If Corbyn and McDonnell ever make it to nos 10 and 11 it will mean the combined IQ of the two men occupying those two addresses will be the lowest ever by a significant margin. That is one of my main concerns about the Labour Party at the moment; its entire shadow cabinet, apart from one or two exceptions, is populated by lightweights and second rate intellects.
As a response to you and @PragueAddick may I make a few points For those wondering about the IQ of the shadow front bench surely the point is that their job is to sell the message and govern the Party, not to formulate policy. I've only heard of a handful including Starmer and the main four offices. With the advantage of the web it might help to look under the bonnet at the thinkers and the think tanks. This to discover where the policy ideas are actually coming from. Take a peak at the IPPR website as well as the works of Mazzucato and various thought leaders at the LSE. There was a major week long event at LSE on Beveridge 2.0 and something different today in Southampton featuring both John McDonnell and the chair of the tax justice network. There is much thinking going into policy for the world in 2025 is going to be a very different place.
We are in a two party system - the question is what the Mk 2 version of the Labour manifesto will say and can they deliver. Corbyn simply convenes the party - he is the front man who goes on stage at Glastonbury! It is McDonnell and others who shape policy. The Tories will be led by May until they fall over - they are in decline in terms of ideas, presentation and membership. We've seen May speaking and during an election - she is wooden because she has no drive or bigger vision - whoever replaces her might split the party. It is a two party system and what will change the result is how many supporters of the main two will turn out to vote in the key marginals. And that may be a function of the ideas, finance, the web presentation as well as the front bench. And of course Brexit.
As for the question from @PragueAddick about talent, one has to understand the war going on within Labour up until the electoral success in 2017. Others have mentioned no confidence motions from the PLP and the likes of Blair and Campbell still trying to steer the agenda. There is personal loathing going back decades, and there was the decimation of Labour membership after the Iraq war. During that time of conflict, heavy hitters such as Khan and Burnham moved out of Parliament and into positions as Mayor. Keir Starmer has shown that talent will rise and writers such as Owen Jones suggest that Labour are looking for two terms. Thus incompetence will not be tolerated and now that Labour is on a winning trajectory, perhaps more will lend their weight to the effort and to lobbying on policy matters. Even the FT is starting to treat Labour seriously in part because they are so exasperated by the Government!
We have the most right wing govenment in living memory and real wages in the UK have declined since 2010 at the fastest rate in Europe - bar Greece! It doesn't matter what patterns and distributions people use to support this as a natural development, it is destabilising and is what has led to the current situation. We have the seventh biggest economy in the world and yet rising inequality and whole areas condemned to no progress.
And for those who hold a grudge against Corbyn vis a vis the 2016 referendum - if Remain had won we would still have Cameron and Osborne in charge. Corbyn and McDonnell refused to share a platform with Cameron and Osborne - they chose to differentiate themselves. History will judge whether that was the right decision. What we have today is the likes of Heseltine and the CBI speaking up for Labour as the party of business.
The post Theresa May speech interview with Corbyn on the BBC is very unconvincing.
Doubtless I shall upset a few comrades-in-arms on here, but I will reiterate my view that Corbyn is not some "authentic" "new" face but an old school, hard left apparatcik who is only interested in "abroad" if the "abroad" in question is governed by proper soshulists.
At this time, the UK expects much more competence from HM Opposition.
Agree. John Major said that Labour really ought to be 10-15 points ahead in the polls, and that they are not, he put down to Corbyn.
A somewhat provocative pair of interventions, comrade! A fair challenge that warrants a response:
As per this article from Owen Jones last November, there are reasons why Labour is where it is. Firstly, a year ago the Lib Dems and Labour had a combined polling of less than 40% whereas the Tories plus UKIP had been polling at a combined 55% for at least a year.
The 2017 election changed everything and today the centre left is close to 50% whilst the Tories scrape 40% and Ukip is gone. Whilst Owen Jones does touch upon is demographics he neglects to mention the number of 17 year olds coming onto the electoral roll every year and those departing to vote in the big ballot box in the sky! That might be 750,000 17 year-olds with perhaps 600,000 dying each year?
Of course some will wish to challenge Corbyn but his record is currently: A) A brand new social democratic manifesto which won 40% of the vote and an additional 30 seats Building the largest Social Democratic Party in Europe with 570,000 members C) Challenging the direction of Brexit without challenging the democratic referendum of 2016
Of course some want Labour to adopt a full on remain position and fight the referendum result. That was the position of the Lib Dems at the last election - 8% in the polls then and 8% today suggests that this is not a winning strategy! Some are crying out for a new party - a Macron style saviour. Unfortunately for them, the UK has already had Blair with his third way and has little appetite for an SDP Mk2, as per this piece from the independent.
But here's the thing: none of this changes the Parliamentary arithmetic today. The UK has just 56 weeks left in the EU. Perhaps only half that time is available to make meaningful interventions which could affect the outcome? One can understand the desire of Liberal elite types to make a stand as they seek to carve out a niche to coincide with the possible collapse of this government. The reality is that the future is in the hands of the Tory remainers - people like Ken Clarke and John Major.
So rather than blame shifting they have to calculate whether they can get May to shift to a sensible position or they pull the plug on the government by crossing the floor - it really is that simple. The article by linked above talks to how Labour might improve poll ratings but that won't change what happens this year. So perhaps now is the time to unite so as to ensure that the Alt-Right either make a power play and/or Tory remainers leave the government and their party. Or Parliament takes back control re. amendments around the Customs Union and Brexit.
Unless one of these three options above occurs over the next nine months, then we are headed for a hard Brexit which many of us find quite disturbing. As far as 2018 is concerned, all the rest is noise!
I have no faith in enough Tory rebels crossing the floor or voting against the whip whatsoever.
I know a Tory MP.
Before they were elected they were pro-EU. I know this because we'd discussed the issue more generally and then the upcoming referendum specifically. They were of the opinion Leaving would be an economic disaster and tie up government for years to come for no/minimal benefit whatsoever. However, they completely bottled making their position known more widely in their constituency let alone campaigning for Remain. They've since moved to a position calling for the hardest possible Brexit.
This is not because they've had a moment of clarity and now believe the opposite to their previous position, of that I'm 100% certain. It's purely because not to pursue this course would create trouble (and possible deselection) within their constituency. Some would argue it's representing the wishes of their electorate but I think it's an act of staggering hypocrisy and self interest.
The chances of this MP flip flopping back to their previous position and rebelling or crossing the floor are remote to say the least and I doubt they are alone in putting the interests of the party or themselves before the country.
Just taken my weekly look at Alastair Campbell's blog and, by coincidence, his latest blog mentions some of the points I make about how important it is for political leaders to be able to articulate complex arguments.
Like the brainboxes of the last eight years have done well by this country. You know an Oxbridge degree doesn't automatically confer wisdom or morality? I am living proof of that
I look at someone like Boris Johnson, and I ask how can someone who went to Eton, be so thick? It doesn’t add up to me. I get that he plays up to his media image, but apart from being politically clever, strip back all the ruffling of his hair and the privileged upbringing he has had, and you have to say, he’s a bit simple. Someone like JRM is very intelligent, but he’s just a twat.
The problem I have with people of that ilk being in office (and I am classist about it), is that they simply aren’t representative of the people. Some super intelligent minds in general, but how on earth can they have their finger on the pulse of the common people.
If Corbyn and McDonnell ever make it to nos 10 and 11 it will mean the combined IQ of the two men occupying those two addresses will be the lowest ever by a significant margin. That is one of my main concerns about the Labour Party at the moment; its entire shadow cabinet, apart from one or two exceptions, is populated by lightweights and second rate intellects.
As a response to you and @PragueAddick may I make a few points For those wondering about the IQ of the shadow front bench surely the point is that their job is to sell the message and govern the Party, not to formulate policy. I've only heard of a handful including Starmer and the main four offices. With the advantage of the web it might help to look under the bonnet at the thinkers and the think tanks. This to discover where the policy ideas are actually coming from. Take a peak at the IPPR website as well as the works of Mazzucato and various thought leaders at the LSE. There was a major week long event at LSE on Beveridge 2.0 and something different today in Southampton featuring both John McDonnell and the chair of the tax justice network. There is much thinking going into policy for the world in 2025 is going to be a very different place.
We are in a two party system - the question is what the Mk 2 version of the Labour manifesto will say and can they deliver. Corbyn simply convenes the party - he is the front man who goes on stage at Glastonbury! It is McDonnell and others who shape policy. The Tories will be led by May until they fall over - they are in decline in terms of ideas, presentation and membership. We've seen May speaking and during an election - she is wooden because she has no drive or bigger vision - whoever replaces her might split the party. It is a two party system and what will change the result is how many supporters of the main two will turn out to vote in the key marginals. And that may be a function of the ideas, finance, the web presentation as well as the front bench. And of course Brexit.
As for the question from @PragueAddick about talent, one has to understand the war going on within Labour up until the electoral success in 2017. Others have mentioned no confidence motions from the PLP and the likes of Blair and Campbell still trying to steer the agenda. There is personal loathing going back decades, and there was the decimation of Labour membership after the Iraq war. During that time of conflict, heavy hitters such as Khan and Burnham moved out of Parliament and into positions as Mayor. Keir Starmer has shown that talent will rise and writers such as Owen Jones suggest that Labour are looking for two terms. Thus incompetence will not be tolerated and now that Labour is on a winning trajectory, perhaps more will lend their weight to the effort and to lobbying on policy matters. Even the FT is starting to treat Labour seriously in part because they are so exasperated by the Government!
We have the most right wing govenment in living memory and real wages in the UK have declined since 2010 at the fastest rate in Europe - bar Greece! It doesn't matter what patterns and distributions people use to support this as a natural development, it is destabilising and is what has led to the current situation. We have the seventh biggest economy in the world and yet rising inequality and whole areas condemned to no progress.
And for those who hold a grudge against Corbyn vis a vis the 2016 referendum - if Remain had won we would still have Cameron and Osborne in charge. Corbyn and McDonnell refused to share a platform with Cameron and Osborne - they chose to differentiate themselves. History will judge whether that was the right decision. What we have today is the likes of Heseltine and the CBI speaking up for Labour as the party of business.
Being well educated doesn't stop you (Boris) from being a twat. It just makes you (him) a twat that's passed through a privileged part of the education system.
Corbyn's problem during the referendum was that he was not a fan of the EU. On balance he decided we were better off in it - but with all the ridiculous assertions from both sides, his honest approach might not have been seen to be the best. indeed if he made a speech with pros and cons, people would be blaming him even more for the referendum defeat. The more you think about it, it was a ridiculous referendum to have and those that played little part in it probably were the most noble. The ones that did tried to out fib each other! If you wanted Corbyn to support remain with vigour and lie to himself and his beliefs, you really don't undertsand the man and why he is a bit different from your average politician - although you will still get some saying they are all the same!
@seriously_red I don't mind conceding that my personal objection to Corbyn is visceral and goes back to student days. And I am puzzled and certainly disappointed that the Lib Dems are not recovering more quickly. But having reached 40% in the election, really they should be kicking on from there by now, don't you think? It's not just Corbyn. It's his whole cabinet. Look at it and then consider some of the heavy hitters that are not in it. Have you ever heard Richard Burgon speak? I have heard more coherent and incisive speakers from Greenwich Council. And he's supposedly going to be our Justice Minister, FFS. Whatever we may think of it now, with a shedload of hindsight, Blair put together a team that spanned the traditional Labour ground, and the winnable centre. The only one of Corbyn's team whom I think would have made it into the Blair team is Thornberry. The rest are lightweights. Blair had Brown, Prescott, Darling, Milburn, Blunkett, Beckett, and the incomparable Robin Cook. The media focus on Corbyn and McDonnell, and have failed to notice how crap the rest of the front bench is.
This is the problem that I have too. A cult has grown up around Corbyn that is fuelled by the hijacking of the Labour Party by his acolytes in Momentum. It’s sidelined and marginalised the Labour politicians that look like they could give the Tories a good run for their money. The front bench looks woeful. Diane Abbott gets an unfair amount of criticism but the reality is that the prospect of her becoming the Home Secretary frightens the hell out of me and I’m a traditional labour voter. It will stop a lot of people taking the plunge and voting Labour. In order to win the election Labour need to persuade a lot of Tory voters to switch. What’s on offer from Labour despite a decent manifesto won’t win an election. I really believe that practically any other labour leader would be miles ahead in the polls. Labour are doing ok despite Corbyn not because of him. The stranglehold that he now has on the party is in my opinion preventing there being an electable alternative to the moribund dross we currently have. That’s unforgivable.
I will vote Labour because I think Clive Efford is an honest hard working constituency MP. I still feel disenfranchised.
Totally agree with all apart from the last sentence. Not because I have any dislike for Clive Efford but living here in rural Norfolk I have no knowledge of the man. Country folk around here have voted Tory for ever. When I first came to Norfolk in the early 1970's the old boys who had worked on the land related stories of the land owning farmers who kept them working on polling days until the polling stations had closed and bribed others to vote Tory.
If Corbyn and McDonnell ever make it to nos 10 and 11 it will mean the combined IQ of the two men occupying those two addresses will be the lowest ever by a significant margin. That is one of my main concerns about the Labour Party at the moment; its entire shadow cabinet, apart from one or two exceptions, is populated by lightweights and second rate intellects.
As a response to you and @PragueAddick may I make a few points For those wondering about the IQ of the shadow front bench surely the point is that their job is to sell the message and govern the Party, not to formulate policy. I've only heard of a handful including Starmer and the main four offices. With the advantage of the web it might help to look under the bonnet at the thinkers and the think tanks. This to discover where the policy ideas are actually coming from. Take a peak at the IPPR website as well as the works of Mazzucato and various thought leaders at the LSE. There was a major week long event at LSE on Beveridge 2.0 and something different today in Southampton featuring both John McDonnell and the chair of the tax justice network.
And for those who hold a grudge against Corbyn vis a vis the 2016 referendum - if Remain had won we would still have Cameron and Osborne in charge. Corbyn and McDonnell refused to share a platform with Cameron and Osborne - they chose to differentiate themselves. History will judge whether that was the right decision. What we have today is the likes of Heseltine and the CBI speaking up for Labour as the party of business.
If the unions had not imposed Ed Miliband on the Labour Party in preference to his brother the Tories would not have won the last two elections, there would have been no referendum and no Brexit and the country and everyone in it would be in a much better place.
Possibly the point is that the individuals leading Labour are poor, but the Tory alternative is nauseous. The attempted direction of travel by Labour is decent, but for the Tories it is a self serving mould growing across society. Of the two parties the Tories score a 3 out of 10, Labour a 5.5.
We are led to believe they are poor but Labour have had a complete shake up of leadership, some will fall by the wayside pretty quickly if elected to government. The 'natural' successors to Blair/Brown basically shot themselves in the foot with their opposition to Corbyn in the first 18 months, should he just forgive them all?
It has taken me a long time to warm to Corbyn but in the early years what pissed me off the most was the behaviour of most of the PLP which enabled the Tories to make all the running around the EU referendum. After two leadership challenges, mass resignations, votes of no confidence and Mandelson (also in Blair's cabinet!) saying that he sought to discredit Corbyn every day, was it any surprise that Corbyn's referendum campaign was lacklustre?
Not often we disagree but Corbyn was awol during the referendum and I cannot forgive him for that either. Regardless of the PLP he was leader but was too petty and arrogant to share a platform with remain politicians.
Those PLP members who wanted Corbyn out did so because they could see that the man is electorally a liability. I genuinely believe that if Umunna, Thornberry or Cooper were leaders now that Labour would be 15 points or more ahead of the Tories.
The conservatives are in disarray and it’s touch and go whether Labour are ahead in the polls.
I actually see both sides of the argument (can't have us disagreeing!) and both sides of the argument need to be explored. Perhaps he was awol because he had been campaigning for 18 months solid, that can't be dismissed even though I was disappointed by his 'effort' and remain wanting more from his/Labour's current Brexit stance
I was against Corbyn for months but then Labour pulled off a decent manifesto, one that Umunna (who didn't even stand) or Cooper probably wouldn't have. I like Thornberry but would she have had a chance under a 'New' Labour leader? It is entirely hypothetical to state how much in the lead Labour would be under any other leader, we could equally be behind by xxx in the polls under any other leader. We also should remember that John Major for all his decent bloke shtick is a Tory to his core, he is hardly going to say "and you should all vote Labour to stop a hard Brexit" he has to criticise Labour to make his speech appear less anti Tory. Also where do these additional points come from? When has a party in modern political history been polling at 50% plus apart from Theresa May just before she called an election.
Possibly the point is that the individuals leading Labour are poor, but the Tory alternative is nauseous. The attempted direction of travel by Labour is decent, but for the Tories it is a self serving mould growing across society. Of the two parties the Tories score a 3 out of 10, Labour a 5.5.
We are led to believe they are poor but Labour have had a complete shake up of leadership, some will fall by the wayside pretty quickly if elected to government. The 'natural' successors to Blair/Brown basically shot themselves in the foot with their opposition to Corbyn in the first 18 months, should he just forgive them all?
It has taken me a long time to warm to Corbyn but in the early years what pissed me off the most was the behaviour of most of the PLP which enabled the Tories to make all the running around the EU referendum. After two leadership challenges, mass resignations, votes of no confidence and Mandelson (also in Blair's cabinet!) saying that he sought to discredit Corbyn every day, was it any surprise that Corbyn's referendum campaign was lacklustre?
Not often we disagree but Corbyn was awol during the referendum and I cannot forgive him for that either. Regardless of the PLP he was leader but was too petty and arrogant to share a platform with remain politicians.
Those PLP members who wanted Corbyn out did so because they could see that the man is electorally a liability. I genuinely believe that if Umunna, Thornberry or Cooper were leaders now that Labour would be 15 points or more ahead of the Tories.
The conservatives are in disarray and it’s touch and go whether Labour are ahead in the polls.
I actually see both sides of the argument (can't have us disagreeing!) and both sides of the argument need to be explored. Perhaps he was awol because he had been campaigning for 18 months solid, that can't be dismissed even though I was disappointed by his 'effort' and remain wanting more from his/Labour's current Brexit stance
I was against Corbyn for months but then Labour pulled off a decent manifesto, one that Umunna (who didn't even stand) or Cooper probably wouldn't have. I like Thornberry but would she have had a chance under a 'New' Labour leader? It is entirely hypothetical to state how much in the lead Labour would be under any other leader, we could equally be behind by xxx in the polls under any other leader. We also should remember that John Major for all his decent bloke shtick is a Tory to his core, he is hardly going to say "and you should all vote Labour to stop a hard Brexit" he has to criticise Labour to make his speech appear less anti Tory. Also where do these additional points come from? When has a party in modern political history been polling at 50% plus apart from Theresa May just before she called an election.
I’m not sure that Corbyn having been on the campaign trail for 18 months prior to the referendum hustings can be used as an excuse. Brexit is the single biggest issue that has faced this country since WW2. Corbyns lack of engagement was I believe nothing less than shameful. Even without the arrogance of not wishing to share a platform with other leaders in favour of remaining, his leadership was pitiful. Now a cynic might say he wanted a leave vote but was to cowardly to campaign openly for it. I certainly havn’t dismissed that possibility.
It is of course hypothetical that another labour leader would be doing better in the polls but let’s look at what we can conclude from the evidence available. The current government have been pilloried from all quarters for their shambolic Brexit negotiations and lack of clarity. Even the rabid leaver politicians now are saying that we are going to be poorer post Brexit. The governing party is split from top to bottom and the leader has been wobbling now since last September. She can’t control her cabinet and is politically only still there because the 1922 committee want her to take as much blame as can be absorbed before ditching her in a last gasp effort to win another term when the time comes. The government has seen three (?) notable ministers including the deputy PM leave office under a cloud of sleaze or disrespect of ministerial code. The economy is doing badly when judged against other comparable economies in the eu. Wages have stagnated for literally years and the NHS is widely accepted as being on its knees.
Frankly if Corbyn can’t get his nose 15 percentage points in front under those circumstances then he deserves the skepticism levelled at his leadership. Doesn’t he ?
It is possible but irrelevant whether Labour would have a greater lead. We don't need another neo Liberal in charge of the Labour party and things are changing. It is amazing how people forget how close Corbyn was to being Prime Minsiter after the last election. He doesn't have to win that many more votes to be Prime Minister. I'd rather he scrapes over the line than we get foistered with a same old same old establishment figure. As Bob Dylan once sang - Times they are a changing.
Like the brainboxes of the last eight years have done well by this country. You know an Oxbridge degree doesn't automatically confer wisdom or morality? I am living proof of that
No, you know the viscosity of the jam... But don't know how to open the jar.... Better to take work experience, and the proper way, do it for your family and to keep the roof over your head as i did. Takes years but itr pays in the end.
You made a number of pertinent points above, which deserve serious consideration, but I am conscious that there is a separate thread to discuss Labour more generally. So I'll confine myself to this one:
nd for those who hold a grudge against Corbyn vis a vis the 2016 referendum - if Remain had won we would still have Cameron and Osborne in charge. Corbyn and McDonnell refused to share a platform with Cameron and Osborne - they chose to differentiate themselves. History will judge whether that was the right decision. What we have today is the likes of Heseltine and the CBI speaking up for Labour as the party of business.
Yep, that is a pretty arresting point in bold. Had to think about that. Well, in the end we can look at that two ways when evaluating Corbyn, and neither of them seem good to me. First says that Corbyn knew Remain was better for the country, but would not quickly see him in No. 10. So he decided to sit on the fence. Cynical isn't it, if you believe that this was the most important political issue of a generation. Second says that Corbyn doesn't believe in the EU anyway, even if the majority in his party do. This seems to me the more likely scenario, and in that case, the question remains, why should centre-left pro Europeans vote Labour, this Labour?
I think when the CBI "speak up for Labour" as the party of business, they really mean Keir Starmer...
Much coverage of the Italian election in the UK? Big news here and I am following it with interest. From what I can see there isn't really an anti-EU element from any of the leading parties but immigration is certainly on the agenda and a right wing coalition looks likely.
People occasionally post in here predicting the demise of the EU without really giving any detail of how this might come about, and it seems that Italy is much like Spain in that it has many problems and people aren't happy but the idea of blaming this all on the EU doesn't really have much traction for politicians. Be interesting to see what happens in the Italian elections and in people's thoughts about it here, but again it is hardly going to signal the imminent collapse of the EU as was predicted also with the recent French and Dutch elections.
Hi mate, I think you will enjoy this article. Not sure if the author is an Italian national but he has a good swipe at the international media misconceptions. He also has valid criticisms of "the EU" turning a blind eye to the corruption and Mafia domination. To which I would say that the rest of Europe has been turning a blind eye to all that since around 1965.
Politically, I wish Italy would just disappear, but it has given the world so many beautiful things...
Much coverage of the Italian election in the UK? Big news here and I am following it with interest. From what I can see there isn't really an anti-EU element from any of the leading parties but immigration is certainly on the agenda and a right wing coalition looks likely.
People occasionally post in here predicting the demise of the EU without really giving any detail of how this might come about, and it seems that Italy is much like Spain in that it has many problems and people aren't happy but the idea of blaming this all on the EU doesn't really have much traction for politicians. Be interesting to see what happens in the Italian elections and in people's thoughts about it here, but again it is hardly going to signal the imminent collapse of the EU as was predicted also with the recent French and Dutch elections.
Hi mate, I think you will enjoy this article. Not sure if the author is an Italian national but he has a good swipe at the international media misconceptions. He also has valid criticisms of "the EU" turning a blind eye to the corruption and Mafia domination. To which I would say that the rest of Europe has been turning a blind eye to all that since around 1965.
Politically, I wish Italy would just disappear, but it has given the world so many beautiful things...
Much coverage of the Italian election in the UK? Big news here and I am following it with interest. From what I can see there isn't really an anti-EU element from any of the leading parties but immigration is certainly on the agenda and a right wing coalition looks likely.
People occasionally post in here predicting the demise of the EU without really giving any detail of how this might come about, and it seems that Italy is much like Spain in that it has many problems and people aren't happy but the idea of blaming this all on the EU doesn't really have much traction for politicians. Be interesting to see what happens in the Italian elections and in people's thoughts about it here, but again it is hardly going to signal the imminent collapse of the EU as was predicted also with the recent French and Dutch elections.
Hi mate, I think you will enjoy this article. Not sure if the author is an Italian national but he has a good swipe at the international media misconceptions. He also has valid criticisms of "the EU" turning a blind eye to the corruption and Mafia domination. To which I would say that the rest of Europe has been turning a blind eye to all that since around 1965.
Politically, I wish Italy would just disappear, but it has given the world so many beautiful things...
Yes, well the second foto illustrates my point perfectly.
Possibly the point is that the individuals leading Labour are poor, but the Tory alternative is nauseous. The attempted direction of travel by Labour is decent, but for the Tories it is a self serving mould growing across society. Of the two parties the Tories score a 3 out of 10, Labour a 5.5.
We are led to believe they are poor but Labour have had a complete shake up of leadership, some will fall by the wayside pretty quickly if elected to government. The 'natural' successors to Blair/Brown basically shot themselves in the foot with their opposition to Corbyn in the first 18 months, should he just forgive them all?
It has taken me a long time to warm to Corbyn but in the early years what pissed me off the most was the behaviour of most of the PLP which enabled the Tories to make all the running around the EU referendum. After two leadership challenges, mass resignations, votes of no confidence and Mandelson (also in Blair's cabinet!) saying that he sought to discredit Corbyn every day, was it any surprise that Corbyn's referendum campaign was lacklustre?
Not often we disagree but Corbyn was awol during the referendum and I cannot forgive him for that either. Regardless of the PLP he was leader but was too petty and arrogant to share a platform with remain politicians.
Those PLP members who wanted Corbyn out did so because they could see that the man is electorally a liability. I genuinely believe that if Umunna, Thornberry or Cooper were leaders now that Labour would be 15 points or more ahead of the Tories.
The conservatives are in disarray and it’s touch and go whether Labour are ahead in the polls.
I actually see both sides of the argument (can't have us disagreeing!) and both sides of the argument need to be explored. Perhaps he was awol because he had been campaigning for 18 months solid, that can't be dismissed even though I was disappointed by his 'effort' and remain wanting more from his/Labour's current Brexit stance
I was against Corbyn for months but then Labour pulled off a decent manifesto, one that Umunna (who didn't even stand) or Cooper probably wouldn't have. I like Thornberry but would she have had a chance under a 'New' Labour leader? It is entirely hypothetical to state how much in the lead Labour would be under any other leader, we could equally be behind by xxx in the polls under any other leader. We also should remember that John Major for all his decent bloke shtick is a Tory to his core, he is hardly going to say "and you should all vote Labour to stop a hard Brexit" he has to criticise Labour to make his speech appear less anti Tory. Also where do these additional points come from? When has a party in modern political history been polling at 50% plus apart from Theresa May just before she called an election.
I’m not sure that Corbyn having been on the campaign trail for 18 months prior to the referendum hustings can be used as an excuse. Brexit is the single biggest issue that has faced this country since WW2. Corbyns lack of engagement was I believe nothing less than shameful. Even without the arrogance of not wishing to share a platform with other leaders in favour of remaining, his leadership was pitiful. Now a cynic might say he wanted a leave vote but was to cowardly to campaign openly for it. I certainly havn’t dismissed that possibility.
It is of course hypothetical that another labour leader would be doing better in the polls but let’s look at what we can conclude from the evidence available. The current government have been pilloried from all quarters for their shambolic Brexit negotiations and lack of clarity. Even the rabid leaver politicians now are saying that we are going to be poorer post Brexit. The governing party is split from top to bottom and the leader has been wobbling now since last September. She can’t control her cabinet and is politically only still there because the 1922 committee want her to take as much blame as can be absorbed before ditching her in a last gasp effort to win another term when the time comes. The government has seen three (?) notable ministers including the deputy PM leave office under a cloud of sleaze or disrespect of ministerial code. The economy is doing badly when judged against other comparable economies in the eu. Wages have stagnated for literally years and the NHS is widely accepted as being on its knees.
Frankly if Corbyn can’t get his nose 15 percentage points in front under those circumstances then he deserves the skepticism levelled at his leadership. Doesn’t he ?
Again, there is nothing in your post that I particularly disagree with but I think you need to be open to cause and affect (for want of a better term). The Labour infighting clearly weakened him and had him on the defensive, rather like May is now, a more confident leader may have opened up more instead he just kept his head down. Not good enough? Probably but there is a context and yes he has been against the EU for most of his life, but has been honest about that.
As for the sleaze and incompetence of this government, well we have seen it all before under Thatcher and we still had seven years of John Major who won a convincing majority in 1992, before the country voted the Tories out. And all of this is without the one secure votes from Scotland that were lost by supposedly more competent leaders.
If you want the Tories out, which I desperately do, and not have it replaced by a New Labour type government then I believe that Corbyn has earned the benefit of the doubt for now.
You made a number of pertinent points above, which deserve serious consideration, but I am conscious that there is a separate thread to discuss Labour more generally. So I'll confine myself to this one:
nd for those who hold a grudge against Corbyn vis a vis the 2016 referendum - if Remain had won we would still have Cameron and Osborne in charge. Corbyn and McDonnell refused to share a platform with Cameron and Osborne - they chose to differentiate themselves. History will judge whether that was the right decision. What we have today is the likes of Heseltine and the CBI speaking up for Labour as the party of business.
Yep, that is a pretty arresting point in bold. Had to think about that. Well, in the end we can look at that two ways when evaluating Corbyn, and neither of them seem good to me. First says that Corbyn knew Remain was better for the country, but would not quickly see him in No. 10. So he decided to sit on the fence. Cynical isn't it, if you believe that this was the most important political issue of a generation. Second says that Corbyn doesn't believe in the EU anyway, even if the majority in his party do. This seems to me the more likely scenario, and in that case, the question remains, why should centre-left pro Europeans vote Labour, this Labour?
I think when the CBI "speak up for Labour" as the party of business, they really mean Keir Starmer...
I'm not sure they would accept the way you frame this as a binary question. There is another way...
First let us park your previous objections to the term neoliberalism and examine what it means a la wiki: austerity, privatisation, deregulation, free trade. And reductions in the role and expenditure of government to increase the role of the private sector.
second, the Lib Dems were smashed on the rocks because they put Cameron in for five years of austerity, corporation tax cuts and paying for bank failures. And £9K tuition fees! We have all seen the effects of austerity and the double dip recession in a mad drive to cut government expenditure whilst simultaneously bailing out banks.
the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 was turned into a victory for Cameron the very next day, not the Union and not Labour and the Lib Dems. That was a time when English nationalism started building - please reference articles by Fintan O'Toole or track the UKIP polls.
There was an assumption at that time that Remain would win. Not just Corbyn but Cameron who set the whole thing up. And of course Johnson who made a calculated choice to support leave. Let us not seek to use hindsight or blame to retrofit some innapropriate explanation or question around the events of 2016.
Look! We all see a vague overview of the bigger picture and Brexit is but a small part of the puzzle. It is also the potential pivot towards a Trump Alt-right world. Read Choemsky and others to find out why Hilary Clinton failed - what's your view on Sanders? And with your understanding of Putin plus observations of the Alt Right, take a view and interest in the political philosophy of our age - it's fascinating!
At the same time the situation has also galvanised the left and the youth such that they are now participating. The UK is bucking the European trend on the centre left for several reasons - this for other threads and for Sunday's votes.
So here's the thing: why should the likes of Corbyn, McDonnell and Varoufakis repeat the mistake of the Lib Dems by standing on a neoliberal platform with Cameron and Osborne?! There really is no win!
Some have a view that Brexit is the most important issue of the day. But it might rank tenth in a list of ten key issues for the next ten years. The country has voted to leave the EU but not the CU/SM. Labour is now pro CU - we will all see how that plays in the polls.
Labour are looking at that bigger agenda and by accident or design they have managed to turn this into a two horse race. One which they are now probably favourites to win due to the 16 & 17 year olds queuing up to register to vote. And they have a lead with ABC1 voters too.
They happen to want to return trains and utilities to the public sector to eliminate waste and control prices. So read their manifesto from last June and then take a view. Far better than looking at one advisory vote at a point in time nearly two years ago. It looks like Labour will support a Norway policy as soon as they can define a path to get there. But they will not trash the work to date on every other issue.
It's your call obviously but the choice today looks like a Norway style deal or simply no deal. Read up on Mazzucato and the tax justice network and one might gain insight into where Labour really wants to go. That's all I can say as I'm not ITK and simply click and read just as anybody else can.
What we can do is speculate that there is no Macron coming to the rescue. Thus people are faced with a binary choice: Blue or Red !
Been watching the Irish deputy leader and Foreign Minister Simon Coveney on Marr and found myself comparing him with Boris Johnson. Johnson the product of Eton and Oxford, the 'go whistle cake and eat it' man thrown up by a country of seventy million people, measured against an Irish politician thrown up by a country with just over half the population of London. Coveney, straightforward articulate clear and serious, measured against a UK politician who only this week suggested a congestion charge solution to the border. There has been recent discussion here about the quality of politicians and Coveney pisses all over Johnson, even Danny Mills or Joey Essex would probably piss all over Johnson. Do you brexiters, or Tories really support Johnson? The Republic is much less class ridden than the UK, by no means a perfect country, but a meritocracy that allows a person like Coveney to rise to major office, whereas Johnson is the result of privilege, nepotism, and the old boys network. Dear god the UK is leaving the EU and the influence of people like Coveney to be wrapped in the arms of people like John Redwood.
I suppose that where we differ is on whether Corbyn and co. are playing a smart, united game of politics to get us seamlessly to a Norway type soft-soft Brexit (which I think you are suggesting), or whether you see them as riven by conflict just as the Tories are, and with the hard-left sniffy about Europe types in charge, which is more my position.
The reason I tend to that is what i do understand about their background programme. I won't pretend I have read the whole thing, but two of my favourite topics are tax and railways (insert Charlton joke here). On railways their bland claim that they will re-nationalise them are simply not credible. Furthermore, their claim that EU membership is what stops them - because it would be judged to be State Aid - is either schoolboy ignorance or wilfully misleading. The main operators of the railways in every major EU country bar ours remains State owned.
Re tax, I am a fan of Richard Murphy, the TJN guy, and have often quoted him on the tax thread, but I am not sure he has the authority and depth to write an entire government fiscal strategy. I think he is in that role because he tells the hard left element that their fantasies can be achieved.
So in summary, you might be right, Labour is playing a canny game. I fear you are not. As you often conclude by saying, we will see.
PS I thought you had used the term neo-liberal to describe people like me, who would consider themselves to be moderate and socially liberal, whereas the term originated to describe Dubya's mob. Whatever else, I don't think you could park me with that lot. Maybe I misunderstood you.
Comments
I know a Tory MP.
Before they were elected they were pro-EU. I know this because we'd discussed the issue more generally and then the upcoming referendum specifically. They were of the opinion Leaving would be an economic disaster and tie up government for years to come for no/minimal benefit whatsoever. However, they completely bottled making their position known more widely in their constituency let alone campaigning for Remain. They've since moved to a position calling for the hardest possible Brexit.
This is not because they've had a moment of clarity and now believe the opposite to their previous position, of that I'm 100% certain. It's purely because not to pursue this course would create trouble (and possible deselection) within their constituency. Some would argue it's representing the wishes of their electorate but I think it's an act of staggering hypocrisy and self interest.
The chances of this MP flip flopping back to their previous position and rebelling or crossing the floor are remote to say the least and I doubt they are alone in putting the interests of the party or themselves before the country.
https://alastaircampbell.org/2018/03/we-were-promised-big-speeches-by-may-and-her-team-it-took-john-major-to-deliver-one-everyone-should-see-it/
The problem I have with people of that ilk being in office (and I am classist about it), is that they simply aren’t representative of the people. Some super intelligent minds in general, but how on earth can they have their finger on the pulse of the common people.
Capital B followed by closed bracket means
Country folk around here have voted Tory for ever.
When I first came to Norfolk in the early 1970's the old boys who had worked on the land related stories of the land owning farmers who kept them working on polling days until the polling stations had closed and bribed others to vote Tory.
I was against Corbyn for months but then Labour pulled off a decent manifesto, one that Umunna (who didn't even stand) or Cooper probably wouldn't have. I like Thornberry but would she have had a chance under a 'New' Labour leader? It is entirely hypothetical to state how much in the lead Labour would be under any other leader, we could equally be behind by xxx in the polls under any other leader. We also should remember that John Major for all his decent bloke shtick is a Tory to his core, he is hardly going to say "and you should all vote Labour to stop a hard Brexit" he has to criticise Labour to make his speech appear less anti Tory. Also where do these additional points come from? When has a party in modern political history been polling at 50% plus apart from Theresa May just before she called an election.
It is of course hypothetical that another labour leader would be doing better in the polls but let’s look at what we can conclude from the evidence available. The current government have been pilloried from all quarters for their shambolic Brexit negotiations and lack of clarity. Even the rabid leaver politicians now are saying that we are going to be poorer post Brexit. The governing party is split from top to bottom and the leader has been wobbling now since last September. She can’t control her cabinet and is politically only still there because the 1922 committee want her to take as much blame as can be absorbed before ditching her in a last gasp effort to win another term when the time comes. The government has seen three (?) notable ministers including the deputy PM leave office under a cloud of sleaze or disrespect of ministerial code. The economy is doing badly when judged against other comparable economies in the eu. Wages have stagnated for literally years and the NHS is widely accepted as being on its knees.
Frankly if Corbyn can’t get his nose 15 percentage points in front under those circumstances then he deserves the skepticism levelled at his leadership. Doesn’t he ?
You made a number of pertinent points above, which deserve serious consideration, but I am conscious that there is a separate thread to discuss Labour more generally. So I'll confine myself to this one:
nd for those who hold a grudge against Corbyn vis a vis the 2016 referendum - if Remain had won we would still have Cameron and Osborne in charge. Corbyn and McDonnell refused to share a platform with Cameron and Osborne - they chose to differentiate themselves. History will judge whether that was the right decision. What we have today is the likes of Heseltine and the CBI speaking up for Labour as the party of business.
Yep, that is a pretty arresting point in bold. Had to think about that. Well, in the end we can look at that two ways when evaluating Corbyn, and neither of them seem good to me. First says that Corbyn knew Remain was better for the country, but would not quickly see him in No. 10. So he decided to sit on the fence. Cynical isn't it, if you believe that this was the most important political issue of a generation. Second says that Corbyn doesn't believe in the EU anyway, even if the majority in his party do. This seems to me the more likely scenario, and in that case, the question remains, why should centre-left pro Europeans vote Labour, this Labour?
I think when the CBI "speak up for Labour" as the party of business, they really mean Keir Starmer...
Politically, I wish Italy would just disappear, but it has given the world so many beautiful things...
As for the sleaze and incompetence of this government, well we have seen it all before under Thatcher and we still had seven years of John Major who won a convincing majority in 1992, before the country voted the Tories out. And all of this is without the one secure votes from Scotland that were lost by supposedly more competent leaders.
If you want the Tories out, which I desperately do, and not have it replaced by a New Labour type government then I believe that Corbyn has earned the benefit of the doubt for now.
Look! We all see a vague overview of the bigger picture and Brexit is but a small part of the puzzle. It is also the potential pivot towards a Trump Alt-right world. Read Choemsky and others to find out why Hilary Clinton failed - what's your view on Sanders? And with your understanding of Putin plus observations of the Alt Right, take a view and interest in the political philosophy of our age - it's fascinating!
At the same time the situation has also galvanised the left and the youth such that they are now participating. The UK is bucking the European trend on the centre left for several reasons - this for other threads and for Sunday's votes.
So here's the thing: why should the likes of Corbyn, McDonnell and Varoufakis repeat the mistake of the Lib Dems by standing on a neoliberal platform with Cameron and Osborne?! There really is no win!
Some have a view that Brexit is the most important issue of the day. But it might rank tenth in a list of ten key issues for the next ten years. The country has voted to leave the EU but not the CU/SM. Labour is now pro CU - we will all see how that plays in the polls.
Labour are looking at that bigger agenda and by accident or design they have managed to turn this into a two horse race. One which they are now probably favourites to win due to the 16 & 17 year olds queuing up to register to vote. And they have a lead with ABC1 voters too.
They happen to want to return trains and utilities to the public sector to eliminate waste and control prices. So read their manifesto from last June and then take a view. Far better than looking at one advisory vote at a point in time nearly two years ago. It looks like Labour will support a Norway policy as soon as they can define a path to get there. But they will not trash the work to date on every other issue.
It's your call obviously but the choice today looks like a Norway style deal or simply no deal. Read up on Mazzucato and the tax justice network and one might gain insight into where Labour really wants to go. That's all I can say as I'm not ITK and simply click and read just as anybody else can.
What we can do is speculate that there is no Macron coming to the rescue. Thus people are faced with a binary choice: Blue or Red !
Johnson the product of Eton and Oxford, the 'go whistle cake and eat it' man thrown up by a country of seventy million people, measured against an Irish politician thrown up by a country with just over half the population of London.
Coveney, straightforward articulate clear and serious, measured against a UK politician who only this week suggested a congestion charge solution to the border. There has been recent discussion here about the quality of politicians and Coveney pisses all over Johnson, even Danny Mills or Joey Essex would probably piss all over Johnson.
Do you brexiters, or Tories really support Johnson?
The Republic is much less class ridden than the UK, by no means a perfect country, but a meritocracy that allows a person like Coveney to rise to major office, whereas Johnson is the result of privilege, nepotism, and the old boys network. Dear god the UK is leaving the EU and the influence of people like Coveney to be wrapped in the arms of people like John Redwood.
I suppose that where we differ is on whether Corbyn and co. are playing a smart, united game of politics to get us seamlessly to a Norway type soft-soft Brexit (which I think you are suggesting), or whether you see them as riven by conflict just as the Tories are, and with the hard-left sniffy about Europe types in charge, which is more my position.
The reason I tend to that is what i do understand about their background programme. I won't pretend I have read the whole thing, but two of my favourite topics are tax and railways (insert Charlton joke here). On railways their bland claim that they will re-nationalise them are simply not credible. Furthermore, their claim that EU membership is what stops them - because it would be judged to be State Aid - is either schoolboy ignorance or wilfully misleading. The main operators of the railways in every major EU country bar ours remains State owned.
Re tax, I am a fan of Richard Murphy, the TJN guy, and have often quoted him on the tax thread, but I am not sure he has the authority and depth to write an entire government fiscal strategy. I think he is in that role because he tells the hard left element that their fantasies can be achieved.
So in summary, you might be right, Labour is playing a canny game. I fear you are not. As you often conclude by saying, we will see.
PS I thought you had used the term neo-liberal to describe people like me, who would consider themselves to be moderate and socially liberal, whereas the term originated to describe Dubya's mob. Whatever else, I don't think you could park me with that lot. Maybe I misunderstood you.