The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[blandy]

6 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's true that no Labour MP has or had exactly the same opinions about the deficit as George Osborne, but plenty were fine with embracing some of his agenda for either ideological or tactical reasons. This matters because austerity has been a disaster for this country. It's legitimate for those who didn't support any of this terrible policy to point out the mistakes of those who did. 

“Austerity” has been a disaster. Austerity, as I said earlier is just a politics word for ideological cuts. It wasn’t and isn’t any kind of solution to economic troubles.

Having an auditably costed and balanced budget isn’t “austerity”. Supporting responsible economic management isn’t austerity. No part of Labour has supported “austerity”.

in terms of embracing parts of Osborne’s agenda, I don’t know which specific parts you mean. I perceived his agenda to be essentially slashing benefit payments, cutting taxes for the wealthy, slashing money for councils and services, cutting spending on everything but the NHS, cutting government investment, deregulating businesses from financial and environmental laws...etc. Just a red meat ultra Tory wet dream and no one from labour remotely supported that agenda.

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, ml1dch said:

Right now, it pretty much does.

There is nothing happening in UK politics at the moment that shouldn't be viewed through that prism.

What impact did Brexit have on the cladding of Grenfell Tower? Or the running of Northamptonshire County Council? Does Brexit mean we should support the Saudi's in Yemen, or shouldn't?

There's lots of important issues in the country. Don't confuse 'what you're interested in' with 'all that matters'. 

[Jon]

22 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

What impact did Brexit have on the cladding of Grenfell Tower? Or the running of Northamptonshire County Council? Does Brexit mean we should support the Saudi's in Yemen, or shouldn't?

There's lots of important issues in the country. Don't confuse 'what you're interested in' with 'all that matters'. 

Yup.  Add in things like nationalisation (water, trains, energy etc), the NHS, education, foodbanks, tax avoidance, widening poverty gap, homelessness etc.  Brexit is super important, but it certainly isn't the only issue. 

[Jon]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Just a red meat ultra Tory wet dream and no one from labour remotely supported that agenda.

Disagree strongly. The tories had set the agenda firmly by 2015 and Red Ed went along with it, as Hanoi has shown.  

Jez has refocused Labour. He has successfully reframed the debate. Many in his own party don't like that.  

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

“Austerity” has been a disaster. Austerity, as I said earlier is just a politics word for ideological cuts. It wasn’t and isn’t any kind of solution to economic troubles.

Having an auditably costed and balanced budget isn’t “austerity”. Supporting responsible economic management isn’t austerity. No part of Labour has supported “austerity”.

Did you read the manifesto? Their plan was to produce a budget surplus, as fast as possible, through spending cuts to all bar three departments. At no point does it say 'as long as that is a sensible decision macroeconomically'. They wanted to produce a budget surplus (and incidentally, persistently running budget surpluses isn't achieving a 'balanced budget') as fast as possible because they thought it would improve their reputation for economic handling, not because it was what made most sense at that historical moment. In what way does 'cutting spending to achieve a budget surplus regardless of whether that's the best thing to be doing right now' not meet your definition of 'ideological cuts'? 

 

2 hours ago, blandy said:

in terms of embracing parts of Osborne’s agenda, I don’t know which specific parts you mean. I perceived his agenda to be essentially slashing benefit payments, cutting taxes for the wealthy, slashing money for councils and services, cutting spending on everything but the NHS, cutting government investment, deregulating businesses from financial and environmental laws...etc. Just a red meat ultra Tory wet dream and no one from labour remotely supported that agenda.

In the post you quoted, I specifically said 'It's true that no Labour MP has or had exactly the same opinions about the deficit as George Osborne'. I'm not arguing that there are Labour MP's who favoured doing all of the things you've mentioned above, in the same way as Osborne, because there aren't. However, the context of the discussion is 'Labour Party disagreements'. These disagreements are real, because the way eg. Jeremy Corbyn has responded to the actions you've mentioned above is very different to the way eg. Liz Kendall or Chuka Umunna would have done. Since some on the right of the party would have - and in fact did, remember Harriet Harman whipping the party to abstain on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which inadvertently helped Corbyn's campaign - supported, not opposed, or suggested co-opting for tactical reasons *parts* of the agenda you mentioned above, it is legitimate for others, in arguing their own case, to point out that those parts have been a disaster. 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Jon said:

Disagree strongly. The tories had set the agenda firmly by 2015 and Red Ed went along with it, as Hanoi has shown.  

Jez has refocused Labour. He has successfully reframed the debate. Many in his own party don't like that.  

Other than "red Ed went along with it" I agree, Jon.

My perception (and I'm fine with others having a different take) is that yes, any Government would have to make cuts. My perception is that a mix of cuts and tax rises as proposed by Labour is not the same as "austerity" which I've said multiple times is the tory ideological hacking at the state and council budgets to no sound economic aim. The whole tory (false) message was "Labour offed up the economy back in 2007/8 and only the tories can sort it out. It was total rubbish, but it worked. To an extent therefore, as Hanoi hinted, there was a tactical need for Labour to counter charges of irresponsibility by the whole "independently costed and audited plans" thing. They did the same again under Corbyn last time (albeit with a different budget plan). I think it's important to understand that the "verifiable" part and the "austerity" charge are totally different.

Since the banking crash happened, spreading from the USA, Labour's approach under Blair/Brown then Red Ed was yes, some cuts, but also much more about investing as well to generate tax income etc.  pretty standard Keynesian economics. The approach of Darling & Balls etc. (from the more central wing of Labour) wasn't "austerity". It wasn't going along with Osborne at all.

But yeah, Corbyn's "refocused" Labour and many don't like it. He's refocused Labour to be a pro Brexit, blanket nationalisation, divided and ineffective opposition.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Did you read the manifesto? Their plan was to produce a budget surplus, as fast as possible, through spending cuts to all bar three departments. At no point does it say 'as long as that is a sensible decision macroeconomically'. They wanted to produce a budget surplus (and incidentally, persistently running budget surpluses isn't achieving a 'balanced budget') as fast as possible because they thought it would improve their reputation for economic handling, not because it was what made most sense at that historical moment. In what way does 'cutting spending to achieve a budget surplus regardless of whether that's the best thing to be doing right now' not meet your definition of 'ideological cuts'? 

 

In the post you quoted, I specifically said 'It's true that no Labour MP has or had exactly the same opinions about the deficit as George Osborne'. I'm not arguing that there are Labour MP's who favoured doing all of the things you've mentioned above, in the same way as Osborne, because there aren't. However, the context of the discussion is 'Labour Party disagreements'. These disagreements are real, because the way eg. Jeremy Corbyn has responded to the actions you've mentioned above is very different to the way eg. Liz Kendall or Chuka Umunna would have done. Since some on the right of the party would have - and in fact did, remember Harriet Harman whipping the party to abstain on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which inadvertently helped Corbyn's campaign - supported, not opposed, or suggested co-opting for tactical reasons *parts* of the agenda you mentioned above, it is legitimate for others, in arguing their own case, to point out that those parts have been a disaster. 

I did read it, yes. Albeit about 3 years ago, or whenever it was.

I thought it had stuff in about raising the minimum wage, protecting benefits, nursery school/creche care for children/infants with working parents, restricting zero hours exploitation contracts (banning them?), more money on health than the tories, canning the bedroom tax and loads more, which I can't remember but which was miles away from "austerity". Yes, they said something about eventually getting rid of the deficit, but not the same as the tories, who were still deludedly powering in with getting rid of it by 2015 (or whenever they shifted it to when they effed that promise up).

Agree on Harman and various missteps, btw. Corby's made many more, but still....

I think it's fine of different people in a party have different ideas and views. My perception is Labour has become nigh on toxic with both "sides" hating at each other, and this situation is terrible when the country really needs a competent, united, opposition. It's not just the centrists, it's the "band of furious tramps" as Stewart Lee called them, as well.

It's like a "hold my Beer" moment when the tories have a hate fest amongst themselves. It's woeful. May and Corbyn are terrible leaders.

[bickster]

7 hours ago, Jon said:

Yup.  Add in things like nationalisation (water, trains, energy etc), the NHS, education, foodbanks, tax avoidance, widening poverty gap, homelessness etc.  Brexit is super important, but it certainly isn't the only issue. 

Which of them doesn't Brexit affect then?

[markavfc40]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

 

I think it's fine of different people in a party have different ideas and views. My perception is Labour has become nigh on toxic with both "sides" hating at each other, and this situation is terrible when the country really needs a competent, united, opposition. It's not just the centrists, it's the "band of furious tramps" as Stewart Lee called them, as well.

Corbyn won Labour leadership elections twice with in a couple of years. Surely it is the Labour MP's responsibility to therefore fall into line and broadly back his policies and if they don't like them stand down as MP's. They could have another leadership election tomorrow and I dare say he'd win again.

The reason Labour isn't an effective opposition isn't simply down to Corbyn for me it is more down to those MP's who simply can't accept he is the party leader even though he has won leadership elections, by a landslide, twice.

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

Corbyn won Labour leadership elections twice with in a couple of years. Surely it is the Labour MP's responsibility to therefore fall into line and broadly back his policies and if they don't like them stand down as MP's. They could have another leadership election tomorrow and I dare say he'd win again.

The reason Labour isn't an effective opposition isn't simply down to Corbyn for me it is more down to those MP's who simply can't accept he is the party leader even though he has won leadership elections, by a landslide, twice.

I agree to an extent with that, Mark. Yet as we know, Corbyn and his chums didn’t adopt that sort of route in previous times. Serial rebel is pretty much the description, isn’t it?  I don’t have a problem with it either, particularly. He is by and large true to his beliefs and always has been and has voted that way, frequently against his own party. That’s fine.

So it’s difficult to say, fairly, that others in the Labour Party, whose beliefs are different and sincerely held, should just get in line and go with the current leadership, when he himself clearly exhibited very different behaviour over 20+ years.

The tories are split on Brexit, and May is unable and incapable of managing her party, Labour are split on rather more than just Brexit and whoever the leader was, needs to be more effective in healing those splits  Corbyn is to say the least a very divisive character. He can preach to the converted, but that’s it. He’s not even interested in any other way than his way  He’s not a diplomat, or a peacemaker, he takes a stance and that’s it  May is almost the opposite, she caves in to whoever last spoke to her  The pair of them are the most ineffective, incompetent leaders there have been for a very long time, whatever you or I think of their personal politics or current party policies. Dreadful, both of them.

 

[markavfc40]

@blandy I can't really disagree with anything you have said and certainly couldn't argue that it is a bit of a shambles mate but I don't see how you resolve it when if you had another leadership election he would win. The Labour party has shifted to the left, which is no bad thing for me, but it has a large percentage of MP's who are centre right. With that mix it will never be a united party and therefore an effective opposition and more importantly form a government. Having said that the Tories are just as much, if not more, of a mess.

Edited August 19, 2018 by markavfc40

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Which of them doesn't Brexit affect then?

A different question might be 'which of them will stop being an issue on March 30th next year if your preferred Brexit outcome is achieved'?

[bickster]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

A different question might be 'which of them will stop being an issue on March 30th next year if your preferred Brexit outcome is achieved'?

Or even which of them is likely to get a whole heap effin worse should we leave? I'd argue pretty much all of the them

The NHS will be worse if it even exists at all

Homelessness will be worse

The poverty gap will be bigger

Tax avoidance will be pretty much legal

Education will be pretty much stuffed too

Foodbank usage will be higher

Not to worry though because Labour will have nationalised some infrastructure (which I'm in favour of btw but not at the expense of everything else), especially as Corbyn still seems to be under the impression he can't nationalise stuff inside the EU (he's wrong)

Currently, Labour is the Party of the nice sounding platitude that actually means bugger all if they keep voting with the Government on the issue that is going to make conditions for the average working family much much worse.

[chrisp65]

Brexit is the only game in town.

You can promise anything on any issue over any timescale. All bets will be off, if the country goes down the toilet.

Northampton Council? Rescue or not rescue? Brexit will dictate the answer.

More nurses and invest in the NHS? Brexit will dictate the answer.

Build sheltered accommodation for the mentally ill homeless? Brexit will dictate the answer.

Protect the mortgage payers from inflation? Brexit will dictate the answer.

 

Only game in town. Two main parties not exactly filling me with faith.

[Chindie]

In fairness Brexit is one of those unique issues in politics where it literally does have an impact on everything. If it goes really wrong you're looking at a government looking at the economy going down the pan and then smashing the toilet up behind it, in which case all bets are off for everything.

Then extrapolate that for thousands of issues in every aspect of everything.

It should be dominating the debate. Especially when the entire thing is going to pot.

[blandy]

4 hours ago, markavfc40 said:

@blandy I can't really disagree with anything you have said and certainly couldn't argue that it is a bit of a shambles mate but I don't see how you resolve it when if you had another leadership election he would win. The Labour party has shifted to the left, which is no bad thing for me, but it has a large percentage of MP's who are centre right. With that mix it will never be a united party and therefore an effective opposition and more importantly form a government. Having said that The Tories are just as much, if not more, of a mess.

Absolutely bang on, Mark. 100% right, if by “centre right” you mean to the right of Corbyn, but to the left, a bit, of where politics has mostly been in the past 30 years.

its kind of weird that the whole extremist aspect, left or right, has been given oxygen because politics migrated to “mondeo man” and “Worcester woman” and all that, who never existed, except as a figment of some focus group, so leaving actual, real people sort of homeless politically and they then got attracted to Farage, Corbyn, Mogg, Trump, whoever. People who offer snake oil solutions only prosper if the hard realities are lost in marketing bullshit. 

world is more complex complicated than their “solutions”.

[peterms]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

I agree to an extent with that, Mark. Yet as we know, Corbyn and his chums didn’t adopt that sort of route in previous times. Serial rebel is pretty much the description, isn’t it?  I don’t have a problem with it either, particularly. He is by and large true to his beliefs and always has been and has voted that way, frequently against his own party. That’s fine. 

So it’s difficult to say, fairly, that others in the Labour Party, whose beliefs are different and sincerely held, should just get in line and go with the current leadership, when he himself clearly exhibited very different behaviour over 20+ years. 

You're right that he is a serial rebel.  That's a problem in enforcing discipline.  People will quote his voting record amd claim it gives them license for whatever they want to do.

It's pretty evident that his opponents in the PLP have at least three main motivations.  They disagree with his views, as is their right.  This is where the "serial rebel" defence comes into play, rightly. 

They want to remove him because he is not one of them (ie Labour rightwinger - they have for decades been placing their people in key positions, and it seems to have become so practised they they think it is their right), and their approach to politics is tribal, but more tribal when it comes to tbe cliques on their (putative) own side than when it comes to opposing tories.  That's not ok.

Some, perhaps many, of them want to attack him either because they have hopes for the top job themselves (Umunna, Kinnochio, Smith and several others whose names I struggle to recall).  That's even less ok.

Corbyn's record of voting against the party line has been about policy, not self-promotion.  In some cases, he was monumentally correct (Iraq) and the people who would chase him out of the party were siding with war criminals.  Like all acts of disobedience, we should not throw into one big pot all votes against party whips, no matter on what issue or what motivation lay behind them, and atttibute a false equivalence to all acts of defiance.  Parents, teachers, colleagues make such distinctions many times each day.  Let's not suspend normal judgement and common sense when it comes to evalutaing the actions of Corbyn vs  eg Umunna.

5 hours ago, blandy said:

 Corbyn is to say the least a very divisive character. He can preach to the converted, but that’s it. He’s not even interested in any other way than his way  He’s not a diplomat, or a peacemaker, he takes a stance and that’s it  

That is so wrong.  He takes time to try to find common ground.  He doesn't pursue personal vendettas.  He doesnt seek division, but often finds it (example: the Hodge issue, where he chose not to act towards her as she would act towards others.  The lack of disciplinary action was clearly seen as a sign of weakness,  and she redoubled her efforts.  Someone with the motivation you ascribe would have been in there , sorting her out.  I certainly would).  I would criticise him for being too soft on these would-be assassins.

[blandy]

6 hours ago, peterms said:

That is so wrong.  He takes time to try to find common ground.  He doesn't pursue personal vendettas.  He doesnt seek division, but often finds it (example: the Hodge issue, where he chose not to act towards her as she would act towards others.  The lack of disciplinary action was clearly seen as a sign of weakness,  and she redoubled her efforts.  Someone with the motivation you ascribe would have been in there , sorting her out.  I certainly would).  I would criticise him for being too soft on these would-be assassins.

I agree with a fair chunk of your post, but not this last part, at all. Whether Brexit or Trident, Palestine, Northern Ireland, Nationalisation of industry or many other issues, we can see that he is hard set on his views and there’s no shift or compromise or middle ground. The leader doesn’t set the manifesto or policy, so when he doesn’t get his way, there’s no adjustment, just discomfort, determination to ignore or change the policy and pretence that for now, the decision taken doesn’t exist. On Hodge and antisemitism, he’s again being dragged against his will and instinct not to be so stubbornly stupid. she called him an anti-Semite and a racist, she got charged for it and he’s had to be practical straightjacketed to do the sane thing and drop it. If every time one labour member or MP called another member or MP something horrible, none of his supporters or opponents would be left in the party.

Ditto this code thing. Every man and his dog saying “ffs, just adopt the internationally recognised IHRA definition”. Jezza “no, because...[unfathomable minutiae].”

in one way a stubbornness and adherence to a sincerely held view or position is an admirable trait, and it’s one thing many of his supporters admire about him. I kind of do too, but it’s hard then to say that he’s all about compromise and common ground, because he plainly isn’t.  He’s ideally suited to a backbench role, not a leadership role.

[magnkarl]

I've heard many things said about JC but that he finds "middle ground" must be the thing that I disagree with the most. He's, as Blandy put it, a serial rebel who's got his kicks out of challenging the party for as long as I can remember, protesting with whoever UK\the world has been in conflict with and generally burning bridges right, left and centre. If he's upset a group he'll purposely chose the most radical elements of said group to go and "see/listen to". Whoever thinks he's a peacemaker is dead wrong in my opinion. He's a blinkered old man who can't get past his rebellious days when it was cool to be in opposition of everything.

The issue for me is that he'll upset allies, the people and everyone who's not in his "oh jeremy corbyn-cult" every time he actually has to make a decision about fairly tough conflicts around the world.

Edited August 20, 2018 by magnkarl

[StefanAVFC]

Guys, please help me understand. I'd want nothing more to be able to support and vote for a party that stands the best chance of opposing the Tories.

What is Labour's position on Brexit? People are right; it isn't the only issue going on at the moment, but it affects everything. NHS? Homelessness? Brexit affects them.

So what is the position?

They support it? Why? Why is nobody screaming at the Tories about us hurtling towards hard Brexit? Is the position 'support Brexit but in the SM'?

Then why were there zero consequence to Hoey et al for propping up the government on the customs union amendment? Corbyn clearly is fine with disciplining people (Hodge) but refuses to discipline MPs literally keeping the government in power.

The fact is, while Corbyn's in power, the party will never oppose Brexit which is directly at odds with their core support who will suffer greatly when the economy is destroyed by hard Brexit.

Stefedit: Realised I had a few typos, I wrote this before my morning coffee, oops

Edited August 20, 2018 by StefanAVFC