What exactly is Jeremy Corbyn's plan?

horse

Lib Dems should recruit David Miliband to lead the poaching of moderate mps from either side and start a new viable opposition. Part of the challenge is the current lack of moderate talent around the top of Labour - can't think of anybody since David Miliband who I would have thought had a chance of winning an election, and that was why Ed lasted so long - he was useless but there was nobody better available

Moe_Zambeek

History seems to have forgotten that David Milliband was considered a somewhat laughable character too, just before his bacon-loving brother stabbed him in the back (and then set in motion the Corbyn train wreck with changes to the way the party worked). It's a sign of how low Labour has been brought that Milliband D is considered a possible saviour.

Bogwhoppit

As long as Cameron is out, I'll sit back and enjoy the rest of the childish sideshow that's is politics.  Bunch of egotistical, narcissistic lying shitheads that have ever had the audacity to breath the same air as honest caring decent folk like ....... Jesus or whatever his real name is....ah ! Bob, that's the one.

Flanging_Fred

I think his plan is hide and wait for the other politicians to eat each other. He will later emerge, blinking into the sun, and claim his place at the top of the food chain.

Bogwhoppit

Flanging_Fred said:

 and claim his place at the top of the food chain.

Codbyn and chips

Myranda

Given that it's been said that he has no current aim to be PM his plan must be really clever... Fixing Britain without any power... He must be a genius 

CabbageCat

I think, like most politicians, that his plan is to make the country a better place and, like most politicians, he thinks he knows how to do that better than others. Labour party members see the good things a proper left wing government can provide (well funded education and healthcare, advantages for workers, comfort for the unemployed) and can afford to ignore the bad things (we can't afford it) but Corbyn's fellow MPs can't ignore those things because they have to deal with them if they get to government.

I don't think JC is unelectable. His history and politics resonates with a lot of people. I don't think he can successfully govern while maintaining his principles though. A jump to the left (or right) of that distance is fraught with danger and bound to be tumultuous.

jpfamps

Sporky said:

jpfamps said:

branding Tony Blair and his ilk as "Tories" is nonsense.

I'd say it's not far off the mark; Labour went from being liberal left to being authoritarian right in about fifteen years.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enPartiesTime.gif

Well (and I'm not a massive fan of Tony Blair), I'm not sure I agree with that.

Certainly Blair moved the Labour Party to the right; mainly it must be said on the evidence of persistent electoral failure through the 80's and early 90's. His view being you are have more capacity to change society  from being in power than opposition.

However, many of the policies of the Blair Government where definitely not Conservative Policies, eg the minimum wage, reduction of homosexual age of consent, a big increase in welfare and health spending etc.

Blair definitely wanted to be seen to be tough on crime (which incidentally was a very popular policy with traditional Labour supporter as they often were also the victims of crime), and with the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks it was always likely that the Government de jour would take a more authoritarian stance.

By the way, there a massive problem with that graph which you should know (!), in that for it to be at all valid you need too prove that scales used are linear, which of course you can't. In short the graph is nonsense.

Evilmags

The irony is him and his supporters have no idea how stupid they look. 170 Labour MPS clearly do and voted no confidence. As just about nobody outside of hard core activists is a party member these days the party members represent hard core views. 

I suspect the 170 MPS kind of like their jobs and don't want an electoral whitewash. Any prospect of Corbyn in power will see industry fund the Tories next campaign with more cash than you could believe possible. UKIP will have reinvented itself as a blue collar party and make massive inroads into the Labour vote. 

And the scruffy fucker still won't own a suit that fits him. 

jpfamps

Axe_meister said:

Can a socialist society exist in a global economy and compete with India/china

Cuba?

Sporky

jpfamps said:

By the way, there a massive problem with that graph which you should know (!), in that for it to be at all valid you need too prove that scales used are linear, which of course you can't. In short the graph is nonsense.

You should probably take that up with the Political Compass - they're very keen on presenting a fair and balanced view, so if you can help them improve it I'm sure they'd be appreciative. I disagree that it's "nonsense" though; the criteria are well documented.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/faq

Myranda

jpfamps said:

Sporky said:

jpfamps said:

branding Tony Blair and his ilk as "Tories" is nonsense.

I'd say it's not far off the mark; Labour went from being liberal left to being authoritarian right in about fifteen years.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enPartiesTime.gif

Well (and I'm not a massive fan of Tony Blair), I'm not sure I agree with that.

Certainly Blair moved the Labour Party to the right; mainly it must be said on the evidence of persistent electoral failure through the 80's and early 90's. His view being you are have more capacity to change society  from being in power than opposition.

However, many of the policies of the Blair Government where definitely not Conservative Policies, eg the minimum wage, reduction of homosexual age of consent, a big increase in welfare and health spending etc.

Blair definitely wanted to be seen to be tough on crime (which incidentally was a very popular policy with traditional Labour supporter as they often were also the victims of crime), and with the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks it was always likely that the Government de jour would take a more authoritarian stance.

By the way, there a massive problem with that graph which you should know (!), in that for it to be at all valid you need too prove that scales used are linear, which of course you can't. In short the graph is nonsense.

He also widened the gap between rich and poor year after year - more than Thatcher ever managed. 

Tuition fees. 

Tough on crime - by making more things criminal then boasting about increased arrest rates... 

Minimum wage laws are only as good as their provision for increasing with either inflation or CPI... 

Minimum wage laws don't benefit people if you then sign into law a regular increase in petrol prices driving the cost of everything up... While also telling train operators it's fine to increase prices way above inflation... So there was no better alternative to driving meanimg many of the poorest had to just suck up the increase in cost 

Blair might have worn a red tie to meetings, but he was far from a Labour PM... 

And that's without even contemplating the shitty war we got dragged into creating a world where ISIS was able to happen. The smiling sycophant was a horrible pm 

axisus

Lots of Blair bashing here, but I think that his first term in Govt was the best I've seen in my lifetime. I thought he was pretty good as a PM right up to the Iraq war. Massive mistakes with all the war stuff, and he's been rightfully exposed for them. OK, he moved Labour to the right but that's why I (and lots of other ex-tory voters) voted them in. I am no fan of far Left Labour and would not vote for them personally, but New Labour is still the most appealing political party to me.

randella

Evilmags said:

The irony is him and his supporters have no idea how stupid they look. 170 Labour MPS clearly do and voted no confidence. As just about nobody outside of hard core activists is a party member these days the party members represent hard core views. 

I suspect the 170 MPS kind of like their jobs and don't want an electoral whitewash. Any prospect of Corbyn in power will see industry fund the Tories next campaign with more cash than you could believe possible. UKIP will have reinvented itself as a blue collar party and make massive inroads into the Labour vote. 

And the scruffy fucker still won't own a suit that fits him. 

Whilst I agree with @Evilmags in the main, I would say there are people in the membership who aren't activists and just want an electable party with pragmatic and progressive leftist policy to represent us in parliament.  Representing the electorate in parliament being something Mr. Corbyn seems to have forgotten is his job.

There are activists in the membership, they're busy at CLP level.  The rest of it (and sadly the majority, it seems) appears to be made up by people whose idea of a democracy is shouting at people in the Guardian comments section.  Red Tories! Blairite scum!  Mandleson's lackeys!  Deselect them!  These are the ones who have no idea how ridiculous they look, but unfortunately they're the ones who are going to put the old goat right back where he is now in two months' time.

These are the people who think that moving Labour harder to the left is somehow going to rewrite history and actually work this time.  They think that to win the provincial working-class voters back, you just have to tell them how thicko and xenophobic they are for voting UKIP; similarly, we can win back the centrist Tory floating vote by... oh no.  We don't actually want them anyway.  They're all child-snatching warmongers.

Fuck me.  How about you stop telling us what you don't want, and start telling us what's gonna happen on your watch?  Something we can get behind?  The economy, foreign policy, education, that sort of thing.  Put together some decent policy, find someone media-smart who doesn't treat every camera or microphone as a physical assault, and shout it from the rooftops.  Or you could keep droning on your Twitter feed about unilateral nuclear disarmament, and while we're at it, why not bugger off to a Unite Cuba party on the day the government unveils its new cabinet in the wake of the most important referendum in several generations?

For what it's worth, I think Labour's had it; I think their 'brand' is simply too unpalatable to the public these days.  I have a hesitant desire to see them split - let Corbyn keep the party and all the union and Momentum baggage, and in my dreams, the rest of the PLP will tell him to stick it and head off to form a centre-left party I can believe in.

Meanwhile he still won't buy some new clothes.

mellowsun

I dislike the Tories but it has to be said, under Thatcher:
- I had free higher education, plus a maintenance grant
- I could claim income support during the summer holidays if I couldn't find a student job
This all disappeared under New Labour. Blair was all about courting the rich. He wanted the country to move to a more US style neoliberal model. Which is what we have ended up with now.

House prices tripled under New Labour also. Which is great if you are a homeowner, which is why boomers loved Blair, but is the reason why the current generation of 20/30-somethings are screwed (on top of their tuition fees).

The reason why the wealthy Islington set are so into Corbyn is because they are pro unlimited immigration. High immigration is great for house prices and BTL rental yields, you have a constant stream of tenants.

Axe_meister

jpfamps said:

Axe_meister said:

Can a socialist society exist in a global economy and compete with India/china

Cuba?

That is the problem. Cuba was an isolated state. Socialism can only work with an economy managed from above with no outside influence. And look at how that ended with communism in eastern Europe.

Chalky

In the Labour Party before Blair, the rank and file believed it was more important for the PLP to be right, than for them to be electable.  Corbyn has regressed the party to back then.

randella

Chalky said:

In the Labour Party before Blair, the rank and file believed it was more important for the PLP to be right, than for them to be electable.  Corbyn has regressed the party to back then.

I think this would actually be an improvement.  (Most) of the rank-and-file believe the all-important 0.4% of the PLP (Corbyn) to be right and this is all that matters.

Sporky

I tend to agree with randella there - I want a party that matches my views, not one that changes its policies to get elected according to the whim of the electorate. We've ended up with four main parties that are all in the same quadrant of the political compass; where is the choice?

jpfamps

Sporky said:

jpfamps said:

By the way, there a massive problem with that graph which you should know (!), in that for it to be at all valid you need too prove that scales used are linear, which of course you can't. In short the graph is nonsense.

You should probably take that up with the Political Compass - they're very keen on presenting a fair and balanced view, so if you can help them improve it I'm sure they'd be appreciative. I disagree that it's "nonsense" though; the criteria are well documented.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/faq

It's impossible for that graph to be meaningful as there is no linear scale of liberalism for example. The problem is that the social "scientist" who compose these graph don't understand maths enough to appreciate this.