Labour leadership

[Lord Camomile]

because it's also a party which historically has won mass support from working class people, and provides the best basis for re-engaging millions of people with socialist ideas, with a hard left anti-imperialist core that can develop out of it.

Sadly, I think that's the most important word in that sentence.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

who abstained on the Welfare Bill? Is coming out with anti-immigration rhetoric? Who supports the benefit cap? Who is on the board of Progress? Nah, he's blown it.

What you or I think doesn't really matter - Labour needs to win in the battleground seats while keeping enough of it's traditional supporters on board where they risk being lost to UKIP. I don't see Corbyn or Kendall offering a programme or the leadership and charisma to do either of those things.

 

[articul8]

Please explain what programme Corbyn and his chums will present for winning power in 2020 - which is the only reason the party - any large party - exists.

a) I don't think it's Corbyn's intention to contest the next election. I think he'll aim to stay for 2 years - open up the structures of the party to give members a real say, shift the entire policy direction, and then bring on a successor who will be more telegenic and "prime ministerial".

b) I think that the biggest barrier to Labour getting elected is the perception that they're all the same. Why vote for a party which doesn't show any sign of knowing what it believes or where it's going?

c) By offering a radical anti-austerity alternative it can win back support from the SNP, Greens, UKIP, and non-voters - even some people who voted Tory last time might respect a party that has a clear sense of purpose and direction.

 

[Wilf]

It didn't vote for the Welfare Bill - factually inaccurate.

Yes, factually incorrect, but utterly true in terms of the politics of that vote. They refused to attack a bill, an approach to the deficit, austerity, the whole fucking thing. They were more worried about positioning themselves as reasonable, tory-lite, neoliberal pragmatists that they ended up unable to attack something as misery inducing as the welfare bill. Being against all that isn't ideological purity - for one thing it's about basic fucking decency. However, for your ongoing delusion of some future leftist coup in the party, you'd rather stay on the side of austerity=death.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Encouraging Tories to vote against their own Bill? Now who's being naive? (I think they ought to have voted against 2nd reading, but let's not pretend it's what would have stopped it stone dead).

Better to sit on your hands.

 

[butchersapron]

I wonder, is spanky a blairite neoliberal reactionary for voting but not for Corbyn?

 

[articul8]

I wonder, is spanky a blairite neoliberal reactionary for voting but not for Corbyn?

The party grandees will be breathing a huge sigh of relief if Burnham wins - and we'll end up going into the election on a Tory-lite manifesto of welfare attacks, austerity and getting tough on immigration. And we'll lose, and deserve to.

 

[butchersapron]

The party grandees will be breathing a huge sigh of relief if Burnham wins - and we'll end up going into the election on a Tory-lite manifesto of welfare attacks, austerity and getting tough on immigration. And we'll lose, and deserve to.

Answer the question.

And do people not only have to give the labour party money but also vote the way you instruct them to to avoid being an ultra left sectarian Blairite neoliberal?

 

[articul8]

Yes, factually incorrect, but utterly true in terms of the politics of that vote. They refused to attack a bill, an approach to the deficit, austerity, the whole fucking thing. They were more worried about positioning themselves as reasonable, tory-lite, neoliberal pragmatists that they ended up unable to attack something as misery inducing as the welfare bill. Being against all that isn't ideological purity - for one thing it's about basic fucking decency. However, for your ongoing delusion of some future leftist coup in the party, you'd rather stay on the side of austerity=death.

I am fighting for Labour to be much more radical in opposing austerity and welfare reform.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

The party grandees will be breathing a huge sigh of relief if Burnham wins - and we'll end up going into the election on a Tory-lite manifesto of welfare attacks, austerity and getting tough on immigration. And we'll lose, and deserve to.

Why would anyone take seriously the predictions of a member or supporter of the LRC? An organisation that has successfully reduced it's own membership year on year since it was founded?

You say you're looking for a Scotland effect but you haven't explained how Jezza can initiate that - how will he open up the party? He will be sucked into rows about Syria, and immigration and welfare for a year or two before being deposed or resigning.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I really don't understand people who say "good luck to Corbyn but I'm not going to lift a finger to help"

Because you're a fuckwit.
It's really quite simple - it's not incumbent on non-party members to enter party democracy in order to influence who wins. We may (or may not) think "well, it'd put the cat among the Labour pigeons if he won", but what would it actually change, given the stated aim of the PLP rightists to mount a coup against him (and we know that they'd do it, too) if he wins?

 

[Wilf]

I am fighting for Labour to be much more radical in opposing austerity and welfare reform.

But labour isn't fighting austerity and welfare reform, it supports them,

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I am fighting for Labour to be much more radical in opposing austerity and welfare reform.

What will that look like in practice? How will a few votes in parliament which lose anyway make an impact on building a mass movement for something better?

 

[articul8]

Why would anyone take seriously the predictions of a member or supporter of the LRC? An organisation that has successfully reduced it's own membership year on year since it was founded?

You say you're looking for a Scotland effect but you haven't explained how Jezza can initiate that - how will he open up the party? He will be sucked into rows about Syria, and immigration and welfare for a year or two before being deposed or resigning.

The LRC's organisation model isn't fit for purpose - but it's politics most certainly are, and are at the heart of JC's campaign. I expect the labour left to relaunch itself organisationally out of this, and on a much more substantial footing.

The fact of him winning would be the equivalent to the scottish radical insurgency - he'd face a fight, of course. But I genuinely don't think plodding on with the others is any kind of strategy for success. Quite the opposite.

 

[articul8]

What will that look like in practice? How will a few votes in parliament which lose anyway make an impact on building a mass movement for something better?

When people think someone is speaking up for them, fighting for their interests, they are much more likely to get involved at a practical level to build support for them?

 

[stethoscope]

Blair will be please to hear it

Cunt.

 

[andysays]

The party grandees will be breathing a huge sigh of relief if Burnham wins - and we'll end up going into the election on a Tory-lite manifesto of welfare attacks, austerity and getting tough on immigration. And we'll lose, and deserve to.

I pretty much agree with your prediction here, TBH.

What I don't agree with is your idea that it can all be avoided by a handful of people here who you've dismissed as "sectarians sitting confirming their own ideological purity on on the sidelines" forking over a few quid and voting for your mate Jeremy. That bit is simply ridiculous.

 

[articul8]

But labour isn't fighting austerity and welfare reform, it supports them,

at the leadership level - which is why we need to change the leadership!

 

[articul8]

I pretty much agree with your prediction here, TBH.

What I don't agree with is your idea that it can all be avoided by a handful of people here who you've dismissed as "sectarians sitting confirming their own ideological purity on on the sidelines" forking over a few quid and voting for your mate Jeremy. That bit is simply ridulous.

No, you're right in the sense that actually the anarcho/libertarian left is so marginal as to make very little difference ot anything. But the rules of the game mean there is a real opportunity for people who want a radical anti-austerity debate to be driven into the heart of the political "mainstream" to put their money where their mouths are.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Some people really don't want to see a radical Left leadership of the party - they want to confirm their own ideological purity on the sidelines whilst working class people despair

Who are you to speak for working class people, bubble-boy?
The only reason I might stir myself to invest 3 quid is because a Corbyn victory is likely to cause the Labour right to do stupid things that will alienate the vast majority of the electorate even further from the red Tory cunts. That would almost be worth 3 quid.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Some people don't believe that Corbyn would really represent a true radical Left leadership

^^^^^This^^^^^

 

[articul8]

oh right, Corbyn is a left reformist traitor-in-waiting. I see.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How could it have defeated it?

It's not about winning, it's about taking the fight to the opposition. Your Parliamentary party didn't do that - only 48 Labour MPs had the bollocks and the wit to do "the right thing". The rest are now hiding behind the fiction that abstaining is meaningful opposition. It isn't, it's opting out of a battle people have elected you to fight.
Shit on you all.

 

[articul8]

It's not about winning, it's about taking the fight to the opposition. Your Parliamentary party didn't do that - only 48 Labour MPs had the bollocks and the wit to do "the right thing". The rest are now hiding behind the fiction that abstaining is meaningful opposition. It isn't, it's opting out of a battle people have elected you to fight.
Shit on you all.

When there's a chance of electing a leader who would certainly be "taking the fight to the opposition" why wouldn't you support it (or you might do, good - whatever the reasoning).

 

[ViolentPanda]

because it's also a party which historically has won mass support from working class people, and provides the best basis for re-engaging millions of people with socialist ideas, with a hard left anti-imperialist core that can develop out of it.

I'm glad you mentioned historical mass support. Labour mostly did that through supporting (often with gritted teeth) policies that supported the working class.
I'd say that the current farrago is indicative that Labour have chosen to ignore history. Why would anyone want to engage with creeps who ignore their core support in order to suck the dribblings from capitalist cock?

 

[Pickman's model]

No, you're right in the sense that actually the anarcho/libertarian left is so marginal as to make very little difference ot anything. But the rules of the game mean there is a real opportunity for people who want a radical anti-austerity debate to be driven into the heart of the political "mainstream" to put their money where their mouths are.

yes. but they're not going to have anything to do with the austerity-supporting labour party.

 

[butchersapron]

Answer the question.

And do people not only have to give the labour party money but also vote the way you instruct them to to avoid being an ultra left sectarian Blairite neoliberal?

Will you answer this and the previous question that you avoided please?

 

[Pickman's model]

I am fighting for Labour to be much more radical in opposing austerity and welfare reform.

you're not fighting very effectively, are you. how many years have you been fighting for?

 

[ViolentPanda]

When there's a chance of electing a leader who would certainly be "taking the fight to the opposition" why wouldn't you support it (or you might do, good - whatever the reasoning).

What point electing a leader who'll be deposed (and your party as you know it destroyed) in short order by Labour's neoliberalists?

 

[Pickman's model]

because it's also a party which historically has won mass support from working class people, and provides the best basis for re-engaging millions of people with socialist ideas, with a hard left anti-imperialist core that can develop out of it.

first of all, of course, you have to re-engage the labour party with socialist ideas: how's that going?