It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
I do still believe that our economy owes much of its continuing success to our historical global significance, rather than the brilliance of our recent leaders.
Labour MPS are afraid of wasting years in the wilderness again far more than they are of a Corbyn government.
The PLP seem to have decided that Corbyn could not win an election within nine months of him being democratically elected, despite the membership of the party more than doubling in that time.
He was given no time and no chance. A general election was likely to be four years away...there was plenty of time to boot him out and build again, if he failed to make progress.
otherwise it looks like they are replacing someone who they think can't get elected with someone who's even less likely to get elected.
why on earth would they do that?
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.
The UK was given substantial loans at good rates under the Marshall plan (more even than Germany), but unwisely didn't invest the money in industry, but used it to try to maintain the value of Sterling.
This proved futile, as the devaluation of 1949 proved.
Essentially we wasted the money.
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.
"The loan was made subject to conditions, the most damaging of which was the convertibility of sterling. Though not the intention, the effect of convertibility was to worsen British post-war economic problems. International sterling balances became convertible one year after the loan was ratified, on 15 July 1947. Within a month, nations with sterling balances (e.g. pounds which they had earned from buying British exports, and which they were now permitted to sell to Britain in exchange for dollars) had drawn almost a billion dollars from British dollar reserves, forcing the British government to suspend convertibility and to begin immediate drastic cuts in domestic and overseas expenditure. The rapid loss of dollar reserves also highlighted the weakness of sterling, which was duly devalued in 1949 from $4.02 to $2.80." (Wikipedia)
John Maynard Keynes tried to negotiate a better deal with the Americans but they wouldn't allow it - it was actually the US Congress which blocked it, if I remember rightly. Although in the long term the interest rate proved not as bad as it had in the first place.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Their opinions differ especially around things like immigration. Hence the large movement of votes from labour to UKIP. To get that votership back Labour would have to become more nationalist (national socialists??)
Corbyn's assumption, as that of his followers, is that the party membership as one fully back his leadership. The party membership in truth though contains a swathe of people who, like me, can't stand him and know that he's not in tune with the electorate. He won on nearly 60% last time around and, while he's nailed-on to win it again, it's expected to be by a reduced margin. The odious John McDonnell's been trumpeting this as being down to a 'purge' of party members, but really I think he's just indulging in a bit of 'expectation management'.
Say he (Corbyn) wins on 55% - this means 45% of the party membership (who voted) are at least ambivalent, and at worst actively dislike the guy and want him gone. The way he and his clan carry on, you'd think the entire body of the membership was there solely for him and to worship at his altar, but the truth is a bit more nuanced.
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.
Then, hopefully, we can get back to some kind of normality.
My problem is that I couldn't stomach going back to New Labour - it was they, their lack of principles and their distorted Tory policies which got the country in the mess it is now… even ignoring Iraq. Deregulation of the banks, further privatisation and the con trick of PFI are the main culprits. I'd honestly rather sit out the next election than have the kind of crowing that will occur if they get rid of Corbyn, even if they were then to win - which they won't. Miliband was a better leader than any of the current options and he was still a failure… not because he was too left-wing - because he offered nothing that the Tories didn't but without the same confidence.
I've swung back and forth on this I know, but right now, unless they can find a *convincing* leader who can reunite the party without going back to New Labour then I'd rather see Corbyn fight the election and lose than pick someone else and lose anyway.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
<sigh>
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.
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.
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.