Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[ViolentPanda]

Buzzfeed? And you laugh at other people's sources. Ever heard of Clickhole, asshole?

It's "arsehole", you arsehole.

 

[J Ed]

I have nothing against protesting against the New Statesman or the graunid, but their message is a little bit too moderate for my tastes

Better:

 

[rutabowa]

Corbyn coming out with a lot of sensible policies that I agree with at the moment. Still don't know why people are in such a tizz about him, I really don't get it tbh. (Not reading through 500 odd pages of this thread to find out either)

 

[DotCommunist]

ten quid min wage by 2020 is still really fucking tight.

 

[brogdale]

ten quid min wage by 2020 is still really fucking tight.

Too right.
On the demand the impossible continuum it's still pretty close to fundamentalist neoliberal.

 

[DotCommunist]

Too right.
On the demand the impossible continuum it's still pretty close to fundamentalist neoliberal.

not only that, I think I recall it being a thing osbourne pledged back in those days before cameron fucked a pig and the world went mad.


So its 'matching tory policy- vote labour'

 

[The Pale King]

not only that, I think I recall it being a thing osbourne pledged back in those days before cameron fucked a pig and the world went mad.


So its 'matching tory policy- vote labour'

True, I remember it as well, re-heated Milibandism. Should have been £20 for 2020.

 

[DotCommunist]

True, I remember it as well, re-heated Milibandism. Should have been £20 for 2020.

hah, and here was me thinking 'fight for 15'. Must broaden my ambitions

 

[Pickman's model]

True, I remember it as well, re-heated Milibandism. Should have been £20 for 2020.

£20.20 for 2020

 

[Sprocket.]

£20.20 for 2020

It may well be 21 guineas by that date!

 

[Andrew Hertford]

You're all over the fucking shop here you stupid cunt. I wouldn't have mentioned coups in the first place if you hadn't fucking asked how govts could be changed undemocratically. I only mentioned it in that context and never as a realistic option atm so will you stop repeating it, dishonestly making out I've said anything in favour of coups?

You said coups and revolutions. So if not a coup, is revolution a viable way of changing government undemocratically??

A fair society cannot by definition be undemocratic? A fair society cannot by definition be democratic, if by democratic you mean simply electing people now and again.

That's clearly not what I mean. Society needs to be far more democratic if it is to be fair, however, selecting a national government can only be done by 'electing people now and again'.

There would be no personal abuse if you managed to get to grips with what other people post. But you seem incapable of it. You seem incapable of any sort of critical thought. Your thought seems to run on rails rather than be capable of taking different routes, your mantra that a Labour government must be elected to make things fairer flies in the face of experience between 1997 and 2010. Labour governments are explicitly pro-business governments. And if you're pro-business, someone else will come second. Part of labour's role is to play the good cop to the tories' bad cop - over things like tuition fees. Perhaps you should revisit the Blair and brown govts and think about them somewhat before posting again.

It’s you who can't seem to get to grips with the fact that only Labour winning a GE can save the NHS and state education, preferring instead to hide behind childish abuse while vaguely bandying around words like ‘revolution’ and ‘coup’ without having the faintest idea about why you said them in the first place.

If you want to forge a radically different UK then go ahead, but it’ll mean fuck all if it’s not reached consensually.

 

[rutabowa]

I never expected a super hero ha

 

[agricola]

It’s you who can't seem to get to grips with the fact that only Labour winning a GE can save the NHS and state education, preferring instead to hide behind childish abuse while vaguely bandying around words like ‘revolution’ and ‘coup’ without having the faintest idea about why you said them in the first place.

Not this "the PLP as Babylon 5" thing again.

 

[Pickman's model]

It’s you who can't seem to get to grips with the fact that only Labour winning a GE can save the NHS and state education, preferring instead to hide behind childish abuse while vaguely bandying around words like ‘revolution’ and ‘coup’ without having the faintest idea about why you said them in the first place.

If you want to forge a radically different UK then go ahead, but it’ll mean fuck all if it’s not reached consensually.

Oh fuck off you dull, dull cunt. The fucking game's up for labour - where will the 80, 90 seats they need to win come from? Scotland? That ship's sailed. And there's 20 or so Labour seats gone through boundary changes. You'll not see another Labour government before 2030 at least.

You don't have a fucking clue.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm very puzzled by the notion that the neoliberal wing of labour, the very people who pushed the NHS into ruinous debt, much of it held by the very arseholes who would profit from privatization, via PFI, can be imagined to be the saviours of the our public health service.

Surely that's just some sort of cynical Blairite bullshit that they're giving us little people because they hold anyone who can't afford private health insurance and didn't go to pubic school in total contempt and think we're stupid enough to fall for their transparent lies again despite their dire history of utter faithlessness?

 

[Sprocket.]

I have, by email, via Unite, been invited to attend a meeting at Doncaster Trades Club tomorrow with Jeremy Corbyn at 4:00 pm. Sadly at this time I will be in recovery post-op and cannot decide which would be the less fraught event.

 

[hash tag]

It may well be 21 guineas by that date!

Will he dare suggest we go back to Imperial after Brexit

 

[brogdale]

I have, by email, via Unite, been invited to attend a meeting at Doncaster Trades Club tomorrow with Jeremy Corbyn at 4:00 pm. Sadly at this time I will be in recovery post-op and cannot decide which would be the less fraught event.

Hope all goes well, comrade.

 

[belboid]

Will he dare suggest we go back to Imperial after Brexit

Do be silly. Before anything else, our Jez is an anti-imperialist

 

[Sprocket.]

Hope all goes well, comrade.

Cheers, I hope to be back in a couple of days.

 

[redcogs]

"The fucking game's up for labour - where will the 80, 90 seats they need to win come from? Scotland? That ship's sailed. And there's 20 or so Labour seats gone through boundary changes. You'll not see another Labour government before 2030 at least."

In the early 1980s i'd a 48 year old mate who often remarked that he would not live long enough to see another Labour government. Back then i was still starry eyed enough to challenge what i thought to be his awful pessimism, thinking that it couldn't be too long before people began to see through all the vermin's lying deceipt and would respond through the ballot box, or, i hoped, through the inevitable picket lines. i didn't at all see the waning of social democracy and the complete eclipse of Labour. my mate Willie died in 1996. Had he lived he would not have recognised Blair and the awful 'Blairite project' as having anything to do with 'Labour'. i suspect Pickman is correct, there is little possibility of a Labour administration until 2030 at the earliest.

i suppose i've turned into Willie. Depressingly i'm 65..

 

[Sprocket.]

Sadly redcogs it could be that we will be much older before we see another Labour government.
The problem I think is akin to the story of the Emperor's new clothes except in this version, the observer who sees that Labour is naked is beaten to death by the fawning crowd.

 

[Wilf]

I'll first of all go through the ritualised bits first - yes, they were better than governments we've had since 1979, yes, the NHS was 'safe(r) in their hands' and all that. But regardless of the nostalgia factor that I probably share, let's not start valorising the governments of Harold Wilson and Jim fucking Callaghan. They always managed capitalism as a precarious 'settlement', but when social democracy and the post-war boom died they showed their true colours and sided unambiguously with capital.

Not having a go at anyone, btw, but let's neither put them on a point in some continuum they didn't deserve or, even worse, suggest they peddled a form of rule that was something other than being ruled, by capital. And ultimately, the reasons Labourism and social democracy failed are the reasons, in part, Corbyn isn't able to present it as a real, plausible thing to be revivied.

 

[inva]

But regardless of the nostalgia factor that I probably share, let's not start valorising the governments of Harold Wilson and Jim fucking Callaghan.

or Atlee

 

[Wilf]

or Atlee

Indeed/absolutely - though I didn't dare slaughter that most sacred of sacred cows. But Attlee makes the point just as well, he came in at the point when social democracy was the answer, but it was also capital's answer. That gets right to an aspect of Corbyn's 'failure', it's not just the failure of him and momentum to get an active political project up and running, it's not just the behaviour of the right, it's not just the weird balance of forces in both the PLP and the party - it's also the thing that's on sale. He and his rather blinkered fans present social democracy - or whatever variation on it he holds - as a 'thing' to be had. But it isn't a fork in the road, a path to persuade the voters to go along. It was a compromise of it's time, something that worked for capital every bit as much as it represented gains for the working class. But that world isn't there any more and capital certainly isn't going to back it.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'll first of all go through the ritualised bits first - yes, they were better than governments we've had since 1979, yes, the NHS was 'safe(r) in their hands' and all that. But regardless of the nostalgia factor that I probably share, let's not start valorising the governments of Harold Wilson and Jim fucking Callaghan. They always managed capitalism as a precarious 'settlement', but when social democracy and the post-war boom died they showed their true colours and sided unambiguously with capital.

Not having a go at anyone, btw, but let's neither put them on a point in some continuum they didn't deserve or, even worse, suggest they peddled a form of rule that was something other than being ruled, by capital. And ultimately, the reasons Labourism and social democracy failed are the reasons, in part, Corbyn isn't able to present it as a real, plausible thing to be revivied.

not to mention callaghan sending troops into the six counties and his government overseeing the withdrawal of special category status for republican (and loyalist) prisoners: the h-blocks were the scene of the blanket and dirty protests under callaghan as under thatcher.

 

[redcogs]

i agree, at best Labour was only ever a rather threadbare comfort blanket, something to grip on to in the absence of the working class movement creating anything better. my friend Willie (who i mentioned above) was born in the tough 1930's, and certainly regarded Labour as an important vehicle for reforming society and a bulwark against unemployment and actual hunger. i absorbed a bit of that i'm sure, and even as i chained myself to the 'revolutionary left' i continued, for a time, to hope for a Labour government. Of course, the real world, along with the Blairites, exposed my ridiculous naivety, and dear Willie checked out in 1996 before his faith in Labour could be properly tested, so he witnessed the best that UK social democracy had to offer with the Atlee progresses etc. So i suppose his trust in Labour was a generational thing, and entirely understandable.

i'm unsure, and dont possess the capability to draw any meaningful lessons from any of this, but i agree that the free market aint gonna be shifted by Jezzer, however much he wants it. That route is closed off by history, possibly permanently.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think the age of ordinary people being able to have their interests represented via parliamentary politics is over.

It was nice while it lasted, and we may be able to defend the gains made then against primitive accumulation, by other means, at least for a while.

Desperately sad if I'm right about this, because all the alternatives really stink, but I'm pretty sure that the democratic option no longer exists for us.

Only for rich people, and one person one vote isn't how they exercise power.

 

[ferrelhadley]

I think the age of ordinary people being able to have their interests represented via parliamentary politics is over.

The idiot ordinary people need to have their votes taken away from them so their betters like you can order the world in their interest.

 

[mojo pixy]

That wasn't how I read that post tbf.
Rather, it got me thinking that May 14th isn't far off.