What exactly is Jeremy Corbyn's plan?

Evilmags

Putting Diane Abbot in charge of the NHS would see a spike in health insurance sales the likes of which has never before been seen. 

randella

Heartfeltdawn said:

@randella 1997 was my first chance to vote in a General Election. New Labour were everywhere, creating a climate where even the like of the Sun and New Musical Express were unified in supporting Blair. I didn't vote for him then and I'm proud to say that I never voted for him. Even to a 19 year old me, he felt like a cheap facsimile of Bill Clinton, a man with a permanent smile who would have been perfect in Transmetropolitan. Blair did manage to create the unified front and then he shat all over that unity. He kept the unions at arm's length for the most part. 

Ultimately though it isn't hard to understand why Blairism is treated like cat shit on the sofa. Think of the various groups involved in Labour now:

-Many of those new Labour members are young. They didn't grow up under Thatcher or see images of the mining strikes on the news. They grew up under Blair, the man who took us into a war that spiralled out of control, the man who helped us into recession, the leader of the party that went gaga for PFI and introduced tuition fees. It was notable at the Bristol rally that it wasn't mention of Thatcher that brought out the boos: it was Blair. To many younger people, and I'm going from the uni students now to approaching 40 idiots like me, Blair is their wicked witch, not Thatcher.

-For the older union types, they remember how Blair treated the unions.

-Blair was firmly behind Europe. Why would trad Labour voters in Hartlepool want a Blairite approach which was firmly behind being in Europe? 

I don't see one policy that the Labour party could unite round at the minute. Trident? Nope. Education? The Blairite way and the Corbyn way won't mesh. Unions? Nil chance. The one saving grace could be the NHS and I am positive that, should Corbyn hold onto the leadership role, that will be the main centrepiece of his future campaigns. At the Bristol rally, the NHS was the key policy issue (one reason why Abbott was there). In the referendum, Leave showed how emotive the NHS issue is. 

@Heartfeltdawn I know his name is Satan, I know it only too well!  I do however think the absolute frothing vilification of him risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  In his favour, under his Labour government, we had the Good Friday agreement, the Human Rights and Freedom of Information acts, a move towards gay equality with civil partnerships (although it took Cameron to finally square that one, fair play to him).  We also got the minimum wage which saw me cop a 60% pay rise, ta very much! (Who says us lefties are selfless )

This on top of decent investment in health and education.  The economy under Brown was ticking along nicely too, and I didn't notice anyone bitching too hard at the time when their houses were tripling in value.  (I bought my first house about a week before the news of the global banking crash hit the airwaves in '08, so I've not got a dog in this fight)

Basically, it's not people's views on Blair that are getting me down, people think what the bloody hell they like - not my place to tell them what they should and shouldn't be having an opinion on.  I've got my own opinions of the man - they're not as negative as yours, but I'm far from an undying fan.

He and New Labour did do some good though - why can't the party discuss this like grownups? Like we talked about before, I'm ideologically opposed to the Conservatives, but if they're up to something that I think is good, I'm not going to instinctively nullify it just because they previously did something I thought was bad.  It's blinkered and unproductive.  The cynic in me thinks Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne, McCluskey and Abbott are not beyond exploiting the schism this hysterical wailing is helping to widen for their own ends.

I dunno. 

Stance on Europe's a very, very knotty one that it's going to take a skilled negotiator to work out as leader.  Like you said, they'll lose the vote in Hartlepool by being pro, but then Manchester, Stockport, Trafford, Liverpool, Sefton, Wirral, York, Leeds, Harrogate and Newcastle were all remain too so the north didn't, as some would have us all believe, vote out in its entirety.  I wouldn't like the job of working out any party's policy in that area, or for that matter on immigration, that's for damn sure.  It does need to be talked about though because as far as I can tell it's about the most divisive set of issues there is.

Your last para is about the best written, truthful and downright depressing summary I've read lately.

ICBM

Evilmags said:

Ex Iraq war and Blair would still be fondly remembered and probably ennobled by now. He made one huge mistake but other than that was popular at the time.

PFI was a massive mistake too - or actually a deliberate con trick. Deregulating the banks… I think that was under Blair and not Major? And some others, I'm sure.

Evilmags said:

(And was probably over confident due to sucessfull intervention in Kosova).

And Sierra Leone - although he was forced into it by an executive decision by the British Army commander on the ground. To be fair, they did follow it up properly and now Sierra Leone is one of the only (possibly the only, I'm not certain) examples of a rightful and fully successful Western intervention in a foreign civil war. I will give Blair credit for that, at least. Kosovo I'm less sure about.

Evilmags said:

Michael Foot did exactly the same thing. It took a lot of work to get Labour back into power. The centre point of UK politics is the Tory party because Labour are so ineffective in parliament. 

I'd actually lay much of the blame for where we are now at Foot's door too - I never understood why he was so revered in the party. If he hadn't been as useless as he was, there would have been no SDP, no Militant, no need for Kinnock and Smith to try to rescue the party, no need for Blair to be so desperate to get back into power that he would sacrifice the purpose of the party, no anti-Blairite backlash, and no Corbyn.

Evilmags said:

Putting Diane Abbot in charge of the NHS would see a spike in health insurance sales the likes of which has never before been seen. 

And no Diane Abbott, in any position of importance.

The sad thing (for me, if perhaps not you ) is that Britain actually *is* more left-wing than the assumption that the Tories are the natural party of government would imply - the left has consistently won every election other than 2015 (where the Tories and UKIP polled 50% between them) since WWII. But has more often than not been too divided, either Labour/Lib Dem or just internally among themselves, to shut out the Tories who have successfully governed with around 40% of the vote.

Heartfeltdawn

@randella Under his Labour government, the Freedom of Information Act was put into place. It is an act he regrets immensely. In fact, he regrets that far more than anything to do with Iraq. Compare that to his stance to FOI when in opposition. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/09/why_tony_blair_thinks_he_was_a.html

I think I've said before how my university experience solidified my dislike of Blairism. It revolved around an essay I wrote about tuition fees and how these would increase massively in future years. My lecturer, a Blairite lady who was involved with the political machine, marked it down on the basis that it was full of falsehoods. I took her to a tribunal and won. That was 1999. Ten years later I saw her again when I stopped in at the university. I introduced myself and shook her hand and asked her if she was still believing that tuition fees wouldn't rise up and up. She then recognised me. End of conversation. 

I'm not a house owner. The rise in prices in the Blair years seemed indulgent and liable to cause problems way down the line. You now see those same problems happening in other countries like Canada. Big property boom = big problems.

The unions and the trad lefties were essentially sidelined during Blair. They were then sidelined during Brown and again during the Miliband reign. This time they've got the whip hand and they're bloody well going to use it. The New Labour remnants have a choice: either sit down and shut up as a lot of the unions did under Blair, or fuck off and start their own party. 

Immigration does need to be talked through but it along with post-referendum talk and environmental talk have been notably lacking in the Corbyn policy booklet. As I remarked earlier in the thread, the lack of talk about the environment and the referendum at the Bristol rally were enormous pointers as to where the JC campaign is pointing. Collective bargaining, unions, and the NHS is where the fingers were pointing. 

Oh well, another month of the Labour tweety birds shitting in their own nest then

Heartfeltdawn

Evilmags said:

Putting Diane Abbot in charge of the NHS would see a spike in health insurance sales the likes of which has never before been seen. 

If she were in charge of hospitals, we'd be seeing a Greggs in every A&E ward by June 2020. 

Snap

THeres been rot in the Labour Party for years. Thinking back to Blair Brown days, and how GB so obviously was scheming to further his own career. Then the total shyster behaviour of Ed Milliband with his brother - you can see that these people (and I am thinking most politicians really) aren't in it for society:they are in it for themselves.

I think it is difficult to find a more thoroughly unpleasant group than the members of parliament. Horrible people. Evidenced perfectly through the EU referendum campaign - so many people were found out to be nasty pieces of work.

Evilmags

Snap said:

THeres been rot in the Labour Party for years. Thinking back to Blair Brown days, and how GB so obviously was scheming to further his own career. Then the total shyster behaviour of Ed Milliband with his brother - you can see that these people (and I am thinking most politicians really) aren't in it for society:they are in it for themselves.

I think it is difficult to find a more thoroughly unpleasant group than the members of parliament. Horrible people. Evidenced perfectly through the EU referendum campaign - so many people were found out to be nasty pieces of work.

You've got to love how May has rewarded Osbourne and Gove for their nastiness and mendaciousnes. (While at the same time removing the two least popular cabinet ministers). 

The figure to watch is Ruth Davidson. When Sturgeon's spending comes home to roost and her appallingly authoritarian disregard to privacy and equally terrible management of the education system come home to roost people wanting rid of the SNP (a growing number, who are much less noisy than the Red Tory brigade) are unlikely to turn to Labour as they offer no answers. 

Jalapeno

Evilmags said:

You've got to love how May has rewarded Osbourne and Gove for their nastiness and mendaciousnes. (While at the same time removing the two least popular cabinet ministers).

I prefer how she's shafted rewarded Boris, Dave Davis and Liam Fox with sorting out how we leave Europe

She also dispatched IDS pretty mecilessly too.

Heartfeltdawn

Jalapeno said:

Evilmags said:

You've got to love how May has rewarded Osbourne and Gove for their nastiness and mendaciousnes. (While at the same time removing the two least popular cabinet ministers).

I prefer how she's shafted rewarded Boris, Dave Davis and Liam Fox with sorting out how we leave Europe

She also dispatched IDS pretty mecilessly too.

There was no sense in bringing IDS back into the fold. There's a cloud lingering over him regarding Universal Credit and he's a former leader. Hague went a while ago, IDS out of the scene, Howard went in 2010.. that leaves only Cameron and he'll be very content to pootle around for a while. Keep ex-leaders out of the way, I say. 

Appointing Boris, DD, and Fox to Europe: sensible. Any failure or fuckup gets placed squarely on the Brexit crowd. 

ICBM

Snap said:

Then the total shyster behaviour of Ed Milliband with his brother - you can see that these people (and I am thinking most politicians really) aren't in it for society:they are in it for themselves.

I know I've said this before, but I firmly believe the greatest service Ed Miliband ever did for his country was to stop his brother becoming Labour leader. I don't think he did it for personal ambition either.

Jalapeno said:

Evilmags said:

You've got to love how May has rewarded Osbourne and Gove for their nastiness and mendaciousnes. (While at the same time removing the two least popular cabinet ministers).

I prefer how she's shafted rewarded Boris, Dave Davis and Liam Fox with sorting out how we leave Europe

She also dispatched IDS pretty mecilessly too.

I don't like her, but I have respect for the ruthlessness with which she got rid of the poisonous elements in the cabinet, and landed the potential awkward squad with the 'reward' of making them carry the can of their own divising. She even promoted Leadsome just far enough to pander to her ego while putting her somewhere fairly harmless. Brilliant leadership, at least so far.

I never thought I would hear myself saying that...

Evilmags

Boris got by far the best deal (after all he´s a vote winner). He can lap up credit for trade deals (who the hell overseas knows who the other two are) and dump any failure on them. I also get the impression that Junkers has seriously pissed off the Northern Countries and Germany by provoking Brexit and their own electorates and ultimately they have the cheque books so he´ll be gone before the UK is. 

Once the Italian banking crisis gets going, no one in the UK will care much about Brexit anymore. 

streethawk

Corbyn has been wildly effective in that he has the PLP's saviour reading from the same script, but with added winning!

The wheels would have come off by losing to Smith, then watching him completely disregard anything approaching socialist policy upon attaining power. Not gonna happen though. As much as folk see Corbyn as a union puppet, he has a lot of popular support behind him: Sanders and Obama style. People (as opposed to activists) seduced by slogans and change - and not without good reason. The numbers don't lie.

Obama won an election with this kind of backing, Sanders would have won the Dem nomination with it had the game not been rigged in Hilary's favour. Hell, look at Trump's inexorable rise! Man talks broken biscuits.

Without the PLP and mainstream media on side, his chances of winning a general election don't look so great, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. People are interested in trying something different, people are starting to click on to the fact they've been had over for a loooong time. Again, the numbers don't lie...

For me, the battle isn't with the Tories per se. It's with the failure of the neo liberal project - when measured against the aspirations of the vast majority of us.

As for whether he has a plan or not: what exactly are you looking for? Do we know theresa may's plan any better?

Evilmags

Would the next moron to use the phrase Neo-Liberal please try and explain to me what it means. I have never heard a single economist ever describe himself or his school of thought as neo liberal. The phrase is an invention of leftist journalisrs and is entirely meaningless as it does not describe any single strand of economic thought. If you think states are so "Neo Liberal" then could you please try and explain how they control over 45% of every pound spent in the economy. That number would be around 20% tops for a Chicago school economist and around 5% for an Austrian School economist. (The two major strands of Liberal economic thought). Their is absolutely no coherence at all in calling the UK a free market economy (It is not or it would have a different monetary system for starters) when the state confiscates and redistributes 45% of generated wealth. A social democracy is the only accurate term any social scientist would use. 

UnclePsychosis

@streethawk - if the numbers don't lie then Corbyn is f**ked. Have you seen any opinion polls? He's opposition leader during a period when the Tories are the most right-wing that they've been for a long time and Corbyn is doing so badly that the only politician he polls better than is Donald Trump!

Anyway, just came in to post this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37167700

So much for Jeremy's new politics, telling the truth and leaving the spin doctors at home...

Also shocked to discover that well known Blairite Tam Dalyell will be voting for Owen Smith. Damn these Blairite careerists!

streethawk

Evilmags said:

Would the next moron to use the phrase Neo-Liberal please try and explain to me what it means. I have never heard a single economist ever describe himself or his school of thought as neo liberal. The phrase is an invention of leftist journalisrs and is entirely meaningless as it does not describe any single strand of economic thought. If you think states are so "Neo Liberal" then could you please try and explain how they control over 45% of every pound spent in the economy. That number would be around 20% tops for a Chicago school economist and around 5% for an Austrian School economist. (The two major strands of Liberal economic thought). Their is absolutely no coherence at all in calling the UK a free market economy (It is not or it would have a different monetary system for starters) when the state confiscates and redistributes 45% of generated wealth. A social democracy is the only accurate term any social scientist would use. 

You sound upset. Let's try and get past that and have a discussion.

The neo liberal experiment has failed miserably not only in its outcomes, but also in - as you correctly argue - its ideological execution.

There is no 'free market', it's actually highly protectionist. Same applies to so called 'free trade' deals which are anything but. However: the minds behind this great social experiment since the dropping of the gold standard have all read their Ayn Rand and subscribe to Hayek, Friedman and co. Unless you can find a Fed Chairman who spouts Keynes? Bernanke and Greenspan describe themselves as Libertarians, their words - not mine.

Where I do take exception is with your opinion that the state 'confiscates' wealth to distribute (among the entitled). This doesn't tell the whole story. The great tech revolution was state funded: taxpayer funded institutes created the technology, distributed freely, for the likes of Bill Gates to go and make his billions. States effectively subsidise the likes of Amazon by providing in work tax credits and so on to an underpaid workforce, while Amazon gets away with not paying its fair share of taxes. 

So while the term neo liberal is something of a misnomer, it has provided the intellectual framework for some pretty greedy bastards who want the freedom to make a fortune and not support the State, while in fact being supported by the State.

Maybe start calling them 'shit liberals'?

streethawk

UnclePsychosis said:

@streethawk - if the numbers don't lie then Corbyn is f**ked. Have you seen any opinion polls? He's opposition leader during a period when the Tories are the most right-wing that they've been for a long time and Corbyn is doing so badly that the only politician he polls better than is Donald Trump!

Anyway, just came in to post this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37167700

So much for Jeremy's new politics, telling the truth and leaving the spin doctors at home...

Also shocked to discover that well known Blairite Tam Dalyell will be voting for Owen Smith. Damn these Blairite careerists!

 

randella

UnclePsychosis said:

@streethawk - if the numbers don't lie then Corbyn is f**ked. Have you seen any opinion polls? He's opposition leader during a period when the Tories are the most right-wing that they've been for a long time and Corbyn is doing so badly that the only politician he polls better than is Donald Trump!

Anyway, just came in to post this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37167700

So much for Jeremy's new politics, telling the truth and leaving the spin doctors at home...

Also shocked to discover that well known Blairite Tam Dalyell will be voting for Owen Smith. Damn these Blairite careerists!

Man, whose defining tenet is absolute honesty, in 'lies through fucking teeth' shocker.

ICBM

Is he actively trying to undermine his own credibility?

The annoying thing is that it not only makes him look dishonest, it will be used to attack the policy he supports, which is the correct one… but not because trains are packed (even when they actually are).

randella

ICBM said:

Is he actively trying to undermine his own credibility?

The annoying thing is that it not only makes him look dishonest, it will be used to attack the policy he supports, which is the correct one… but not because trains are packed (even when they actually are).

See, that's the thing isn't it.  It's a decent policy, having the state own the train operators.  In fact, the state already does own and profit from them, just not our state.  So you'd say that getting them under British government ownership is common bloody sense.

Only now, the press are having a field day with it and he's single-handedly shot one rock-solid bit of policy (which is popular amongst the electorate) right out of the water.  Added to that - would you trust him and McClusky to run the operating companies?  Because I bloody well wouldn't.

I despair.

ToneControl

https://www.virgintrains.co.uk/about/media-room/#/pressreleases/virgin-trains-clarifies-labour-leaders-claim-of-ram-packed-service-1530005