That Corbyn fella...

Posted on
Page
of 126
  • Our own true life version of Frank Underwood.

    I'd love Corbyn to get in, but I don't think he will as @Lebowski is spot on and he has a tough time getting his opinions across. Saying that, he doesn't really need to as we still have little idea of what the other manifestos contain, given that all the other candidates seem to be saying is anti-Corbyn diatribe.

  • I do think the anti-Corbynism is going to be very interesting, because the campaigning mirrors the negativity-based approach to the indy referendum "no" campaign, which apparently worked (but by a whisker), and cost them Scotland personally. No surprise that they'll be using negative campaigning again.

    I'm interested in finding out if people in the UK have had enough of the politics of FUD yet, especially after watching the referendum play out. I hope they have. But time will tell.

  • Blair, Brown and Cameron. Is it impossible to believe that people want a major shift back to the left, rather than the continuing gradual shift to the right?

    Do you genuinely think there has been a gradual shift to the right?

    I'd say that post Thatcher there has been a general shift left to the slightly right of centre. Cameron got in once the Conservatives had been reunified around a New Labour version. I think it's a massive exageration to put Blair, Brown and Cameron in the same idological camp as hardline Thatcherites.

  • I'd say that post Thatcher there has been a general shift left to the slightly right of centre.

    He he.

    http://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015

  • Out of interest how are the Labour Party voters on here going to exercise their 2nd and 3rd choice votes?

    I was listening to Liz Kendall being interviewed on R4 and she came across very well. Although she acknowledges she probably won't win and she didn't strike me as PM material.

  • That's interesting, but what's it comparing itself to?

    What I mean is that while the Tories will continue things like New Labour's NHS privatisation policies, it wouldn't now be socially/politically acceptable to propose full on neocon ideas in the way that it use to be. You won't see removal of the minimum wage or totally deregulation of the markets. People still want decent levels of public spending.

    EDIT: Ah, I see, you can go back and find their previous versions which I assume use the same measures. Will read some more!

  • greece voted in a left leaning party with radical ideas
    and look at how well that all worked out, and how socialist a nation they have become since !

    labour would do well to let corbyn revitalise the party with some radical ideas that can win votes back from ukip and the tories
    then sack him after the election and just continue doing as the tories have been doing

  • Interesting, so I guess it depends where you put the centre line, but to me what that is saying is that from '82 there has been a shift back towards the centre save as to the 2015 general election.

    What I think is really interesting is the shift north towards fascism, post (I'm assuming) 9/11, with only the Lib Dems really trying to keep things centred.

  • I fucking hate New Labour and all that shit, and all the shitheads involved.
    Brown's bedwetting speech the other day exemplifies their attitude - "we've simply got to win, bollocks to policy/manifesto/political beliefs, we need to win, cos that's central to my job description and future pay rise entitlement"
    I thought a political party was created to reflect and support a particular segment of society's wants and needs, not simply to win win win.
    How naive of me.

  • He's the dead spit of my ex-girlfriend's Dad.

  • "we've simply got to win, bollocks to policy/manifesto/political beliefs, we need to win,..."

    Is this so bad when the only real alternative is the Tories?

    I thought a political party was created to reflect and support a particular segment of society's wants and needs, not simply to win win win.

    Yes, but if you want to have any influence to change things for the better you will need to be in power. In a 2 party, first past the post system then you will need to reflect and support a large segment of society's wants and needs. This means compromise. This is what New Labour did. The alternative to New Labour was continued Thatcherism. If you thought that this shrinking of the state is painful, imagine if continuation of the politics of 80's was allowed. The county would be far further gone than now.

    If you want to be in the frame to improve things then you have to be pragmatic.

  • New Labour was continued Thatcherism

  • New Labour was a departure from Old Labour, a move towards the centre, even past it but it wasn't Thatcherism. It didn't believe in the continued shrinking of the state and the absolute efficiencies of the free market.

    It was a pragmatic, centralist party. The logical conclusion to the beliefs of Thatcherism is the abolition of as much government supported services as possible. That's the NHS and education. I seem to remember New Labour ploughing money in to these things. Even improving them in its own ham fisted, target setting ways.

  • PFI and academies. The lady herself

  • Yes, but if you want to have any influence to change things for the better you will need to be in power.

    To a certain extent. Although I would argue that a good opposition is very important in taking the Government to task and can be very effective. If an opposition is credible and puts forward ideas that the population agree with then they will be taken up. I know I should go and check the reality, but I remember at the time lots of pundits joking about the later stages of the Blair/Brown government nicking all the Conservative's good ideas.

    And as for New Labour being Thatcher ism cont. @JLaw - interestingly @bothwell source shows that New Labour pulled politics back to the centre (and up towards fascism). Which from a personal opinion I'd agree with. Although obviously it is closer to Thatcher's neoconservative outlook than it is to socialism.

  • I think her point was that she crushed the old politics of the 70's in such a way that she managed to shift the general consensus of the electorate to thinking that that fee markets are inherently more efficient therefore rendering Old Labour irreverent in the minds of many voters. This forced the rethink that produced New Labour. As Wikipedia puts it:

    New Labour developed and subscribed to the "Third Way", a centrist platform designed to offer an alternative to both complete capitalism and absolute socialism.

    I am neither arguing for or against New Labour, merely stating it is not Thactherism. My main argument being that Thatcher was a small stater and New Labour were not. This, in my mind, is a significant difference.

  • New Labour ... didn't believe in the continued shrinking of the state and the absolute efficiencies of the free market.

    ...the NHS and education. I seem to remember New Labour ploughing money in to these things. ..

    I'm totally with @JLaw on this one - and I don't understand your statements at all. "Public Private Partnerships" were a Conservative idea that New Labour ran and ran with, wholeheartedly moving infrastructure, health (and later, schools) out of state control, management, funding, and into private hands. In doing so they promoted the pernicious idea that you could only be "efficient" if you trusted in the private sector, that public sector was lazy and not to be trusted. ~~Even setting aside the financial argument (which was New Labour's surface argument) there is a massive ethical and social impact when the provision of public services is locked into obscure private contracts. ~~ (Sorry got carried away, but essentially they knowingly or otherwise, were furthering a core Thatcherism agenda)

    ETA: I'm sure there were many differences between New Labour and Thatcherism, but I don't get the specific points you used to illustrate.

  • This is my argument.

    My main argument being that Thatcher was a small stater and New Labour were not. This, in my mind, is a significant difference.

    Yes, NL took on some conservative ideas, yes they trusted free markets more than old labour. NL plowed money into things based on keynesian economics, Thacher never would. That's the diffrance, that's why NL aren't Thatcherites.

  • greece voted in a left leaning party with radical ideas
    and look at how well that all worked out, and how socialist a nation they have become since !

    Jesus wept, I thought I had seen the full range of stupid this forum had to offer...

  • My main argument being that Thatcher was a small stater and New Labour were not.

    But what if the increased spending (by NL) also goes towards reducing the amount of genuine state control/ownership?
    (genuine question)

  • I think size of state is measured by investment and liability more than ownership of actual things. If spending is going up in real terms your state is growing.

  • Yes, but if you want to have any influence to change things for the better you will need to be in power.

    I'd like to cite the Lib Dems at this point.

    They were a party with an ideology. They wanted meaningful change and spent 30 years carefully convincing the electorate of this.

    Then they started seeing that they might actually get some power and focused on that as the goal rather than their ideology.

    So they sold out and went into a coalition with the Tories.

    It didn't go well.

    They will now have to spend the next 30 years reconvincing us.

    I'd rather Labour started the long job of doing it properly now, so at least my children stand a chance of a fair country. If they battle for the popular vote just to win another term or two nothing will ever change.

    That's the problem with us as a country - everything is too short term. Our companies are the same - it's all PLCs out for this year's profit rather than privately owned firms out to build something long-term.

    I might move to somewhere Scandewegian. Or Germany.

  • I agree with pretty much all of this. I'm a bit worried that labour will tear its self apart and be replaced with something worse than new labour.

  • hurm. I will disagree with this for now.
    Because I think 5 years on when the spending budget is forgotten(ish) you are left with less state in real terms. But it's a sort of side effect rather than an ambition, so I agree with that as a difference.

  • I agree with pretty much all of this.

    Vote Hefty.

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

That Corbyn fella...

Posted by Avatar for pdlouche @pdlouche

Actions