Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Corbyn should stay
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Corbyn should stay
In 1981 when Tony Benn stood for the Deputy Leadership against Healey and lost by a 0.9% margin , he got 30% of the Parliamentary Labour MPs’ votes but 19 members of Tribune abstained, including one Neil Kinnock. Margaret Beckett denounced him furiously as a Judas, allegedly prompting another MP to say: “So Benn is Jesus now, is he?”. Following the 1983 defeat, it took Kinnock two elections and hand-to-hand combat with Militant and others before Labour once again became electable. Mrs Beckett however remained an old Labour Bourbon, learning nothing, and 24 years later she famously nominated one of Benn’s acolytes for the leadership.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
And you missed out one other (admittedly unworthy) argument for Corbyn's staying - sheer entertainment value.
I admire your optimism. I fear one of the pathologies of the hard left (and Nationalists, while we're at it) is it's never their fault - there is always some 'other' to blame - only twice have I seen a major politician look its party in the eye and speak the unpalatable truth - May to the Tories and Kinnock to Labour - a dozen years before they regained power:
https://youtu.be/bWLN7rIby9s
Where is Labour's Kinnock today?
The lack of ideas suggests there is no-one capable of rational thinking left .
Too many years of rejecting new ideas because they challenge long accepted beliefs have driven out thinkers who are prepared to challenge long held shibboleths.
The Party is engaged in what is effectively a purge of anyone prepared to challenge left wing thinking..It may be slow but it's there. (Momentum have to do something to justify their existence).
Almost all of the cabal of left thinking economists who Corbyn appointed have left for whatever ostensible reason. They have no one left of any intellectual calibre prepared to think outside the box of conventional thinking (F Field is now too old and does not do economics).
The biggest weakness is the economics side: the changes brought by technology - and the challenges of robotics- require rigorous thinking about how to balance the impacts on employment .. and how to fund Government spending - currently tending more and more to be based on personal taxation. And robotics will remove many medium paid jobs.
I am struck how many people are happy to propose new spending program in the UK without costing them and their implications. The debate on Universal Income shows that in striking clarity. No-one has attempted to analyse it economically and pursue the challenges to work motivation it would bring. (Mind you I attempted to in 4 hours and concluded to be effective it would be unaffordable so perhaps that explains the disinclination to do sums!)
Socialism died in the twentieth century. If Labour is to have power again, it needs to acknowledge this. Social justice, looking out for the poorest in society, doing the right thing - these can all be achieved without the psycho-babble of socialism.
Labour's big risk though is that under Theresa May, the Conservatives will - within the limitations of a constrained economy - muscle in on this turf. And the Tories have one big advantage - they are seen as trusting the people with choice. The voters have noticed that the Tories gave them a choice over the EU. A choice that Labour and the LibDems fought hard - and still fight hard - to prevent.
Maybe it would be good for the Labour Left to lose badly and for the PB Tories to be able to say 'We told you so'.
Not so good for the country, which needs a strong opposition.
However, although I’ve never particularly liked John Major’s views, he’s usually seemed courteous and articulate in presenting them, and on this occasion I agree; yes Leave won, but only by a whisker. We one the Remain side, generally speaking, fear the worst but, as patriots, hope for the best. We need to be persuaded to go along with this new direction, not simply shouted at. Simply being told by David Davis, who was responsible for one of the most ludicrous by-elections in British history, and Boris Johnson, who often doesn’t seem to have an even semi-detached relationship with truth, that all will be well, just isn’t enough.
Practical problems after practical problem..... and, dare I say it here, in more important areas than the City ..... are coming to the fore, such as scientific research, availability of medicines, the very survival of the welfare state and Leave still seems to be saying 'Don’t worry, all will be sorted’.
That’s just infantile.
Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Farage said: “As a party, how can we let a man represent us in the House of Commons who actively and transparently seeks to damage us?
“I think there is little future for UKIP with him staying inside this party. The time for him to go is now.”
Ukip is already facing a crisis after the party’s leader Paul Nuttall failed to win last week’s by election in Stoke on Trent, an area in which people voted heavily for Brexit at last year’s referendum.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/27/ukip-open-civil-war-nigel-farage-calls-douglas-carswell-thrown/
My hypothetical question to a Labour supporter we would be "What do you seek to achieve that needs the Labour party to achieve it? (As opposed to some other party or someone else)"
To sum up cyclefrees eloquent piece Labour should pack it's bags and disappear because she doesn't like their underlying ethos of tolerance and compassion and it could reform in a shape more to her liking.
To use her own words;
"They would own the defeat. And that defeat, that failure would free up a new leader to do the hard thinking needed, to be ruthless rather than sentimental about the Left’s rubbish ideas and nauseating tolerance of illiberal violent groups, to build a Labour party that reaches out and listens to those whose votes it seeks".
The Far Left is in total control of Labour, and the Far Left doesn't merely eschew responsibility for crushing defeat: it doesn't care, either. The one and only aim is to preach the true faith, and believe that the people will finally rise up in revolution if only you keep hammering away for long enough.
Besides, even if Labour is reduced to 150 seats at the next General Election, we must remember that it would still be the second party in the Commons, and that the Far Leftists would thus maintain a platform from which to preach their rubbish ideas to the nation, of which all of their predecessors could only have dreamt. And they'll love having a huge Tory majority across the House from them: endless opportunity to shout, to march, to protest, to be outraged by the sheer horror of it all. Yet no power, and thus no need to even contemplate making any unpalatable real world decisions that might possibly conflict with their ideological goals and purity of thought.
Labour is finished. The idea that Corbyn and people like him - the sort of obsessive campaigners who would stand for hours over a photocopier making leaflets whilst munching on a tin of cold baked beans, or who would file for divorce because their other half wanted to send their kids to a fee-paying school - are ever going to relinquish control is for the birds. The only pertinent questions now are how long we're going to have to wait for an electable Opposition to emerge, where it's going to come from, and what it's going to look like.
Who does it seek to represent and what does it want to do for them?
And let’s hope that there are enough decent people left with the courage and determination necessary to build a left of centre party fit for the 21st century.
https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/836366950800437248
Hmm...it is not often that I would accuse Cyclefree of being naïve but this has to be one of those times. The idea that those of the hard left (or any other delusional wing of politics for this matter) would ever think, "you know what, clearly we were wrong, it is time to move on" is ridiculous. When they lose it will be the fault of the media, of Murdoch, of the establishment, of the people who allowed themselves to be deceived, of the liars of on the other side who did the deceiving, of some vast and shadowy manipulators (Alt-right already being lined up for this role).
It will never, ever, be their fault. Their deeply flawed, unrealistic, essentially unhuman view of the world is right, it just is, and any failure on the part of the populace to grasp that is a failure on their part, nothing to do with the ridiculous nonsense the left believe in. And this will not change, even after Corbyn is a bitter or hilarious memory according to taste.
Now give me the raison d'etre for the Tory Party?
The British were always great explorers; we opened up the world. We should hold the record for the furthest person from Earth.
All we need to do is beat 400,000 km from Earth. As Corbyn is obviously a patriot, he should volunteer to go on a one way trip into space, so that a Brit shall always hold the record. He'd also like the fact it was a socialist Brit.
Okay, it'll cost a few hundred million dollars to buy the rocket and capsule from SpaceX. But that's nothing compared to the damage that a Corbyn government could cost the economy, however remote the chances of that government forming.
It's a win-win.
(To make it a competitive bid, we should ask Mr Dancer for the cost of a trebuchet alternative for launching Corbyn at escape velocities).
It has come to something when the only serious opposition is led by the SNP.
Douglas Carswell has already more or less said that the only reason he hasn't reratted to the Conservatives is because he doesn't want to fight yet another by-election, so being expelled would presumably give him the excuse to avoid doing exactly that. So Nigel Farage is doing Douglas Carswell a favour while hastening UKIP's demise.
If there is to be another vote, the immediately preceding UK budget should indicate what Holyrood would receive under the "pooling and sharing" status quo until the vote and indeed in the event of a unionist victory. Separately however it should state what Holyrood would receive on the basis of "you only get what you've earned" in the event of a separatist vote and until actual Independence. And they should state that the second formulation, in terms of actual payment, would start on the day after the vote.
Holyrood couldn't of course be expected to cope with an immediate 25% cut in its revenues, so the Scottish Finance Minister would be given the obligation to specify in advance, so far as competent, in the Scottish Budget and, as required, in the UK Budget what income and other tax rates he or she wished to apply in Scotland from the day after the referendum and what levels of pensions and benefits he or she wished paid.
http://ianssmart.blogspot.co.id/2017/02/and-another-thing.html
Before you answer, can I gently remind you I voted Labour in 2015.
One of the tragedies for Labour is the loss of any sort of potential alternative leader (and their protégés) during the Brown years, while he promoted only talentless yes-men and -women. This has left them without any strong leadership candidates now.
Edited to make it clearer that I meant 'yes-women' rather than 'women'. Thinking through the implications of that revealed a very different meaning from the one I intended!
The answer is either changing the minds of Labour's selectorate, or changing Labour's selectorate.
Where a heavy election defeat might help is particularly with the latter, if a new group of centre-left voters desperate for an alternative can be persuaded to subscribe to elect someone sensible.
They remember the more fanatical Trots who made a lot of noise back in the day. Wolfie Smith was a comedy character, but by comparison, he had some redeeming characteristics.
They also remember Kinnock, in his pomp, rooting some of them out.
Jezza is too old to be recast as a thoughtful, potentially harmless old dodderer. He's the firebrand socialist of yore, who might even have been a mate, but who you wouldn't want anywhere near power.
The old gits vote and look at his rating with his contemporaries.
https://twitter.com/walesonline/status/836339795764871169
The loonier Leavers' heads are going to explode at that concept.
Although I have talked about Corbyn's personality this morning, the real issue is his policy (not that he actually has many). Does anyone really think that Labour would magically become electable under someone who may be left wing but could pass for sane in a clear light - somebody like Ashworth or Trickett? Is there really a massive yearning for renationalising industry (the railways apart) or for confiscatory taxation? Of course there isn't.
What Labour should be standing for instead is on running a strong economy fairly (which is where all recent governments have fallen down horrendously) and dependable education and health services. That would win an election with ease, as Blair proved (although it didn't work in practice). But the left would not deliver that, because they can't get the first part right.
Hammond wants additional austerity with cuts of 6% on expenditure excluding the NHS (PBUI) and "core education" (interesting weasel word there). I am left wondering what part of the current NHS problems connection with the running down of local authority social care the Chancellor didn't get.
Rather than tired old clichés about Tory austerity maybe we could have a shadow minister pointing out the chronic inefficiency of having very well paid surgeons hanging around because there isn't a free bed for their patient, or of having well paid and highly skilled nurses bringing cups of tea to those just needing a little support.
Governments without serious oppositions make bad judgments and do not correct them soon enough. We all suffer as a result.
As for speaking to them, speaking to them in a bid to end the violence is one thing, speaking to them while they are still committed to it is quite another.
You still seem to have no comment on Holocaust Denial or the Islington children's home scandal.
Cheers Ms Cyclefree, good article, although I do not share your optimism that testing Corbynism to destruction will silence the calls of betrayal, or convince the far left membership that their brand of socialism is neither workable or desired. They have a dream, in which rationality plays no part.
And to be fair to the left - Corbyn is/was being undermined by his own side and the media coverage has been unfairly critical in many instances.
None of that matters though. If your electoral strategy is based on the Daily Mail being fair, or on a divided party miraculously rallying round - then it was a rubbish strategy to start with.
A part of me is intellectually curious to see what would actually happen if Corbyn led Labour into a General Election. Can't be good for the country to have no real opposition for so long, though.
Also, isn't it 34 years?
What if Corbyn loses badly, and stays on?
The only way for Labour to win with Corbyn is to instigate a 'Logan's Run' cull of the over-thirties, or restrict voting to Twitter.
On this bit: let’s hope that there are enough decent people left with the courage and determination necessary to build a left of centre party fit for the 21st century - I would agree but I don't think that Labour can ever pull this off. They're too damaged, too much nasty baggage, too much unelectable history. I think we need a new, fresh centre left party.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/02/top-15-per-cent-earners-pay-20bn-income-tax/
It is far easier to sanction honest law abiding people than manipulative social parasites. When the fo us is just on numbers, that is what happens. Common sense and common humanity are replaced by targets. I see it all the time.
I am off to work. Have a good day everyone!
Hamilton, though, said he certainly noticed the difference in the car. The extra downforce stood out, he said, adding that the tyres did not degrade anywhere near like Pirellis have tended to in the past.
The only down side was that he said, after following another car, he felt the predictions of less overtaking would be accurate.
“The cars look fantastic - the wider wheels and body. it is harder to follow so it is going to be harder to overtake. the tyres don’t degrade so it is going to be interesting,” he said.
The debate around the cabinet table has moved away from the need to raise resources and on to the balance between the taxation of wealth and work. One cabinet minister told me: “There is an issue about inheritance. Should someone be able to pass their house on to their children without paying the cost of care or can you get access to some of that money?” The chancellor is among those who are convinced that those who can afford to make a contribution should pay.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-raise-spectre-of-death-tax-for-care-s6pmd8f52
After yesterday's discussion about planes and pilots, some might find the following amusing:
https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/836451717587705856
Enjoyed the thread. Beckett as a Bourbon? - nice one.
I don't think now Corbyn will last the distance, although I agree with Mr Dancer that it would have been interesting to see what happens. The unions will do for him. I don't even rule out a surprise defeat for Len in the Unite election and matters coming to head shortly after that (presumably after May's county election shellacking).
It's an exquisite dilemma.