolute substance vs. absolute style. Similarly, for anybody to ever think we'd realistically have a politician in power based solely on policies is wishful thinking to the extreme. Without a shadow of a doubt in my mind, the leader who strikes the best balance in the UK right now is Nicola Sturgeon. Although I haven't done any extensive reading about her, it's apparent enough why she'd appeal to the swing voters like Corbyn never could. South of the border and nobody stands out. It's a very depressing time for British politics.

It seems there is probably more we agree upon than not.

My understanding then is that you don't feel you can vote for any of the current likely candidates? Fair enough if that is the case. I just think that we'll never get a good selection of people to vote for. The best we are likely to get with the current system is to be roughly alligned with one of them. If we don't vote that way, then the result is the voices of those who vote another way will be heard more clearly. So if Corbyn gets the kicking in an election that the media is hoping for, then the impression that a well meaning type who doesn't fit the mould, has no place is politics will be further entrenched.

BTW, I think the wishful thinking tag has some merit. Whether there is merit is wishful thinking, I really don't know.

 

[Fener1907]

It seems there is probably more we agree upon than not.

My understanding then is that you don't feel you can vote for any of the current likely candidates? Fair enough if that is the case. I just think that we'll never get a good selection of people to vote for. The best we are likely to get with the current system is to be roughly alligned with one of them. If we don't vote that way, then the result is the voices of those who vote another way will be heard more clearly. So if Corbyn gets the kicking in an election that the media is hoping for, then the impression that a well meaning type who doesn't fit the mould, has no place is politics will be further entrenched.

BTW, I think the wishful thinking tag has some merit. Whether there is merit is wishful thinking, I really don't know.

I'm sure we do agree on a lot of things. You're correct in thinking that I can't vote for any of them. I've never been an advocate of the idea that it's better to vote for somebody than nobody at all. If the politics of some aren't the politics you care for and the ones you'd otherwise turn to for leadership look lost, where do you go from there.

As for Corbyn, I think he's taken enough of a kicking and even discredited himself to the extent that a general election will be completely futile and do nothing in terms of setting precedents. Whilst inevitable that he'll have his supporters who believe his politics until the end, he's taken too many missteps to salvage much else from the damage. Labour shouldn't look beyond his politics, but they'd be better off looking beyond him.

 

[Dobba]

Batten down the hatches folks. It's surely only a matter of time.

I predict the PLP will this time nominate either Jess Phillips or Wayne Shaw, the latter coming complete with a pie with a Labour rosette drawn on top in ketchup.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Batten down the hatches folks. It's surely only a matter of time.

I predict the PLP will this time nominate either Jess Phillips or Wayne Shaw, the latter coming complete with a pie with a Labour rosette drawn on top in ketchup.

You still backing your boy then?

 

[Smores]

I think that pattern of UKIP losses being Conservatives gain will be repeated elsewhere really.

Not sure Labour can win those votes back. Definitely not by opposing Brexit as some here want. Only hope is the non-voters really

 

[Adisa]

He's like Wenger. He's finished but refuses to go.

 

[Flying_Heckfish]

He's like Wenger. He's finished but refuses to go.

At least Wenger won something

 

[Smores]

He's like Wenger. He's finished but refuses to go.

I said before the circumstances on brexit dictate he should hand over the reigns so someone else who can aggressively debate brexit. However, i dont think it'll have a huge effect.

Labour will only win a majority as things start to wrong with brexit.

 

[NinjaFletch]

I think that pattern of UKIP losses being Conservatives gain will be repeated elsewhere really.

Not sure Labour can win those votes back. Definitely not by opposing Brexit as some here want. Only hope is the non-voters really

They would lose them anyway whatever they had done I think. They've been too close to the Tories on the issue and I can't see any reason why anyone, for whom Brexit is an important topic either way, would vote for them.

Even if the wheels start to fall off Brexit I can't see how Labour have differentiated themselves from the Tories enough to get people to ditch the Tories in favour of Labour.

 

[Smores]

They would lose them anyway whatever they had done I think. They've been too close to the Tories on the issue and I can't see any reason why anyone, for whom Brexit is an important topic either way, would vote for them.

Even if the wheels start to fall off Brexit I can't see how Labour have differentiated themselves from the Tories enough to get people to ditch the Tories in favour of Labour.

Well the approach was to prevent further losses from the Labour brexit voters rather than produce any gains. If Labour had been seen to block brexit it may have permanently lost these.

Labour now has to differentiate itself, the question is whether people care enough about any of the terms of Brexit. Labour may just benefit by way of being the opposition when Brexit goes tits up.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

You need to use the right language for a start, reflect the changed circumstances for the country.

Let's take state aid, what is the party's future position? Be it for the likes of Nissan, the UK steel industry, or new foreign investment.

On immigration, will Labour be significantly reducing visa fees (presently these are quite steep)? What sort of entry criteria should there be going forward?

 

[NinjaFletch]

Well the approach was to prevent further losses from the Labour brexit voters rather than produce any gains. If Labour had been seen to block brexit it may have permanently lost these.

Labour now has to differentiate itself, the question is whether people care enough about any of the terms of Brexit or Labour will benefit by way of being the opposition when Brexit goes tits up.

Sure. But the way they've gone about it is going to limit their ability to win votes long term in my opinion.

Unless they have the sense to hang Corbyn out to dry for a few years and hope he personally accrues the negativity but the party as a whole remains unscathed.

 

[JoaquinJoaquin]

I live in Copeland and Corbyn has basically lost Labour the stranglehold they have had here for many years by coming out and saying he is anti-nuclear. An absolute no no in an area where Sellafield gives most of the area jobs. The down part is now the Conservatives have won the people voting for that have basically now got their own hospital shut down. A true lose-lose situation.

 

[Adisa]

The issue now, isn't even getting ready for the 2020 GE. It's about surviving it in a meaning form. This party is in trouble.

 

[Smores]

Sure. But the way they've gone about it is going to limit their ability to win votes long term in my opinion.

Unless they have the sense to hang Corbyn out to dry for a few years and hope he personally accrues the negativity but the party as a whole remains unscathed.

Are you referring to the A50 vote in particular? I wouldn't expect those pissed off at Labour not voting to block the vote (which they couldn't anyway) would stay away if Labour then push against the terms in a way they agree with.

If they go to Lib Dems fine, a coalition is probably the only future for Labour anyway.

 

[Adisa]

I live in Copeland and Corbyn has basically lost Labour the stranglehold they have had here for many years by coming out and saying he is anti-nuclear. An absolute no no in an area where Sellafield gives most of the area jobs. The down part is now the Conservatives have won the people voting for that have basically now got their own hospital shut down. A true lose-lose situation.

Politics in this country is depressing.

 

[Adisa]

McDonnell is a car crash. His message was basically, "we will listen to the people but not those that don't want Jeremy".

 

[Classical Mechanic]

McDonnell is a car crash. His message was basically, "we will listen to the people but not those that don't want Jeremy".

Abbott moon rising?

 

[Adisa]

An opposition losing a seat is unheard of. An opposition losing a seat they've held since 1930's is an unprecedented disaster.
How can anyone still defend this man?

 

[Adisa]

 

[Untied]

By the swings it looks like UKIP voters returning to the Conservatives is a big problem for Labour at the moment. National polling suggests that too.

Not entirely sure how you fight that. Are there 5-10 percent of conservative voters who would consider a centrist Labour Party at the moment? What about the conservative remain voters? Surely not all Tories are completely nuts and happy with the chaotic Brexit we are hurtling towards.

The voters Labour is losing to the Lib Dems are important too. Basically Corbyn's Brexit position is a joke and he should have resigned when he suggest Article 50 should have been submitted on the morning of the referendum result.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I live in Copeland and Corbyn has basically lost Labour the stranglehold they have had here for many years by coming out and saying he is anti-nuclear. An absolute no no in an area where Sellafield gives most of the area jobs. The down part is now the Conservatives have won the people voting for that have basically now got their own hospital shut down. A true lose-lose situation.

It's also an incredibly narrow-minded and regressive stance considering the enormity of the climate change issue.

 

[Dobba]

You still backing your boy then?

Give me an alternative.

They lost Copeland when Jamie the Abstainer immediately went into the nuclear energy business after quitting. Trying to pitch the potential downgrade of the local hospital as the number 1 issue, when not even the former Labour MP thought it was worth sticking around to defend, is a lost cause. Even before you factor in voters being idiots.

 

[JoaquinJoaquin]

Give me an alternative.

They lost Copeland when Jamie the Abstainer immediately went into the nuclear energy business after quitting. Trying to pitch the potential downgrade of the local hospital as the number 1 issue, when not even the former Labour MP thought it was worth sticking around to defend, is a lost cause. Even before you factor in voters being idiots.

What I would say, Is that Jamie Reed was an utter clown and left before he was pushed. He got offered a nice cushy job at Sellafield and jumped while his reputation was still at an average level. The Corbyn comments were the icing on the cake well and truly though. There was no coming back from that.

 

[Smores]

I find it hard to comprehend seeing people in here, the media and in general who have previously insisted on a big tent approach now slate Labour for not focusing on the Labour remain voters.

It not only reeks of hypocrisy but worse than that it shows the reason they were fine on Labour doing so on issues such as welfare wasn't politics it was because they didn't care about the issue or weren't affected.

 

[Unmutual]

I find it hard to comprehend seeing people in here, the media and in general who have previously insisted on a big tent approach now slate Labour for not focusing on the Labour remain voters.

If Corbyn was making a big tent approach on Europe, that might be a fair comment. But he isn't.