Labour, can they sink any lower?

Troy

hywelg said:

Evilmags said:

Thatch was by far the best pm in my lifetime. Increased GDP , by far the best measure of overall wellfare, structurally reduced unemployment and freed the economy. Genius if somewhat prim amd prissy. 

Conviction politician supreme. And the country voted for her to sort out the Union crap. She did. Of the two comments in this thread labeling her the worst PM, they were by their own admission not old enough to have experieince of what the UK was like before her tenure.

I wish we had more conviction politicians, which is why I like Corbyn, shame his convictions are Loony Left, the antithesis of what I would vote for. I have a feeling May might turn out to be much less of a focus group, 'blowing in the wind', politician than Blair and Cameron, but time will tell.

Indeed, seems some people forgot, or too young to know, of the mountains of rubbish about due to strikes, as well as regular blackouts, again due to strikes. Maggie took on the unions face first, whereas Arthur Scargill was only interested in raising his profile at the expense of the miners & their families.

Unlike Cameron, she wasn't in a habit of doing U turns. She meant what she said. I admire her stance and conviction.

Snap

randella said:

Snap said:

TBH, I think Corbyn is a bit of a div. I also find him a bit disingenuous. Something about his demeanour stinks of hubris, as if he believes he has a moral high ground over most people. I don't think he is a "man of the people" at all. I think he is a wannabe intellectual, probably best suited to mouthing off at far left wing student hustings.

Mind you, I've watched and listened to Owen Smith as well, and he is all over the place. the Labour party just appears to be full of lightweights, who don't seem to have a clue. Bad for politics, bad for government, whatever side you sit on.

Wholeheartedly agree.  He's massively disingenuous.  I really, really dislike the veneer of effected serene, patronising calm that he has, brought into stark relief when he loses his rag the nanosecond he's out of his comfort zone.

Not sure what the plan with Owen Smith was, really.  The ABC candidate, that much was clear, but in reality it's probably just the best stalling tactic the PLP could come up with while they think up their next move.

The real issue is, like you said @Snap - the party's full of ineffectual lightweights.  It really is bad times for Labour, but for politics as a whole too even if you're not on the left.

I think i probably sit somewhere right of centre, but could be somewhere left too. REgardless of that, I admire any politician who has gravitas, ability and conviction. Tony Benn for example: may have been a long way from me politically, but he was believable, he meant it, and he walked the walk. At the other end of the scale Norman Tebbit - again, not to my political taste, but he had clout. Same goes for Thatcher, and even Blair. Heavyweights - the result of a formula of qualities that made more people turn round and listen to what they were saying. Dennis Healey, Rhodes Boyson.

Compare that to most of the cabinet and shadow cabinet: I couldn't name most of them, and have respect for even less.

I do quite like the way Teresa May carries herself, will be interesting to see how she develops as a PM. SHe seems to be able to quickly gain the measure of people.

crunchman

Philly_Q said:

ICBM said:

What's really odd for me thinking about Corbyn is that if people would actually listen to what he says rather than what he's painted as by the media, he could quite possibly win an election. But that probably won't happen - although he seems to want an election too, if May is unwise enough to call one - so presumably he must think he would win.

Britain is a strange country - it's a tolerant, optimistic, moderately socialist country which has somehow convinced itself that it's a prickly, individualistic, conservative one.

Is it not both of those things?

I know people who might support Corbyn's policies - but not because they ARE Corbyn's policies! - on things like re-nationalising the railways, spending on the NHS, possibly even increasing higher rate tax.  But they'd be at the absolute opposite end of the spectrum on policies relating to things like immigration and multi-culturalism.

I think ultimately we vote on things which affect us most personally, rather than thinking of a bigger picture.  Even if we don't acknowledge that even to ourselves.

This is true.

I think re-nationalising the railways is a good idea, but there is no way I would vote for someone who calls Hezbollah friends.

He'd also probably cause an uprising among loyalists in Northern Ireland given his IRA sympathising history.

The other problem is that he's economically illiterate.  Unlike @Evilmags I don't think GDP should be the main measure of whether the country is a success.  You can raise GDP by cutting workers rights and getting lots of immigration.  BUT you have to have to be able to balance the books.

The other problem Labour has is that it is full of people whose main causes seem to be multiculturalism, LGBT, and CO2 reduction rather than trying to run the country for the average person who wants to go to work and have enough money to put a roof over his head and pay for everything his/her kids need.  This is why they elect someone like Corbyn and are driving their traditional support to UKIP.

Fretwired

paulads said:

I've heard it said that David Miliband will parachute into Jo Cox's former seat and soon thereafter become the new leader.

<sigh>

The bookies think it's going to be an ex-Coronation Street soap star - I jest not. David Miliband's missed the bus - he'd by murdered in his bed by Momentum. Kinnock will be leader and if we're out of the EU the first think he will do is rejoin. Kinnock has some Trade Union support.

EDIT

Shortlist of two - decision Friday.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/19/actor-tracy-brabin-frontrunner-win-jo-cox-batley-spen-jane-thomas

ToneControl

paulads said:

I do think it's guesswork. I can't see how you could know for a fact that Corbyn couldn't win an election.  A lot of effort is being made by a lot of people in various positions of power who seem very concerned that he could do just that. The concerted effort against him has been breathtaking, in my opinion.
I feel that the position of relative wealth we still enjoy today is due to the power we used to exert over many parts of the globe and is more despite our recent leaders than because of them.
The disaster, to me, is the unnecessary poverty, suffering, inequality and selfishness in our society and our lamentable foreign policy.
Reading thorough this thread, I haven't been persuaded that my opinion of our recent PM's needs re-evaluating.

guesswork?
How many polls do you need to see?
Obviously we cannot 100% predict the future, but JC winning looks extremely unlikely

As mentioned by others,  the money our ruling classes plundered  from the Empire was  burned  by  fighting the Germans in two Wars

ToneControl

Snap said:

What some people are failing to realise is that the opinion of the party membership is not representative of the public. Particularly when, in Labour's case, the influx of members appears to be a modern day outlet for ever present far left beliefs, that have always been there in Labour's membership (militant tendency et al).

The massive, massive majority of voters in general elections are not party members as most people just aren't even vaguely interested enough in politics to be arsed to join a party.

This is where Corbyn is going wrong in my opinion: he rightly holds onto his claim to have been democratically elected. Thing is, in the wider perspective that claim is immaterial if the body that elected you isn't representative of your voters. What you end up with is a self satisfied club that becomes increasingly out of touch with the people who could put you in government.

IMO a better process is that the leaders of a party are voted in by the MPs of that party. The MPs are the people the public chose to represent them so should be responsible for forming the leadership of the party they choose to support.

yes, it would avoid the current problem, and follows the same model of democracy  as  parliament itself

you could also weight the vote of each MP (and unelected  candidate) with the number of votes they received in the last parliamentary election

paulads

Yes, guesswork.

"Obviously we cannot 100% predict the future"

And i wasnt suggesting that we'd simply amassed a large pot of money that was being gradually frittered away...

Fretwired

ToneControl said:

guesswork?
How many polls do you need to see?
Obviously we cannot 100% predict the future, but JC winning looks extremely unlikely

As mentioned by others,  the money our ruling classes plundered  from the Empire was  burned  by  fighting the Germans in two Wars

Corbyn could become PM. You would need the perfect storm:

The Scottish economy stalls and the SNP get the blame - Scots voters return to what they see as a true socialist Labour Party.

Theresa May decides that free movement is a price worth paying for tariff free access to the EU - the Tories start fighting each other. Farage comes out of retirement and UKIP surge losing the Tories votes.

China's banks collapse leading to another downturn - being forecast but we know how accurate these forecasters are.

Along comes the 2020 election. Many Tory voters stay at home; some switch to the Lib Dems. The left of centre parties hatch a plot to work together to keep the Tories out but not standing against each other in the key marginals. Labour wins seats in Scotland. Tories are wiped out.

The result could be a left wing coalition of Labour, Lib Dems, Greens etc with Corbyn as PM. Sounds ridiculous but the plot to keep out the Tories is already being planned. Corbyn has four years to rehabilitate himself. That's a long time in politics.

crunchman

Fretwired said:

Corbyn has four years to rehabilitate himself. That's a long time in politics.

I can't see him going four years without putting his foot in his mouth (repeatedly) though.

ICBM

hywelg said:

No it was the way they threw money at their support base, the public sector, that got us into the trouble we are now in. Gordon was always going to pay for stuff with the proceeds of growth, which never happened as he expected and then crunch.......oh shit. 

Labour has never ever been able to manage finances. Corbyn and MacDonald just keep saying 'I wouldn't do it like that' but then refuse to say how they will pay for their schemes. Its all well and good raising taxes to make you look like a good socialist, but when that reduces the actual tax take, thats just stupidity. I haven't heard one word from Labour about where they are going to save money,other than the same old same old, we'll invest (i.e borrow) and the economy will improve then we'll get more tax, bollocks.

Actually it was their continuation of the previous Tory policies of bank deregulation which caused the crash, and partly Brown's use of PFI to keep "official" borrowing within EU rules that caused the deficit which then made it unmanageable. He certainly did borrow too much, but PFI was a Tory wheeze which he expanded out of all proportion.

It's largely a myth that Labour can't managed the finances but the Tories can - in fact both have about equally poor records. Both parties have used borrowing to finance what they want to do and then subsequent inflation and devaluation to pay down the debt, that's the way Western capitalism works.

I have to admit I wouldn't trust McDonnell with the country's finances though - or trust him at all full stop. But would he be worse than Osborne? Hard to be sure - he and Corbyn are right that growth is necessary before the deficit can be cut. Austerity has clearly failed, as it was bound to. At least May knows that.

Fretwired

crunchman said:

Fretwired said:

Corbyn has four years to rehabilitate himself. That's a long time in politics.

I can't see him going four years without putting his foot in his mouth (repeatedly) though.

But oppositions don't win elections; governments lose them. Let's see how May gets on with Brexit.

Evilmags

It was central banking, manipulated interest rates and huge asset price distortions that caused the crash. Banks prior to Brown were self regulated. 

crunchman

Evilmags said:

It was central banking, manipulated interest rates and huge asset price distortions that caused the crash. Banks prior to Brown were self regulated. 

Much as I dislike Brown, putting the Bank of England in charge of interest rates was one of the good things Brown did.

No more buying elections by reducing interest rates too far like Lawson in 87 - thus causing house prices to rise too far and  the problems of the early 90s housing market.

Evilmags

crunchman said:

Evilmags said:

It was central banking, manipulated interest rates and huge asset price distortions that caused the crash. Banks prior to Brown were self regulated. 

Much as I dislike Brown, putting the Bank of England in charge of interest rates was one of the good things Brown did.

No more buying elections by reducing interest rates too far like Lawson in 87 - thus causing house prices to rise too far and  the problems of the early 90s housing market.

All they did was reduce Interest rates.  The central bank under King was far more political than under Eddie George. Moreover, why have one in the first place? 

crunchman

Evilmags said:

crunchman said:

Evilmags said:

It was central banking, manipulated interest rates and huge asset price distortions that caused the crash. Banks prior to Brown were self regulated. 

Much as I dislike Brown, putting the Bank of England in charge of interest rates was one of the good things Brown did.

No more buying elections by reducing interest rates too far like Lawson in 87 - thus causing house prices to rise too far and  the problems of the early 90s housing market.

All they did was reduce Interest rates.  The central bank under King was far more political than under Eddie George. Moreover, why have one in the first place? 

To stop the chancellor setting rates for political reasons.  It still goes on a bit but nowhere near as badly as it used to.

shaunm

Fretwired said:

paulads said:

I've heard it said that David Miliband will parachute into Jo Cox's former seat and soon thereafter become the new leader.

<sigh>

The bookies think it's going to be an ex-Coronation Street soap star - I jest not. David Miliband's missed the bus - he'd by murdered in his bed by Momentum. Kinnock will be leader and if we're out of the EU the first think he will do is rejoin. Kinnock has some Trade Union support.

EDIT

Shortlist of two - decision Friday.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/19/actor-tracy-brabin-frontrunner-win-jo-cox-batley-spen-jane-thomas

How strange to see a family member mentioned on this forum. 

Tracey, whilst being an actress has been a lifelong labour member and has been a involved heavily in charity and politics in that time. 

Im very proud that she has succeeded in becoming the Labour candidate. She is a local lass that's done well.