• Dear Guest, and welcome to RailUK Forums. Our non-railway discussion forums are currently restricted until members have five or more posts, and you will not be able to make a new thread or reply to an existing one in this section until you have made five or more posts elsewhere on the forum.

The Labour Party - The Big Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

RichmondCommu

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2010
Messages
6,912
Location
Richmond, London
Note: This thread has been split from the thread discussing the local, PCC and devolved government elections.

So you think the only way to fund projects is by printing money? We are a modern, 21st century, globalist economy - not Zimbabwe. There are considerable other options open to us.

Seriously - what you are saying is just wrong.

Seriously - you are missing point of all of this. Whilst I entirely agree with you I'm afraid Mr Corbyn and John McDonnell do not. Indeed it is they that are suggesting that projects should be funded by printing money, not me. Do keep up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Scotland has been distancing itself from English Labour ever since the SNP became a force in Holyrood, much more so since their referendum, so I fear you are manufacturing "reality" to suit your agenda.

I don't have an "agenda" anymore than you or indeed any other forum members. I simply post what I think.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
But then the Blairites seem to ignore the evidence and blame it all on Corbyn, who performed fine in the rest of the country!

Do you honestly consider "hanging on" to be same the same as "performed fine"? It's not about appealing to Labour voters and much more about appealing to those who decided to not vote for Labour at the last election. That's what we're failing to do at the moment. At least that's what people on the door step were telling me; In terms of Mr Corbyn all I kept hearing was old fashioned and scruffy to name but two.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
25,740
Location
Fenny Stratford
Do you honestly consider "hanging on" to be same the same as "performed fine"? It's not about appealing to Labour voters and much more about appealing to those who decided to not vote for Labour at the last election. That's what we're failing to do at the moment. At least that's what people on the door step were telling me; In terms of Mr Corbyn all I kept hearing was old fashioned and scruffy to name but two.

Exactly - people on the door steps in middle class, middle England aren't taking to Corbyn. They think he is a joke. I know that the student, SWP, momentum, clueless, cantish, factionalist people cant deal with this but it is the truth.

We will not win a general election under Corbyn and without power we cant makes changes to society. I do wonder of some of the above want to be in permanent opposition.
 

southern442

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
2,052
Location
Surrey
Exactly - people on the door steps in middle class, middle England aren't taking to Corbyn. They think he is a joke. I know that the student, SWP, momentum, clueless, cantish, factionalist people cant deal with this but it is the truth.

We will not win a general election under Corbyn and without power we cant makes changes to society. I do wonder of some of the above want to be in permanent opposition.

The party need to do more to tackle this relentless bullying of Corbyn by the media, and then they will have more of a chance.

It really is depressing how immediately after a hopeful, truly left-wing and honest leader emerges, the right-wing press get all scared of him and start a torrent of abuse, name-calling and general hatred towards him, destroying almost all hope of them doing well. Even Peter Hitchens said this of him: "We say we want politicians who are open and honest. And then, when we get one, we angrily pelt him with slime until he cringes to the mob, starts hiding his real views, and hires a spin doctor just like all the others."
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
13,522
Location
Another planet...
Exactly. Scottish Labour have a very weak leader, the majority of them follow now outdated principles set by a man who for some reason still hasn't been tried for war crimes, and they don't seem to have done much either. Why don't these Blairites join the Conservatives already? They also hold Corbyn accountable for their failings, even though his principles are very different to theirs.

The reason why Scottish Labour isn't doing as well as they should be is because people that support the party and left-wing politics in general are better off voting for SNP!

You're being a bit harsh on Blair there... just look at all the good he's done since he became a Middle East Peace Envoy.

Wait a minute...
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
25,740
Location
Fenny Stratford
The party need to do more to tackle this relentless bullying of Corbyn by the media, and then they will have more of a chance.

It really is depressing how immediately after a hopeful, truly left-wing and honest leader emerges, the right-wing press get all scared of him and start a torrent of abuse, name-calling and general hatred towards him, destroying almost all hope of them doing well. Even Peter Hitchens said this of him: "We say we want politicians who are open and honest. And then, when we get one, we angrily pelt him with slime until he cringes to the mob, starts hiding his real views, and hires a spin doctor just like all the others."

Ah the nasty media line! Perhaps if Corbyn actually interacted with the media we might get better results. If you want to succeed in politics you have to play the game!

And he isn't hopeful, at least not to the undecideds and middle of the road types. He is a joke to them and they are the people we need to tempt back if we are going to win power. These people don't attend rallies or listen to speeches at worthy events. They read the papers, listen to the radio or watch the TV and decide.

To them even someone like Dave looks like a winner. That is how bad Corbyn is. He makes Dave look decent! We should be hammering the Tories over their awful policies and constant u turns. The fact that we are unable to do so is telling.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You're being a bit harsh on Blair there... just look at all the good he's done since he became a Middle East Peace Envoy.

Wait a minute...

he won three elections and his domestic record is one we should be proud of.
 

Arglwydd Golau

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2011
Messages
1,334
. They read the papers, listen to the radio or watch the TV and decide.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


he won three elections and his domestic record is one we should be proud of.

yes, exactly...and all the papers are owned by the likes of Murdoch/Rothermere/Barclays So they are hardly likely to give anything Jeremy Corbyn says a fair hearing, are they? Even the Guardian has article after article written by their establishment columnists attacking him, with only a few exceptions.

As for Blair, can't believe you think that, looking back he did very little, no wonder Thatcher saw him as her natural successor!
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
25,740
Location
Fenny Stratford
yes, exactly...and all the papers are owned by the likes of Murdoch/Rothermere/Barclays So they are hardly likely to give anything Jeremy Corbyn says a fair hearing, are they? Even the Guardian has article after article written by their establishment columnists attacking him, with only a few exceptions.

So the answer is to do nothing? You are hardly going to change the narrative by ignoring them! Get into the TV and radio studios and get your message out there.

As for Blair, can't believe you think that, looking back he did very little, no wonder Thatcher saw him as her natural successor!

Are you being serious? Did you miss some of the following:

  1. Introduced the National Minimum Wage
  2. Over 14,000 more police in England and Wales.
  3. 85,000 more nurses.
  4. 32,000 more doctors.
  5. Over 36,000 more teachers in England
  6. 274,000 more support staff and teaching assistants.
  7. Devolution of power to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland
  8. Introduction of paternity leave
  9. Delivered 2,200 Sure Start Children’s Centres.
  10. Introduced the Humans Rights Act
  11. right for all to 24 days holiday
  12. £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners
  13. Free off peak local bus travel for over-60s.
  14. Free entry to national museums and galleries.

so, yeah, not much.
 

Arglwydd Golau

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2011
Messages
1,334
So the answer is to do nothing? You are hardly going to change the narrative by ignoring them! Get into the TV and radio studios and get your message out there.



Are you being serious? Did you miss some of the following:

  1. Introduced the National Minimum Wage
  2. Over 14,000 more police in England and Wales.
  3. 85,000 more nurses.
  4. 32,000 more doctors.
  5. Over 36,000 more teachers in England
  6. 274,000 more support staff and teaching assistants.
  7. Devolution of power to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland
  8. Introduction of paternity leave
  9. Delivered 2,200 Sure Start Children’s Centres.
  10. Introduced the Humans Rights Act
  11. right for all to 24 days holiday
  12. £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners
  13. Free off peak local bus travel for over-60s.
  14. Free entry to national museums and galleries.

so, yeah, not much.

It's one thing actually wanting to get onto TV and radio to send the message and another to be actually allowed to do it...usually the questions tend to be about splits, divisions and leadership challenges rather than policies (Laura Kuenssberg being a typical case in point)

OK, being slightly facetious about some aspects of Blair years. All of those things that you have listed sound marvellous, But sustainable. As far as my experience goes (and I can only speak for the NHS) all the money poured into it often went in the wrong places, the stats looked good but behind the scenes? PFI is a disaster waiting to happen and the GP contracts were ridiculously expensive and provided a worse service...and what happened in the Blair years to the 'trickle down of wealth'. The super rich got richer and Blair's alignment with them (Philip Green, anyone?) is clearly shown in his appalling behaviour since leaving office.
Knowing your love of M. Thatcher, you can't deny that she and him were conspicuously tossing each other bouquets of admiration - very hard for any true Labour supporter to stomach.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,636
  1. Free entry to national museums and galleries.

With caveats. They are allowed to charge for temporary exhibitions and special events but not allowed to charge for permanent exhibitions if they continue to accept government funding. They are also allowed to put up signs saying things like "Recommended donation £5"
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
5,469
(About Blair...)
  1. Introduced the National Minimum Wage
  2. Over 14,000 more police in England and Wales.
  3. 85,000 more nurses.
  4. 32,000 more doctors.
  5. Over 36,000 more teachers in England
  6. 274,000 more support staff and teaching assistants.
  7. Devolution of power to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland
  8. Introduction of paternity leave
  9. Delivered 2,200 Sure Start Children’s Centres.
  10. Introduced the Humans Rights Act
  11. right for all to 24 days holiday
  12. £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners
  13. Free off peak local bus travel for over-60s.
  14. Free entry to national museums and galleries.

so, yeah, not much.

My turn! My turn!

  1. Good Friday Agreement
  2. Removed most anti-gay discrimination (at a time when doing so was not popular)
  3. Freedom of Information Act
  4. Elected Mayor for London and the GLA (the Tories had kept London in the absurd situation of having no single elected authority at all)
  5. Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly
  6. Prevented genocide in Kosovo
  7. Improvements to benefits for people with disabilities/unable to work
  8. Mostly (with a few exceptions) ended the Conservatives' massive road-building programme
  9. Improved protection for private tenants
  10. End to smoking in enclosed public places
  11. Fox-hunting ban
  12. Reform of the House of Lords
  13. Proportional representation for European elections
  14. Bringing rail infrastructure (although not TOCs) back into public ownership

Many of these seem completely uncontroversial now, but were bitterly fought by the Conservatives at the time, and arguably would probably not be in place even today if we hadn't had a Labour Government after 1997.

A bit more amorphous - but also important - is the culture change his Government brought about regarding investment - such that now even the Conservatives accept that it's important that the Government invests in infrastructure, in a way that was not generally accepted prior to 1997.
 
Last edited:

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
25,740
Location
Fenny Stratford
With caveats. They are allowed to charge for temporary exhibitions and special events but not allowed to charge for permanent exhibitions if they continue to accept government funding. They are also allowed to put up signs saying things like "Recommended donation £5"

So? do you get in free?
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,067
Location
Reston City Centre
Ah the nasty media line! Perhaps if Corbyn actually interacted with the media we might get better results. If you want to succeed in politics you have to play the game!

And he isn't hopeful, at least not to the undecideds and middle of the road types. He is a joke to them and they are the people we need to tempt back if we are going to win power. These people don't attend rallies or listen to speeches at worthy events. They read the papers, listen to the radio or watch the TV and decide.

To them even someone like Dave looks like a winner. That is how bad Corbyn is. He makes Dave look decent! We should be hammering the Tories over their awful policies and constant u turns. The fact that we are unable to do so is telling.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


he won three elections and his domestic record is one we should be proud of.

Exactly - people on the door steps in middle class, middle England aren't taking to Corbyn. They think he is a joke. I know that the student, SWP, momentum, clueless, cantish, factionalist people cant deal with this but it is the truth.

We will not win a general election under Corbyn and without power we cant makes changes to society. I do wonder of some of the above want to be in permanent opposition.

^^ total agreement ^^

I can't believe that some on the left are so blinkered that they are treating a LOSS OF EIGHTEEN COUNCIL SEATS as something to be proud of - it's a terrible result, against a Tory party that should be reeling from the Academies plan/ divisions over Brexit/ Junior Doctors strike/ economic malaise...

...the Tories will bounce back as they get closer to the 2020 election - they are going through a couple of years of pain at the start of the parliament like every Government tends to - the fact that Labour are losing seats in this environment suggests that they'll be steamrollered by Osborn/ Johnson in 2020 (and I despair at that prospect).

Why don't these Blairites join the Conservatives already?

:lol:

I've not seen the "...why don't you just join the Tories" retort for a month or two - trying to get rid of people inside your own party is a great way of reaching out to undecided swing voters in marginal constituencies... :roll:

Scottish Labour are the last vestiges of Blairism in the party, and have performed by far the worst

The reason why Scottish Labour isn't doing as well as they should be is because people that support the party and left-wing politics in general are better off voting for SNP!

The Scottish Labour Party had a relatively left wing manifesto (e.g. their income tax proposals would have put it up for everyone earning over £20,000, with a top rate of 50% for high earners - not very "Blairite").

Sadiq Khan had a relatively "Blairite" manifesto (with an electorate who had twice rejected Ken Livingstone's "Old Labour" in favour of Boris Johnson).

The left wing Scottish Labour Party failed. The moderate Sadiq Khan succeeded. What does that tell you?

As for the idea that the SNP are particularly "left wing"... they like to give the impression that they are, but they are a fairly centrist party - despite having powers over income tax they want no tax cuts for the poorest, no tax rises for the wealthiest 1% - they didn't get the "Tartan Tories" nickname for no reason.

A lot of people south of the border have bought into the idea that the SNP are a traditionally left wing anti austerity party, but their actions generally suggest otherwise.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,636
So? do you get in free?

You get in for free but usually not to all of the sections. I imagine some foreign tourists from countries where not tipping is seen as rude (and probably some Britains) read 'recommended donation' as 'if this museum meets your expectations you should pay.'
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
^^ total agreement ^^

I can't believe that some on the left are so blinkered that they are treating a LOSS OF EIGHTEEN COUNCIL SEATS as something to be proud of - it's a terrible result, against a Tory party that should be reeling from the Academies plan/ divisions over Brexit/ Junior Doctors strike/ economic malaise...

Only some council seats were up for election so the result is not really representative of the country as a whole. Really you can come up with factually based arguments to justify anything you want following last Thursday's elections. For instance, you can say the Lib Dems did well as they gained control of a council and they gained more seats than any other party. If you're writing an article for a local Huddersfield paper you could argue the Lib Dems did badly as they only have half the number of seats they had on Kirkless Council before the Conservative and Lib Dem Coalition government was formed.

Sadiq Khan had a relatively "Blairite" manifesto (with an electorate who had twice rejected Ken Livingstone's "Old Labour" in favour of Boris Johnson).

Both times Livingstone lost to Johnson he gained more second choice votes than Johnson, which suggests voters of other parties would rather go the left than the right even if their preference is the centre.
 
Last edited:

Arglwydd Golau

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2011
Messages
1,334
Exactly - people on the door steps in middle class, middle England aren't taking to Corbyn. They think he is a joke. I know that the student, SWP, momentum, clueless, cantish, factionalist people cant deal with this but it is the truth.

We will not win a general election under Corbyn and without power we cant makes changes to society. I do wonder of some of the above want to be in permanent opposition.

What particular changes in society are you looking for? From the Blair and New Labour experience I thought that there was absolutely no attempt to reverse the Thatcherite policies that you have previously argued forcefully and if I may say so, eloquently, against? I really can't see that a continuation of the 'New Labour' brand will achieve anything. More Foodbanks? Yes, but we will not increase them as fast as the Tories...Cuts to Disability benefits? Harsh, but you see we have to live in the real world (while doing nothing to temper the excesses of the super-rich) - that would seem to me the promise of the New Labourites if they returned. Fly across the world and make promises to Murdoch? (just to achieve power - does Corbyn have to do that?)
Promise the earth to ordinary people like Blair did, and then not deliver.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
5,469
More Foodbanks? Yes, but we will not increase them as fast as the Tories...Cuts to Disability benefits? Harsh, but you see we have to live in the real world (while doing nothing to temper the excesses of the super-rich) - that would seem to me the promise of the New Labourites if they returned. Fly across the world and make promises to Murdoch? (just to achieve power - does Corbyn have to do that?)
Promise the earth to ordinary people like Blair did, and then not deliver.

Uh? I don't recall significant cuts to disability benefits during the Blair years. Nor do I recall any significant requirement for food-banks. As for 'promise the Earth and didn't deliver' - did you not notice the two long lists of things that the Blair Government did which I and DarloRich posted earlier?

Obviously Tony Blair didn't literally promise 'the Earth'. But if we take what looks to me like the most relevant paragraph from the Labour 1997 manifesto - since it's the bit that describes the vision for the UK:

LabourManifesto said:
I want a country in which people get on, do well, make a success of their lives. I have no time for the politics of envy. We need more successful entrepreneurs, not fewer of them. But these life-chances should be for all the people. And I want a society in which ambition and compassion are seen as partners not opposites - where we value public service as well as material wealth.

New Labour believes in a society where we do not simply pursue our own individual aims but where we hold many aims in common and work together to achieve them. How we build the industry and employment opportunities of the future; how we tackle the division and inequality in our society; how we care for and enhance our environment and quality of life; how we develop modern education and health services; how we create communities that are safe, where mutual respect and tolerance are the order of the day. These are things we must achieve together as a country.

The vision is one of national renewal, a country with drive, purpose and energy. A Britain equipped to prosper in a global economy of technological change; with a modern welfare state; its politics more accountable; and confident of its place in the world.

It seems to me that the Blair Government left a Britain that was closer to that vision than Tony Blair inherited in 1997. (Which isn't to see that there isn't much more that you could wish he would have done - clearly there is.).

On a more general point, not particularly directed at you: I understand why Conservatives would want to belittle or ignore the good things that happened during the Blair years - after all, it's usually politically in one's interest to belittle what the opposing party does. But I really don't understand why so many people on the left - Labour party members even - wish to do so, when all you achieve in the process (apart from misrepresenting history) is to help the Conservatives.
 

Arglwydd Golau

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2011
Messages
1,334
Uh? I don't recall significant cuts to disability benefits during the Blair years. Nor do I recall any significant requirement for food-banks. As for 'promise the Earth and didn't deliver' - did you not notice the two long lists of things that the Blair Government did which I and DarloRich posted earlier?

Sorry, in my haste didn't make myself clear...what I meant was that a New Labour (call it what you want) government now would pretty much accept the damage that the Conservative govt has done, I used the foodbanks as an example, in the same way that much of the destructive nature of the Thatcher govt was left untouched by Blair.
I read the extract from that manifesto differently, I'm afraid, and that is why the Blair years do come in for much criticism from the left. Frankly, I don't know many in the Conservative Party who would criticise much of what Blair did, their venom was concentrated, erroneously, on Gordon Brown for causing the crash. (in my view)
 
Joined
2 Jan 2009
Messages
492
Some interesting reaction and overreaction here. Labour did OK - not amazing, not badly, OK. Holding ground in the south and winning new seats and taking control off the Tories in places like Worcester is great. Losing a single seat on the Welsh Assembly is OK. And in Scotland the expected hammering was a hammering and would have been regardless of who was leader. But even there we have signs of life in that the SNP lost share and that suggests peak nat has passed.

Arguments about the whys and wherefores of Blair are pointless. Apart from him being in the past which Blair are we talking about? Blair 97 a great socialist reforming PM? Or Blair 05 and his manifesto of ID cards 90 days detention and privatisation? The world has moved on and Labour with it. I hear endless criticism and sniping from continuity New Labour but no policy or directional proposals - if their way is such a hit then we'd have won in 2010 and 2015.

Nor is McDonnell proposing "printing money" - he wants to borrow and invest and get a return on that investment. It used to be called capitalism before we scrapped that and replaced it with bankism. Borrow to pay this year's bills is stupid. Borrow to build infrastructure and see your money returned 10 fold is smart.

Labour still have a lot to do. Presentationally it's not been great, not helped by Ken Hitler on one end and the Mann Streetings of the PLP. But it's a step on. We won't regain power by refusing to oppose vindictive welfare cuts as Harman did. We shouldn't regain power if our objective is to continue Osborneomics with a conscience. We need to find Blair 97s radicalism and populism and not Blair 05s cynicism and marketisation. It almost certainly isn't in Corbyn - I voted for him thinking he'd be a caretaker. I still think that to be the case.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
 

southern442

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
2,052
Location
Surrey
To them even someone like Dave looks like a winner. That is how bad Corbyn is. He makes Dave look decent! We should be hammering the Tories over their awful policies and constant u turns. The fact that we are unable to do so is telling.

It isn't how bad he is, it is how bad he is made out to be. Look at the Evening Standard. First few pages, Joe Murphy writing something bad about him or another Labour 'lefty'. There is always some gossip about him(personality politics at work there) later on in the paper, even today when they were talking about how united we are in voting for a Muslim mayor, they take a few digs at him, and to be honest most of it isn't newspaper story worth material. I bet you that an article about Conservative MP's borrowing less books from the commons library if a new leader came into power wouldn't make the cut.

he won three elections and his domestic record is one we should be proud of.

He is also an oil hungry war criminal that lied to the public about another country having WMD's so that he could convince us to go to war alongside Bush. Something to be proud of my foot.

I can't believe that some on the left are so blinkered that they are treating a LOSS OF EIGHTEEN COUNCIL SEATS as something to be proud of - it's a terrible result, against a Tory party that should be reeling from the Academies plan/ divisions over Brexit/ Junior Doctors strike/ economic malaise...

...the Tories will bounce back as they get closer to the 2020 election - they are going through a couple of years of pain at the start of the parliament like every Government tends to - the fact that Labour are losing seats in this environment suggests that they'll be steamrollered by Osborn/ Johnson in 2020 (and I despair at that prospect).

It's not the best counter-argument, but in terms of seats lost, they did better than the Tories. (Whilst Labour's election performance wasn't a complete failure, it's not worth having a celebration over, I must say.)

Both parties have been in problems recently, but the Labour party's problems have been (or at least have been made out to be) more significant than the Tories. There is nothing to suggest Labour won't bounce back before 2020, especially as Labour are almost completely united behind staying in the EU, and the Conservatives will be in a bit of a grumble whichever way the country votes.

I've not seen the "...why don't you just join the Tories" retort for a month or two - trying to get rid of people inside your own party is a great way of reaching out to undecided swing voters in marginal constituencies... :roll:

Getting rid of members of a party that disagree with what a party stands for (and more or less agree with what another party does stand for) doesn't seem like too bad of an idea to me, especially as they have been the dead weight of elections so far.

Sadiq Khan had a relatively "Blairite" manifesto (with an electorate who had twice rejected Ken Livingstone's "Old Labour" in favour of Boris Johnson).

The left wing Scottish Labour Party failed. The moderate Sadiq Khan succeeded. What does that tell you?

There is a difference between being moderate and being Blairite. Sadiq Khan isn't a hard lefty (to be honest Jeremy Corbyn isn't that far left either) and this is to be expected as Labour are a centre-left party, something that Rupert Murdoch seems to have made everyone forget about. And you can't call Khan Blairite at all, especially as "in 2005, as a new MP, [he] voted against Labour’s proposal to hold terrorism suspects for 90 days without charge" and "made an enemy out of Blair" (source here). This tells me that a lot of people are supporting a Labour figure who was an opponent of Blair and it also tells me that they support a Labour party that has moved on from him.
 
Last edited:
Joined
2 Jan 2009
Messages
492
Blair is the past. History. Irrelevant. Labels like Blairite and Loony Lefty are as helpful as Tories being rated as Thatcherites after all these years.

Remember, the political spectrum isn't fixed, it's more like an Overton window showing a narrow part of the spectrum. After Corbyn was elected David Owen was asked if he thought there would be another SDP. His response was that the SDP stood on a platform far to the left of where the "hard left" Corbyn now stands. Also notable is that many ideas of Corbynism - state ownership, employee rights, investment - are the policies of the Conservative government in Germany.

Because successive governments dragged the Overton window rightwards, anything not within it is portrayed as hard left, even the centre ground. Thatcher was seen as hard right by may at the time. Yet she refused to consider half the policies of the current government - privatisation of Royal Mail, abolition of the BBC, neutering of the welfare state. These "centre ground" policies are way to the right of thatcher - it's all about perspective.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
 

Arglwydd Golau

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2011
Messages
1,334
Blair is the past. History. Irrelevant. Labels like Blairite and Loony Lefty are as helpful as Tories being rated as Thatcherites after all these years.

As one who studied History and still reads a great deal I can't agree that he is irrelevant to the issues in British Politics today, and especially in the Labour party. As Southern442 has suggested, the media love to find an old Blairite to have a go at Jeremy Corbyn, and the reason they do that is because they all held Ministerial positions under Blair and therefore the (assumed) necessary gravitas. They will keep cropping up adding their words of doom until they (and the media) get what they want.
 
Joined
2 Jan 2009
Messages
492
Oh history is critical - absolutely. But in terms of policy it's long long in the past - may as well demand a return to Wilson.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
 

RichmondCommu

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2010
Messages
6,912
Location
Richmond, London
Nor is McDonnell proposing "printing money" - he wants to borrow and invest and get a return on that investment. It used to be called capitalism before we scrapped that and replaced it with bankism. Borrow to pay this year's bills is stupid. Borrow to build infrastructure and see your money returned 10 fold is smart.

John McDonnell is a leading advocate of "People's Quantitative Easing" - Now if that isn't effectively forcing the Bank of England to print money to buy assets perhaps you could offer a different explanation?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Getting rid of members of a party that disagree with what a party stands for (and more or less agree with what another party does stand for) doesn't seem like too bad of an idea to me, especially as they have been the dead weight of elections so far.

What happened to democracy? If you're suggesting that it's Jeremy Corbyn's way or the Highway then I'm afraid that you will lose a lot of independent donations (including my own) at a time when the party needs all the funds that it can get. One can only assume that you are closely linked to Momentum (who certainly do want to see me leave the Labour Party) and that you no longer wish to see debate within the party.
 
Joined
2 Jan 2009
Messages
492
John McDonnell is a leading advocate of "People's Quantitative Easing" - Now if that isn't effectively forcing the Bank of England to print money to buy assets perhaps you could offer a different explanation?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


What happened to democracy? If you're suggesting that it's Jeremy Corbyn's way or the Highway then I'm afraid that you will lose a lot of independent donations (including my own) at a time when the party needs all the funds that it can get. One can only assume that you are closely linked to Momentum (who certainly do want to see me leave the Labour Party) and that you no longer wish to see debate within the party.
Do understand the difference between spending £20 on a curry and putting £20 in a high-interest bank account? Borrowing money to pay day to day bills - what the Tories are doing - makes no sense. There is no return on the money, its just gone. Which is why the national debt has exploded under Osborne.

But creating money isnt a big deal. Our banks do it daily on an industrial scale. Put the £20 in the bank account I mentioned earlier and the can create another £20 (barring the couple of pennies they need to keep in reserve) and give it to someone else. Its called fractional reserve banking - its what western economies have bankrupted themselves on over the last 20 years.

But spend the money on things we really need - like fibre broadband or motorways or power stations - and the money isn't wasted. You get an immediate return as jobs are created, and a long-term return as the new infrastructure drives economic output. Borrowing to invest is capitalism. Governments can borrow now at near zero interest rates - free borrowing - to build what they need. Or we can not invest, not drive growth, not provide jobs, and watch economic decline. Business can't invest in something with a 20 year payout, thats where you need government. And its where every government until fairly recently agreed.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
 

RichmondCommu

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2010
Messages
6,912
Location
Richmond, London
Do understand the difference between spending £20 on a curry and putting £20 in a high-interest bank account? Borrowing money to pay day to day bills - what the Tories are doing - makes no sense. There is no return on the money, its just gone. Which is why the national debt has exploded under Osborne.

But creating money isnt a big deal. Our banks do it daily on an industrial scale. Put the £20 in the bank account I mentioned earlier and the can create another £20 (barring the couple of pennies they need to keep in reserve) and give it to someone else. Its called fractional reserve banking - its what western economies have bankrupted themselves on over the last 20 years.

But spend the money on things we really need - like fibre broadband or motorways or power stations - and the money isn't wasted. You get an immediate return as jobs are created, and a long-term return as the new infrastructure drives economic output. Borrowing to invest is capitalism. Governments can borrow now at near zero interest rates - free borrowing - to build what they need. Or we can not invest, not drive growth, not provide jobs, and watch economic decline. Business can't invest in something with a 20 year payout, thats where you need government. And its where every government until fairly recently agreed.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

A lot of effort here but I'm afraid there is nothing new. However if John McDonnell gets the chance to introduce "People's Quantitative Easing" that will inevitably see inflation rise above 2.5% which was my original point. Are you denying that John McDonnell is an advocate of "People's Quantitative Easing"?
 
Last edited:
Joined
2 Jan 2009
Messages
492
A lot of effort here but I'm afraid there is nothing new. However if John McDonnell gets the chance to introduce "People's Quantitative Easing" that will inevitably see inflation rise above 2.5% which was my original point. Are you denying that John McDonnell is an advocate of "People's Quantitative Easing"?
I already confirmed it was part of the toolbox. Perhaps you can explain why you think borrowing to see a return on investment - also known as capitalism - is something you should sneer at as you are doing.

You mentioned inflation - as the trillions printed by banks across the world haven't seen to Zimbabwe like inflation, nor has our own explosion in the money supply from bank printing of money, why are you so convinced more would when the evidence is to the contrary?

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
 

RichmondCommu

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2010
Messages
6,912
Location
Richmond, London
I already confirmed it was part of the toolbox.

Where have you stated that?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I already confirmed it was part of the toolbox. Perhaps you can explain why you think borrowing to see a return on investment - also known as capitalism - is something you should sneer at as you are doing.

I've never said that I have a problem with borrowing money to see a return on investment so please refrain from putting words into my mouth. However if you start printing money to buy assets as opposed to borrowing money then it's inevitable that it will have an effect on inflation i.e. inflation will start to rise beyond the 2.5% target set by the Bank of England. Even the people who support the Peoples Quantitative Easing agree that it will cause inflation to rise.
 

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,184
Location
Oxford
I've never said that I have a problem with borrowing money to see a return on investment so please refrain from putting words into my mouth. However if you start printing money to buy assets as opposed to borrowing money then it's inevitable that it will have an effect on inflation i.e. inflation will start to rise beyond the 2.5% target set by the Bank of England. Even the people who support the Peoples Quantitative Easing agree that it will cause inflation to rise.

And where is this idea that they're just going to try and print money to spend coming from?
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
25,740
Location
Fenny Stratford
What particular changes in society are you looking for? From the Blair and New Labour experience I thought that there was absolutely no attempt to reverse the Thatcherite policies that you have previously argued forcefully and if I may say so, eloquently, against? I really can't see that a continuation of the 'New Labour' brand will achieve anything. More Foodbanks? Yes, but we will not increase them as fast as the Tories...Cuts to Disability benefits? Harsh, but you see we have to live in the real world (while doing nothing to temper the excesses of the super-rich) - that would seem to me the promise of the New Labourites if they returned. Fly across the world and make promises to Murdoch? (just to achieve power - does Corbyn have to do that?)
Promise the earth to ordinary people like Blair did, and then not deliver.


I am not sure what kind of social change we need - but I will take more Doctors, nurses, teachers, policemen, sure start centres, new deal, more jobs, higher numbers of families and children taken out of poverty etc etc as good starting point!

I am a practical person. We need power to help the people we need to help. Give me a leader who is vaguely electable ( by real people not fellow travelers) and i will support him. To win power we have to win over middle class, middle England voters as our own people wont be enough to secure a majority. Those people decide the results of elections, not momentum students. Can Corbyn win those people to his policy agenda? My experience on the doorsteps suggests he cant.

We also cant rely on our traditional areas of support. Our people are voting UKIP in the north east in high numbers. UKIP, the bonkers wing of the Tory party! Look at the recent Sunderland Council elections. UKIP second in many wards. These our our people and they arent buying our message. Why? Why haven't these people come back to us in droves once Corbyn assumed command?

Therefore:do you want power which we can use to actually help people or do you want constant opposition where we can be ideologically pure, complain about the terrible Tories and ultimately have bot all power to do anything?

I would rather take a practical approach and bend ideology in favour of power than hold a firm line and seek constant opposition.

Some interesting reaction and overreaction here. Labour did OK - not amazing, not badly, OK. Holding ground in the south and winning new seats and taking control off the Tories in places like Worcester is great. Losing a single seat on the Welsh Assembly is OK. And in Scotland the expected hammering was a hammering and would have been regardless of who was leader. But even there we have signs of life in that the SNP lost share and that suggests peak nat has passed.

Arguments about the whys and wherefores of Blair are pointless. Apart from him being in the past which Blair are we talking about? Blair 97 a great socialist reforming PM? Or Blair 05 and his manifesto of ID cards 90 days detention and privatisation? The world has moved on and Labour with it. I hear endless criticism and sniping from continuity New Labour but no policy or directional proposals - if their way is such a hit then we'd have won in 2010 and 2015.

We gained 31% of the vote and lost 23 Councillors. I understand this is the first time an opposition has had a net fall in councillors since 1985.

I am not worried about Scotland. We were always going to lose badly but hoped we might claw back some losses but the SLP is very poorly thought of after the referendum.

We did win the London Mayoral race but with a candidate who doesn't seem to be a Corbynista and talks of building a big tent to hold everyone. He won a bigger personal mandate than either Boris or Ken! That wont go down well.

Labour still have a lot to do. Presentationally it's not been great, not helped by Ken Hitler on one end and the Mann Streetings of the PLP. But it's a step on. We won't regain power by refusing to oppose vindictive welfare cuts as Harman did. We shouldn't regain power if our objective is to continue Osborneomics with a conscience. We need to find Blair 97s radicalism and populism and not Blair 05s cynicism and marketisation. It almost certainly isn't in Corbyn - I voted for him thinking he'd be a caretaker. I still think that to be the case.

I didn't vote for him as I thought he would be a disaster for our party and our chances of election. If he is the caretaker can someone remind Corbyn to hand the broom over sharpish?

It isn't how bad he is, it is how bad he is made out to be. Look at the Evening Standard. First few pages, Joe Murphy writing something bad about him or another Labour 'lefty'. There is always some gossip about him(personality politics at work there) later on in the paper, even today when they were talking about how united we are in voting for a Muslim mayor, they take a few digs at him, and to be honest most of it isn't newspaper story worth material. I bet you that an article about Conservative MP's borrowing less books from the commons library if a new leader came into power wouldn't make the cut.

Corbyn gives the media an open goal. He wont engage with them or challenge their perceptions. Why? How can you to reach people without a political interest if you wont use the media to do so? Osmosis? Mind control?

He is also an oil hungry war criminal that lied to the public about another country having WMD's so that he could convince us to go to war alongside Bush. Something to be proud of my foot.

I guessed you missed the list of domestic achievements above and the 3 election victories then. Which of those should we not be proud of?


Getting rid of members of a party that disagree with what a party stands for (and more or less agree with what another party does stand for) doesn't seem like too bad of an idea to me, especially as they have been the dead weight of elections so far.

:roll: Don't forget to send your tribunal round to my house. Odd that it is the people that are citicised the most who seem to do the most to support the party. I am more than happy to be left wing but I am not keen to have another 18 years in opposition. Many of you seem to prefer that.........


There is a difference between being moderate and being Blairite. Sadiq Khan isn't a hard lefty (to be honest Jeremy Corbyn isn't that far left either) and this is to be expected as Labour are a centre-left party, something that Rupert Murdoch seems to have made everyone forget about. And you can't call Khan Blairite at all, especially as "in 2005, as a new MP, [he] voted against Labour’s proposal to hold terrorism suspects for 90 days without charge" and "made an enemy out of Blair" (source here). This tells me that a lot of people are supporting a Labour figure who was an opponent of Blair and it also tells me that they support a Labour party that has moved on from him.

You don't think that Sadiq Khan's long standing defense of humans rights through his legal career might and his chairmanship of Liberty might have had something to do with his view on detention without trial? It could have been his underlying leftism of course............
 
Last edited:
Joined
2 Jan 2009
Messages
492
DarloRich - what's missing from the Labour right wing is an alternative. The idea that Corbyn would not just win but win a landslide was hilarious until it became a certainty. Burnham would have won until he chose to abstain on the welfare cuts. I keep hearing that Corbyn is unelectable - perhaps. But we know that New Labour is unelectable. We know that trying to be technocrat administrators of Torynomics is unelectable. So unless you propose something that isn't Continuity New Labour what is your counter-proposal?

Even more so than in 1997 the system is broken. Society, economics, community cohesion. Blair won hearts and minds by recognising things were broken and offering a radical vision of new hope for the future. That's what we need now - A New Hope. Until the right recognises that the system is broken you won't offer a solution to replace it. That was the genius of Blair97 and why so many of us long standing party members now decry what he has become. We need a new Blair but not a return to the conservative with a small c hollow shell that Blairism became

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top