Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[belboid]

Okay. I thought that was what it meant. It's bollocks.

 

[Wilf]

This sort of goes back to a discussion we had earlier about how Corbyn should try and react to the tide of stories and claims, with regard to both substance and responding to the media. As an example, if you strip the hyperbole of Watson's claims about hard left manipulators/Trots away, how does the claim stand? There clearly has been an influx of youngish people, most joining a party for the first time - along with a significant number of ex Labour members who left at any point from the 80s onwards. Also, there will of course have been a significant but relatively small number of trots, left of Labour people who have never been in the party before. But how do you respond to Watson's claim, is it worth trying? Are leading members of Momentum ex Trots or long standing Labour members? I'm sure they could spend some time on social media along the lines of 'do you mean me Tom? If it's not me, who do you mean?' They could draw a contrast to their political histories in various campaigns against Owen Smith's working for Phizer - or all the corporate grasping done by Blair and members of his Cabinet. But is it worth it?

 

[two sheds]

I think the point about the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions was a good one. It was certainly true of the Post War Social Contract up to the 70s, and also with Blair (and Brown) with the Third Way ending up being the same as the First Way.

Also the point he made about investment being quite high under Blair. I presume a lot of that was with from PFIs which were actually "privatization by the back door" for NHS and other infrastructure investments.

 

[DotCommunist]

I'd got some time for him what with his outspoken voice on the establishment noncery but he really is a disloyal shite. Do they really believe this 'trot takeover' guff or is it simply a line to use for convenience?

 

[butchersapron]

I think the point about the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions was a good one. It was certainly true of the Post War Social Contract up to the 70s, and also with Blair (and Brown) with the Third Way ending up being the same as the First Way.

So why on earth are you supporting corbyn?

 

[two sheds]

Because I think he's the nearest we'll get to regaining some of the ground made during the Post War Social Contract.

Quantitative easing to fund infrastructure investments and retaking under public control the NHS, utilities/rail, council housing, schools plus improved wages and benefits.

 

[butchersapron]

Because I think he's the nearest we'll get to regaining some of the ground made during the Post War Social Contract.

Quantitative easing to fund infrastructure investments and retaking under public control the NHS, utilities/rail, council housing, schools plus improved wages and benefits.

But "I think the point about the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions was a good one."?

 

[YouSir]

But "I think the point about the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions was a good one."?

Doesn't mean something isn't better than nothing.

 

[butchersapron]

Doesn't mean something isn't better than nothing.

What an inspiring speech!

 

[two sheds]

But "I think the point about the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions was a good one."?

Apart from the government that set up the Post War Social Contract and the one selling it all off again.

If Corbyn is allowed to do what he's said he wants to do then we'll be properly rebuilding the economy while sharing out the wealth more fairly.

What's the alternative?

 

[butchersapron]

Apart from the government that set up the Post War Social Contract and the one selling it all off again.

If Corbyn is allowed to do what he's said he wants to do then we'll be properly rebuilding the economy while sharing out the wealth more fairly.

What's the alternative?

You can't 1)say govts don't matter, individual party policies don't matter, and 2) here's why govts and individual parties policies matter. I don't need to offer an alternative to point out the incoherence of such a position.

 

[Rob Ray]

 

[two sheds]

You can't 1)say govts don't matter, individual party policies don't matter, and 2) here's why govts and individual parties policies matter. I don't need to offer an alternative to point out the incoherence of such a position.

A Labour government set up the Post War Social Contract, after that the flavour of government made little difference to the conditions people lived under. A tory government tore up the Post War Social Contract, after that the flavour of government made little difference to the conditions people lived under. I think that by having a proper aim for the government Corbyn's policies can bring similar benefits to the gains that were made under the Post War Social Contract.

That's not incoherent, so what's the alternative?

 

[butchersapron]

A Labour government set up the Post War Social Contract, after that the flavour of government made little difference to the conditions people lived under. A tory government tore up the Post War Social Contract, after that the flavour of government made little difference to the conditions people lived under. I think that by having a proper aim for the government Corbyn's policies can bring similar benefits to the gains that were made under the Post War Social Contract.

That's not incoherent, so what's the alternative?

Labour didn't set up any such thing - by social contract i take it you mean the corporatist tri-partite state that was established by the state (tory and Labour) Unions and Capital rather than the actual social contract that the Labour Party tried to force down the necks of the w/c? That was a collective effort on the parts of all these and was happening across all comparable states in the same period, So 1) not due to the Labour party and it's policies and 2) if it were it would make a nonsense of the claim that "the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions". That's the incoherence - cheer-leading for a set of policies whilst saying policies don't matter and never have.

Again, i don't need to provide an alternative to point this out and it's a pretty shitty trick to keep trying to pull.

 

[YouSir]

What an inspiring speech!

I have a cold, can't be arsed with 'inspirational'.

 

[inva]

View attachment 90520

70s rather than 80s surely?

 

[Libertad]

View attachment 90520

"Rearrange those barricades comrades" would've been better.

 

[two sheds]

Labour didn't set up any such thing - by social contract i take it you mean the corporatist tri-partite state that was established by the state (tory and Labour) Unions and Capital? That was a collective effort on the parts of all these and was happening across all comparable states in the same period, So 1) not due to the Labour party and it's policies

Nice footwork. In the UK it was introduced by a Labour government.

and 2) if it were it would make a nonsense of the claim that "the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions". That's the incoherence - cheer-leading for a set of policies whilst saying policies don't matter and never have.

You're making up an argument and pretending that's what I said. I was clear from the start that I was talking about the period after the Post War Social Contract and the period after that was torn up. During those periods it seems to have mattered little what the flavour of government was. I've made clear what I believe so stop lying about it.

Again, i don't need to provide an alternative to point this out and it's a pretty shitty trick to keep trying to pull.

And prancing round an argument pretending I'm saying something I'm not saying is also a pretty shitty trick to keep trying to pull.

I learn a lot from your political analysis but then you get into this heavily stupid bullying mode picking up small points and trying to pretend they're critically important. It's dishonest. I've seen you accuse people of lying but you're not above doing it yourself.

I've said why I'd like to see Corbyn get elected. Why can't you say what you'd like to see instead? You're just dishonestly avoiding the question.

 

[inva]

Nice footwork. In the UK it was introduced by a Labour government.

tories/national government involved as well. a more complex picture than Labour '45

 

[two sheds]

indeed, and initially proposed by a Liberal. Doesn't affect the statement I made.

 

[butchersapron]

Nice footwork. In the UK it was introduced by a Labour government.



You're making up an argument and pretending that's what I said. I was clear from the start that I was talking about the period after the Post War Social Contract and the period after that was torn up. During those periods it seems to have mattered little what the flavour of government was. I've made clear what I believe so stop lying about it.



And prancing round an argument pretending I'm saying something I'm not saying is also a pretty shitty trick to keep trying to pull.

I learn a lot from your political analysis but then you get into this heavily stupid bullying mode picking up small points and trying to pretend they're critically important. It's dishonest. I've seen you accuse people of lying but you're not above doing it yourself.

I've said why I'd like to see Corbyn get elected. Why can't you say what you'd like to see instead? You're just dishonestly avoiding the question.

What was introduced by a Labour govt? Point to what was introduced? Do you mean the general across the board agreement by tories, Labour, capital and labour that became known as the post-war social contract? You must do, you can't mean the actual social contract legislation introduced by the Labour party in the early 70s? The former was never 'introduced' but developed over time through the actions of all the above in the period up till the early 60s - that is, a period with majority tory party governance. And more to the point, was the established thinking of capital/state in all comparable countries. To claim otherwise is like the mad claims that the Labour party caused the 2008 financial crisis.

Lying? Bullying? Dishonesty? wtf?

You have said "the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions" is correct. I'm saying that it's not and that your position of support for Corbyn relies in it not being true. It's of central importance if you're going to argue that politics can change things (a position that i entered this to support against Gilberts' claims that they don't really) that you don't argue that they don't.

I don't have to say a damn thing about corbyn or offer you an alternative to make that point.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Got the email from the secretary yesterday saying "sorry, you can't come to the nomination meeting" and I thought poor timing on the scheduling of your emailing, Pat me ode fruit. Got another one this morning saying "yeah sozzard, you can come, see you there!"

Our CLP deciding to hold the meeting late in the cycle turned out pretty good for me

Disclaimer: actual emails may have contained more formal language than used when paraphrased here.

 

[DotCommunist]

nearly the entire party hates its elected MP's. This is so not a good look. Especially when the executive tries a stitch up and is defeated in court. Power to your arm Vintage Paw but no way hose. Even if was what it said it was when it was a bit.

 

[two sheds]

What was introduced by a Labour govt? Point to what was introduced? Do you mean the general across the board agreement by tories, Labour, capital and labour that became known as the post-war social contract? You must do, you can't mean the actual social contract legislation introduced by the Labour party in the early 70s? The former was never 'introduced' but developed over time through the actions of all the above in the period up till the early 60s - that is, a period with majority tory party governance. And more to the point, was the established thinking of capital/state in all comparable countries. To claim otherwise is like the mad claims that the Labour party caused the 2008 financial crisis.

The following quote

In practice, Labour governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 are associated with important programmes of social and economic reform.

• Major industries such as Coal, Gas, Electricity, the Railways and Iron and Steel were taken into public ownership or nationalized as was the Bank of England.
  
  
• The scope of the Welfare State was significantly expanded in an attempt to deal with the problems of ill-health, bad housing, unemployment, inadequate educational provision and poverty. Labour policies were based primarily upon proposals in the Beveridge Report.

www.earlhamsociologypages.co.uk/laboursocialismideology.doc

is what I had generally understood. Fine, define it in your terms, it's still a side issue. The Post-War Social Contract was introduced, and existed.

Lying? Bullying? Dishonesty? wtf?

Yes in this instance lying and dishonesty. I've told you at least twice what I meant and still you're pretending I've said something else. Once would be a mistake, twice and you're lying about what I've said.

And you honestly don't know that your default mode of internet argument regularly turns into you adopting a nasty bullying personality to someone who you feel doesn't display your required ideological purity? That would show such stunning lack of self awareness that I can only assume you're lying again. I've seen you accuse someone of lying when it was quite possible they'd made an honest mistake so don't go all wtf innocent.

You have said "the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions" is correct. I'm saying that it's not and that your position of support for Corbyn relies in it not being true. It's of central importance if you're going to argue that politics can change things (a position that i entered this to support against Gilberts' claims that they don't really) that you don't argue that they don't.

I've said what I think. The flavour of government after the Post War Social Contract made relatively little difference until the tories tore it down. After that, the flavour of government has made little difference until now. Disagree with it if you like but stop lying about what I've said.

I feel that Corbyn could form a government that introduced something like the Post War Social Contract and so make a difference like the Post War Social Contract made a difference.

I don't have to say a damn thing about corbyn or offer you an alternative to make that point.

I know you don't. But you've made your point, and still you don't answer the question. That's dishonest argument again. I've seen you in the past repeatedly and aggressively demand in several successive posts that someone answers your question (you've done it to me for example).

Why can't you now answer that simple question? What's the alternative? It's a fair question. Stop avoiding it.

 

[butchersapron]

The following quote


www.earlhamsociologypages.co.uk/laboursocialismideology.doc

is what I had generally understood. Fine, define it in your terms, it's still a side issue. The Post-War Social Contract was introduced, and existed.



Yes in this instance lying and dishonesty. I've told you at least twice what I meant and still you're pretending I've said something else. Once would be a mistake, twice and you're lying about what I've said.

And you honestly don't know that your default mode of internet argument regularly turns into you adopting a nasty bullying personality to someone who you feel doesn't display your required ideological purity? That would show such stunning lack of self awareness that I can only assume you're lying again. I've seen you accuse someone of lying when it was quite possible they'd made an honest mistake so don't go all wtf innocent.



I've said what I think. The flavour of government after the Post War Social Contract made relatively little difference until the tories tore it down. After that, the flavour of government has made little difference until now. Disagree with it if you like but stop lying about what I've said.

I feel that Corbyn could form a government that introduced something like the Post War Social Contract and so make a difference like the Post War Social Contract made a difference.



I know you don't. But you've made your point, and still you don't answer the question. That's dishonest argument again. I've seen you in the past repeatedly and aggressively demand in several successive posts that someone answers your question (you've done it to me for example).

Why can't you now answer that simple question? What's the alternative? It's a fair question. Stop avoiding it.

Jesus christ. Right so politics does matter after all. Despite you opening this exchange by agreeing with something that says that it pretty much doesn't. I'm going to leave the rest of the bad tempered stuff you came out with alone. As i will do to your childish sign-off demand.

 

[two sheds]

I ask a simple and relevant question and you don't answer. It's a bit basic - what's the alternative?

Bizarre©



© Butchersapron

 

[two sheds]

This is getting embarrassing©.



© Butchersapron c.2012

 

[butchersapron]

I suggest that you review this exchange before posting again. Maybe you'll be able to flesh out why i should propose an alternative to something i haven't opposed. And all the other stuff. I do hope this is just an off day.

 

[Rob Ray]

I ask a simple and relevant question and you don't answer. It's a bit basic - what's the alternative?

There are as you know many alternatives. This is a much-used rhetorical device aimed at diverting criticism and making someone sound unduly utopian by changing subject to talk about things which are much more difficult to achieve than the "realistic approach" of merely forcing a vote and getting your man in Parliament.

Which is essentially the same line of argument the Tories, media etc use about Labour's left. Pie in the sky, these socialists should work with reality, etc. You're right, it is rather embarrassing, not to mention tiresome, but in this case not for Butchers.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Well this has sealed the deal. Corbyn's time is up.



Take that, 'Jezza'!