Politics

[Rayvin 5131]

Let me ask (Renton and Gloom) - if Tony Blair (pre-Iraq war) had come out with Corbyn's policies, would you have voted for him?

Edited September 26, 2016 by Rayvin

[Dr Gloom 21568]

I haven't voted labour since Iraq. It was Libdem then green

Edited September 26, 2016 by Dr Gloom

[Rayvin 5131]

Aye but I'm talking pre-Iraq...  Are you saying you just don't agree with Corbyn's policies then? That's all I'm really asking.

 

EDIT - and by agree I mean 'broadly'. There are some I don't agree with either, but if Blair was putting them forward (i.e. someone with charisma) would you vote for them.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Rayvin

[Renton 20620]

Let me ask (Renton and Gloom) - if Tony Blair (pre-Iraq war) had come out with Corbyn's policies, would you have voted for him?

Yes of course I would although with two caveats. I strongly disagree with some of his policies, so I'd have to swallow that. But more importantly, despite what you may think, I am far more left leaning than the majority of the electorate, so there's no guarantee Blair would have been elected in such circumstances.

 

Policies in opposition are one thing though, actually being able to enact them (bearing in mind we live in a globalised economy) us quite another. This is where pragmatism trumps idealism, and was key to New Labour's success. And will be key to Corbyn failure. McDonnell for instance will announce today insisted plans to pump 500 billion pounds of public borrowing into the economy. Where's this figure come from? Plucked straight from his arse I suspect. I agree we should be borrowing for infrastructure projects but this level of borrowing us absurd and the electorate won't buy it.

[Rayvin 5131]

Yes of course I would although with two caveats. I strongly disagree with some of his policies, so I'd have to swallow that. But more importantly, despite what you may think, I am far more left leaning than the majority of the electorate, so there's no guarantee Blair would have been elected in such circumstances.

 

Policies in opposition are one thing though, actually being able to enact them (bearing in mind we live in a globalised economy) us quite another. This is where pragmatism trumps idealism, and was key to New Labour's success. And will be key to Corbyn failure. McDonnell for instance will announce today insisted plans to pump 500 billion pounds of public borrowing into the economy. Where's this figure come from? Plucked straight from his arse I suspect. I agree we should be borrowing for infrastructure projects but this level of borrowing us absurd and the electorate won't buy it.

 

I know you're left wing mate - I've always considered you to be more or less where I am, with a couple of exceptions going either way - the issue is your second paragraph. 

 

McDonnell made the case earlier that the money could be borrowed at low rates (true - the stock markets are actually borrowing to invest in shares at the moment, as the price of money is so low; so if the right wing, rich city bankers are doing it, why not governments?) and that therefore it is an achievable figure. I don't know if it is or it isn't, but at least his argument makes sense. I suspect his justification will be lost amongst the incredulous headlines of the Daily Mail, though. Interest rates are low to encourage us to spend - that's why they do it. It's not working though, because the government isn't spending, so there isn't enough cash in the system. This is why austerity didn't work, and McDonnell is right to view spending as they way back to growth. It's Keynesian, and it makes sense.

 

I do see your point about pragmatism, but it only holds up if you accept that we live in a truly broken system where no one is interested in actual policies or facts, and instead are interested only in personalities and tribalism.

 

I don't want to live in that society - so I'm voting against it. I might lose, sure - very probably will in actual fact - but my conscience will be clear as I will have tried to help in some small way to having good policies implemented with outcomes that will genuinely benefit people. Instead of a slight alleviation in misery, which is the alternative put forward by compromising with the press (EDIT: which is then reversed as soon as the Tories get back into power).

Edited September 26, 2016 by Rayvin

[Dr Gloom 21568]

Aye but I'm talking pre-Iraq... Are you saying you just don't agree with Corbyn's policies then? That's all I'm really asking.

 

EDIT - and by agree I mean 'broadly'. There are some I don't agree with either, but if Blair was putting them forward (i.e. someone with charisma) would you vote for them.

I think it's a combination of corbyn's lack of leadership and how stubborn he can be. Not impressed by some of his "friends" he's shared stages with either.

 

But to be frank, I'd have voted for Blair if he'd swung to the left from a position of power, yes. But it would have had to be a slow and gradual process or the electorate wouldn't stand for it - in the same way they won't swing radically to the left now.

 

For the record, I stopped voting labour after Iraq and my protest vote turned permanent afer they bottled it on the austerity debate. So I think we're coming from the same corner, apart from disagreeing over what it takes to win an election.

[Rayvin 5131]

Ok but - you say you now vote Green and Lib Dem. Do you expect them to win power? Given what you've just said, fair enough if you don't think Corbyn can win, but surely you should now be considering voting for him on the grounds that a) he isn't New Labour which you claim to have failed in the same manner I do, and that his policies aren't entirely unremoved from where you are and b ) you're voting for parties who have less capacity than he does to win an election anyway..?

 

Unless I'm missing something.

[Gemmill 43234]

It's a fair point. [emoji38] If you agree with Corbyn's policies but waste your vote on genuinely unelectable parties, it's time to shut the fuck up about how unelectable Corbyn is.

[Dr Gloom 21568]

they were protest votes. i never expected the lib dems to win power and i was disgusted with what they did in bed with the tories. and of course, i don't expect the green to ever do anything. 

 

i probably will vote for corbyn next time, not that it'll make any difference to the result. my seat is as safe labour as you're going to get, incidentally. i was hoping labour would change. i never considered a rebel backbencher with no experience of front line politics or leadership to emerge. it was as unlikely a leadership victory as you could imagine - a lot of blame here lies with ed miliband for abolishing the electoral college system. 

[Rayvin 5131]

Fair enough - without that change though (electoral college) we never would have gotten these policies - Labour would have stuck it out with austerity. The more you focus on the policies in this, and not the people, the more Corbyn makes sense. And I know, it's been said to death, that Corbyn can't win because even if *I* vote for policies, most of the electorate won't. But my hope is that such an analysis is facile when the only 'alternative' is Theresa May's Tories. Who now have nowhere to hide and no one else to blame when things go wrong.

 

What the rise of Corbyn offered was a sense that *people* mattered for the first time in an age. This is why he keeps going on about it being a movement. He was put there by *the people*. Despite everything. Twice. That's something to believe in even if it leads nowhere.

 

Moreover, as I said, it's the media who make this about the people and not the policies. I'm going to vote based on policies and I can only suggest that every thinking person does the same thing. Buying into the media driven nonsense is just pointless, and only serves to entrench right wing values. Our democratic system is broken and gloom, from everything you've said, you're almost identical in your thinking to me. So you know it's broken. And I agree that Corbyn probably won't be the one to fix it - but I do think the movement, which I hope will outlast Corbyn, potentially could.

 

And I'm not even in Momentum ffs.

 

This could fall flat - but it is going to lead to change. Whether that change is PR which will need to come in due to a diminished Labour party and the need to avoid a one party state, or some of the policies put on the agenda to be discussed, this is the best chance the left has at the moment, IMO.

[Dr Gloom 21568]

i admire your enthusiasm, ravin. 

 

did you hear about the mumsnet interview corbyn gave? he was asked their famous "what's your favourite biscuit?" question. 

 

corbyn's answer: "I'm totally anti-sugar on health grounds, so eat very few biscuits"

 

man of the people strikes again. it's regrettable, but the only people he speaks to are young idealists and old trots. he's lost the swathes of old fashioned, blue collar labour voters across the country. they care about things like immigration - an issue corbyn won't budge on - and are interested in what kind of biscuit their leader likes. he does himself no favours there. 

 

as sad as it is to say, a tee-total, manhole spotting vegetarian like corbyn doesn't choose to speak to the concerns of the great unwashed - the morons who could elect him, in other words. 

Edited September 26, 2016 by Dr Gloom

[Rayvin 5131]

Just as an aside, I watched a film the other day about sugar in food that honestly made me think that the whole world would be better off without sugar. I didn't watch this video just to be able to endorse Corbyn on it for what it's worth although it probably sounds that way. I think it's called That Sugar Film. It points out that sugar, rather than fat, is the leading cause of obesity. Apparently it compromises insulin in such a way that it adds to weight gain. The guy in the film eats only low fat foods but still puts weight on, suffers mood swings, and feels generally groggy at all times. And he's eating 'healthy' weight loss food. It was really eye opening. Problem is, getting by without sugar is really fucking hard.

 

So back to Corbyn. Yes, not eating biscuits does make him harder for the electorate to relate to - but then, he seems to have deeply held health reasons for rejecting it. Probably based on stuff that's covered in that film. He's doing himself no favours unless you actually look at why he's doing these things. Which no one takes the time to do/attempts to misrepresent him.

 

As for the demographics, I don't think Corbyn lost the blue collars - I think Miliband did. They deserted him at the GE, UKIP had over 4 million votes for one thing. That's nothing to do with Corbyn. His challenge is to win them back, not retain them. That said, his style is unlikely to do this when it's filtered through the mainstream media. This is why if he is to win, he has to do it without the media. In this era, with social networks and alternative news sources, this is becoming more possible. He absolutely does need to speak to people's concerns - and his policies absolutely would do. He needs to communicate them though, that's the challenge.

 

I think I'm more desperate than enthusiastic tbh. I was disillusioned to the point of no longer voting after the GE last time. I voted Labour but really didn't want to, it was just because 'they're better than the Tories'. Corbyn came in and I saw a chance for meaningful change and went for it.

[Renton 20620]

A lot of Corbyn's followers are deeply unpleasant people as well, it's the same at both margins of the political spectrum, left or right. CT mentioned Corbyn as a Trojan horse and honestly I think he has a point. I remember Militant in the early 80s. I really don't like the way Corbyn has conducted himself at all. Is it brave to face down a revolt of 80% of your own MPs, or is it in fact a shameful coup? You know what I think.

[Rayvin 5131]

Will you vote Labour or someone less electable? Or... the other alternative that doesn't bear thinking about.

 

That's all that really matters. Also, there's plenty of deeply unpleasant people in the centre-ground as well. I think the truism here is just that, 'there are deeply unpleasant people in politics'.

[Renton 20620]

"As for the demographics, I don't think Corbyn lost the blue collars".

 

Hold on, isn't Corbyn massively pro immigration (despite being anti-EU)? How do you think that's going to go down with your average Mackem?

[Rayvin 5131]

"As for the demographics, I don't think Corbyn lost the blue collars".

 

Hold on, isn't Corbyn massively pro immigration (despite being anti-EU)? How do you think that's going to go down with your average Mackem?

 

Not well - but he didn't lose them. He has to win them back. Labour under Miliband lost them - which is what I put in my post.

 

That said, I think he could do this if he offered a better solution for blue collars in general. Ultimately, are most working class people racist, or are they just sick of being at the bottom of the pile? That's the make or break point for this scenario. I don't know which it is. If the latter, then there's something to work with.

[Renton 20620]

Will you vote Labour or someone less electable? Or... the other alternative that doesn't bear thinking about.

 

That's all that really matters. Also, there's plenty of deeply unpleasant people in the centre-ground as well. I think the truism here is just that, 'there are deeply unpleasant people in politics'.

There are plenty of opportunists who don't give a shit about people in the centre, true. It's the edges that attracts the nutters though, the ones inclined to physical intimidation and violence. Always been the way.

[Renton 20620]

Not well - but he didn't lose them. He has to win them back. Labour under Miliband lost them - which is what I put in my post.

 

That said, I think he could do this if he offered a better solution for blue collars in general. Ultimately, are most working class people racist, or are they just sick of being at the bottom of the pile? That's the make or break point for this scenario. I don't know which it is. If the latter, then there's something to work with.

Honestly Rayvin, your average factory worker will relate better to May than Corbyn. And that's before the red tops have even started.

[Rayvin 5131]

There are plenty of opportunists who don't give a shit about people in the centre, true. It's the edges that attracts the nutters though, the ones inclined to physical intimidation and violence. Always been the way.

 

Well, good thing Corbyn isn't far left then, is all I can say to that. If some 'far left' are getting into the party, it's better to hear their views and argue them down than to no-platform them anyway. I dunno, I just don't think it's that big an issue.

[Christmas Tree 4542]

I know you're left wing mate - I've always considered you to be more or less where I am, with a couple of exceptions going either way - the issue is your second paragraph.

 

McDonnell made the case earlier that the money could be borrowed at low rates (true - the stock markets are actually borrowing to invest in shares at the moment, as the price of money is so low; so if the right wing, rich city bankers are doing it, why not governments?) and that therefore it is an achievable figure. I don't know if it is or it isn't, but at least his argument makes sense. I suspect his justification will be lost amongst the incredulous headlines of the Daily Mail, though. Interest rates are low to encourage us to spend - that's why they do it. It's not working though, because the government isn't spending, so there isn't enough cash in the system. This is why austerity didn't work, and McDonnell is right to view spending as they way back to growth. It's Keynesian, and it makes sense.

 

I do see your point about pragmatism, but it only holds up if you accept that we live in a truly broken system where no one is interested in actual policies or facts, and instead are interested only in personalities and tribalism.

 

I don't want to live in that society - so I'm voting against it. I might lose, sure - very probably will in actual fact - but my conscience will be clear as I will have tried to help in some small way to having good policies implemented with outcomes that will genuinely benefit people. Instead of a slight alleviation in misery, which is the alternative put forward by compromising with the press (EDIT: which is then reversed as soon as the Tories get back into power).

Where you come across a bit naive imo (lately), is this story you have told yourself that everyone needs to "see the light" and vote for policies.

 

The majority of the electorate do vote for policies, just very rarely left wing policies.

 

To think that some two old back benchers and Dianne Abbott have suddenly found the secrets to winning successful caring democracy is laughable man.

 

It's all the same old stuff from yesteryear. Borrow billions, nationalise public transport, set up cooperatives, industry's coming back blah blah blah.

 

They haven't got a clue where all the money will come or more importantly what they do with. Never mind the yearly tax budget which would have to quadruple to pay for all their mad ideas.

 

Honestly, you should go and read up on the 80's and see why Labour was unelectable for 18 years and why New Labour had to be what it was. Deja vu.

[NJS 4281]

Honestly Rayvin, your average factory worker will relate better to May than Corbyn. And that's before the red tops have even started.

This goes back to what Gemmill said - if people are going to vote against their interests based on whether someone eats fucking biscuits then they deserve what they get.

[Rayvin 5131]

Honestly Rayvin, your average factory worker will relate better to May than Corbyn. And that's before the red tops have even started.

 

Agreed at this point.

 

I've said a few times that I have no real expectation of Corbyn getting into power. But his existence weakens the 'red tops' who carry most of the country, and that in itself is important. Some positive change will come out of this. I'm hoping for PR as a minimum if he does, as you all fear, destroy the Labour Party. I can't envisage any way in which the Tories would be able to carry on with FPTP in a one party state while still calling us a democracy. Maybe this is bitter medicine that we as a nation need to swallow in order for people to stop voting stupidly.

 

As I said, I'll vote for policies, personally. I'll just have to hope that Momentum have something impressive planned with their grassroots activism in order to make a decent fist of it.

[Dr Gloom 21568]

nationalising public transport is something i actually think a lot of voters would lap up.

 

the borrow and spend argument has to be made convincingly and won - it's a sound economic argument, especially how cheap it is to borrow right now. but this is where having a charismatic leader would help and i don't think corbyn and mcdonnell are up to it. 

[Rayvin 5131]

Where you come across a bit naive imo (lately), is this story you have told yourself that everyone needs to "see the light" and vote for policies.

 

The majority of the electorate do vote for policies, just very rarely left wing policies.

 

To think that some two old back benchers and Dianne Abbott have suddenly found the secrets to winning successful caring democracy is laughable man.

 

It's all the same old stuff from yesteryear. Borrow billions, nationalise public transport, set up cooperatives, industry's coming back blah blah blah.

 

They haven't got a clue where all the money will come or more importantly what they do with. Never mind the yearly tax budget which would have to quadruple to pay for all their mad ideas.

 

Honestly, you should go and read up on the 80's and see why Labour was unelectable for 18 years and why New Labour had to be what it was. Deja vu.

 

CT, did you read that article I posted a couple of pages back which made clear that, when parties are taken out of it, and people vote on policies, we end up with the Greens in charge? That was done 2 years ago across 500,000 people. Only 14% of people chose Tory policies.

 

Here it is again: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/if-people-voted-for-policies-the-green-party-would-win-the-next-election-9887199.html

 

It would be extremely interesting to see this carried out at a national level across a larger number of people (although half a million is considerable). The majority of the electorate, and I could not be more convinced of this after Brexit, vote for what they're told to vote for by the media.

[Dr Gloom 21568]

This goes back to what Gemmill said - if people are going to vote against their interests based on whether someone eats fucking biscuits then they deserve what they get.

 

it is about policies but voters also want someone they can relate to. the only people corbyn relates to are young idealists and islington guardianistas.