Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Labour leadership

Diamond said:
Hmm... I was agreeing with you but perhaps that's some kind of kryptonite in your universe...
Click to expand...
You agreed with my point, then went on to say something that, as far as it was saying anything, and as far as I was able to construe any form of coherence, appeared to say something I disagreed with:

"but I'm not sure that it merits the kind of Pyrrhic victory that seems to be in the offing unless we're looking at the total collapse of Labour and something completely different, not paleo-solicalist nor centre-right, emerging..."

Let's take that in sections.

So, first this "Pyrrhic victory that seems to be in the offing". Well, for us to consider that, you have to tell us what you're thinking of. Corbyn winning the leadership of the Labour party would be a Pyrrhic victory? How so? For whom? A Pyrrhic victory for Labour? For Corbyn supporters? Well, the Labour Party, since its inception as a vehicle to deliver working class representation in Parliament, has been a hundred years worth of the last word in Pyrrhic as far as the working class are concerned. So a bit more expanding on this aspect of your post wouldn't go amiss.

Now, "unless we're looking at the total collapse of Labour and something completely different, not paleo-solicalist nor centre-right, emerging". What on earth are you talking about? What is "paleo-socialist" for starters? Corbyn? No he isn't; he's right in the centre of what used to be the political consensus at the time of Butskellism, from the post war Welfare State right up until the Dawn of Thatcher. He's not old left, he's old centre. In fact, as you have been told, much of what he proposes even now enjoys majority support even of Tory voters. (Eg: http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/nationalise-energy-and-rail-companies-say-public/ ).

So, if "paleo-socialist" means Corbyn, then it's an inaccurate and daft term. Let's say "paelo-centre". But now you have to define what it is that is neither paleo-centre nor centre-right that your hypothetical collapse of the Labour Party (not going to happen; it survived Ramsay MacDonald ffs), this preferred middle way of yours that will mitigate or negate the as-yet-nebulous Pyrrhic nature of Corbyn's projected victory.
 
Favelado said:
You will be answered in less than 30 words and have a pointless question along the lines of "So you think that Corbyn is the answer to all of the world's problems then?" thrown at you.

Killer B is right. He's just a dick, ignore him.
Click to expand...
it's astonishing that despite posting here since the beginning he is such an obnoxious wanker. and i write this as an obnoxious wanker myself.
 
frogwoman, aren't you putting words into peoples mouths? Outside of a few overenthusiastic tools, most of the positive reaction to corbyn - both here and elsewhere - is to cautiously welcome his ascendency, and mainly simply because of the arguments that are now getting some mainstream attention than out of hope for a new left labour.

Who are these credulous fools you keep digging up?
 
killer b said:
frogwoman, aren't you putting words into peoples mouths? Outside of a few overenthusiastic tools, most of the positive reaction to corbyn - both here and elsewhere - is to cautiously welcome his ascendency, and mainly simply because of the arguments that are now getting some mainstream attention than out of hope for a new left labour.

Who are these credulous fools you keep digging up?
Click to expand...

People on my fb feed mostly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LDC
danny la rouge said:
You agreed with my point, then went on to say something that, as far as it was saying anything, and as far as I was able to construe any form of coherence, appeared to say something I disagreed with:

"but I'm not sure that it merits the kind of Pyrrhic victory that seems to be in the offing unless we're looking at the total collapse of Labour and something completely different, not paleo-solicalist nor centre-right, emerging..."

Let's take that in sections.

So, first this "Pyrrhic victory that seems to be in the offing". Well, for us to consider that, you have to tell us what you're thinking of. Corbyn winning the leadership of the Labour party would be a Pyrrhic victory? How so? For whom? A Pyrrhic victory for Labour? For Corbyn supporters? Well, the Labour Party, since its inception as a vehicle to deliver working class representation in Parliament, has been a hundred years worth of the last word in Pyrrhic as far as the working class are concerned. So a bit more expanding on this aspect of your post wouldn't go amiss.

Now, "unless we're looking at the total collapse of Labour and something completely different, not paleo-solicalist nor centre-right, emerging". What on earth are you talking about? What is "paleo-socialist" for starters? Corbyn? No he isn't; he's right in the centre of what used to be the political consensus at the time of Butskellism, from the post war Welfare State right up until the Dawn of Thatcher. He's not old left, he's old centre. In fact, as you have been told, much of what he proposes even now enjoys majority support even of Tory voters. (Eg: http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/nationalise-energy-and-rail-companies-say-public/ ).

So, if "paleo-socialist" means Corbyn, then it's an inaccurate and daft term. Let's say "paelo-centre". But now you have to define what it is that is neither paleo-centre nor centre-right that your hypothetical collapse of the Labour Party (not going to happen; it survived Ramsay MacDonald ffs), this preferred middle way of yours that will mitigate or negate the as-yet-nebulous Pyrrhic nature of Corbyn's projected victory.
Click to expand...

I'll try to keep this concise.

First, pyrrhic - Cameron just won the election, by surprise, on an extremely conservative prospectus. If you think that the electorate are prepared to vote Corbyn in, fair enough, but I think you are fundamentally wrong. Labour tacked left over the last election campaign and were resoundly sunk. Tacking further left still might uphold "values" but will almost certainly sink the party further.

And this comes to the fundamental question - do you want Labour to be a party of government?

Second, "Butskellism", "old centre", "used to be the political consensus" - maybe you can start to get the nostalgic picture here. Corbyn is a siren call to the past that might seem attractive but doesn't read across onto the modern world. I was thinking about this further over lunch - how are we to reindustrialise as a nation and which group of young people are you going to persuade to do so when we have limited natural resources left and the jobs that they entail bring with them long, hard hours?

And finally - isn't the whole point of what happened in May was that the pollsters from YouGov and others got it radically wrong? I'm not sure how that happened, whether it was down to flawed methodology (unlikely) or whether the electorate when push came to shove just didn't trust a Labour government (more likely).
 
Diamond said:
I'll try to keep this concise.

First, pyrrhic - Cameron just won the election, by surprise, on an extremely conservative prospectus. If you think that the electorate are prepared to vote Corbyn in, fair enough, but I think you are fundamentally wrong. Labour tacked left over the last election campaign and were resoundly sunk. Tacking further left still might uphold "values" but will almost certainly sink the party further.

And this comes to the fundamental question - do you want Labour to be a party of government?

Second, "Butskellism", "old centre", "used to be the political consensus" - maybe you can start to get the nostalgic picture here. Corbyn is a siren call to the past that might seem attractive but doesn't read across onto the modern world. I was thinking about this further over lunch - how are we to reindustrialise as a nation and which group of young people are you going to persuade to do so when we have limited natural resources left and the jobs that they entail bring with them long, hard hours?

And finally - isn't the whole point of what happened in May that the pollsters from YouGov and others got it radically wrong? I'm not sure how that happened, whether it was down to flawed methodology (unlikely) or whether the electorate when push came to shove just didn't trust a Labour government (more likely).
Click to expand...
i don't think you can say 75% of the registered population not voting for you is a victory.
 
frogwoman said:
Not all of them. And its kind of annoying when you know so many excitable trots :( but id say paying £3 goes and beyond just being cautiously welcoming.
Click to expand...
its at least thirty chomps, or 4 kit kat chunkies.

Whats interested me here, to be serious, is the talk of ukippers voting jez and joining the society of the three groats. Kind of shows how much frustration there is with the consensus rather than '4 milion people are xenephobic bordering on racist'
 
There should be some kind of process whereby public support for a candidate, or a a political party, is tested... maybe everyone who chose to could write their preference on a piece of paper or something... it would be the only way to check what popular opinion really is. Any other guesses are just mental diarrhea really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pickman's model
yvette cooper's pitiful politics
Replies
0
Views
218
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
N
How does Labour win an election where concerns over immigration, Islamophobia etc are dominant themes?
Replies
26
Views
806
JimW
JimW
frogwoman
Jas Athwal - Labour MP owns several London flats full of ants and black mould
Replies
14
Views
956
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
hitmouse
Unions and Labour
Replies
20
Views
1K
Fedayn
Fedayn
Humberto
Home Building Labour guff
Replies
10
Views
519
SpookyFrank
SpookyFrank
Back
Top Bottom