Labour leadership

[brogdale]

That's a bit of a truism: I can't imagine anyone - supporter, detractor or interested bystander - would argue otherwise.

And it's only Day 5 of this brave new world - any attempt to look like he'd aready done anything significant about 'capturing the policy-making machinery' at such an early stage would look like showboating and I think would rightly engender suspicion.

Truism or not, any 'judgements' we might make about Corbyn will inevitably be based upon the superficial until and unless he commands the policy agenda. Otherwise he remains a charming man in charge of a charmless, neo-liberal party.

 

[kebabking]

...He also did not think the party would not want to leave NATO, thus avoiding another prepared mantrap and showed him deferring to the views of party members rather than being a one-man-band. He has given himself plenty of wriggle room now.

but he's also creating another trap for himself further down the line - if all he's going to do is allow other people (however construed) to decide policy, and in a number of fields set policies that are diametrically opposed to not just his stated and long held views, but views he actually campaigned on, then the people who voted for him will ask what the point of electing him was.

if Labour, assuming Corbyn is still there - and its not clear if thats his plan - go into the 2020 election on a manifesto of remaining in NATO, retaining Trident and pushing through Successor (as an example of policies he is known to oppose, but his party favours), then the 'is this credible?' question will be asked, and the answer is that its not.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

but he's also creating another trap for himself further down the line - if all he's going to do is allow other people (however construed) to decide policy, and in a number of fields set policies that are diametrically opposed to not just his stated and long held views, but views he actually campaigned on, then the people who voted for him will ask what the point of electing him was.

He has answered that. To make the case, to attempt persuasion, but ultimately to accept the democratic consensus. He's being pretty consistent about this - 'it's not all about me'.

 

[killer b]

new ‘director of policy and rebuttal’

Corbyn aide Neale Coleman 'paid more than prime minister' | Political Scrapbook

 

[Pingu]

as an apolitical penguin I have to say I am finding this Corbyn chap a bit of fresh air. hes not just a clone of the chappie who leads the other party (but with a different coloured tie) and seems to actually have some convictions that go beyond - "get elected". As someone who is likely to be worse off if he ever gets to form a government I still agree with some of what he says, especially in the welfare/housing etc areas.

cant see him forming a government though but hes definitely given British politics a kick up the hooh hah. if he can get me interested in politics then maybe more will get interested too

 

[Trappist]

If Corbyn's leadership is to have any meaning for Labourism he, and his supporters, will have to capture the policy-making machinery and effect change to the party's programme.

Erm, hasn't he already done that by being elected leader?

I thought a major part of the New Labour coup was an end to any democratic input into the manifesto. From other comments it seems he's trying to push that back. But

A cautionary note - back in '83 Labour had unilateral nuclear disarmament as part of its manifesto. Labour members told me their canvassing was going pretty well until the day Dennis Healey announced his opposition to it. They said the resultant confusion had an immediate effect on their returns.

The point isn't about whether or not Labour could have won in '83, it's that Labour's right would rather a Tory victory than implement a radical programme and the current PLP is well to the right of Healey.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

How did Corbyn look?

Find out in our saucy pictures on pages 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9!

 

[killer b]

Corbyn is listed as speaking at a rally at the tory conference on Monday 5th - that's pretty hardcore...

 

[andysays]

Truism or not, any 'judgements' we might make about Corbyn will inevitably be based upon the superficial until and unless he commands the policy agenda. Otherwise he remains a charming man in charge of a charmless, neo-liberal party.

Punctured bicycle on a hillside desolate
Will nature make an effective Labour party leader of me yet...

 

[billy_bob]

Truism or not, any 'judgements' we might make about Corbyn will inevitably be based upon the superficial until and unless he commands the policy agenda. Otherwise he remains a charming man in charge of a charmless, neo-liberal party.

Sure. Over the last however-many (different discussion!) years of neo-liberal/centre-right consensus a large proportion of people, who pay passing attention at best to politics, will have got very used to having nothing but superficial differences on which to distinguish one politician from another: If Labour-under-Corbyn does succeed in putting forward something substantively different (and I'm sceptical on that for now), having some actually material choices at voting time will be inspiring for many, but maybe also unsetting and scary for others - it's the latter that the media are mainly playing on for now: better the devil you know.

 

[skyscraper101]

From watching the Snow interview it's obvious he will never back Trident and he's still completely with the CND. My prediction, given that Watson, Burnham and no doubt many others in Labour support it, is that it'll go to a free vote and Corb will vote against. My fear is that with very little, if any, Tory rebellion and half of Labour signed up, there won't be nearly enough votes against to get it scrapped.

 

[Wilf]

Mcdonnell has announced that Corbyn is convening a London conference for all European anti austerity campaigns.

Fantastic.

Any more on this? A quick search didn't yield anything.

 

[agricola]

From watching the Snow interview it's obvious he will never back Trident and he's still completely with the CND. My prediction, given that Watson, Burnham and no doubt many others in Labour support it, is that it'll go to a free vote and Corb will vote against. My fear is that with very little, if any, Tory rebellion and half of Labour signed up, there won't be nearly enough votes against to get it scrapped.

That is why he should oppose it based solely on the military being able to have far more capability if the money spent on Trident went towards the rest of the forces instead.

 

[billy_bob]

but he's also creating another trap for himself further down the line - if all he's going to do is allow other people (however construed) to decide policy, and in a number of fields set policies that are diametrically opposed to not just his stated and long held views, but views he actually campaigned on, then the people who voted for him will ask what the point of electing him was.

if Labour, assuming Corbyn is still there - and its not clear if thats his plan - go into the 2020 election on a manifesto of remaining in NATO, retaining Trident and pushing through Successor (as an example of policies he is known to oppose, but his party favours), then the 'is this credible?' question will be asked, and the answer is that its not.

I think you're right, but then he's predicated his leadership candidacy from the start on the idea that there ought to be someone putting forward alternatives 'from the left' of what everyone else was saying - not, presumably, at the start thinking that that would ever attract as much enthusiasm as it did. Now that it has, in a sense he's presenting himself in exactly the same way - not 'Now I'm in charge there are going to be some changes round here' but to continue to press (hopefully with a bit of steel as well as his obvious earnestness and decency, if he wants to really persuade people) for his views to be taken up as policy by the party. If the PLP really forces him to back down on everything that matters and continues to prefer Tory-lite, it's obviously not the right vehicle for such views anyway, and wouldn't be more so if Corbyn had instead imposed them in a much more top-down way.

 

[skyscraper101]

That is why he should oppose it based solely on the military being able to have far more capability if the money spent on Trident went towards the rest of the forces instead.

He should, and I would agree. I just think that he'll either put it to a free vote, or even if he doesn't, he won't get enough support to have the bill defeated.

 

[billy_bob]

.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That is why he should oppose it based solely on the military being able to have far more capability if the money spent on Trident went towards the rest of the forces instead.

I strongly disagree. I would hope that JC would want to renegotiate the UK's position in the world, and that would include not being a heavily armed, aggressive military power. The money earmarked for Trident must not just be ploughed into other arms instead.

 

[agricola]

I strongly disagree. I would hope that JC would want to renegotiate the UK's position in the world, and that would include not being a heavily armed, aggressive military power. The money earmarked for Trident must not just be ploughed into other arms instead.

There is zero chance of that happening, though - whereas the alternative (of an expanded conventional military) will put quite a bit of pressure on the other side to explain why it is that we have four SSBN bimbling about when we cannot afford to have two aircraft carriers in service at the same time, or why the RAF is forced into the position that they were in Cyprus when the anti-ISIS campaign started.

Ironically expanding the conventional military as an alternative to Trident is also a much better way of reducing militarism as well, given that successive governments invariably cut the things down the years.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well this is the step-by-step process by which the likes of Corbyn lose the likes of me. Take head-on the idea that we should be in a state of permanent war, with active soldiers killing and dying somewhere in the world every day of every year. It is an extremist position to advocate that idea.

 

[kebabking]

...explain why it is that we have four SSBN bimbling about when we cannot afford to have two aircraft carriers in service at the same time...

Cameron announced, and its been policy - including manning assumptions etc... since 2013 that both carriers will be commissioned and both will be operated at the same time. there will be times when only one is in business because of re-fits etc.. but both carriers will be on strength, and the RN will be manned for both.

 

[Artaxerxes]

Cameron announced, and its been policy - including manning assumptions etc... since 2013 that both carriers will be commissioned and both will be operated at the same time. there will be times when only one is in business because of re-fits etc.. but both carriers will be on strength, and the RN will be manned for both.

Pity about the planes though *stirs pot*

Well this is the step-by-step process by which the likes of Corbyn lose the likes of me. Take head-on the idea that we should be in a state of permanent war, with active soldiers killing and dying somewhere in the world every day of every year. It is an extremist position to advocate that idea.

You cannot take this issues head on, they are far to attractive and the propaganda has been far to ingrained to come right out and say "Stop being murdering fuckwits" you do have to take them on with logical arguments and give gradual alternatives.

Trident + 2 Aircraft Carriers + Decent Army is way to much for us to afford, by making it seem reasonable to scrap Trident you then only have to deal with the other branches, branches which over the years get cut to fuck anyway by whoever is in charge.

 

[agricola]

Cameron announced, and its been policy - including manning assumptions etc... since 2013 that both carriers will be commissioned and both will be operated at the same time. there will be times when only one is in business because of re-fits etc.. but both carriers will be on strength, and the RN will be manned for both.

That may be what he announced, but they still haven't done much about it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You cannot take this issues head on, they are far to attractive and the propaganda has been far to ingrained to come right out and say "Stop being murdering fuckwits" you do have to take them on with logical arguments and give gradual alternatives.

It's an issue that you have to take head-on, and I don't agree about the propaganda. I would say, rather, that the propaganda has been so ubiquitous that it's easy to forget how many people do not swallow it.

 

[kebabking]

That may be what he announced, but they still haven't done much about it.

its an idiot comment from a group of idiots.

PoW won't be ready for initial flying training until 2020, so buying aircraft in 2015 that will sit in a hanger and rot for 7 years - while paying interest on the capital used to buy them, is about the dumbest idea in the history, of well... politicians.

the first 48 (ordered by the end of 2015 or so, with production slots already earmarked) will be used to provide the 'so, how do we fight this thing?' training and the air group for the first carrier, as we get towards 2018 or so the next block of 48 will be ordered which will be the second air group and the first tranche of replacements for the Tornado GR4. in 2022 or so the next block will be ordered.

 

[binka]

tristram hunt looks sad ......

from a text my dad sent me last night (my dad being lrc & union shop steward from a constituency not a million miles away...)

"tristram hunt is next we need a fair selection in stoke"

 

[agricola]

its an idiot comment from a group of idiots.

PoW won't be ready for initial flying training until 2020, so buying aircraft in 2015 that will sit in a hanger and rot for 7 years - while paying interest on the capital used to buy them, is about the dumbest idea in the history, of well... politicians.

the first 48 (ordered by the end of 2015 or so, with production slots already earmarked) will be used to provide the 'so, how do we fight this thing?' training and the air group for the first carrier, as we get towards 2018 or so the next block of 48 will be ordered which will be the second air group and the first tranche of replacements for the Tornado GR4. in 2022 or so the next block will be ordered.

Given this (and previous) Government's record on following through on its promises, you will perhaps forgive me if I believe that when I see it.

 

[andysays]

Well this is the step-by-step process by which the likes of Corbyn lose the likes of me. Take head-on the idea that we should be in a state of permanent war, with active soldiers killing and dying somewhere in the world every day of every year. It is an extremist position to advocate that idea.

I would also like the idea that we should be in a state of permanent war to be challenged, but we have to remember that we're still talking about the Labour party here, and however much JC wants to shake things up, there are limits to what he can do as party leader while having to carry not just the membership but also the existing PLP with him (I suspect those limits may eventually prove to be his undoing, but we'll have to wait and see).

Unless you want to be an impossiblist, there's very little point either expecting him to do the impossible or criticising him when he fails to do it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's impossiblist to challenge the idea of permanent war?

 

[andysays]

It's impossiblist to challenge the idea of permanent war?

I think it's impossiblist to expect the leader of the Labour party to do it right now, before he's done anything to consolidate his position within the party (and maybe even then).

All I'm saying is that if you genuinely expect Corbyn to do this, your expectations are a little naive and you will be pretty disappointed pretty quickly.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think it's impossiblist to expect the leader of the Labour party to do it right now, before he's done anything to consolidate his position within the party (and maybe even then).

All I'm saying is that if you genuinely expect Corbyn to do this, your expectations are a little naive and you will be pretty disappointed pretty quickly.

I genuinely expect every reasonable person to challenge that idea. And there are clusterfucks across the world right now to illustrate its catastrophic results. This is too important not to demand.