Politics

[Rayvin 4970]

He said Labour establishment.

I've fully admitted my hypocrisy on that before - I like being reasonably well paid too much and don't think that in itself is against my principles. Working for a bank, albeit one of the less evil ones, is "dodgy" I acknowledge.

As I've also said before, my Dad taught me that in your day to day life you look after yourself and your family and when it comes to an election you vote to look after everyone else. I try to include not fucking anyone over in the first aim.

I basically share this background and philosophy. Not that I'm a banker, but I'm certainly not hard done by under the current system. I work with or around a lot of people who are though and I can't in good conscience vote in my own interests when I have it better than them. So I vote in theirs.

 

I respect your position here fully, although I would say that I suppose.

[Rayvin 4970]

But yet did more good and effected more positive change than they did in the previous four parliaments in opposition. Certainly much more than they'll do under Corbyn.

How can you possibly know that though? The only argument I've really heard from the unsettled centre left is that Corbyn can't win. But you're just parroting what the media are saying when that comes out. It's a self fulfilling prophecy and it's really bizarre to see so many people jumping into it.

 

And in answer to your other question, this is New Labours fault for me because they threw everyone who supported them under the bus when it came to the narrative post financial crash and the waving through of austerity. Weak leadership and direction from New Labour created a vacuum that the membership filled. I think the mistake here is thinking that something like this wasn't coming either way though - I would have struggled to vote Labour if we'd had more of the same in the next GE. I would have been looking for something else. Many others, apparently, would have been as well.

[Renton 18049]

"My problem with Jeremy Corbyn is that, for him, holding the government to account is not a priority. Winning elections is a bourgeois distraction – unless it’s his own leadership election."

 

"Having fine principles but no power is just turning your backs on the people who need you the most, its letting someone else win the day".

 

Two quotes from Farron today which are spot on. There is no point in being idealistic in permanent opposition, absolutely none at all. To effect change you need power. Virtually every leader of a major party has known this: be it Thatcher, Blair, Brown, Cameron or now Farron. Corbyn either doesn't get it, doesn't care, or is so deluded he genuinely thinks he can win, against all available evidence. Which is it?

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3282]

But yet did more good and effected more positive change than they did in the previous four parliaments in opposition. Certainly much more than they'll do under Corbyn.

Didn't child poverty increase under Labour?

[Renton 18049]

Which, BTW, is why I find Rayvin's and NJS's suggestions they are somehow helping the working class somewhat rich. You two must know you're really not. And if you really believe new labour were as bad as the conservatives so it makes no difference, well fair enough, we're going to massively disagree there.

[Renton 18049]

Didn't child poverty increase under Labour?

A cherry picked metric which is relative isn't it? Anybody who lived through the 80s knows this isn't true in a meaningful sense, and minimum wage and child tax credits were clearly designed to combat this.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3282]

A cherry picked metric which is relative isn't it? Anybody who lived through the 80s knows this isn't true in a meaningful sense, and minimum wage and child tax credits were clearly designed to combat this.

Plus PFI plus the Iraq war plus Afghanistan.

[NJS 4007]

"My problem with Jeremy Corbyn is that, for him, holding the government to account is not a priority. Winning elections is a bourgeois distraction – unless it’s his own leadership election."

 

"Having fine principles but no power is just turning your backs on the people who need you the most, its letting someone else win the day".

 

Two quotes from Farron today which are spot on. There is no point in being idealistic in permanent opposition, absolutely none at all. To effect change you need power. Virtually every leader of a major party has known this: be it Thatcher, Blair, Brown, Cameron or now Farron. Corbyn either doesn't get it, doesn't care, or is so deluded he genuinely thinks he can win, against all available evidence. Which is it?

From a party that broke every promise and sold their arses for power.

[ewerk 26807]

Didn't child poverty increase under Labour?

No. It reduced by 600,000.

[adios 717]

 

As I've also said before, my Dad taught me that in your day to day life you look after yourself and your family and when it comes to an election you vote to look after everyone else.

This succinctly sums up how I feel.

 

I don't find your situation remotely hypocritical either.  Unless us lefties are all supposed to spend our lives doing charity in Africa.

[ewerk 26807]

How can you possibly know that though? The only argument I've really heard from the unsettled centre left is that Corbyn can't win. But you're just parroting what the media are saying when that comes out. It's a self fulfilling prophecy and it's really bizarre to see so many people jumping into it.

 

And in answer to your other question, this is New Labours fault for me because they threw everyone who supported them under the bus when it came to the narrative post financial crash and the waving through of austerity. Weak leadership and direction from New Labour created a vacuum that the membership filled. I think the mistake here is thinking that something like this wasn't coming either way though - I would have struggled to vote Labour if we'd had more of the same in the next GE. I would have been looking for something else. Many others, apparently, would have been as well.

I know because everything tells me so. The media, the polls, the electoral maths and myself all tell me that Corbyn isn't going to become PM. He is never going to appeal to a broad enough group of voters and also has no desire to do so.

[NJS 4007]

I know because everything tells me so. The media, the polls, the electoral maths and myself all tell me that Corbyn isn't going to become PM. He is never going to appeal to a broad enough group of voters and also has no desire to do so.

I do actually agree with that but there is nobody at present who could.

[Renton 18049]

From a party that broke every promise and sold their arses for power.

He's discusses that in the speech too. Personally I find the argument that the lib dems tempered the worst excesses of the Tories quite plausible now considering what has happened since.

[ewerk 26807]

Smith is unlikely to lead the party to victory either but I still think he can help achieve better results than Corbyn and while I know it's become a cliche, disaster at the next election could set Labour back a generation.

[Rayvin 4970]

He's discusses that in the speech too. Personally I find the argument that the lib dems tempered the worst excesses of the Tories quite plausible now considering what has happened since.

 

Oh good grief, we're coming full circle now. No they didn't. They went for broke on power. They're just as bad as Labour and the Tories. The whole system stinks.

[Rayvin 4970]

I know because everything tells me so. The media, the polls, the electoral maths and myself all tell me that Corbyn isn't going to become PM. He is never going to appeal to a broad enough group of voters and also has no desire to do so.

 

Yes but all that literally IS the self fulfilling prophecy. You've stated that Smith, who has nearly identical policies, would stand a better chance. Why? Because he's been picked from the pool of establishment acceptable candidates? The whole 'Corbyn is too far left' argument died when Smith came along. The issue now is that the PLP just don't want to be beholden to the membership. They want the control.

[Renton 18049]

Oh good grief, we're coming full circle now. No they didn't. They went for broke on power. They're just as bad as Labour and the Tories. The whole system stinks.

Remind me what the options were at the time. Honestly you're entitled to disagree but having a progressive, europhile, party with some control over the tories is preferable to me to than the present situation where the only opposition is a joke, the country is becoming increasingly vile, and we're heading full steam ahead to Brexit. And the eine of new labour before that was infinitely preferable (although concede to KCG about the wars). It's puerile to say that all parties are the same.

[Renton 18049]

Yes but all that literally IS the self fulfilling prophecy. You've stated that Smith, who has nearly identical policies, would stand a better chance. Why? Because he's been picked from the pool of establishment acceptable candidates? The whole 'Corbyn is too far left' argument died when Smith came along. The issue now is that the PLP just don't want to be beholden to the membership. They want the control.

It's not self fulfilling. It's entirely obvious Corbyn doesn't reflect the views of the large majority of society and has the charisma of a dog turd.

[Rayvin 4970]

They were all the same post-financial crisis. On austerity.

[ewerk 26807]

Yes but all that literally IS the self fulfilling prophecy. You've stated that Smith, who has nearly identical policies, would stand a better chance. Why? Because he's been picked from the pool of establishment acceptable candidates? The whole 'Corbyn is too far left' argument died when Smith came along. The issue now is that the PLP just don't want to be beholden to the membership. They want the control.

None of it is a self fulfilling prophecy

 

It's all because Jeremy Corbyn lacks the intelligence, charisma, personality and breadth of policies to attract enough support to form a government and everyone can see it.

[Rayvin 4970]

Clearly not everyone, sadly.

 

I think the root here is that as soon as I left uni and started work, the system failed around me. All parties closed ranks around protecting the rich and their wealth, and many people I studied with struggled to find work, struggled to move out of their parents place, literally had the rug pulled out from under them. None of the parties represented us when that happened. Why the fuck should any of us stick by those parties now? Why the fuck?

 

Brexit proves the same is true at the other end of the spectrum as well. The system as it used to exist is dying a death.

 

I was going to vote Green for shits and giggles before Corbyn. He put forward something I could believe in. I do not and cannot believe those that came before him. Yes he's useless in a lot of senses, but what he stands for is more important. The message his presence sends is important.

[ewerk 26807]

It tells the Tories that they can do whatever the fuck they want for the next nine years.

[Rayvin 4970]

Yep. But given that I believe it'd be the same under anyone as Labour is going to struggle post-Brexit, I don't see that I (or anyone who votes for him) have anything to lose.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Rayvin

[Rayvin 4970]

After all this, watch Smith win

[Dr Gloom 20162]

I know because everything tells me so. The media, the polls, the electoral maths and myself all tell me that Corbyn isn't going to become PM. He is never going to appeal to a broad enough group of voters and also has no desire to do so.

You been talking to yourself again?