Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Mr Moose]

This is the exact type of bollocks I'm talking about. We're not on the same side, I want to destroy you and your ilk. And you're exactly a fucking liberal, you're just too stupid/dishonest to see it.

Freedom for Tooting!

 

[Mr Moose]

Since May 2016? (46.7%)

Merely joking.

 

[Supine]

This is the exact type of bollocks I'm talking about. We're not on the same side, I want to destroy you and your ilk. And you're exactly a fucking liberal, you're just too stupid/dishonest to see it.

Someone as nasty as you is destined to sit on the sidelines forever. At least people who are arguing for an electable left wing party have a chance of getting into power. And you have to be in power to make a difference in this world.

 

[Mr Moose]

Ok I'm going to say something really stupid now.

In order for the Labour part to become a progressive social democratic force, it would need to abandoned the idea that its primary purpose is to win elections.

I would rather have a proper social democratic Labour party in opposition than a tory lite version in power. An opposition that linked up with campaigns outside parliament and actally opposed the government. If it was successful at this it could most certainly go on to win elections and implement many of the policies we would all like to see.

Of course this is never going to happen, and that is part of the reason the Labour party is fucked.

This reasoning is poor and it just highlights a motivation not to be seen as dodgy on any issue and provoke the wrath of the likes of Red Squirrel.

 

[inva]

Someone as nasty as you is destined to sit on the sidelines forever. At least people who are arguing for an electable left wing party have a chance of getting into power. And you have to be in power to make a difference in this world.

refuse to believe this wasn't composed by some Labour Party random post generator

 

[Mr Moose]

How? Any candidate bar Corbyn needs nominations from 20% of MPs and MEPs. Corbyn only survived last years challenge because he didn't need nominations, McDonnell wouldn't even get on the ballot....

Really? A membership of hundreds of thousands and the Unions could not leverage anything against the PLP and a new leader? Who will fund, or get out on the doorsteps for a leader who sells them out?

 

[Supine]

refuse to believe this wasn't composed by some Labour Party random post generator

Believe what you want

 

[redsquirrel]

Really? A membership of hundreds of thousands and the Unions could not leverage anything against the PLP and a new leader? Who will fund, or get out on the doorsteps for a leader who sells them out?

People like Hertford or Toynbee. The LP establishment has opposed, usually successfully, any left turn by the membership for a hundred years, why would the present be any different?

And exactly what 'leverage' do either the general membership or the unions have? None, the unions are welded to the Labour Party and the LP has made it quite clear that they don't give tuppence for the membership. Deselection is off the cards even if there was an appetite for it.

 

[belboid]

Really? A membership of hundreds of thousands and the Unions could not leverage anything against the PLP and a new leader? Who will fund, or get out on the doorsteps for a leader who sells them out?

Same people who funded Blair and Brown. At best the offer will be the new generations Andy Burnham. Personally decent, perhaps, but ready to crumble and capitulate at a moments notice.

 

[BigTom]

Sorry, but these kinds of distinctions have become meaningless to me, as I expect they are to most people. My politics have always been close Corbyn’s but most other people's simply are not.



Voters were sick of Labour by 2010 and they'll almost certainly be sick of the tories by 2025, if not before (although we might as well forget 2020 now). Of course that doesn't mean that Labour will be able to just step in by default, even when brexit goes pear-shaped. To stand any chance of winning they'll have to become reflective of the views of millions of voters whose support they need and be led by someone who unlike Corbyn or Miliband inspires confidence.



By the ‘recent past’, do you mean 1945?

Please explain how "we" can "change the conditions" so as to make Corbyn's Labour electable? What kind of ‘landscape’ is needed for that? (Not one similar to 1945 I hope). Because until you do explain it's still just fantasy.



Oh please! I suggest you try coming back down to Earth. None of that is going to get rid of the tories or convince millions of people to vote Labour in 2020 when they probably voted tory or UKIP in 2015.

Pursue your own ideological dreams all you like, but a Labour government is still the only chance we have of stopping the tories. People are suffering now in 2017 and it’s getting worse. 2025 may if anything be too late to save the NHS and other essential services. How long do you expect people to wait?

Just out of curiosity, do you have any examples of your "successes in hegemonic practical politics"?

I need to do a proper reply when I'm not just checking in at work but just to quickly reply to the last question, yes, I mentioned UK Uncut, the actions UK Uncut took worked on a hegemonic level, it totally undercut two of the tories main planks for austerity - there is no alternative and there is no money. Didn't achieve anything practical as obviously austerity continued unabated and tax avoidance hasn't been dealt with at all. (unlike boycott workfare whose work very nearly got £120m returned to claimants, got some schemes chaged from mandatory to voluntary and made some workfare schemes unworkable and ultimately got them scrapped, hence the practical outcomes of the campaign).

e2a: more broadly speaking, the fact that Corbyn became labour party leader, that Sanders came so close to being the democratic candidate, the election of syriza in greeace and the rise of podemos (?) in spain or portugal (?) are all indications of how a hegemonic/ideological move is happening - no we aren't there yet but can you imagine a social democrat nearly getting the candidacy for the USA president before last year? I Can't and if we look at previous labour leader elections, social democrats have not made it onto the ticket - we've pushed things over, we're not there yet but it's moving that way.

 

[mikey mikey]

Freedom for Tooting!

https://imgflip.com/memegenerator

 

[Pickman's model]

This is the exact type of bollocks I'm talking about. We're not on the same side, I want to destroy you and your ilk. And you're exactly a fucking liberal, you're just too stupid/dishonest to see it.

Andrew Hertford

we will bury you

 

[William of Walworth]

'm well to the left of Mr Moose personally, but in his defence a bit, I think he's arguing pragmatic electability more than anything else.

Then don't pretend that you're not arguing for liberalism. It's the same nonsense that Toynbee comes out with 'I really am socialist, never mind I'm backing a neo-liberal'. It's intellectually dishonest rubbish. If you're going to argue for that as Toynbee does, as Hartford does then you're a liberal and you should face up to that.

There's no point in us discussing anything if you really think my earlier post (all of it, not just the bit you quoted) is arguing for either liberalism or neoliberalism. I'm a pessimistic leftie.

In my daydreams I'd quite like a left wing, anti-austerity, popular/populist, specifically anti-neoliberal party to do well in an election or even win one. As I said in another thread though I'm not optimistic.

Toynbee might be backing a neoliberal but I'm not. I just wish Corbyn, who isn't even all that leftwing**but unlike you I understand what pragmatism actually means (the Overton window etc) , would do better. Or someone as left as him or even more so, but more effective. I'm not in the LP but I am a TU member.

**Old style social democrat more like. I'd take that over full on Toryism, short of anything better in the real world.

 

[William of Walworth]

TBF there's plenty of pessimism about the LP's prospects on this thread generally and I mostly share that.

 

[Pickman's model]

TBF there's plenty of pessimism about the LP's prospects on this thread generally and I mostly share that.

what you see as pessimism is mostly realism from optimists

 

[sleaterkinney]

Freedom for Tooting!

It's tempting to imagine some kind of common cause, but the thing to realise is that Trots hate everyone, they hate other Trots, they hate themselves. Look at the multitude of lefty sects for example. They don't do consensus or any kind of constructive politics.

 

[Mr Moose]

what you see as pessimism is mostly realism from optimists

Thanks for that. Another hundred similar and you'll have enough to pen one of those books they sell by the till at Waterstones for folk to read on the bog.

 

[Pickman's model]

Thanks for that. Another hundred similar and you'll have enough to pen one of those books they sell by the till at Waterstones for folk to read on the bog.

i have published several such books, consisting solely of your posts, under the titles 'dung from mr moose', 'more dung from mr moose', 'mr moose's faeces from the forest' and 'shitting the mr moose way'.

 

[mikey mikey]

It's tempting to imagine some kind of common cause, but the thing to realise is that Trots hate everyone, they hate other Trots, they hate themselves. Look at the multitude of lefty sects for example. They don't do consensus or any kind of constructive politics.

Didn't Tom (cvnt-in-a-man-suit) Watson say that Momentum was full of Trots? How can this be? if they hate eberybody and at the same time worship Corbyn (i.e. "cultists") then Shirley something is amiss!

 

[sleaterkinney]

Didn't Tom (cvnt-in-a-man-suit) Watson say that Momentum was full of Trots? How can this be? if they hate eberybody and at the same time worship Corbyn (i.e. "cultists") then Shirley something is amiss!

Probably because they hate people who can compromise even more than they hate fellow trots.

 

[Mr Moose]

i have published several such books, consisting solely of your posts, under the titles 'dung from mr moose', 'more dung from mr moose', 'mr moose's faeces from the forest' and 'shitting the mr moose way'.

Royalties or I'm lawyering up.

 

[Pickman's model]

Royalties or I'm lawyering up.

go on then. i'll see you in court.

 

[mikey mikey]

Probably because they hate people who can compromise even more than they hate fellow trots.

When it comes to spouting hatred, look no further than articles or press releases from "moderates".

Fkn butter would't melt.

It's not Trots that want to bomb half the ME.

 

[Mr Moose]

People like Hertford or Toynbee. The LP establishment has opposed, usually successfully, any left turn by the membership for a hundred years, why would the present be any different?

And exactly what 'leverage' do either the general membership or the unions have? None, the unions are welded to the Labour Party and the LP has made it quite clear that they don't give tuppence for the membership. Deselection is off the cards even if there was an appetite for it.

The membership can ignore, lobby, cajole, refuse to pay subs and can ultimately seek to deselect. The Unions can withdraw their funding. Like you say an electable left can happen. But it would help if Corbyn and McDonnell found a candidate they could work with who has broader appeal than they.

 

[Mr Moose]

When it comes to spouting hatred, look no further than articles or press releases from "moderates".

Fkn butter would't melt.

It's not Trots that want to bomb half the ME.

Sure that's not acceptable and we also have a cohort on here who seem to seriously fantasise about killing their political enemies, were they able to drag themselves away from the internet.

Less hate required all round. It's seriously unattractive.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Someone as nasty as you is destined to sit on the sidelines forever. At least people who are arguing for an electable left wing party have a chance of getting into power. And you have to be in power to make a difference in this world.

"Electable left wing party".
If you'd said "electable social-democratic party", you might have had a point, but given the monstering of even vague-left perspectives over the last 40 years - by the Labour Party as well as by Tories and by Capital - there is no chance of a left-wing party taking power under the current political system of Parliamentary "democracy".

 

[BigTom]

Sorry, but these kinds of distinctions have become meaningless to me, as I expect they are to most people. My politics have always been close Corbyn’s but most other people's simply are not.

But you clearly know what the terms mean, is it too much to ask for a straight answer? If ideological distinctions have become meaningless to you then why are you so anti-tory? I didn't ask about other people, I asked about you. If you want a neo-liberal labour party in power (or if you don't care what a parties policies are, jsut whether they are called conservative or labour) then there's no point in us having a discussion since we are not looking for the same thing [we're not really looking for the same thing anyway - I see the election of a social democratic labour party as a by-product of social movements/change rather than as something to be chased directly iyswim - but we could be close enough if you were interested in social democracy])

Voters were sick of Labour by 2010 and they'll almost certainly be sick of the tories by 2025, if not before (although we might as well forget 2020 now). Of course that doesn't mean that Labour will be able to just step in by default, even when brexit goes pear-shaped. To stand any chance of winning they'll have to become reflective of the views of millions of voters whose support they need and be led by someone who unlike Corbyn or Miliband inspires confidence.



By the ‘recent past’, do you mean 1945?

Please explain how "we" can "change the conditions" so as to make Corbyn's Labour electable? What kind of ‘landscape’ is needed for that? (Not one similar to 1945 I hope). Because until you do explain it's still just fantasy.

Yes, clearly I was talking post ww2 as I stated this, time period roughly 1945 - mid 1970s, the time generally talked of as the post-war social contract, a time when successive governments, whether conservative or labour, followed broadly social democratic policies.
The financial collapse of 2008/9 changed our socio-economic conditions, it opened possibility for change in the same way that ww2 or the oil crisis did previously, but the working class and community institutions and organisations were no longer in place to be able to take advantage of this state, or at least not quickly. Corbyn, Sanders, Syriza, Podemos are all examples of how social change is bringing about political change. It's happening way to slowly of course but it is happening.
How can we change things? By working together on projects that bring together communities, that emphasise ideas of collective action and solidarity. By campaigning for secure social housing we can get new social housing built. This will help to rebuild our communities, that thatcher explicitly set out to destroy - remember the quote "the aim is to change the soul, the method is economics" - well we've got to work back on that.

Oh please! I suggest you try coming back down to Earth. None of that is going to get rid of the tories or convince millions of people to vote Labour in 2020 when they probably voted tory or UKIP in 2015.

Pursue your own ideological dreams all you like, but a Labour government is still the only chance we have of stopping the tories. People are suffering now in 2017 and it’s getting worse. 2025 may if anything be too late to save the NHS and other essential services. How long do you expect people to wait?

Just out of curiosity, do you have any examples of your "successes in hegemonic practical politics"?

How long do you expect people to wait? You are arguing for neo-liberal policies, don't be surprised when what you get is neo-liberalism. Don't be surprised that that neo-liberalism spreads itself through both the conservative and labour parties. You want actual change you need to argue for social democratic policies and parties. The NHS is going to be fucked by Labour's PFI projects - defend that.
Please can you also explain how you think that arguing for a neo-liberal labour party to be in charge will bring about social democratic policies, the kind of policies that corbyn wants and that you apparently feel yourself close to. Do you understand what the overton window is?

 

[redsquirrel]

There's no point in us discussing anything if you really think my earlier post (all of it, not just the bit you quoted) is arguing for either liberalism or neoliberalism. I'm a pessimistic leftie.

If you (general you) are arguing for a "pragmatic" "electable" Labour Party for 2020, as Toynbee is, as Hertford is, then yes you are arguing for a liberal Labour Party, to pretend otherwise is ostrich behaviour. Hertford claims he wants a more equal society, no doubt so would Toynbee and all the Labour MPs, but those desires are fucking meaningless when your actual actions are in the opposite direction.

emanymton's post summed up the situation brilliantly, the Labour Party has been neo-liberal for 30 odd years, the hollowing out of its vote has been going on for at least as long, you are not going to change those things in a couple of years. This is going to be a decade(s) long fight and it's very likely that things will get worse for the LP before they get better.

The membership can ignore, lobby, cajole, refuse to pay subs and can ultimately seek to deselect. The Unions can withdraw their funding. Like you say an electable left can happen. But it would help if Corbyn and McDonnell found a candidate they could work with who has broader appeal than they.

Utter ahistoric nonsense, were you asleep during the last 30 years? The unions have nowhere else to go (and a number have already indicated they want to remove Corbyn and want the party to become 'electable' again), the members don't have the ability to deselect and can just be ignored as they were for much of the last 30 years.

In the 70s/80s you had a well organised left-wing body in the membership with a higher proportion of sympathisers in the middle and upper ranks of the party and they weren't able to stop the party becoming neo-liberal. It's utter lunacy to think that in 2017 where a similar type of organisation doesn't exist, where there a handful of supporters in the upper/middle ranks, where there's been 30 years of bureaucracy and rules developed precisely to stop any challenge to the party establishment that you had a better chance than in the past.

 

[Mr Moose]

If you (general you) are arguing for a "pragmatic" "electable" Labour Party for 2020, as Toynbee is, as Hertford is, then yes you are arguing for a liberal Labour Party, to pretend otherwise is ostrich behaviour. Hertford claims he wants a more equal society, no doubt so would Toynbee and all the Labour MPs, but those desires are fucking meaningless when your actually actions are in the opposite direction.

emanymton's post summed up the situation brilliantly, the Labour Party has been neo-liberal for 30 odd years, the hollowing out of its vote has been going on for at least as long, you are not going to change those things in a couple of years. This is going to be a decade(s) long fight and it's very likely that things will get worse for the LP before they get better.


Utter ahistoric nonsense, were you asleep during the last 30 years? The unions have nowhere else to go (and a number have already indicated they want to remove Corbyn and want the party to become 'electable' again), the members don't have the ability to deselect and can just be ignored as they were for much of the last 30 years.

In the 70s/80s you had a well organised left-wing body in the membership with a higher proportion of sympathisers in the middle and upper ranks of the party and they weren't able to stop the party becoming neo-liberal. It's utter lunacy to think that in 2017 where a similar type of organisation doesn't exist, where there a handful of supporters in the upper/middle ranks, where there's been 30 years of bureaucracy and rules developed precisely to stop any challenge to the party establishment that you had a better chance than in the past.

If you think it is hopeless, fine. But I doubt you do otherwise you simply wouldn't bother with the question. Tomorrow is not just the same and carrying on with an ineffective leader is no sort of policy.

 

[redsquirrel]

I've not idea how that relates to anything I've argued or said.Like BigTom, emanyton and Wilf I've consistently said that I don't see meaningful change coming from inside the Labour Party, for me the LP is the problem not the solution.

But if your aim is a social democratic LP, as you claim you want, them to push for Corbyn's going now is utter fucking stupidity. As belboid said he'll most likely be replaced by someone like Burnham or Miliband and the (already very small) opportunity will close.