The Politics Thread

[William the White]

This is really good

Outstanding... David Harvey consistently brilliant...

Great cartooning also...

Too dense for bobo, obviously, even with the pictures to help him.

But a retort to those who think they are on the left but seem to consider 'how do you win next time?' as an adequate response to the debate.

[Prufrock]

"Those who think they are on the left"

Outstanding. From the same school of thought that brings you "Corbyn.. At least he stands up for what he believes in". Unlike the other three who are (literally) standing up for something other than they believe in, presumably.

The moral worthiness of the self proclaimed "real left" has been so depressing. Corbyn's candidacy was supposed to widen debate and its done nothing but narrow it.

[freeindeed]

Please explain how Corbyn has "narrowed the debate"

[Prufrock]

He hasn't at all (that I'm aware of), but his candidacy has. I'm glad he's there and I'm glad he was nominated. From what I've heard him say so far he hasn't put a foot wrong, he personally has welcomed the opportunity to have a debate, and I wish I lived in a world where he had a chance of being elected (IMO).

However, lots (not all) of his supporters have narrowed the debate to the extent that if you're not a Corbyn supporter then you're merely someone who "thinks" you're on the left, or you're "basically a Tory and should join the Tories". On the one hand it's great to see the numbers of people supporting Corbyn who are passionate about their cause, but they don't have a monopoly on "believing what they stand for" or any kind of superior moral authority.

[thebish]

Actually - I don't think Burnham really believes what he says, pru... Do you??? He simply says what he thinks will please most people. Have you listened to the guy??

also - not really buying your argument that "However, lots (not all) of his (Corbyn's) supporters have narrowed the debate to the extent that if you're not a Corbyn supporter then you're merely someone who "thinks" you're on the left, or you're "basically a Tory and should join the Tories"...

that is no more a narrowing of the debate than the coalition of the other three's supporters accusing all the Corbyn supports of simply being old fashioned lunatic lefty-romanticists who don't understand the necessary compromises of real-politik... (oh - that includes you! )

I haven't actually heard any of the other three engage with his ideas at all... they just attack the man and his supporters...
(of course it is possible I have missed the speeches where andy burnham gave a reasoned and rational rebuttal of Corbyns approach...)

debate? there isn't one - and never was going to be one... if you fall that that old bollox that politicians give us - "what we need is a wide-ranging debate on the real issues" - then you're naiverer than I guessed!

[Bruce Rioja]

He hasn't at all (that I'm aware of), but his candidacy has.

Not another fecking peep out of you. You ginger - pubed bollock. straight in. On you go!

[Harry Genshaw]

Aside from the blandness of 3 of the candidates, this whole process has made Labour look pretty foolish. Almost the first thing I heard when they announced who could vote in this election, was support for Corbyn from both the left and from Tories who felt they could throw a spanner in the works. It was referred to on here pretty early on too. 2 things really - is the Labour party so skint that they desperately need a few thousand people to stump up 3 quid? And, didn't they demonstrate last time around that they could pick the wrong bloke without any additional help?

Now some are talking of suspending the whole process, which just sounds like the political equivalent of taking your ball home

[Prufrock]

Actually - I don't think Burnham really believes what he says, pru... Do you??? He simply says what he thinks will please most people. Have you listened to the guy??

also - not really buying your argument that "However, lots (not all) of his (Corbyn's) supporters have narrowed the debate to the extent that if you're not a Corbyn supporter then you're merely someone who "thinks" you're on the left, or you're "basically a Tory and should join the Tories"...

that is no more a narrowing of the debate than the coalition of the other three's supporters accusing all the Corbyn supports of simply being old fashioned lunatic lefty-romanticists who don't understand the necessary compromises of real-politik... (oh - that includes you! )

I haven't actually heard any of the other three engage with his ideas at all... they just attack the man and his supporters...
(of course it is possible I have missed the speeches where andy burnham gave a reasoned and rational rebuttal of Corbyns approach...)

debate? there isn't one - and never was going to be one... if you fall that that old bollox that politicians give us - "what we need is a wide-ranging debate on the real issues" - then you're naiverer than I guessed!

I agree on Burnham, tbf. I've seen no evidence so far that he believes in anything other than that Andy Burnham should be in charge. Last time round he's the Blairite candidate; this time round he's after the union vote. He seems to want to be in charge but I don't know why.

Hugely unfair on Kendall and Cooper though.

I appreciate and admit I'm only going on anecdotal evidence, but all I've got from Corbyn supporters so far is an unwillingness to debate policy and just sneers that "you're a Tory really". I haven't seen that the other way, though I'm not saying it's not happened.

That's made worse by the fact that the whole point of Corbyn being on the ballot was to "widen the debate". He said he didn't want the leadership, only to "widen the debate", and several of the MPs who nominated him said they didn't actually support him but wanted to "widen the debate". There's a reason I chose his words, and it's because they're his.

The more I read and see about Corbyn (who is my constituency MP) the more I like him, but to criticise him as being unelectable is totally fair game: that's a policy based argument. I, and no supporter of any of the other three I've seen, have suggested that Corbyn isn't "really" a Labour member, or that he should piss off and join the Trade Union and Socialist Workers Party.

To say to someone "you should be in the Tories" or you "think" you're on the left is to say "you have no place in this discussion". To criticise policy and argue that it makes someone a bad candidate is to have that discussion.

[Prufrock]

He hasn't at all (that I'm aware of), but his candidacy has.

Not another fecking peep out of you. You ginger - pubed bollock. straight in. On you go!

Having a quiet birthday eve ?

[thebish]

but they have his supporters... calls being made to postpone the election because of the influx of new members wanting to vote corbyn - dismissed as entryist trotskyites who want to destroy the party...

could it not simply be the return of many who were driven out by the lurch rightwards in the 80s?

there is PLENTY from the anti-corbyn lobby about people not having a place in this discussion - so much so that they want to stop the election and rewrite the rules...

also - I don't think "we need to believe this because it's what middle england like" is "policy" - that's strategy... I have heard the other three talk lots of strategy - and hardly any policy...

[William the White]

"Those who think they are on the left"

Outstanding. From the same school of thought that brings you "Corbyn.. At least he stands up for what he believes in". Unlike the other three who are (literally) standing up for something other than they believe in, presumably.

The moral worthiness of the self proclaimed "real left" has been so depressing. Corbyn's candidacy was supposed to widen debate and its done nothing but narrow it.

Just to say I feel no moral worthiness at all because I recommended serious consideration of freeindeed's contribution to the debate - I just feel it's the one that has most clearly asked people to consider serious ideas rather than PR puffs.

I do think ideas are important on the left.

I recognise I am in a minority on this. I find this depressing.

[freeindeed]

Has there been a real political debate since Blair scrapped clause 4, jumped into bed with Murdoch and did whatever was needed to win power. In the blink of an eye the socialist vote was disbanded. With a few cosmetic differences he maintained the ideological principles of Thatcher wearing a bright red tie.

Piketty has demonstrated conclusively that "trickle down economics" is a myth, and that wealth inequality is exponentially expanding.
Corporations and Capitalists have too much power and it is out of control. All the accumulated public wealth is being sold off; Under Thatcher the largest amount of public assets she sold off in a year was 1987, where she sold £18.5 billion (inflation adjusted) in assets. Hidden away in this years budgets (not even in Osbornes speech) was the sale of £30 billion of assets

The Thatcherite & Blairite Neo-liberal ideology of unregulated financial services has just lead to a near complete collapse of the whole worlds economy. The working poor were FORCED to near nationalise the banks to save them. Now Osborne is selling those publicly owned shares at a massive loss. They should fecking stay nationalised to help us invest desperately needed funds into our cash starved economy.

We have reached a point where "people tend to accept rapacious untethered free-market fundamentalism as some kind of "centre ground" instead of the extreme form of capitalism that it is"

Under the guise of 'austerity' the welfare state has been dismantled aided by the vilification of the 'benefit scroungers' in the right wing press. All national assets stripped and sold. Cuts to all local & community projects. A crises in adult social care. Economy still at a lower output than before the 2008 crash. The rich still getting wildly richer.

There is a desperate need for a proper debate. Any politician who is advocating a continuation of the very ideology that has lead society to this desperate point cannot provide it. It can only be provided by an alternative political and economical model. The only candidate who is advocating a different model is Jeremy Corbyn, It also happens to be supported by 3 heavyweight economists. Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz & Paul Krugman and Thomas Piketty.

This is not an isolated occurrence, it's being mirrored with Sanders in the US, and with Podemos, Syriza, SNP in Scotland. Many people are starting to understand that the fecked world finances are not going away. We need to reclaim them to work for us, to serve society - not ultra wealthy individuals.

Vote Corbyn

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Of the 4 candidates, 3 of them are identikit Westminster politicians. They almost always refuse to answer questions or give a straight answer. Corbyn seems to actually answer questions in a straightforward manner, which I'm sure gets him a fair few votes on it's own. A lot of people want something different, and whilst Corbyn might not be right to lead the country, he is the only one offering something different, which might just make him electable after all...

[Prufrock]

but they have his supporters... calls being made to postpone the election because of the influx of new members wanting to vote corbyn - dismissed as entryist trotskyites who want to destroy the party...

could it not simply be the return of many who were driven out by the lurch rightwards in the 80s?

there is PLENTY from the anti-corbyn lobby about people not having a place in this discussion - so much so that they want to stop the election and rewrite the rules...

also - I don't think "we need to believe this because it's what middle england like" is "policy" - that's strategy... I have heard the other three talk lots of strategy - and hardly any policy...

No arguments with the first part of that, other than I haven't actually seen much of it at a (awful phrase alert) "grass-roots level". I've no time either for those people such as they exist. If Corbyn wins, he wins. Fair enough - with the caveat that I'd change my mind if there was any evidence a significant part of Jezza's support was in fact these "mischievous Tories" rather than one or two *hilarious* jokers. If they're new Labour supporters, whether returning members driven away, or people who've never been members but won over by JC's message then it's totally right that they're welcomed and allowed to vote.

On the second part, firstly and crucially, it's not "we need to believe this because it's what middle england like", it's "we need to sell what we believe this way because it addresses the concerns middle england has". And yes, you're right that is strategy not policy. But strategy is important. For me the two important questions in this election are: 1) would this candidate be better for the country than Osbourne, Johnson or May? 2) can this candidate actually win? Policy is relevant to question 1), strategy (and to an extent policy too) to question 2).

Kendall and Cooper (not so much in this contest so far, but certainly in the past) have said enough about policy for me to be totally convinced that either would be better for the country than the Tories. And my dislike of Burnham probably means I'm being unfair to him too.

[Prufrock]

"Those who think they are on the left"

Outstanding. From the same school of thought that brings you "Corbyn.. At least he stands up for what he believes in". Unlike the other three who are (literally) standing up for something other than they believe in, presumably.

The moral worthiness of the self proclaimed "real left" has been so depressing. Corbyn's candidacy was supposed to widen debate and its done nothing but narrow it.

Just to say I feel no moral worthiness at all because I recommended serious consideration of freeindeed's contribution to the debate - I just feel it's the one that has most clearly asked people to consider serious ideas rather than PR puffs.

I do think ideas are important on the left.

I recognise I am in a minority on this. I find this depressing.

There's that sneer again.

"Having ideas", "being on the *real* left" and "standing up for what you believe" are not synonyms for "agree with WtW".

[Bruce Rioja]

He hasn't at all (that I'm aware of), but his candidacy has.

Not another fecking peep out of you. You ginger - pubed bollock. straight in. On you go!

Having a quiet birthday eve ?

I've been dying to use that line for over a week now!

[BWFC_Insane]

Do Labour want to be re-elected or are they happy to let the Tories have 10 more years. Corbyn is a guarantee of another 5 years of Tory government, a cast-iron guarantee at that. Probably another term beyond that too because the Labour party would need a total re-build and re-brand before it became electable again.

The list of candidates is depressing. Liz Kendall doesn't have the experience nor the stature required. Burnham does, but his policy flip-flopping is an irritant, though he is probably the best of a bad bunch.Cooper is a lightweight, Corbyn totally unelectable.

This is veering back to the bad old days of the early 80's and I can easily see a splinter group of MPs led by that Rochdale bloke leaving the Labour party should Corbyn get the leadership and forming the 2015 version of the SDP. Blair might get stick, but he made Labour electable in a way no-one else managed or has managed since the 70's and poured money into a failing NHS and into schools that was absolutely vital. Once again public services are being asset stripped and reduced to husks under a Tory government. If that continues to happen there is a choice. Find a Labour leader who will do the pragmatic things and make the party electable again. Or suffer through 10 years of pain whilst Labour enjoy idealogical debates on the sidelines. I know which I prefer out of those two options.

[freeindeed]

There is nothing cast iron about it. It's easy to look back at the pattern of the last 30 years and assume that will continue forever, but this is not the 1980's. Times are very different. Is it so implausible that another financial wobble or crash happens? If it does, I firmly believe Corbyn would be elected.
Also bear in mind the Conservatives only won 25% of the vote. If, as he has done so far he manages to attract a large percentage of non-voters into politics on top of reclaiming some of The Scottish/Green/Ukip and odd Tory back, he could do just fine. Not to mention the strategical possibilities of alliances with SNP/Greens.

The right wing media will have you believe that a left-wing win being impossible is some kind of truism, but we have had left wing governments before. Don't believe it is impossible again.

[freeindeed]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng- ... y-delusion

This is a great read, by one of the nobel prize winning economists mentioned earlier.

[BWFC_Insane]

There is nothing cast iron about it. It's easy to look back at the pattern of the last 30 years and assume that will continue forever, but this is not the 1980's. Times are very different. Is it so implausible that another financial wobble or crash happens? If it does, I firmly believe Corbyn would be elected.
Also bear in mind the Conservatives only won 25% of the vote. If, as he has done so far he manages to attract a large percentage of non-voters into politics on top of reclaiming some of The Scottish/Green/Ukip and odd Tory back, he could do just fine. Not to mention the strategical possibilities of alliances with SNP/Greens.

The right wing media will have you believe that a left-wing win being impossible is some kind of truism, but we have had left wing governments before. Don't believe it is impossible again.

But your scenario is predicated on things going wrong and opening the door for the opposition. Which is possible. But my suspicion is even with a wide open, gaping door, Corbyn wouldn't have enough support to get through it.

There was a fairly open door for Labour this time round. But they blew it through an incompetent campaign, a leader few in the country felt credible and a confusing set of policies that seemed open ended enough to effectively mean nothing. People didn't know what they stood for and the only consistent reaction measured throughout the campaign was that some people worried about Ed's competence as a potential PM and there was concern he was a real, genuine leftie....

At the end of the day, and what Labour massively missed last time, it doesn't matter what you say, so long as it isn't stark raving bonkers, it is HOW you say it, how you package it and how you deliver it. The Tories did spectacularly well at making people believe they were the party for the "hard working Brit", whatever that means and people swallowed it hook line and sinker, irrespective of the fact that the actual meat on their policies didn't really back that up. Elections are won from the middle. Like it or not. Cameron has played a blinder, with his whole "I'm pumped up" speech. He came out as a man to make tough decisions but on the side of working class and middle class people. It is total bollocks of course but it is the game now. Labour couldn't escape the nonsense tag of being reckless socialist spenders just waiting to get in and spend all those hardworking people's money again. They made huge, huge mistakes not countering the argument earlier, in a credible way.

Corbyn will be savaged daily in an election battle, Milliband's treatment will seem a mere trifle in comparison. And as much as he may unite the left side of Labour, like it or not that won't help them win an election. The seats they need to take back are the ones they lost ground in middle and Southern England mainly. Believe me, whatever happens between now and 2020 the battle lines in the seats that make a difference won't be won by tempting the Green vote across. They'll be won by winning back Tory and dare I say it UKIP voters. And that simply won't happen with Corbyn there, like it or not. In addition the party would almost certainly fragment either physically or behind closed doors and would be an unelectable mess. I don't see any other scenario.