Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Andrew Hertford]

Out of curiosity, what policies do you think the 'Centre/Left' desires?

Having gone over this on here so many times now, I don’t particularly want to repeat myself but Corbyn himself is the problem more than his policies. Are Labour’s policies going to be that much different now to 2015?

 

[andysays]

Replacing a vaguely left leader with someone like Corbyn clearly isn’t working either. That’s been said many times too.

So assuming you agree that a Labour GE win is the only way of stopping the tories and their demolition of essential services, how can it be made to happen? Surely attracting more voters would help!

That's actually a massive and, for many of us posting here, an incorrect assumption. You've persistantly conflated "stopping the tories" with "stopping the demolition of essential services" as if the two are synonymous; they're not.

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in a Labour GE win which merely leads to it being a Labour rather than a Conservative government destroying and privatising essential public services, and their elected members actively profiteering from this, as they are currently doing at local level.

 

[chilango]

That's actually a massive and, for many of us posting here, an incorrect assumption. You've persistantly conflated "stopping the tories" with "stopping the demolition of essential services" as if the two are synonymous; they're not.

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in a Labour GE win which merely leads to it being a Labour rather than a Conservative government destroying and privatising essential public services, and their elected members actively profiteering from this, as they are currently doing at local level.

Pretty much what I was about to post.

Wanting the Tories to lose and wanting Labour to win are not the same.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

That's actually a massive and, for many of us posting here, an incorrect assumption. You've persistantly conflated "stopping the tories" with "stopping the demolition of essential services" as if the two are synonymous; they're not.

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in a Labour GE win which merely leads to it being a Labour rather than a Conservative government destroying and privatising essential public services, and their elected members actively profiteering from this, as they are currently doing at local level.

But funding of essential services like healthcare and education goes up under Labour governments and generally down under tory ones. That was even true under Blair and Brown. (Go back and look at the stats earlier in the thread if you like, I can't be bothered posting them a third time).

It may not bother you, but that makes a difference to millions of people's lives.

 

[Wilf]

So assuming you agree that a Labour GE win is the only way of stopping the tories and their demolition of essential services, how can it be made to happen? Surely attracting more voters would help!

It isn't the only way of defending services - the fact that there is precious little else going on outside parliament doesn't in itself make voting Labour a viable option. And anyway, Labour themselves don't exactly have good record in defending public services in office 1997-2010 - or in local government since then - do they?

 

[Wilf]

It may not bother you, but that makes a difference to millions of people's lives.

Can I ask what you personally do to defend services/make a difference to people's lives?

 

[chilango]

From the other thread...

At least it's not the Tories shutting down the children's centres eh?

That's it?

That's all they've got?

Seriously.

Post after post.

Thread after thread.

None of the "vote Labour" exhortations are batting an eyelid at urging me to vote for the Party that is actually making real cuts in mycommunity. Making a difference in people's lives right in front of me.

Labour are proper fucked if this is the best they can do.

 

[Wilf]

We got a thousand points of light
For the homeless man
We got a kinder, gentler,
Machine gun hand

 

[ViolentPanda]

Pol Pot on the tenner then
Stalin on the twenty
Mao on the fifty

Harold Shipman on the 50p piece.

 

[andysays]

But funding of essential services like healthcare and education goes up under Labour governments and generally down under tory ones. That was even true under Blair and Brown. (Go back and look at the stats earlier in the thread if you like, I can't be bothered posting them a third time).

It may not bother you, but that makes a difference to millions of people's lives.

Much of it through the mechanism of PFI and similar, through which private interests (many of them connected to elected Labour members) will be raking in the profits for years if not decades to come.

Your refusal to acknowledge that much of this increased funding for once-publicly-owned services goes not into the actual services but into private profit screwed out of them makes your endless repeating of this "funding goes up under Labour governments" mantra essentially meaningless.

 

[Pickman's model]

Harold Shipman on the 50p piece.

Reginald Dyer on the £1

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Labour themselves don't exactly have good record in defending public services in office 1997-2010

But net funding as % of GDP went up between 1997-2009 and has been going down ever since. Which scenario do you prefer? Because they are the only two choices.

 

[DotCommunist]

not to mention the debt load weighed onto the NHS...

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Much of it through the mechanism of PFI and similar, through which private interests (many of them connected to elected Labour members) will be raking in the profits for years if not decades to come.

Your refusal to acknowledge that much of this increased funding for once-publicly-owned services goes not into the actual services but into private profit screwed out of them makes your endless repeating of this "funding goes up under Labour governments" mantra essentially meaningless.

Even Owen Smith ruled out private NHS funding in a future Labour government.

Are people seriously saying that a Labour government would continue towards things like grammar schools and the privatisation of public services like the tories??

 

[Wilf]

Even Owen Smith ruled out private NHS funding in a future Labour government.

Are you seriously saying that a Labour government would continue towards things like grammar schools and the privatisation of public services like the tories??

Do you remember what happened after David Blunket famously said something like 'read my lips, no selection by test or interview under a labour Government'?

Edit: and of course do you remember Labour's record on privatisation, pfi, royal mail...

 

[Wilf]

In fact Andrew Hertford if you want to look for a bit of the Labour Party that isn't part of the Continuity Thatcher-Blair-Brown Army you have to go with Corbyn. Even if you object to Corbyn personally, you have to go with his 'faction', whatever comes next from the Labour left/momentum. Or to put it another way, which bit of the Labour Party are you looking to deliver this defence of the NHS etc?

Edit: I'm not looking to some imaginary Corbyn government to do all this stuff, it would be no more than least worst, but still trapped by the contradictions of trying to build social democracy within the logics of neo-liberalism - but it is the logic of your position.

 

[ViolentPanda]

From the other thread...



Seriously.

Post after post.

Thread after thread.

None of the "vote Labour" exhortations are batting an eyelid at urging me to vote for the Party that is actually making real cuts in mycommunity. Making a difference in people's lives right in front of me.

Labour are proper fucked if this is the best they can do.

Went to a "working dinner" the other night to plan some anti-gentrification strategy, and heard some of this bollocks about how people MUST vote Labour, because...well, all the reasons liberals like Hertford trot out. Some of the Inertia Momentum members and Labour-pumpers present got upset when I (calmly, for me) explained that even a committed social-democratic Labour government will adopt the "pragmatist" label and carry on with some of the Tory cuts - that they'll NEED to, to fund their other commitments; that their commitment to half a million new council homes in the next electoral cycle will see "Big Construction" come out hard on them, and will likely mean that no companies can be found to build those homes (as we know, one of the first acts of the Tories in '79 was to make councils divest themselves of Direct Labour forces, and put everything out for CCT (Compulsory Competitive Tendering).

We have precisely the same issue as you and hundreds of thousands of others - a Labour local authority enthusiastically following Tory diktat, while shedding crocodile tears about "having to" implement those cuts. I attend council meetings, I read the paperwork which informs their decision-making, and I'm also aware that, in Lambeth at least, the Labour Councillors (59 out of 63) were overjoyed when the NEC handed down a decision forbidding local authorities from setting an unbalanced (i.e. "illegal") budget, as many had been worried that public sentiment might force them to. They were more worried about the effect that taking part in an unlawful action might have on their political careers, than about the people they're supposed to represent!

Will I vote Labour, even with "no illusions"? No, I won't. I refuse to perpetuate this cycle of bad vs slightly less bad.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Reginald Dyer on the £1

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Do you remember what happened after David Blunket famously said something like 'read my lips, no selection by test or interview under a labour Government'?

Edit: and of course do you remember Labour's record on privatisation, pfi, royal mail...

In fact Andrew Hertford if you want to look for a bit of the Labour Party that isn't part of the Continuity Thatcher-Blair-Brown Army you have to go with Corbyn. Even if you object to Corbyn personally, you have to go with his 'faction', whatever comes next from the Labour left/momentum. Or to put it another way, which bit of the Labour Party are you looking to deliver this defence of the NHS etc?

So you think that unless it's led by Corbyn or a Corbyn acolyte, a future Labour government would go ahead with bring back the grammar school system, privatise the NHS by the back door and continue to cut funding to essential services as much as the tories even though they've never done that before??

I don't "object to Corbyn personally" by the way, I've always been on his side, but the problem is that the electorate are not.

 

[Wilf]

So you think that unless it's led by Corbyn or a Corbyn acolyte, a future Labour government would go ahead with bring back the grammar school system, privatise the NHS by the back door and continue to cut funding to essential services as much as the tories even though they've never done that before??

I don't "object to Corbyn personally" by the way, I've always been on his side, but the problem is that the electorate are not.

No I don't think that at all, that's my point. But it's the logic of your position - if you are looking for the least bad, most pro-public sector bit of the Labour Party, you have nowhere else to go than Corbyn. Or to put it more directly, to you: who are you looking to? Which bit of the party is going to delver this? Which bit is the least tainted, didn't support pfi etc.?

 

[andysays]

Even Owen Smith ruled out private NHS funding in a future Labour government.

Are people seriously saying that a Labour government would continue towards things like grammar schools and the privatisation of public services like the tories??

We have already seen actual Labour governments, at both national and local level, not just pursuing privatisation but actively profiteering from it.

When Mandelson made his infamous comment about how he was "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich", some of the Labour MPs and councillors seem to have taken that as a green light to become filthy rich themselves through the exploitation of formerly public services.

And you're not only ignoring this, you're exorting us to vote Labour under the pretence of saving those same public services they've contributed to screwing over. You're either totally deluded or totally dishonest, or possibly a bit of both.

 

[Pickman's model]

So you think that unless it's led by Corbyn or a Corbyn acolyte, a future Labour government would go ahead with bring back the grammar school system, privatise the NHS by the back door and continue to cut funding to essential services as much as the tories even though they've never done that before??

I don't "object to Corbyn personally" by the way, I've always been on his side, but the problem is that the electorate are not.

Where were you from 1997 to 2010?

 

[Pickman's model]

We have already seen actual Labour governments, at both national and local level, not just pursuing privatisation but actively profiteering from it.

When Mandelson made his infamous comment about how he was "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich", some of the Labour MPs and councillors seem to have taken that as a green light to become filthy rich themselves through the exploitation of formerly public services.

And you're not only ignoring this, you're exorting us to vote Labour under the pretence of saving those same public services they've contributed to screwing over. You're either totally deluded or totally dishonest, or possibly a bit of both.

He's a well-known liar

 

[ViolentPanda]

He's a well-known liar

And fantasist.
Remember "Kristallnacht"?

 

[Libertad]

We got a thousand points of light
For the homeless man
We got a kinder, gentler,
Machine gun hand

Got a man of the people, says keep hope alive.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

We have already seen actual Labour governments, at both national and local level, not just pursuing privatisation but actively profiteering from it.

When Mandelson made his infamous comment about how he was "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich", some of the Labour MPs and councillors seem to have taken that as a green light to become filthy rich themselves through the exploitation of formerly public services.

And you're not only ignoring this, you're exorting us to vote Labour under the pretence of saving those same public services they've contributed to screwing over. You're either totally deluded or totally dishonest, or possibly a bit of both.

It's delusion to believe that the NHS and other public services will still be here in their present form after another decade of tory government, just as it is to pretend that public services don't fair better under Labour.

How do you think we can save public services??

 

[Wilf]

It's delusion to believe that the NHS and other public services will still be here in their present form after another decade of tory government, just as it is to pretend that public services don't fair better under Labour.

How do you think we can save public services??

Tell us about the path you have gone down to save public services.

 

[Brainaddict]

None of the "vote Labour" exhortations are batting an eyelid at urging me to vote for the Party that is actually making real cuts in my community. Making a difference in people's lives right in front of me.

The role of Labour in local authorities is not great, though not entirely their own fault - the threat of imprisonment for setting 'illegal' budgets is real enough that it seems no-one will consider it now. But also I live in a borough run by a very right wing Labour set, and it's true they are unable to process the idea of solidarity in attempting to oppose the cuts.

At the same time, we all know there's at least two parties within Labour struggling to get out, and people are suggesting you try to vote for the one that will roll back council cuts. This is problematic - in some areas the only way to 'show support' for Corbyn's program is to vote for someone who has repeatedly denounced Corbyn. It's a mess for sure, but in this curious phase of Labour's existence isn't it a bit simplistic to say 'Labour have screwed me over so I'll never vote for them'? It's the first time in my lifetime that there has been a mainstream party not committed to neo-liberalism - even if the ability of the left of the party to oppose it will obviously be very compromised.

 

[chilango]

The role of Labour in local authorities is not great, though not entirely their own fault - the threat of imprisonment for setting 'illegal' budgets is real enough that it seems no-one will consider it now. But also I live in a borough run by a very right wing Labour set, and it's true they are unable to process the idea of solidarity in attempting to oppose the cuts.

At the same time, we all know there's at least two parties within Labour struggling to get out, and people are suggesting you try to vote for the one that will roll back council cuts. This is problematic - in some areas the only way to 'show support' for Corbyn's program is to vote for someone who has repeatedly denounced Corbyn. It's a mess for sure, but in this curious phase of Labour's existence isn't it a bit simplistic to say 'Labour have screwed me over so I'll never vote for them'? It's the first time in my lifetime that there has been a mainstream party not committed to neo-liberalism - even if the ability of the left of the party to oppose it will obviously be very compromised.

You raise an interesting point.

If I were to overlook the Labour admins record of cuts, and believe that Corbyn's Labour would be an alternative, I probably won't be able to vote for Corbyn's Labour* but more likely for someone who in the unlikely event of them gaining the seat will line up to oust Corbyn (and the ideas he's tried to promote) immediately the opportunity presents itself.

*I don't know who the local candidate is yet.

 

[Brainaddict]

You raise an interesting point.

If I were to overlook the Labour admins record of cuts, and believe that Corbyn's Labour would be an alternative, I probably won't be able to vote for Corbyn's Labour* but more likely for someone who in the unlikely event of them gaining the seat will line up to oust Corbyn (and the ideas he's tried to promote) immediately the opportunity presents itself.

*I don't know who the local candidate is yet.

If Labour got an outright win then it's difficult to see Corbyn being ousted any time soon. But I admit that is unlikely.

But we also know how much of the media and many, many people will view this election: not as a test of what people think of Labour's record in local authorities, but as a test of whether the UK public likes left wing politics. Your private narrative for voting the way you do (or not) doesn't have a very meaningful political presence unless you can create public discussion around it that can reach reasonable numbers of people. If that sounds like giving in to the media, well, perhaps, but we can't always choose the ground we're fighting on. This won't be an election where the record of Labour in local authorities is judged, except perhaps in the heads of a handful of people. What does that mean, politically?

Out of genuine interest, what would you have wanted Labour councils to do about having their budgets slashed by the Tory central government?