Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[treelover]

I didn't mention the right because we are talking about the left. Yes, they are taking advantage of the same things, they are taking far better advantage of it than the left, because the left's base has been systematically attacked over the past 40 or so years and networks/organisations barely exist anymore to take advantage. What is happening is that the overton window is widening, as is normal during times of economic crisis and extended problems. Things are moving both ways.

The liberal left is huge, look at the support for Calais, fighting funds, attendance on the Trump/Women's marches/rallies, etc.

 

[treelover]

Why not just say you hate the left and have done with it?

why not respond to the argument?

 

[Pickman's model]

The liberal left is huge, look at the support for Calais, fighting funds, attendance on the Trump/Women's marches/rallies, etc.

All fighting funds?

 

[Pickman's model]

why not respond to the argument?

You have an argument?

 

[BigTom]

Imagine what they could have done if the left/liberal left had got behind them the way they have with their other cause celebres.

There's no way that illegally sanctioned money was coming back to claimants, I'm still surprised that parliament has the power to retroactively change laws. Sadly the liberal "left" have been largely behind workfare, which began under Blair iirc. The biggest practical success - that of having the "work experience programme" changed from being mandatory once started to completely voluntary happened more or less immediately after that week where workfare was massive news for day after day, I can't remember exactly what sparked it but it was about people being forced to work for free for private companies and there was a much bigger/wider involvement for about two weeks, what was achieved could have been done much more quickly had that level of activity and resistance continued, perhaps these schemes would be off the table entirely but I doubt it.

 

[Mr Moose]

I'm not skirting around the question. I can't and won't put an exact timescale on it, except to say it's a long job and won't be achieved overnight. To try to put a date to it would be dishonest and foolish, I'm doing exactly the opposite of those trots in the 70s.

I don't think corbyn is unelectable. I don't think he is going to win in 2020 now. I think he could have done if everyone who wants to see labour elected had got full square behind him from the start, but instead his policies have been painted, and accepted by you, as unelectable. Social democratic policies are unelectable. How are you going to get a social Democrat elected when you say that social democrats are unelectable and presumably argue for a neo liberal in their place? Nobody has said specifically who would replace Corbyn, nor has anyone objected to the claim they would necessarily be to the right of Corbyn and therefore not a social Democrat.

Now go back to the Overton window and think about what I said, please address this point, it's extremely important, it's not just about manipulating political perceptions, it's also about manipulating politicians/policy.

Tell me, how will arguing and campaigning for neo liberal politicians/policies cause the Overton window to move to bring social democratic politicians/policies into the popular/sensible range?

I don't think anyone is saying it is the current policies that make Corbyn unelectable. It's that he lacks the credibility and authority to get elected to head HM Government. That many of his own MPs think this, not all of whom have horns, is not mitigation.

McDonnell was on Andrew Marr earlier and did a good job. Labour's policies are not seen as unrealistic. So who can make them happen?

 

[newbie]

Yes, I agree (though I wasn't around in the 70s), what I was saying to AH was in response to him comparing what I'm saying here to what the trots were saying in the 70s - then they were saying that revolution is just about to happen, I am saying social democracy (not even revolution) is a long way off.

but they were more or less right, something akin to 'the revolution' happened, though it wasn't particularly bloody and the wrong side won. It's wholly possible another one is happening right now. I agree that social democracy isn't likely any time soon.

 

[Pickman's model]

Andrew Hertford who is john o'donnell?

 

[Andrew Hertford]

I'm not skirting around the question. I can't and won't put an exact timescale on it, except to say it's a long job and won't be achieved overnight. To try to put a date to it would be dishonest and foolish, I'm doing exactly the opposite of those trots in the 70s.

I don't think corbyn is unelectable. I don't think he is going to win in 2020 now. I think he could have done if everyone who wants to see labour elected had got full square behind him from the start, but instead his policies have been painted, and accepted by you, as unelectable. Social democratic policies are unelectable. How are you going to get a social Democrat elected when you say that social democrats are unelectable and presumably argue for a neo liberal in their place? Nobody has said specifically who would replace Corbyn, nor has anyone objected to the claim they would necessarily be to the right of Corbyn and therefore not a social Democrat.

Now go back to the Overton window and think about what I said, please address this point, it's extremely important, it's not just about manipulating political perceptions, it's also about manipulating politicians/policy.

Tell me, how will arguing and campaigning for neo liberal politicians/policies cause the Overton window to move to bring social democratic politicians/policies into the popular/sensible range?

But you appear to be willing to write off at least one generation, probably more, of young, old, sick and disabled who are certain to suffer under tory cuts because you have your sights set on the remote possibility of a left wing government getting elected sometime in the distant future. How many people who rely on public services (all of us to an extent) care about terms like 'neo liberal' or 'social democrat'? What they need is an end to this tory government, even if that does mean replacing it with something which doesn't live up to the far left's definition of 'real change'.

Also, if ‘real change’ is to come, it’s just as likely to come from the far right as the far left.

You can argue all you like about the manipulation of perception and party policy, as I'm sure the far right do as well (just try mentioning the BBC in a group of ukip supporters) but doing so isn't going to shift the tories from government.

As for Jezza still being electable but not in 2020, do you really think he could win the 2025 election? He'd be 76 by 2025 and his age would then become yet another factor.

Just out of interest, is your definition of ‘social democracy’ different to Wikipedia’s?

 

[DotCommunist]

a right led labour party would be doing the same things for gods sake. They all went behind austerity, all abstained or voted for these punitive cuts. If your entire argument boils down to 'we must get rid of the tories' then you are basically fucked.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Andrew Hertford who is john o'donnell?

Daniel's brother?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Just out of interest, is your definition of ‘social democracy’ different to Wikipedia’s?

Of course you have read that article and so understand that the definition of social democracy is heavily contested, especially with regard to it's understanding of the continuation of capitalism?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[agricola]

a right led labour party would be doing the same things for gods sake. They all went behind austerity, all abstained or voted for these punitive cuts. If your entire argument boils down to 'we must get rid of the tories' then you are basically fucked.

TBH a Blair-led labour party would be doing the same things, for Gods sake.

 

[BigTom]

But you appear to be willing to write off at least one generation, probably more, of young, old, sick and disabled who are certain to suffer under tory cuts because you have your sights set on the remote possibility of a left wing government getting elected sometime in the distant future. How many people who rely on public services (all of us to an extent) care about terms like 'neo liberal' or 'social democrat'? What they need is an end to this tory government, even if that does mean replacing it with something which doesn't live up to the far left's definition of 'real change'.

Also, if ‘real change’ is to come, it’s just as likely to come from the far right as the far left.

You can argue all you like about the manipulation of perception and party policy, as I'm sure the far right do as well (just try mentioning the BBC in a group of ukip supporters) but doing so isn't going to shift the tories from government.

As for Jezza still being electable but not in 2020, do you really think he could win the 2025 election? He'd be 76 by 2025 and his age would then become yet another factor.

Just out of interest, is your definition of ‘social democracy’ different to Wikipedia’s?

jesus suffering fuck, all the time I've put in on campaigns against the cuts and you think I'm willing to write people off to them? This is the last post I'm going to try to explain it, that is really insulting thing to say to me.

So what you are saying is that if I say change can come quickly, I'm like the trots in the 70s, delusional. But if I say change is going to take time I'm a callous evil bastard who wants the tories to fuck people over? I'm fucked either way in your eyes which aside from the insult means there's no point in discussing this with you, not least because you constantly miss or avoid responding to my main point.

Those who rely on public services very much care about whether policies are neo-liberal or social democratic because the former means fucked public services and the latter means supported public services. Whether someone knows what those terms mean is neither here nor there, you know what they mean so we can use them in this discussion. If you want, then every single post of mine I can insert 3-5 paragraphs instead of 2 words but that'd be a bit shit for conversation wouldn't it?

So once more before I answer the other things you've said.
If you want to campaign for a labour party whatever the policies, and those policies are neo-liberal and not social democratic, when that labour party actively pursures austerity (as it would under milliband and anyone else further right of corbyn), then you cement the need for cuts not just in the minds of the public but also for the politicians. This pushes social democratic policies towards the radical, unthinkable end of the overton window, it means you make it harder to get those policies. You need to show how seeking to elect a government that will fuck us a little bit less gets us towards a point where we are not being fucked. Because I can't see how that happens which means that what you are proposing stops social democracy from happening. I'm not looking for any definition from the far left, what I'm talking about is pretty much what that wikipedia article says, except for the bit about peaceful transition to socialism which can be but imo isn't necessarily part of social democratic position, and I definitely categorise the third way as a neo-liberal position. It's not a far left position by any means, except of course that it gets painted like that by those on the right because that makes it appear to be radical, unthinkable. Every time you talk about it like that you cement that even more than a tory doing it would, and push social democracy further away.
Working outside the labour party on campaigns which seek to get social democratic policies implemented, on actions or policies that emphasise collective rather than individual action, because social democracy is a collective response to capitalism, and actions which build working class networks and solidarity because social democratic policies benefit the working class most and (in the short term anyway) is not to the benefit of capital, so to get those settlements from the political arena you need significant pressure from the working class to achieve it.
What I'm saying, I'm saying because I think that's the quickest way to get to social democracy. I think that what you are proposing will take longer, but I don't insult you and say that you want to do that because you're an arsehole who doesn't care about all the people being fucked by the cuts do I.

Perception is so important, I can't believe you dismiss it like that - if people perceive a party / leader as unelectable, are they going to vote for them? probably not, why would you. If people think a party has policies that are radical, unthinkable, unworkable they are less likely to vote for them. That's all perception. If people perceived Corbyn as a great leader, his policies as sensible and workable, they'd be more likely to vote for him. Having people who are ostensibly on his side saying he's not electable is massively damaging, and it's all about people's perceptions.

You've misunderstood what I said about corbyn being electable - I think that if after he was voted in by the labour party membership in 2015 (or was it 16 by the time that was done?), if the whole of the plp and rest of the membership, and the left-liberal media had got behind him, he could now be electable in 2020. I don't think he can win now, any chance there was has been totally fucked by everyone who supports the labour party undermining him at every turn. 2025 is irrelevant, he won't be around after 2020 unless he does win, and if he wins in 2020 I think you'll be assessing his chances of winning in 2025 rather differently.

 

[B.I.G]

jesus suffering fuck, all the time I've put in on campaigns against the cuts and you think I'm willing to write people off to them? This is the last post I'm going to try to explain it, that is really insulting thing to say to me.

So what you are saying is that if I say change can come quickly, I'm like the trots in the 70s, delusional. But if I say change is going to take time I'm a callous evil bastard who wants the tories to fuck people over? I'm fucked either way in your eyes which aside from the insult means there's no point in discussing this with you, not least because you constantly miss or avoid responding to my main point.

Those who rely on public services very much care about whether policies are neo-liberal or social democratic because the former means fucked public services and the latter means supported public services. Whether someone knows what those terms mean is neither here nor there, you know what they mean so we can use them in this discussion. If you want, then every single post of mine I can insert 3-5 paragraphs instead of 2 words but that'd be a bit shit for conversation wouldn't it?

So once more before I answer the other things you've said.
If you want to campaign for a labour party whatever the policies, and those policies are neo-liberal and not social democratic, when that labour party actively pursures austerity (as it would under milliband and anyone else further right of corbyn), then you cement the need for cuts not just in the minds of the public but also for the politicians. This pushes social democratic policies towards the radical, unthinkable end of the overton window, it means you make it harder to get those policies. You need to show how seeking to elect a government that will fuck us a little bit less gets us towards a point where we are not being fucked. Because I can't see how that happens which means that what you are proposing stops social democracy from happening. I'm not looking for any definition from the far left, what I'm talking about is pretty much what that wikipedia article says, except for the bit about peaceful transition to socialism which can be but imo isn't necessarily part of social democratic position, and I definitely categorise the third way as a neo-liberal position. It's not a far left position by any means, except of course that it gets painted like that by those on the right because that makes it appear to be radical, unthinkable. Every time you talk about it like that you cement that even more than a tory doing it would, and push social democracy further away.
Working outside the labour party on campaigns which seek to get social democratic policies implemented, on actions or policies that emphasise collective rather than individual action, because social democracy is a collective response to capitalism, and actions which build working class networks and solidarity because social democratic policies benefit the working class most and (in the short term anyway) is not to the benefit of capital, so to get those settlements from the political arena you need significant pressure from the working class to achieve it.
What I'm saying, I'm saying because I think that's the quickest way to get to social democracy. I think that what you are proposing will take longer, but I don't insult you and say that you want to do that because you're an arsehole who doesn't care about all the people being fucked by the cuts do I.

Perception is so important, I can't believe you dismiss it like that - if people perceive a party / leader as unelectable, are they going to vote for them? probably not, why would you. If people think a party has policies that are radical, unthinkable, unworkable they are less likely to vote for them. That's all perception. If people perceived Corbyn as a great leader, his policies as sensible and workable, they'd be more likely to vote for him. Having people who are ostensibly on his side saying he's not electable is massively damaging, and it's all about people's perceptions.

You've misunderstood what I said about corbyn being electable - I think that if after he was voted in by the labour party membership in 2015 (or was it 16 by the time that was done?), if the whole of the plp and rest of the membership, and the left-liberal media had got behind him, he could now be electable in 2020. I don't think he can win now, any chance there was has been totally fucked by everyone who supports the labour party undermining him at every turn. 2025 is irrelevant, he won't be around after 2020 unless he does win, and if he wins in 2020 I think you'll be assessing his chances of winning in 2025 rather differently.

Corbyn's policies are rubbish. Is it so hard to make a speech to say "I'm going to raise disability benefit to
X amount. Or I'm going to tax anyone that owns more than one property to x percent of their profits.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

a right led labour party would be doing the same things for gods sake. They all went behind austerity, all abstained or voted for these punitive cuts. If your entire argument boils down to 'we must get rid of the tories' then you are basically fucked.

But my argument is that Labour governments fund essential services far better than tory governments do. Even Blair and Brown’s did.

The election of a Labour government is the one thing which can save essential services and that’s clearly not going to happen while Corbyn remains leader.

 

[Mr Moose]

Corbyn's policies are rubbish. Is it so hard to make a speech to say "I'm going to raise disability benefit to
X amount. Or I'm going to tax anyone that owns more than one property to x percent of their profits.

The issue isn't with promises that are made or not. It's that few are listening.

It's pointless to hook Labour on details. It's whole philosophy needs to be inspired by solidarity and from there the policy will follow.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

jesus suffering fuck, all the time I've put in on campaigns against the cuts and you think I'm willing to write people off to them? This is the last post I'm going to try to explain it, that is really insulting thing to say to me.

So what you are saying is that if I say change can come quickly, I'm like the trots in the 70s, delusional. But if I say change is going to take time I'm a callous evil bastard who wants the tories to fuck people over? I'm fucked either way in your eyes which aside from the insult means there's no point in discussing this with you, not least because you constantly miss or avoid responding to my main point.

Those who rely on public services very much care about whether policies are neo-liberal or social democratic because the former means fucked public services and the latter means supported public services. Whether someone knows what those terms mean is neither here nor there, you know what they mean so we can use them in this discussion. If you want, then every single post of mine I can insert 3-5 paragraphs instead of 2 words but that'd be a bit shit for conversation wouldn't it?

So once more before I answer the other things you've said.
If you want to campaign for a labour party whatever the policies, and those policies are neo-liberal and not social democratic, when that labour party actively pursures austerity (as it would under milliband and anyone else further right of corbyn), then you cement the need for cuts not just in the minds of the public but also for the politicians. This pushes social democratic policies towards the radical, unthinkable end of the overton window, it means you make it harder to get those policies. You need to show how seeking to elect a government that will fuck us a little bit less gets us towards a point where we are not being fucked. Because I can't see how that happens which means that what you are proposing stops social democracy from happening. I'm not looking for any definition from the far left, what I'm talking about is pretty much what that wikipedia article says, except for the bit about peaceful transition to socialism which can be but imo isn't necessarily part of social democratic position, and I definitely categorise the third way as a neo-liberal position. It's not a far left position by any means, except of course that it gets painted like that by those on the right because that makes it appear to be radical, unthinkable. Every time you talk about it like that you cement that even more than a tory doing it would, and push social democracy further away.
Working outside the labour party on campaigns which seek to get social democratic policies implemented, on actions or policies that emphasise collective rather than individual action, because social democracy is a collective response to capitalism, and actions which build working class networks and solidarity because social democratic policies benefit the working class most and (in the short term anyway) is not to the benefit of capital, so to get those settlements from the political arena you need significant pressure from the working class to achieve it.
What I'm saying, I'm saying because I think that's the quickest way to get to social democracy. I think that what you are proposing will take longer, but I don't insult you and say that you want to do that because you're an arsehole who doesn't care about all the people being fucked by the cuts do I.

Perception is so important, I can't believe you dismiss it like that - if people perceive a party / leader as unelectable, are they going to vote for them? probably not, why would you. If people think a party has policies that are radical, unthinkable, unworkable they are less likely to vote for them. That's all perception. If people perceived Corbyn as a great leader, his policies as sensible and workable, they'd be more likely to vote for him. Having people who are ostensibly on his side saying he's not electable is massively damaging, and it's all about people's perceptions.

You've misunderstood what I said about corbyn being electable - I think that if after he was voted in by the labour party membership in 2015 (or was it 16 by the time that was done?), if the whole of the plp and rest of the membership, and the left-liberal media had got behind him, he could now be electable in 2020. I don't think he can win now, any chance there was has been totally fucked by everyone who supports the labour party undermining him at every turn. 2025 is irrelevant, he won't be around after 2020 unless he does win, and if he wins in 2020 I think you'll be assessing his chances of winning in 2025 rather differently.

I don’t think you’re ‘a callous evil bastard who wants the tories to fuck people over’, nothing could be further from the truth, but I do think you’re delusional if you think that public services can be saved by hoping and waiting for the electorate to decide to vote for what you want them to.

Perception is indeed important, but less so than honesty. How do you hope to make people perceive Corbyn as ‘a great leader’ when he clearly isn’t? How are people supposed to get behind someone or something they have no faith in? Corbyn himself rightly never got behind Blair or Brown but now he's expecting everyone to get behind him.

 

[B.I.G]

The issue isn't with promises that are made or not. It's that few are listening.

It's pointless to hook Labour on details. It's whole philosophy needs to be inspired by solidarity and from there the policy will follow.

More might listen if he spoke about things that might improve everyone's lives. Rather than vague bollocks about respecting democracy. Maybe that's why Corbyn won't announce any actual policies as he he respecting the win of the Tory government.

NHS collapsing? Say you will put more money in and say how it will be spent and on what.

Housing shit? Commit to taxes on landlords and build more council housing.

Etc etc.

Or waffle on about shit and claim no one's listening.

 

[Mr Moose]

More might listen if he spoke about things that might improve everyone's lives. Rather than vague bollocks about respecting democracy. Maybe that's why Corbyn won't announce any actual policies as he he respecting the win of the Tory government.

NHS collapsing? Say you will put more money in and say how it will be spent and on what.

Housing shit? Commit to taxes on landlords and build more council housing.

Etc etc.

Or waffle on about shit and claim no one's listening.

I honestly don't think anyone really gives much of a shit about the detail right now more than 3 years from an election. They want a champion.

 

[B.I.G]

I honestly don't think anyone really gives much of a shit about the detail right now more than 3 years from an election. They want a champion.

Fair enough. Everytime I see him on tv he isn't talking about anything close to my top 10 priorities for a government. No matter how vaguely.

 

[BigTom]

I don’t think you’re ‘a callous evil bastard who wants the tories to fuck people over’, nothing could be further from the truth, but I do think you’re delusional if you think that public services can be saved by hoping and waiting for the electorate to decide to vote for what you want them to.

Perception is indeed important, but less so than honesty. How do you hope to make people perceive Corbyn as ‘a great leader’ when he clearly isn’t? How are people supposed to get behind someone or something they have no faith in? Corbyn himself rightly never got behind Blair or Brown but now he's expecting everyone to get behind him.

I'm not suggesting "hoping and waiting", I've said a number of things both reasonably specific and general in terms of actions to be taken, for instance right in the post you've just reply to I say:

Working outside the labour party on campaigns which seek to get social democratic policies implemented, on actions or policies that emphasise collective rather than individual action, because social democracy is a collective response to capitalism, and actions which build working class networks and solidarity because social democratic policies benefit the working class most and (in the short term anyway) is not to the benefit of capital, so to get those settlements from the political arena you need significant pressure from the working class to achieve it

So please stop with this saying that I'm willing to fuck people over letting the tories in - we disagree about the quickest way to replace them and their policies, not that they should be turfed out as quickly as possible so that the policies they follow no longer apply. I also get the feeling that we disagree and actually you are looking for the quickest way to replace the tories with labour and aren't so bothered about what the policies are.

As a Labour party MP, peer or member who wants a social democratic party, you get behind corbyn because the alternatives were burnham or harman (or Kendall but lol). Or owen smith, who inspired people so much he couldn't even get them to come out with the promise of free beer and burgers (iirc maybe it was just burgers). Corbyn might not be ideal but he's the best you have available. Perhaps you don't win 2020 but by arguing for the policies you want (rather than accepting the overarching ideology of the policies you don't want) you make it more likely that in 2025 or 2030 you'll get the policies you want. Arguing for an austerity lite under someone like burnham means you will definitely still get austerity in 2025 or 2030, and at no point will social democratic policies move into the sensible/popular area of the overton window.
Assumes you want social democracy of course, which I don't think a lot of the right wing labour MPs do.

 

[oryx]

More might listen if he spoke about things that might improve everyone's lives.

Did you not see him arguing with Theresa May at PMQs about social care?

On a more general point, Corbyn's role has been to take the party further left which was badly needed. As has been amply demonstrated, the membership doesn't want a Liz Kendall/Owen Smith and their attempts at trying for the role have been laughable.

I try to keep an open mind about whether Corbyn should be leader in 2020. The really important thing is that members keep the veer to the left in place and do not allow the right of the party to elect a Tory-lite leader.

I don't fully agree with all that Andrew Hertford says but his view that if Labour aren't electable then a whole generation of people will be fucked is a valid one. This doesn't mean that the more right-wing element in Labour should be stabbing Corbyn in the back and putting up someone like Owen Smith for leader. The Labour membership has changed and grown in the last two years and this needs to be used to work towards an electable party, but one which is way further to the left than the Blair/Brown years.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

I'm not suggesting "hoping and waiting", I've said a number of things both reasonably specific and general in terms of actions to be taken, for instance right in the post you've just reply to I say:



So please stop with this saying that I'm willing to fuck people over letting the tories in - we disagree about the quickest way to replace them and their policies, not that they should be turfed out as quickly as possible so that the policies they follow no longer apply. I also get the feeling that we disagree and actually you are looking for the quickest way to replace the tories with labour and aren't so bothered about what the policies are.

As a Labour party MP, peer or member who wants a social democratic party, you get behind corbyn because the alternatives were burnham or harman (or Kendall but lol). Or owen smith, who inspired people so much he couldn't even get them to come out with the promise of free beer and burgers (iirc maybe it was just burgers). Corbyn might not be ideal but he's the best you have available. Perhaps you don't win 2020 but by arguing for the policies you want (rather than accepting the overarching ideology of the policies you don't want) you make it more likely that in 2025 or 2030 you'll get the policies you want. Arguing for an austerity lite under someone like burnham means you will definitely still get austerity in 2025 or 2030, and at no point will social democratic policies move into the sensible/popular area of the overton window.
Assumes you want social democracy of course, which I don't think a lot of the right wing labour MPs do.

But how will your "actions to be taken" bring Labour the votes it need to win a general election or convince the public to overwhelmingly vote for 'actual change' sometime in the future?? I can't see that they will.

Yes I am looking for the quickest way to get the tories out and replace them with Labour because there are vulnerable people depending on it and because I know from experience as well as from the figures that essential services will be safer with a Labour government even if it isn't a left wing one.

I'm still curious about your definition of Social Democracy. Presumably it has nothing to do with Shirley Williams or Wikipedia's definition?...

"Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic,egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes..."

 

[B.I.G]

Did you not see him arguing with Theresa May at PMQs about social care?

On a more general point, Corbyn's role has been to take the party further left which was badly needed. As has been amply demonstrated, the membership doesn't want a Liz Kendall/Owen Smith and their attempts at trying for the role have been laughable.

I try to keep an open mind about whether Corbyn should be leader in 2020. The really important thing is that members keep the veer to the left in place and do not allow the right of the party to elect a Tory-lite leader.

I don't fully agree with all that Andrew Hertford says but his view that if Labour aren't electable then a whole generation of people will be fucked is a valid one. This doesn't mean that the more right-wing element in Labour should be stabbing Corbyn in the back and putting up someone like Owen Smith for leader. The Labour membership has changed and grown in the last two years and this needs to be used to work towards an electable party, but one which is way further to the left than the Blair/Brown years.

No. Unsurprisingly no one watches PMQs.

It means the left should stab Corbyn in the back and get someone with some ideas.

Edited to put right thing in.

 

[William of Walworth]

I think BigTom 's post #15824 summed up my pessimism about the LP's current prospects far far better than I could ever have managed myself.

So, redsquirrel , I'm just about not neoliberal .
Just a pessimistic leftie/former TU rep/constant TU member/still in PCS

Who on absolute principle, and family background, has NEVER crossed a picketline or has ever disagreed with any strike ever.

But! who also hated Tory landslides for around 20 years back then. I'm ashamed to say I put up with Tony Blair for a bit in the late Nineties

The only thing he was occasionally right about was how to win elections

 

[oryx]

No. Unsurprisingly no one watches question time.

It

Fair enough point. PMQs, and arguably the whole of fucking Parliament, resembles an Oxbridge debating society (I am aware I am making a highly unoriginal point here) so it's not surprising that most people don't watch it. But within this context, Corbyn has raised important issues that matter to ordinary people.

He was derided by some for reading out questions from people who had asked him things about everyday issues that matter to ordinary people (i.e. non MPs, non politicos, i.e. most of us) which says everything about the workings of 'modern' parliament.

 

[B.I.G]

Fair enough point. PMQs, and arguably the whole of fucking Parliament, resembles an Oxbridge debating society (I am aware I am making a highly unoriginal point here) so it's not surprising that most people don't watch it. But within this context, Corbyn has raised important issues that matter to ordinary people.

He was derided by some for reading out questions from people who had asked him things about everyday issues that matter to ordinary people (i.e. non MPs, non politicos, i.e. most of us) which says everything about the workings of 'modern' parliament.

Corbyn needs to stop talking to people at demonstrations and start putting his point across to voters directly.

And some actual points would be useful! Like how to get some higher pay etc.

 

[mojo pixy]

Thing is, people want higher wages but they baulk at the actions necessary to get them. What can he say, ''Join or form a trades union, and demand better terms and conditions!''

That's the truth, but who the fuck wants to hear it?

 

[teqniq]

.