Richard Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 I have more faith in the general public of this country to be honest Thats not really an answer, it is entirely feasible as people want change now, as time draws on the need for change may increase and the right wing press's bullying tactics may work in favour of someone like Corbyn, so I ask, would you be so eager then? You know what, 6 months ago people were saying that UKIP would be a force that "people wanted change" that there was enough ill feeling for issues and support for UKIP that they could have 100 seats at the election and be a real force, that went well. Same for a Corbyn led Labour rump. I do not envisage a time that they will be elected I envisage a time where they elect him as Leader, massive infighting, some splits, some very high profile challenges to his authority (Tristan is starting his own group already it seems) another leadership election in 12 to 18 months and Labour ripping itself apart again to be out of power for a generation. So i do not accept the basis for your hypothesis , just as I suspect you and others will not accept mine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted August 18, 2015 Moderator Share Posted August 18, 2015 I have more faith in the general public of this country to be honest The general public are broadly in favour of Corbyn's policies, he's the most populist of all of the candidates in terms of giving the electorate what they want. An election based on policy or the greater good would be a Corbyn win. Aren't you actually saying you have more faith in Mr Murdoch? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 I have more faith in the general public of this country to be honest Thats not really an answer, it is entirely feasible as people want change now, as time draws on the need for change may increase and the right wing press's bullying tactics may work in favour of someone like Corbyn, so I ask, would you be so eager then? You know what, 6 months ago people were saying that UKIP would be a force that "people wanted change" that there was enough ill feeling for issues and support for UKIP that they could have 100 seats at the election and be a real force, that went well. Same for a Corbyn led Labour rump. I do not envisage a time that they will be elected I envisage a time where they elect him as Leader, massive infighting, some splits, some very high profile challenges to his authority (Tristan is starting his own group already it seems) another leadership election in 12 to 18 months and Labour ripping itself apart again to be out of power for a generation. So i do not accept the basis for your hypothesis , just as I suspect you and others will not accept mine. I accept it as there will obviously be people against it, as you cant answer, or wont answer, I wont push it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 I have more faith in the general public of this country to be honest The general public are broadly in favour of Corbyn's policies, he's the most populist of all of the candidates in terms of giving the electorate what they want. An election based on policy or the greater good would be a Corbyn win. Aren't you actually saying you have more faith in Mr Murdoch? lol scott no not saying that. Have you canvassed the general public, actually gone door knocking to talk to people on their political opinion? I'm not being arsey just gauging what your thought that this would find massive support is based upon. I have more faith in the general public of this country to be honest Thats not really an answer, it is entirely feasible as people want change now, as time draws on the need for change may increase and the right wing press's bullying tactics may work in favour of someone like Corbyn, so I ask, would you be so eager then? You know what, 6 months ago people were saying that UKIP would be a force that "people wanted change" that there was enough ill feeling for issues and support for UKIP that they could have 100 seats at the election and be a real force, that went well. Same for a Corbyn led Labour rump. I do not envisage a time that they will be elected I envisage a time where they elect him as Leader, massive infighting, some splits, some very high profile challenges to his authority (Tristan is starting his own group already it seems) another leadership election in 12 to 18 months and Labour ripping itself apart again to be out of power for a generation. So i do not accept the basis for your hypothesis , just as I suspect you and others will not accept mine. I accept it as there will obviously be people against it, as you cant answer, or wont answer, I wont push it. The answer is I do not expect him to win, I cannot see him winning at the next election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rendelc Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 I just listened to LK on her question and answer session on the radio for World at One. Sounded competent and reasonable. Sounded like a middle of the road politician. Said some stuff about wanting things generally to be better for people. I would defy anyone that only saw a written transcript with the name removed to identify what party she was from, or whether she was left, right, top, bottom or middle. Maybe that is what Labour need. They might take a lesson from Cameron getting into power by disguising himself as a 'one nation' Tory but once there, opened his neo-liberal box of nasty tricks. So it could be argued that Labour need a similar Trojan horse to get into power and suddenly reveal their agenda when they get there. It probably couldn't because pious lefties are so intent on preaching the gospel rather than getting things done. Damn those lefties with their values and open intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Pretty strong article on Corbyn over on Spiked - a bit long but many a home truth expounded. The link: http://tinyurl.com/nejyrq3 The quote: Jeremy Corbyn has been a Labour member of parliament for a remarkable 32 years without ever leading anything or leaving any visible mark on British political life. How could such a veteran non-entity emerge overnight as favourite to be the new, left-wing, game-changing leader of the Labour Party? Only because the Labour Party as a mass movement has not just declined, but effectively collapsed. The apparent rise of Corbyn is made possible by the disintegration of his party. The key factor in all of this is not any resurgence of radicalism, but the demise of Labourism. A non-entity with no visible marks called David Cameron is currently PM. Did anybody know of him before he became leader of the Tory Party, no, me neither. I am not sure why you would compare Labour with the Tories? The Tories have such consistent and narrow aims: low taxation, discipline the workforce, punish the poor, flog off the family silver and suck up to the Americans, that all they need is a nice bland leader who is a not too scary non-entity to implement the same old, same old. Usually backed up by someone nasty like Tebbit or Osborne. Where Labour's are so manifold and wide ranging, from taxing the rich and expanding the public sector to saving the planet and attacking the privileges of the patriarchy, they need someone with an identifiable set of political beliefs to clarify where they stand. I think Corbyn fulfils the requirements well enough - clause IV loving, gender neutral old Marxist redistributionist. (It has to be noted that I did not call Corbyn a non-entity; just quoted the first paragraph to comply with the site rules). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted August 18, 2015 Moderator Share Posted August 18, 2015 I have more faith in the general public of this country to be honest The general public are broadly in favour of Corbyn's policies, he's the most populist of all of the candidates in terms of giving the electorate what they want. An election based on policy or the greater good would be a Corbyn win. Aren't you actually saying you have more faith in Mr Murdoch? lol scott no not saying that. Have you canvassed the general public, actually gone door knocking to talk to people on their political opinion? I'm not being arsey just gauging what your thought that this would find massive support is based upon. I haven't, no - but lots of people have and do - privatisation of the railways has the support of around two thirds of the general public, which in polling terms is an enormous majority. According to Comres, around two thirds of the country also support him on not renewing Trident, Yougov have 57% supporting him in a higher tax rate for top earners,the public favour not bombing Syria, sanction against Israel, opposing austerity, controlling rent - all borne out in recent surveys by proper surveying organisations. I can knock on a couple of doors if you like, but I'm more likely to get arrested than get you anything useful! It's worth considering by the way that around 20% of people usually answer "Don't know" in those polls, so when I say two thirds in favour, it's likely that those against number less 15%. It's also worth considering that this is despite the fact that just about all of our major news outlets stand in opposition to all of those policies and that any coverage on them is usually squeezed in on about page seven, behind pictures of baby George and four pages on evil immigrants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 The amount of people I hear seemingly equate immigration with criminality is worrying.Are you hearing people conflating immigration or illegal immigration with criminality? One plainly isn't, the other plainly is. No, I'm hearing people talk about bog standard immigrants as if being an immigrant is itself criminal (I'm not using the word in a strictly legal sense btw). The shite peddled by the right has had a rather alarming cumulative effect i.e. it now seems perfectly acceptable to slight people who come here to make better lives for themselves for no other reason that they aren't from here. It's dangerous. Fair enough. It's quite remarkable how the UK has gone from a country that prided itself on being a haven for asylum seekers (certainly how I remember things being described to me as a young kid in the 80's) to a country that is far less self assured and confident in it's identity. I would agree that the media had a role to play in that but I think the broader change in attitudes is down to two bigger factors: 1) the sheer weight of numbers of immigrants since the mid-90's, and 2) the awareness that we still have no effective border control and are powerless as a country to alter that without radical political change - i.e. Leaving the EU. On the first point it is undeniable that the demographics in certain parts of England have changed beyond all recognition in a very short space of time. I'm thinking about areas in cities like London or Brum, or even whole towns like Luton where it can feel like you are in a foreign country surrounded by a foreign culture. I think it was easier for people who felt more comfortable and secure with the homogeneity of their communities to welcome refugees. When those same people have watched the entire character of their home towns changed beyond recognition in 20 years then perhaps what once seemed exotic now appears more like an invasion, particularly if the incomers self segregate, have a totally different culture and often seem to live parallel lives in a shared space - multiculturalism. I don't think it's racism, but more the removal of the continuity of their home towns and surroundings that is causing unease. Undoubtedly that perception is fed to an extent by the media but then you also have real world examples like the seemingly endless child sex rings abusing vulnerable girls on an industrial scale, while being covered up by the authorities in the name of community cohesion. It makes people angry and fearful, generating a knock on effect of further polarization. Meanwhile on the six o'clock news more migrants are threatening lorry drivers in Calais to board their vehicles or storming the fences. Yes there are undoubtedly some poor little kids mixed in but the majority are young, fit fighting age males, dressed in the same clothes that are appearing more and more often on the local high street... I don't think people got meaner per se, I think they got increasingly sick of being told to celebrate a diversity they neither asked for nor wanted. The UK has seen a scale of demographic change since 1994 that has no historical parallel. Some people genuinely welcome it and that's fine, but it would be sensible to recognize that many quite legitimately take a different view and simply calling them nasty names* isn't going to help anything. *I'm not suggesting that you, CED, are guilty of that. Unfortunately though, Awol, this is the modern world. The reason so many immigrants want to come here is because we have a good way of life, and have benefited enormously from firstly colonialism, and secondly a global economic order which is massively skewed in our favour. The price of that for us is a 'pull' factor from the rest of the world. The price of it for them is far worse, it actually pushes them away from their homes and friends and families, sometimes in circumstances of all out civil war. I understand peoples concerns about immigration and yes, they may not have asked for it, but they've certainly benefited from the factors that drive it. A little bit more appreciation of that in the discussion might make people a little bit less angry. I don't really buy in to the default "ah but colonialism" line that is often used as a rebuttal to the questioning of mass immigration. First, the majority of people currently trying to gain illegal entry to the UK are from countries we had no imperial connection with such as Syria, Eritrea and Somalia. Other European nations such as Germany or Sweden with little or no history of colonialism are also now facing domestic push back for allowing in so many migrants, like with us it is not about the inevitability of the "modern world we live in", it is about the deliberate policies of governments to enable mass migration for ideological or economic reasons - cheap labour is good for business. It's also worth noting that countries that the UK took over governance of (we only colonized a very few and African outposts aside they have become some of the most successful countries in the world) we were eventually kicked out off. Turns out the great unwashed in these places weren't much impressed by the infrastructure and institutions we built, they just wanted their countries back and the foreigners out - what did the Romans ever do for us?! Let's hope that's not a sign post for Europe's future, but after 60 or more years of independence, in resource rich nations and with several trillion in foreign aid support it seems that in balance Africa would rather move to London. While flattering, it is not entirely practical. As for the pull factor of being a successful country economically, yes of course that is true. It is also true of China and Japan and South Korea where immigration is strictly controlled, these migrants aren't drowning themselves to move there. I would suggest the more obvious reason is our very generous welfare system - to someone from Sub Saharan Africa the concept of free money seems insanely generous. I'll close this with an anecdote that people can accept or reject as suits. I have a very good friend and colleague in Oman who is Somali on a UK passport. He moved to London from Mogadishu as a boy, got a passport then went back to Mog, married a local and returned her to London. 3 kids later they have all been raised by the British tax payer and he is now trying to move his second wife (Saudi Arabian) and a further 2 kids to London from UAE. Why? The eldest needs to start school and in UK it will be free. I've asked him whether he feels he's taking advantage of Britain and he was very honest about it, "you let us do it so why wouldn't we. All my friends from Somalia do the same". His only complaint is that Cameron banned the importation and sale of Khat to the UK, disturbing their home - from - home routine in London. I don't blame him for taking the piss, I blame the people in power who have enabled it. I just don't feel the same level of sympathy that you do for the large number of freeloaders accompanying those who are genuinely fleeing to the UK from persecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 I have more faith in the general public of this country to be honest The general public are broadly in favour of Corbyn's policies, he's the most populist of all of the candidates in terms of giving the electorate what they want. An election based on policy or the greater good would be a Corbyn win. Aren't you actually saying you have more faith in Mr Murdoch? lol scott no not saying that. Have you canvassed the general public, actually gone door knocking to talk to people on their political opinion? I'm not being arsey just gauging what your thought that this would find massive support is based upon. I haven't, no - but lots of people have and do - privatisation of the railways has the support of around two thirds of the general public, which in polling terms is an enormous majority. According to Comres, around two thirds of the country also support him on not renewing Trident, Yougov have 57% supporting him in a higher tax rate for top earners,the public favour not bombing Syria, sanction against Israel, opposing austerity, controlling rent - all borne out in recent surveys by proper surveying organisations. I can knock on a couple of doors if you like, but I'm more likely to get arrested than get you anything useful! It's worth considering by the way that around 20% of people usually answer "Don't know" in those polls, so when I say two thirds in favour, it's likely that those against number less 15%. It's also worth considering that this is despite the fact that just about all of our major news outlets stand in opposition to all of those policies and that any coverage on them is usually squeezed in on about page seven, behind pictures of baby George and four pages on evil immigrants. Ahhh polls, fair enough. Just to say though the polls before the last election were saying one thing but on the ground, the doorstep talking to people, was saying another. Look about two weeks before the election date on the election thread here, I predicted a 15 seat Tory majority. What opinion polls say and what the general public do when faced with the choice is a little different By the way not sure you mean privatisation of the railways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Ahhh polls, fair enough. Just to say though the polls before the last election were saying one thing but on the ground, the doorstep talking to people, was saying another. Look about two weeks before the election date on the election thread here, I predicted a 15 seat Tory majority. What opinion polls say and what the general public do when faced with the choice is a little different By the way not sure you mean privatisation of the railways? What a terrifying image! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted August 18, 2015 Moderator Share Posted August 18, 2015 I have more faith in the general public of this country to be honest The general public are broadly in favour of Corbyn's policies, he's the most populist of all of the candidates in terms of giving the electorate what they want. An election based on policy or the greater good would be a Corbyn win. Aren't you actually saying you have more faith in Mr Murdoch? lol scott no not saying that. Have you canvassed the general public, actually gone door knocking to talk to people on their political opinion? I'm not being arsey just gauging what your thought that this would find massive support is based upon. I haven't, no - but lots of people have and do - privatisation of the railways has the support of around two thirds of the general public, which in polling terms is an enormous majority. According to Comres, around two thirds of the country also support him on not renewing Trident, Yougov have 57% supporting him in a higher tax rate for top earners,the public favour not bombing Syria, sanction against Israel, opposing austerity, controlling rent - all borne out in recent surveys by proper surveying organisations. I can knock on a couple of doors if you like, but I'm more likely to get arrested than get you anything useful! It's worth considering by the way that around 20% of people usually answer "Don't know" in those polls, so when I say two thirds in favour, it's likely that those against number less 15%. It's also worth considering that this is despite the fact that just about all of our major news outlets stand in opposition to all of those policies and that any coverage on them is usually squeezed in on about page seven, behind pictures of baby George and four pages on evil immigrants. Ahhh polls, fair enough. Just to say though the polls before the last election were saying one thing but on the ground, the doorstep talking to people, was saying another. Look about two weeks before the election date on the election thread here, I predicted a 15 seat Tory majority. What opinion polls say and what the general public do when faced with the choice is a little different By the way not sure you mean privatisation of the railways? Nationalisation sorry! The conditioning is hard to throw off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted August 18, 2015 Moderator Share Posted August 18, 2015 Immigration has been falling steadily since 2004, with the majority of applications coming from India and China. Careful though, don't let that push the thieving eastern European (but being careful not to name any specific country) gypsy, freeloading, job stealing, dangerous flood of millions off the front pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Ahhh polls, fair enough. Just to say though the polls before the last election were saying one thing but on the ground, the doorstep talking to people, was saying another. Look about two weeks before the election date on the election thread here, I predicted a 15 seat Tory majority. What opinion polls say and what the general public do when faced with the choice is a little different By the way not sure you mean privatisation of the railways? What a terrifying image! What like talking to those white van men? You are Emily Thornberry and I claim my £5! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) No, I meant specifically a talking doorstep. EDIT: It was meant to be a joke, but obviously fell totally flat, my apologies. Edited August 18, 2015 by HanoiVillan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Pretty strong article on Corbyn over on Spiked - a bit long but many a home truth expounded. The link: http://tinyurl.com/nejyrq3 The quote: Jeremy Corbyn has been a Labour member of parliament for a remarkable 32 years without ever leading anything or leaving any visible mark on British political life. How could such a veteran non-entity emerge overnight as favourite to be the new, left-wing, game-changing leader of the Labour Party? Only because the Labour Party as a mass movement has not just declined, but effectively collapsed. The apparent rise of Corbyn is made possible by the disintegration of his party. The key factor in all of this is not any resurgence of radicalism, but the demise of Labourism. A non-entity with no visible marks called David Cameron is currently PM. Did anybody know of him before he became leader of the Tory Party, no, me neither. I am not sure why you would compare Labour with the Tories? The Tories have such consistent and narrow aims: low taxation, discipline the workforce, punish the poor, flog off the family silver and suck up to the Americans, that all they need is a nice bland leader who is a not too scary non-entity to implement the same old, same old. Usually backed up by someone nasty like Tebbit or Osborne. Where Labour's are so manifold and wide ranging, from taxing the rich and expanding the public sector to saving the planet and attacking the privileges of the patriarchy, they need someone with an identifiable set of political beliefs to clarify where they stand. I think Corbyn fulfils the requirements well enough - clause IV loving, gender neutral old Marxist redistributionist. (It has to be noted that I did not call Corbyn a non-entity; just quoted the first paragraph to comply with the site rules). I don't fully agree with your characterisation of the two main parties here. Both are wide-ranging internal coalitions, which is a natural result of a two-party, first-past-the-post electoral system. Probably Labour represent a wider coalition, but that doesn't mean that the Tories have only a narrow range of aims, or that they are united on all fronts. See 'arguments about the EU from those supporting small capital and those supporting big capital' for details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) No, I meant specifically a talking doorstep. Oh. Immigration has been falling steadily since 2004, with the majority of applications coming from India and China. Careful though, don't let that push the thieving eastern European (but being careful not to name any specific country) gypsy, freeloading, job stealing, dangerous flood of millions off the front pages. You sure? Net migration to the UK was 318,000 in 2014. This represents an increase of 109,000 since 2013 when net migration was 209,000. migration observatory Edited August 18, 2015 by Awol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 24% of the electorate endorsed tories, c.30% couldn't be buggered to vote for anyone for a variety of reasons, one of which is - it's not unreasonable to suggest - is a sense of dissatisfaction with the status quo and a sense of impotence regarding it's possibility for change - it hasn't taken too much for Corbyn to energise one sector of the electorate to engage with politics again, and it there's a knock on effect that can sustain itself through the coming years there is a great number of as yet undecided voters up for grabs. It's perfectly feasible to me that if people felt they were listened to and fed something more plausible and hopeful, rather than anodyne rhetoric that appeals to only the most cautiously disposed in this country there is more than a whetting of the appetite for change. Bloody long way to go, more than enough forces at work to contrive the maintenance of the status quo, especially amongst some of the friendly agents in the labour party who've already said they'd seek to overthrow a potentially democratically elected leader of the party in order to maintain "credibility" ( aka keep the money where it belongs, on the top shelf ) - a very neoliberal thing to do - ( see South America for larger scale etc ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 oops debated continued on since I read the post I was replying too - which was on the previous page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 To suggest that there is a section of the voting public apathetic and looking for something else is very plausible and something i'd agree with To then extrapolate that what they are looking for is Corbyn policies I'm afraid is a huge jump and not something that I think the majority would agree with I accept that there are a core number of left wingers on this site that find favour with Corbyn but do not make the mistake in believing that the general public at large share that opinion in the majority. They do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 And now the main candidates in the labour leadership coronation have started ripping into each other with Burnham and Cooper having a go the fractious infighting can begin in earnest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts