The Labour Thread

[Abertawe]

If you think Blair was a democratic socialist, then with respect, clearly you don't know what a democratic socialist is.

With respect, you obviously don't understand what New Labour is/was.

 

[Abertawe]

 

[Max]

Why did you leave the Lib Dems, I presume you only left after the general election and U turn on tuition fees?


That in itself is Blairite.

If you've already abandoned one party how can you be so sure you won't leave another one? Especially when that party is gonna embark on a democratic decision that totally contradicts your view. When Corbyn comes out on top, it will officially kill new labour and if my theory about you leaving the LD's is right, then I can only advise you to stop lapping up the shite served up by the political elite. Irrespective of whatever colour they pledge themselves to they're in it for themselves and will only ever serve their own interests. That is why I find it utterly bizarre that you want the Labour party back in the hands of the political elite and not the people. Oxford uni gyal Angela Eagle & pharmaceutical cheerleader Owen Smith ain't gonna do shit other than serve their masters.

Your justification (pathetic use of language btw, very much trying to curry favour, stop being a gimp) is on the whole spot on. Again, I find it bizarre that you've set about ridiculing the only movement that can achieve your wants & therefor completely undermine yourself. This coup is orchestrated by those sympathetic to the Blairite legacy & those with a vested interest in the status-quo that has seen the rich get richer and the poor poorer. If you want a political elite serving their pay masters and not the people you may as well vote Conservative, it's that simple, no point in messing about.

The great Tony Benn knows
"Labour won the election in 1997, but New Labour was a Conservative idea. It was the idea of a Conservative group who had taken over Labour. Their idea was that entrusting everything to market forces was the best way to get things done, which was fundamentally an anti-Labour idea. Clearly there were achievements during their time in office, good things were done and progress made in some ways and I am not denying that. But it was a Conservative group running the party. Mrs Thatcher herself said her greatest achievement was New Labour."

I'm not sure what to file you under, either a devils advocate messer or an intelligent but ultimately brainwashed individual.

And Gas, stop gassing, Max is an intelligent adult, he doesn't need defending from an idiot like me.

I first joined the Lib Dems when Charles Kennedy was leader, because I was a teenager who didn't agree with the Iraq war and liked their policy platforms. I left before the general election in 2010, for a number of reasons. I did not like Nick Clegg or agree with the direction he was taking the party, I didn't actually think scrapping tuition fees (their flagship policy) was a very good idea, I thought Gordon Brown had done an underrated job as prime minister, and that on domestic (rather than foreign) policy, the Labour government had done a lot of good. I also had a very good local Labour guy running in my area, against a Lib Dem I really didn't rate. So I joined Labour, and have not looked back.

I understand Blairism to be a particular government programme and political outlook specific to Tony Blair and his close allies. You can be a democratic socialist and not be a Blairite, as to me Blairism as a concept is closely tied to an interventionist foreign policy, a relative distancing of Labour from trade unions, further European monetary integration (although granted he did drop this) and obsession with illiberal things like identity cards, surveillance cameras and terrible PFI deals.

You can be a social democrat and not necessarily be a Blairite. However, New Labour made Labour electable. Your version of the Labour Party would not have got anything done in the 90s and 2000s, because they would never have got elected. For all you may think Tony Blair is literally the worst person in politics, the electable face of Labour delivered the national minimum wage, a huge raft of rights for gay people and the repeal of section 28, a ban on fox hunting, shorter waiting times on the NHS, devolution to the regions, Sure Start centres, free nursery places for toddlers, holiday pay entitlements, the winter fuel allowance, the gift aid scheme, and generally not introducing the sort of socially poisonous stuff the Tories have been introducing for six years.

I'm not trying to curry favour, I'm trying to understand why you seem incapable of having a conversation with someone that holds a different view without being hostile.

You say I'm brainwashed, and I'm obviously not going to convince you otherwise. Your version of the Labour Party is a pure socialism that I believe is unelectable, and the evidence seems to bear me out on that. Labour has to actually be able to help people. Purity of principle and righteous opposition don't help anyone.

 

[Abertawe]

I'm not a pure socialist but Labour should never abandon it's morals. I've not disputed New Labour achieved some decent successes but on the whole it was a resounding failure.

What is your alternative?

 

[Pagnell]

I'm not a pure socialist but Labour should never abandon it's morals. I've not disputed New Labour achieved some decent successes but on the whole it was a resounding failure.

What is your alternative?

A resounding failure when you consider the alternative would have been a continuation of the 18 years the Tories had been in power? Surely not. Even Labour with Blair and his cronies in charge is infinitely preferable to that.

 

[Abertawe]

A resounding failure when you consider the alternative would have been a continuation of the 18 years the Tories had been in power? Surely not. Even Labour with Blair and his cronies in charge is infinitely preferable to that.

I don't deem it as Labour. As Thatcher said, one of her greatest achievements was Blarism & New Labour. I don't see with how the media developed equal rights wouldn't have been achieved under the Tories, may have taken longer but progress is always inevitable regardless of which party is in power. I just don't accept the sentiment that a Tory Lite is all that more preferable. It's a shame because I genuinely believe New Labour started out as a good thing, they just ignored the social aspect in favour of a 'free market' which has only served to entrap the people./

 

[.V.]

With respect, you obviously don't understand what New Labour is/was.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Feel free to read and show me what Blair nationalised and where he strengthened regulatory powers.

 

[Abertawe]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Feel free to read and show me what Blair nationalised and where he strengthened regulatory powers.

Read up on the history of Labour, New Labour in particular.

What one professes to be & what the reality is are two different things.

IV IV IV

 

[Abertawe]

Hmmmm, almost as embarrassing as your wife knocking off the security guy and it being exposed in public.

Labour supporters in Alan Johnson's Hull West and Hessle constituency have given their backing to Jeremy Corbyn. Members who attended a meeting of the constituency party last night voted 48-7 in favour of a motion supporting the embattled Labour leader.

"Jeremy Corbyn has neither the ability, nor I believe the desire, to lead our party into government."

And you seemingly don't have the ability to even lead your own constituency. One by one these career politicians are getting wiped off the relevance map and it's brilliant to watch.

 

[.V.]

Read up on the history of Labour, New Labour in particular.

What one professes to be & what the reality is are two different things.

IV IV IV

I'm aware of New Labour history, I am 35 and was 16 when they came to power. I also studied the creation of the Labour Party and political ideology at university. I'm not saying I'm any sort of expert, but I've certainly done some reading on it.

 

[Max]

Hmmmm, almost as embarrassing as your wife knocking off the security guy and it being exposed in public.


"Jeremy Corbyn has neither the ability, nor I believe the desire, to lead our party into government."

And you seemingly don't have the ability to even lead your own constituency. One by one these career politicians are getting wiped off the relevance map and it's brilliant to watch.

The fact that Johnson's CLP disagree with him doesn't make what he said any more or less true. The central point still stands and needs to be addressed.

Also, Jeremy Corbyn has been an MP for 15 years longer than Alan Johnson. Jeremy Corbyn is a career politician. It's been his career for 35 years. He's only been high profile and influential for a year, but it has been most of his life's work. There's nothing wrong, in and of itself, with being a career politician.

I get that you want to revert to Old Labour, but it's been 20 years since Clause IV was altered. The political landscape has shifted massively.

My alternative is to accept that the political landscape has changed, for better or worse. We have moved from a largely manufacturing based economy to a mostly service-based economy, and the percentage of people that consider themselves middle class has rocketed over the past few decades. And as New Labour showed, Old Labour values are not the only way to bring in ways to benefit working people.

To take an example of Angela Eagle, the understandable enemy number 1 of Corbyn fans, I doubt people who airily dismiss Corbyn's opponents as Blairites know much about their voting records and careers. Taking Angela as an example, she's voted:

for increasing tax on those that earn over £150,000, for a tax on bankers' bonuses, against regulating trade unions, against raising VAT, for occupational pensions, against taxes on alcohol, against ending the EMA payments for students, against raising tuition fees, against the bedroom tax, and against lowering welfare payments. These are positions to benefit ordinary people, not shady bogeyman elite paymasters you mention.

Now compare this set of ideals to Andrea Leadsom, who doesn't think small businesses should pay the minimum wage, would bring back fox hunting, and voted for every crushing Tory cut to welfare we've seen over the past few years. She's also been openly disdainful about single mothers and gay people. She's just the first person that came to mind. There are more extreme members of the Tory party.

And you want to tell me that they're the same? That the modern Labour Party and the Tories are one and the same? It's just provably not true.

 

[Abertawe]

Fortunately neither lady will get their desired roles.

What d'ya make of this by Corbyn? Brilliant imo.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-tories-exploit-cheap-labour?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[Max]

Fortunately neither lady will get their desired roles.

What d'ya make of this by Corbyn? Brilliant imo.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-tories-exploit-cheap-labour?CMP=share_btn_tw

But, just so we're clear, they're massively different from one another. You do understand that? Or does a person's entire political life mean nothing if they don't like Jeremy Corbyn?

 

[Aber gas]

Fortunately neither lady will get their desired roles.

What d'ya make of this by Corbyn? Brilliant imo.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-tories-exploit-cheap-labour?CMP=share_btn_tw

Go on Jezza. Let's ave at 'em.

 

[Abertawe]

But, just so we're clear, they're massively different from one another. You do understand that? Or does a person's entire political life mean nothing if they don't like Jeremy Corbyn?

I was incorrect in my labeling of Johnson, that was a pretty damn lazy tag. He might be a meek subservient bore but he's one of the better politicians out there in terms of integrity. For me though he's been far too right on many massive issues to have any credibility as an influential voice in the Labour party. Back in 2004 he voted for increasing tuition fees to £3000 and for implementing regulation that would make it easy for students to be extorted, which unsurprisingly is exactly what happened. When you throw in his unabating support for ID cards, the mass retention of data, indefinite detention & in real terms, secret trials. All things considered it's a bit much, I can't get behind those kind of views.

On Angela Eagles, the women has voted wrongly on some pretty fucking massive issues. Some things I admire about her for, such as being one of the few to have the courage for allowing terminally ill people the right to choose to end their life. However, as I said, she's got some unforgivable stains on her voting record. Much like Johnson & the rest of the cronies, she's been complicit in favouring bills that attack and erode away civil liberties and that just cannot be supported. ID cards, indefinite detention & the like. Quite tellingly she hasn't stood for candidacy of leader whilst Chilcot has been news, I wonder why that is? Couldn't possibly be down to the rarely broadcast fact she not only voted for the Iraq war but against the subsequent investigation, surely that alone should rule her inadmissible to be leader based on the views you've expressed about the wrongs of Iraq?

Her part in allowing tuition fees & regulation of the structure of student finance to spiral to unjust levels is surely another big cross next to her name. We quite simply need for young people from humble backgrounds to become educated, it's integral to the future of society. We can't allow for hurdles, not when so many of our fundamental civil liberties & human rights hinge on freethinking ideas & philosophies. A vote to increase tuition fees is an unforgivable sin, it's no good voting against the Tory rise when she contributed to the problem in the first place, doesn't that show poor error of judgement? No, to put a barrier between the understanding of civil liberties & ability to mould those liberties from the section of society that relies on them the most is totally against the heart of the Labour party and spits in the face of the very people it's supposed to represent.

You put forward a series of noble views on the previous page that would serve to support the everyday working person but you've surely gotta look at the bigger picture. The coup plotters can't lay claim to be honest to the values of Labour when they're voting record places them on the right in issues relating to civil liberties. It's not just slightly right, it's extreme, only have to reference the unanimous vote in favour of indefinite detention of a human being without trial to substantiate that view. Making it more difficult for the poor to get educated isn't a Labour value, yet the majority of these lot paved the way for that to happen, the consequence of which entraps them with a mountain of debt for which they will have to work for many years to pay off. It's like the whole thing has developed into a tool on which to manage social classes. If someone is saddled with student loan debt, tuition debt, bank overdraft debt, credit card debt and whatever else then that restricts a persons ability to contribute to the country when you consider they're less free to start a business, see through innovative ideas or merely step onto the property ladder. Would you not want for your grandchildren to leave university (if that's the route they want to follow) with not only a degree but not have the weighted chain of debt constricting their flexibility to truly pursue their dreams?
Because as far as I can see right now, most young people from humble backgrounds leaving university simply have no choice but to take whatever is being offered, often taking positions whereby the minimum qualification isn't a degree, thus making the whole process a massive fucking con.

My alternative is to accept that the political landscape has changed, for better or worse. We have moved from a largely manufacturing based economy to a mostly service-based economy, and the percentage of people that consider themselves middle class has rocketed over the past few decades. And as New Labour showed, Old Labour values are not the only way to bring in ways to benefit working people.

When you lay this out as an alternative it's flawed mate, it's not incorrect per se, but it also doesn't truly grasp an understanding of the landscape in it's reality. Firstly, you're quite correct, we're now a service based economy. The important thing you've seemingly missed is that doesn't actually change anything. The majority of those in the service industry are the same demographic of people that would have traditionally worked in the manufacturing industries, ie the Labour movement. That suggests you're falling for the illusion that working for multicorps in the service industry is somehow glitzy and above the aspirations of a person stemming from the depicted poor element of society. Not everyone from a humble background is collecting bins or pushing trollies, I think this view must be linked to your subsequent analysis as to the levels of people who consider themselves middle class. It's the legacy of the Thatcher tenure, create a culture of asserting tags onto people and rely on the negative aspects of human nature, ie greed, to fuel delusions of grandeur and create a false sense of security that can be easily manipulated. There is no middle class, it's a myth. We have an underclass, working class, comfortable class and then the elite. If you can't go a month without a salary then you're working class, doesn't matter if your earning £14,000, £60,000, have a mortgage or rent a council flat. To progress onto the comfortable scale you need to either accumulate savings or come into money through inheritance or or other means. Traditionally you only reached that scale by the time you approached your fifties and that required sacrifice back then let alone in this day & age. The road we're on, our future generations will be working to service debt until they retire and then be at the mercy of a state pension. New Labour values relies on fueling this nastiness. Life isn't about working and serving the super rich, yet that's all New Labour represents our future generations.

My views aren't based on what serves me, it's inconsequential. We should be about creating a better future that harmonises unity, care & empathy into everyday society. We haven't got a nice society as it stands. You only have to look at the mental illness crisis (that we still shy away from) to prove that. People don't consider drug addicts to be mentally ill, they don't think about the events that may have triggered their tolerance to addiction or memories to be blurred. To have a society that looks down on these human beings and a system that simply punishes them and gives nothing in the way of real help is disgusting. We're approaching the 40th year of this bollox, how many more years will it take to make you realise this system does not serve humanity? Put simply this new world strategy is killing humanity, using analogies to dumb us down gradually. All a new world government wants is obedient workers. They will use fear to control and achieve that one desire. That was so evident during the referendum, every fucker got involved with the fear angle from those representing new world interests.

So when you ask me are they the same? Yes they are. When both serve money over humanity they're the same. You're being tricked. Blue team or red team, basic human psychology. Both are owned by multicorps. A vote between New Labour & One Nation Conservatism is merely a choice of brand. One might be easier to swallow but they're both gonna give you the shits.

Are you genuinely of the opinion that this is the best we can do? It's had almost 40 years to work and it's still failing miserably. The values you profess to have paints a picture of a country that values its citizens over multicorps, so why would you not want to get behind the only available movement that can make that happen? Putting the people first doesn't mean we shut down private enterprise and all eat equal amounts of bread. We've got a real chance of a revolution, don't let it slip.

 

[SUTSS]

Does anyone, apart from Angela Eagle herself, want Angela Eagle to be the new leader?

 

[smat]

What does she stand for? I guess she will set out her platform on Monday but as it is, her principal pitch seems to be "I'm not Jeremy Corbyn", which might have limited appeal to members, who like Jeremy Corbyn.

Baffled trying to figure out what the PLP have in mind, here. It's almost certain Corbyn will win a leadership election, putting them in an even weaker position than they're in now. Unless they're planning to perform some legal gymnastics to keep him off the ballot? I did read that they were looking into that.

 

[Abertawe]

 

[Max]

I was incorrect in my labeling of Johnson, that was a pretty damn lazy tag. He might be a meek subservient bore but he's one of the better politicians out there in terms of integrity. For me though he's been far too right on many massive issues to have any credibility as an influential voice in the Labour party. Back in 2004 he voted for increasing tuition fees to £3000 and for implementing regulation that would make it easy for students to be extorted, which unsurprisingly is exactly what happened. When you throw in his unabating support for ID cards, the mass retention of data, indefinite detention & in real terms, secret trials. All things considered it's a bit much, I can't get behind those kind of views.
Meek subservient bore? Matter of perspective I spose! You could call a Jeremy Corbyn a contrarian student politics bore, but I don't think the ad hominem gets us anywhere ;-)

I would entirely agree that on security issues, the Blair-era MPs had an odd totalitarian streak, understandable but misguided following 9/11 and 7/7. But there is plenty of middle ground between Jeremy and Alan Johnson in the existing Labour Party. I got annoyed before because before I'd even said anything, you assumed all criticism of Corbyn equated to Blairite. It does with Alan Johnson, to be honest, but there are shedloads of Labour MPs who don't approve of Jeremy's leadership that are actually very close to his politics.

Will come back to tuition fees, as I think we're going to fundamentally disagree about that!

On Angela Eagles, the women has voted wrongly on some pretty fucking massive issues. Some things I admire about her for, such as being one of the few to have the courage for allowing terminally ill people the right to choose to end their life. However, as I said, she's got some unforgivable stains on her voting record. Much like Johnson & the rest of the cronies, she's been complicit in favouring bills that attack and erode away civil liberties and that just cannot be supported. ID cards, indefinite detention & the like. Quite tellingly she hasn't stood for candidacy of leader whilst Chilcot has been news, I wonder why that is? Couldn't possibly be down to the rarely broadcast fact she not only voted for the Iraq war but against the subsequent investigation, surely that alone should rule her inadmissible to be leader based on the views you've expressed about the wrongs of Iraq?

I suppose it depends what you count as forgivable/unforgivable. On euthanasia, Jeremy has voted against it once, and then not turned up to another vote. I strongly disagree with his lack of action on that, but I agree with him about a lot of other things. I think it's odd to imply she's delayed because of Chilcot. People will not have forgotten Chilcot when she announces a leadership challenge tomorrow! I absolutely can forgive MPs voting for the Iraq War - particularly backbenchers and non-Cabinet officials - because I think they were hugely misled. I think she should publicly explain why she was against the investigation, as that is ridiculous. I would prefer someone uninvolved in Parliament pre-2005 to be leading the party now, but as previously expressed, I think Jeremy is fundamentally unelectable in a general election, and so the first priority is to challenge him. He may win a challenge, but it's something that has to happen now. Pandora's box has been opened etc.

On foreign policy, the Iraq war was a massive fuck-up. It was a disaster. But on the other end of the spectrum, you've got Jeremy, who correctly voted against the war. He also voted against action in Kosovo, which was an example of Britain acting constructively abroad. He's also anti-NATO, which I find bizarre, and obviously also anti-EU (and not honest about it). Again, I am hopeful the party can find a middle ground between the excesses of New Labour under Blair and Jeremy's 180 degree opposition views.

Her part in allowing tuition fees & regulation of the structure of student finance to spiral to unjust levels is surely another big cross next to her name. We quite simply need for young people from humble backgrounds to become educated, it's integral to the future of society. We can't allow for hurdles, not when so many of our fundamental civil liberties & human rights hinge on freethinking ideas & philosophies. A vote to increase tuition fees is an unforgivable sin, it's no good voting against the Tory rise when she contributed to the problem in the first place, doesn't that show poor error of judgement? No, to put a barrier between the understanding of civil liberties & ability to mould those liberties from the section of society that relies on them the most is totally against the heart of the Labour party and spits in the face of the very people it's supposed to represent.

Tuition fees are not, in themselves, bad things. While poorer students are less likely to go to university, the percentage of lower income students is increasing: https://www.theguardian.com/educati...-tuition-fees-ucas-admissions-poorer-families

The current model of not paying back until you earn £21,000 p/a means it's not punitive, and if you end up not paying it, it gets written off (which is an unsustainable model of loss for the government, but that's a separate issue). It essentially functions as a graduate tax, which is fair. The debt does not affect the ability to get a mortgage, or credit. While the perception of the fees negatively affected people from low income backgrounds, it doesn't actually put hurdles in the way, and this needs to be more clearly communicated. I think a bigger error in judgement is trying to send half the population to university and having no means to pay for it.

You put forward a series of noble views on the previous page that would serve to support the everyday working person but you've surely gotta look at the bigger picture.

The bigger picture as I see it is that Labour are miles and miles better than the Tories at governing the country, and you seem happy to allow the Conservatives to appeal to swing voters and the people that are needed to win a general election.

The coup plotters can't lay claim to be honest to the values of Labour when they're voting record places them on the right in issues relating to civil liberties.

Loads of the people that have resigned were only elected in 2010 and 2015. This is not a New Labour plot, it is being undertaken by 85% or more of the party, which is not just people that used to be in the Blair cabinet.

It's not just slightly right, it's extreme, only have to reference the unanimous vote in favour of indefinite detention of a human being without trial to substantiate that view. Making it more difficult for the poor to get educated isn't a Labour value, yet the majority of these lot paved the way for that to happen, the consequence of which entraps them with a mountain of debt for which they will have to work for many years to pay off. It's like the whole thing has developed into a tool on which to manage social classes. If someone is saddled with student loan debt, tuition debt, bank overdraft debt, credit card debt and whatever else then that restricts a persons ability to contribute to the country when you consider they're less free to start a business, see through innovative ideas or merely step onto the property ladder. Would you not want for your grandchildren to leave university (if that's the route they want to follow) with not only a degree but not have the weighted chain of debt constricting their flexibility to truly pursue their dreams? As covered above, I left uni with a massive debt, and has not been a hinderance. I actually think we need to better support young people to better choose education that suits them, rather than plowing everyone towards uni. Everyone in certain parts of the country is fucked re: getting on the property ladder.

Because as far as I can see right now, most young people from humble backgrounds leaving university simply have no choice but to take whatever is being offered, often taking positions whereby the minimum qualification isn't a degree, thus making the whole process a massive fucking con.

When you lay this out as an alternative it's flawed mate, it's not incorrect per se, but it also doesn't truly grasp an understanding of the landscape in it's reality. Firstly, you're quite correct, we're now a service based economy. The important thing you've seemingly missed is that doesn't actually change anything. The majority of those in the service industry are the same demographic of people that would have traditionally worked in the manufacturing industries, ie the Labour movement. That suggests you're falling for the illusion that working for multicorps in the service industry is somehow glitzy and above the aspirations of a person stemming from the depicted poor element of society. Not everyone from a humble background is collecting bins or pushing trollies, I think this view must be linked to your subsequent analysis as to the levels of people who consider themselves middle class. It's the legacy of the Thatcher tenure, create a culture of asserting tags onto people and rely on the negative aspects of human nature, ie greed, to fuel delusions of grandeur and create a false sense of security that can be easily manipulated. There is no middle class, it's a myth. We have an underclass, working class, comfortable class and then the elite. If you can't go a month without a salary then you're working class, doesn't matter if your earning £14,000, £60,000, have a mortgage or rent a council flat. To progress onto the comfortable scale you need to either accumulate savings or come into money through inheritance or or other means. Traditionally you only reached that scale by the time you approached your fifties and that required sacrifice back then let alone in this day & age. The road we're on, our future generations will be working to service debt until they retire and then be at the mercy of a state pension. New Labour values relies on fueling this nastiness. Life isn't about working and serving the super rich, yet that's all New Labour represents our future generations.

This feels like getting into a separate debate, to be honest. My point was that more people indeed consider themselves middle class. An increased access to credit, globalisation, and the changing nature of what people do (more in the private sector than it used to be) has changed Britain. Of course the same demographics of people still exist, and as I've previously argued, it is Labour governments that deliver things that actually help ordinary working people. You're asking me what my alternative is, but I would actually like to hear what your suggestions are to fix these situations. Jeremy Corbyn has given some great speeches about bringing in fairer tax, better workers rights etc. but nothing that would come close to reversing the last 40 years of capitalism.

My views aren't based on what serves me, it's inconsequential. We should be about creating a better future that harmonises unity, care & empathy into everyday society. We haven't got a nice society as it stands. I agree. One aspect I notice is the demonising of people on benefits, which has exploded under the current conservative administration, whereas for their faults, Labour actually introduced things like tax credits to try to help people. You only have to look at the mental illness crisis (that we still shy away from) to prove that. People don't consider drug addicts to be mentally ill, they don't think about the events that may have triggered their tolerance to addiction or memories to be blurred. To have a society that looks down on these human beings and a system that simply punishes them and gives nothing in the way of real help is disgusting. We're approaching the 40th year of this bollox, how many more years will it take to make you realise this system does not serve humanity? The NHS, until 2010, was well-funded. The fact the mental health crisis in the UK has not been adequately addressed does not mean the entire financial system and economy needs a radical revolution from where we are now. It means we need to put more money into the NHS and mental health. Put simply this new world strategy is killing humanity, using analogies to dumb us down gradually. All a new world government wants is obedient workers. They will use fear to control and achieve that one desire. That was so evident during the referendum, every fucker got involved with the fear angle from those representing new world interests.

So when you ask me are they the same? Yes they are. When both serve money over humanity they're the same. You're being tricked. Blue team or red team, basic human psychology. Both are owned by multicorps. A vote between New Labour & One Nation Conservatism is merely a choice of brand. One might be easier to swallow but they're both gonna give you the shits. So you entirely dismiss my early post where I outlined a number of areas where they are the total opposite? You do realise that Jeremy Corbyn is not going to bring you anything like what you imply you want? That's what this is about. Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party.

Are you genuinely of the opinion that this is the best we can do? It's had almost 40 years to work and it's still failing miserably. The values you profess to have paints a picture of a country that values its citizens over multicorps, so why would you not want to get behind the only available movement that can make that happen? Putting the people first doesn't mean we shut down private enterprise and all eat equal amounts of bread. We've got a real chance of a revolution, don't let it slip. I think you're projecting a lot onto Jeremy that he hasn't promised. Being 27, I don't think the last 40 years of society is a massive dismal failure. I think if you want to see failed societies they exist elsewhere in the world. There are lots of problems in the country, most of which are fixable. I am interested to know what your alternatives are to Labour that you think Jeremy is actually offering, and that people would really vote for.

 

[Max]

Presented without comment: this morning, on the Andrew Marr show, disagreed that the important thing was to win elections, and asserted again the 'most important thing' was to 'change the way politics is done'.

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

In Politics these days, having the Tories move further right, and Labour moving further left would leave a large gap in the middle.

If the Tories move further right, then Labour moving further into the centre is the only effective way of winning an election. Moving further left as per the Momentum movement wishes could let a re-branded UKIP party emerge.

The PLP know this, so is why they are taking action now. There are also serious questions about Corbyn being allowed on the ballot paper as by the rules he needs the support of at least 50 MPs. However, I fully expect that he will bypass that process on the basis that he is already leader and get re-elected. If he does get re-elected, there will be a split, resulting in a series of By-elections. At that point, the Labour party may well be finished as a major power in Parliament.

The right way to do this is for the New Labour movement to take control in order to win an election, and gradually move further to the left once in power, as the Tories have been doing in the other direction, and the latest leadership campaign is evidence to this

So what's more important Labour Supporters. Stopping the Tories at any cost (which will mean a move to the centre) or moving further left, becoming unelectable and causing a party split, with years of Far Right Tory rule?

 

[.V.]

Presented without comment: this morning, on the Andrew Marr show, disagreed that the important thing was to win elections, and asserted again the 'most important thing' was to 'change the way politics is done'.

 

[.V.]

Does anyone know if there are any political realists in the momentum movement?

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

Does anyone know if there are any political realists in the momentum movement?

If there are, there are not many. Many believe representing their beliefs and values is more important than winning elections, and they are entitled to that opinion and I respect those that do. However for those of them that think they can honestly win a majority with far left policies with Corbyn at the helm, then they should really consider a trip to the funny farm

 

[Dave-Vale]

If Corbyn is on the ballot (which I'm certain he will be or there will be a major uproar within the party) then he will win any leadership contest by a bigger margin than the last. Angela thinks she can win but in reality she stands no chance.

 

[Max]

If Corbyn is on the ballot (which I'm certain he will be or there will be a major uproar within the party) then he will win any leadership contest by a bigger margin than the last. Angela thinks she can win but in reality she stands no chance.

YouGov poll at the end of June put it at 50-47, re: Labour members who would/wouldn't vote for Corbyn in a forthcoming leadership election. Corbyn's position is not as strong as it once was.

 

[Gashead]

YouGov poll at the end of June put it at 50-47, re: Labour members who would/wouldn't vote for Corbyn in a forthcoming leadership election. Corbyn's position is not as strong as it once was.

I think that totally depends on who he's up against, and that was part of the reason he won so comfortably before. The others proved themselves to be shite during the contest, in various ways. I'd vote for someone other than Corbyn if I was convinced they were better placed to win an election (I have very limited criteria too...).

Eagle falls into the bracket of 'shite', it seems she couldn't get as many MPs supporting her as the Welsh MP the other week, so I'm not sure why she's the face of this leadership challenge. PLP unity candidate has to be the most supported one doesn't it?

 

[Kopper]

I was incorrect in my labeling of Johnson, that was a pretty damn lazy tag. He might be a meek subservient bore but he's one of the better politicians out there in terms of integrity. For me though he's been far too right on many massive issues to have any credibility as an influential voice in the Labour party. Back in 2004 he voted for increasing tuition fees to £3000 and for implementing regulation that would make it easy for students to be extorted, which unsurprisingly is exactly what happened. When you throw in his unabating support for ID cards, the mass retention of data, indefinite detention & in real terms, secret trials. All things considered it's a bit much, I can't get behind those kind of views.

On Angela Eagles, the women has voted wrongly on some pretty fucking massive issues. Some things I admire about her for, such as being one of the few to have the courage for allowing terminally ill people the right to choose to end their life. However, as I said, she's got some unforgivable stains on her voting record. Much like Johnson & the rest of the cronies, she's been complicit in favouring bills that attack and erode away civil liberties and that just cannot be supported. ID cards, indefinite detention & the like. Quite tellingly she hasn't stood for candidacy of leader whilst Chilcot has been news, I wonder why that is? Couldn't possibly be down to the rarely broadcast fact she not only voted for the Iraq war but against the subsequent investigation, surely that alone should rule her inadmissible to be leader based on the views you've expressed about the wrongs of Iraq?

Her part in allowing tuition fees & regulation of the structure of student finance to spiral to unjust levels is surely another big cross next to her name. We quite simply need for young people from humble backgrounds to become educated, it's integral to the future of society. We can't allow for hurdles, not when so many of our fundamental civil liberties & human rights hinge on freethinking ideas & philosophies. A vote to increase tuition fees is an unforgivable sin, it's no good voting against the Tory rise when she contributed to the problem in the first place, doesn't that show poor error of judgement? No, to put a barrier between the understanding of civil liberties & ability to mould those liberties from the section of society that relies on them the most is totally against the heart of the Labour party and spits in the face of the very people it's supposed to represent.

You put forward a series of noble views on the previous page that would serve to support the everyday working person but you've surely gotta look at the bigger picture. The coup plotters can't lay claim to be honest to the values of Labour when they're voting record places them on the right in issues relating to civil liberties. It's not just slightly right, it's extreme, only have to reference the unanimous vote in favour of indefinite detention of a human being without trial to substantiate that view. Making it more difficult for the poor to get educated isn't a Labour value, yet the majority of these lot paved the way for that to happen, the consequence of which entraps them with a mountain of debt for which they will have to work for many years to pay off. It's like the whole thing has developed into a tool on which to manage social classes. If someone is saddled with student loan debt, tuition debt, bank overdraft debt, credit card debt and whatever else then that restricts a persons ability to contribute to the country when you consider they're less free to start a business, see through innovative ideas or merely step onto the property ladder. Would you not want for your grandchildren to leave university (if that's the route they want to follow) with not only a degree but not have the weighted chain of debt constricting their flexibility to truly pursue their dreams?
Because as far as I can see right now, most young people from humble backgrounds leaving university simply have no choice but to take whatever is being offered, often taking positions whereby the minimum qualification isn't a degree, thus making the whole process a massive fucking con.


When you lay this out as an alternative it's flawed mate, it's not incorrect per se, but it also doesn't truly grasp an understanding of the landscape in it's reality. Firstly, you're quite correct, we're now a service based economy. The important thing you've seemingly missed is that doesn't actually change anything. The majority of those in the service industry are the same demographic of people that would have traditionally worked in the manufacturing industries, ie the Labour movement. That suggests you're falling for the illusion that working for multicorps in the service industry is somehow glitzy and above the aspirations of a person stemming from the depicted poor element of society. Not everyone from a humble background is collecting bins or pushing trollies, I think this view must be linked to your subsequent analysis as to the levels of people who consider themselves middle class. It's the legacy of the Thatcher tenure, create a culture of asserting tags onto people and rely on the negative aspects of human nature, ie greed, to fuel delusions of grandeur and create a false sense of security that can be easily manipulated. There is no middle class, it's a myth. We have an underclass, working class, comfortable class and then the elite. If you can't go a month without a salary then you're working class, doesn't matter if your earning £14,000, £60,000, have a mortgage or rent a council flat. To progress onto the comfortable scale you need to either accumulate savings or come into money through inheritance or or other means. Traditionally you only reached that scale by the time you approached your fifties and that required sacrifice back then let alone in this day & age. The road we're on, our future generations will be working to service debt until they retire and then be at the mercy of a state pension. New Labour values relies on fueling this nastiness. Life isn't about working and serving the super rich, yet that's all New Labour represents our future generations.

My views aren't based on what serves me, it's inconsequential. We should be about creating a better future that harmonises unity, care & empathy into everyday society. We haven't got a nice society as it stands. You only have to look at the mental illness crisis (that we still shy away from) to prove that. People don't consider drug addicts to be mentally ill, they don't think about the events that may have triggered their tolerance to addiction or memories to be blurred. To have a society that looks down on these human beings and a system that simply punishes them and gives nothing in the way of real help is disgusting. We're approaching the 40th year of this bollox, how many more years will it take to make you realise this system does not serve humanity? Put simply this new world strategy is killing humanity, using analogies to dumb us down gradually. All a new world government wants is obedient workers. They will use fear to control and achieve that one desire. That was so evident during the referendum, every fucker got involved with the fear angle from those representing new world interests.

So when you ask me are they the same? Yes they are. When both serve money over humanity they're the same. You're being tricked. Blue team or red team, basic human psychology. Both are owned by multicorps. A vote between New Labour & One Nation Conservatism is merely a choice of brand. One might be easier to swallow but they're both gonna give you the shits.

Are you genuinely of the opinion that this is the best we can do? It's had almost 40 years to work and it's still failing miserably. The values you profess to have paints a picture of a country that values its citizens over multicorps, so why would you not want to get behind the only available movement that can make that happen? Putting the people first doesn't mean we shut down private enterprise and all eat equal amounts of bread. We've got a real chance of a revolution, don't let it slip.

I agreed with everything you said until you started talking about mental health. Mental health sufferers is usually a euphemism for life on the dole.
I told a former colleague of mine I was renting. He told me I was mad and I should get a council place. I told him it would take 20 years for them to even consider me. His response was I should pretend I was mentally ill and wanted to top myself.
This fella had several relatives who had gotten council places because of it. I personally know a fella who did this. He gets his rent paid for and JSA payments. This sack of shit has never worked more than a year in his entire life. He also owes money to everyone. Everyone, being anyone who brought into his bullshit.

The Labour party has become the party of the welfare recipient. Although those on welfare are more concerned about Johnny Foereigner and the EU. Hence the Tories winning a majority and UKIP getting 4m votes at the last election.
Labour has the right man, but the wrong message. The PLP are fools if they think ousting Jeremy Corbyn and going Tory-lite will work.
The electorate are right leaning at the moment. They'll be left leaning once we're out of the EU and the Tories slash the welfare budget.

But why should Labour seek to appeal to such a fickle bunch in the first place?

 

[.V.]

I agreed with everything you said until you started talking about mental health. Mental health sufferers is usually a euphemism for life on the dole.
I told a former colleague of mine I was renting. He told me I was mad and I should get a council place. I told him it would take 20 years for them to even consider me. His response was I should pretend I was mentally ill and wanted to top myself.
This fella had several relatives who had gotten council places because of it. I personally know a fella who did this. He gets his rent paid for and JSA payments. This sack of shit has never worked more than a year in his entire life. He also owes money to everyone. Everyone, being anyone who brought into his bullshit.

The Labour party has become the party of the welfare recipient. Although those on welfare are more concerned about Johnny Foereigner and the EU. Hence the Tories winning a majority and UKIP getting 4m votes at the last election.
Labour has the right man, but the wrong message. The PLP are fools if they think ousting Jeremy Corbyn and going Tory-lite will work.
The electorate are right leaning at the moment. They'll be left leaning once we're out of the EU and the Tories slash the welfare budget.

But why should Labour seek to appeal to such a fickle bunch in the first place?

If someone is mentally ill, faking or not, they will be in receipt of ESA not JSA, and it's not exactly easy to get these days.

The Tories have already slashed the welfare budget, and even post Brexit and the subsequent fallout, still have a 4 point lead over Labour.

 

[Kopper]

If someone is mentally ill, faking or not, they will be in receipt of ESA not JSA, and it's not exactly easy to get these days.

The Tories have already slashed the welfare budget, and even post Brexit and the subsequent fallout, still have a 4 point lead over Labour.

Easy enough.

I stand corrected on the ESA point. Though I would like to say the Tories are mindful of cutting welfare too fast too quickly. A legacy of generous welfare spending by New Labour.
Although spending cuts through stealth is how the Tories will remedy that problem. But they still won't cut as much as they want to.