# Unite backs Jeremy Corbyn for Labour  Leader



## FaradayCaged (Jul 6, 2015)

I did try and search but could not find a post about this, so sorry if there is one!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33402438

Now I am not a labour support, I am only old enough to have voted in 2010 and 2015 and have never voted Labour in any election (including Welsh/EU ones). Mainly because since Blair the party is hadly even centre-left. It is more of a centre-right party with some trimmings to make it look very slightly socialist. But I am glad that Unite are support Jeremy Corbyn for the labour leadership, because he is an old school Labour lefty..

The tory cunts are all mocking him, even signing up to the Labour party to vote for him (see #toriesforcorbyn)! Who's laughing now.  It would be so great for him to win.

Yes I think Labour could potentially win in 2020 under Burnham or Kendall, but that would be with tory swing voters and middle England. Labour have no hope of regaining any ground in Scotland or the North under either of them, definitely not under Kendall.

But with Corbyn they have a great chance of regaining their core voters in the traditional Labour heartlands, and give most of the idiots who voted UKIP when they shouldn't have, an alternative.

Of course there is a chance of the tories' dreams becoming a reality and him fail miserably in 2020, but at least there would be a clear alternative, as at the moment Labour are essentially just red tories!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2015)

newsflash: corbyn will lose. miserably.


----------



## FaradayCaged (Jul 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> newsflash: corbyn will lose. miserably.



What the leadership or 2020?

As I said above, there is a chance. At least there would be a clear alternative, and not just tory-lite. If Labour stay as they are, they have no hope of ever winning a majority again, ever.

There is a real appetite for a proper centre-left to left wing party these days.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2015)

there is no chance. The labour right will knife him


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2015)

It would be fantastic if Corbyn won. Call me naive if you like, but if he does win, it'll give me a fuzzy warm feeling for at least a day. This isn't about getting Labour elected. It's about giving the Labour party a reason to exist again. It's about people like me feeling that we have some kind of a voice again. 

Corbyn will be crucified, though. He comes with baggage, and he will be mercilessly depicted as a supporter of terrorism. Ironically, given who'll be doing the depicting.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2015)

FaradayCaged said:


> What the leadership or 2020?
> 
> As I said above, there is a chance. At least there would be a clear alternative, and not just tory-lite. If Labour stay as they are, they have no hope of ever winning a majority again, ever.
> 
> There is a real appetite for a proper centre-left to left wing party these days.


yes but it won't be the labour party and it won't be the labour party under corbyn. and as for the real appetite it is striking that none of the many attempts over the past 20 years to start a proper centre-left to left party has met with resonance from the public.


----------



## FaradayCaged (Jul 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yes but it won't be the labour party and it won't be the labour party under corbyn. and as for the real appetite it is striking that none of the many attempts over the past 20 years to start a proper centre-left to left party has met with resonance from the public.



The political landscape changes all the time and over the past 5 years or so it has changed drastically so. Why wont it be the Labour party? Parties identities shift all the time too, look at New Labour. The SNP when they were formed were a centre-right party.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2015)

FaradayCaged said:


> The political landscape changes all the time .


Yes, 1000 times this. Who knows what kinds of system failures will occur in the next five years. If you genuinely believe that socialism in some form would be in the best interests of most people, you have to make the argument at the very least. Otherwise it just becomes a self-fulfilling Blairite prophesy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2015)

FaradayCaged said:


> The political landscape changes all the time and over the past 5 years or so it had changed drastically so. Why wont it be the Labour party? Parties identities shift all the time too, look at New Labour. The SNP when they were formed were a centre-right party.


given the lesson the labour party's leadership has taken from their recent drubbing was about them being too left wing, i don't suppose a drift to the left's really on the cards.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2015)

they'd rather spend the next 20 years in opposition than be led by a lefty


----------



## FaradayCaged (Jul 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> given the lesson the labour party's leadership has taken from their recent drubbing was about them being too left wing, i don't suppose a drift to the left's really on the cards.



That's because Kendall et al are blairite's, of course theyr'e going to say that. At the end of the day it is up to the many thousands of members and union members to decide what went wrong and who is best placed to fix it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> they'd rather spend the next 20 years in opposition than be led by a lefty


Well, the leadership of the country's biggest union thinks differently at least.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 6, 2015)

The Labour party machine is too undemocratic to allow for the voices of its members. Don't kid yourself.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 6, 2015)

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader

You can still get 12-1 on Corbyn. If you think he has a serious chance I'd get a few quid on him if I were you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2015)

FaradayCaged said:


> That's because Kendall et al are blairite's, of course theyr'e going to say that. At the end of the day it is up to the many thousands of members and union members to decide what went wrong and who is best placed to fix it.


no, they are not best placed to fix it. if they were best placed to fix it they would have done so many years ago. you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think the labour party is or ever will be a centre-left or left party.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

FaradayCaged said:


> What the leadership or 2020?



Either, but for now, the leadership contest. 



> As I said above, there is a chance. At least there would be a clear alternative, and not just tory-lite. If Labour stay as they are, they have no hope of ever winning a majority again, ever.



There's *no* chance. The reason there is no chance is because whatever happens, the Labour Party will engineer a "solution" that sees a neoliberal dripping wet centre-rightist in place as leader.



> There is a real appetite for a proper centre-left to left wing party these days.



Unfortunately, we've seen Left Unity and Peoples' Assembly both punt a "vote Labour without illusions" line recently, which says all that need be said about their versions of socialism. Who else is left: The SP orthe SWP?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

FaradayCaged said:


> The political landscape changes all the time and over the past 5 years or so it has changed drastically so. Why wont it be the Labour party? Parties identities shift all the time too, look at New Labour. The SNP when they were formed were a centre-right party.



Labour has been in thrall to the right wing of the party for 80+ years. Remember that the party isn't just its' MPs, but historically also unions with a decidedly rightward bent. "Back in the day" the general membership (the members of CLPs) and the left unions had the ability to modify this rightward bent by proposing policy alternatives at conference that had to be debated. Mr Blair's clique closed down that particular piece of democracy, and CLP members have had little say for almost a generation.


----------



## FaradayCaged (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately, we've seen Left Unity and Peoples' Assembly both punt a "vote Labour without illusions" line recently, which says all that need be said about their versions of socialism. Who else is left: The SP orthe SWP?



Yeah but the thing is with Left Unity and all the other small parties is they have not got a big enough voice, if they had a significant boost in funding then maybe they could start making a difference.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 6, 2015)

MochaSoul said:


> The Labour party machine is too undemocratic to allow for the voices of its members. Don't kid yourself.



I'm not sure the membership is significantly left of the leadership anyway tbh. Maybe it was a few years ago but my impression is that that's long gone now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, 1000 times this. Who knows what kinds of system failures will occur in the next five years. If you genuinely believe that socialism in some form would be in the best interests of most people, you have to make the argument at the very least. Otherwise it just becomes a self-fulfilling Blairite prophesy.



Having to rely on "system failures" for breathing space for a new socialism surely underscores how far from democracy Parliamentary politics has veered?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 6, 2015)

FaradayCaged said:


> Yeah but the thing is with Left Unity and all the other small parties is they have not got a big enough voice, if they had a significant boost in funding then maybe they could start making a difference.



Why doesn't UNITE back Left Unity then?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

MochaSoul said:


> The Labour party machine is too undemocratic to allow for the voices of its members. Don't kid yourself.



My "suggestion" to my dad yesterday with regard to Corbyn: "if he somehow won the vote, there'll be a  "voting scandal" uncovered within hours".


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Having to rely on "system failures" for breathing space for a new socialism surely underscores how far from democracy Parliamentary politics has veered?



This is why I keep thinking things will have to get much worse for the wider public to open its eyes. Until then, the only productive thing socialists should be doing, instead of talking to the already converted, is raise awareness of what is really going on.

ETA: Look at Greece and Scotland. The NO camps were more politically informed because of the concerted effort of several socialist wings


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2015)

MochaSoul said:


> Why doesn't UNITE back Left Unity then?


affiliated to labour party i suppose


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2015)

MochaSoul said:


> This is why I keep thinking things will have to get much worse for the wider public to open its eyes. Until then, the only productive thing socialists should be doing, instead of talking to the already converted, is raise awareness of what is really going on.


we are already in the much worse stage.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

FaradayCaged said:


> Yeah but the thing is with Left Unity and all the other small parties is they have not got a big enough voice, if they had a significant boost in funding then maybe they could start making a difference.



It's not about size or funding. It's very simply about who controls political discourse, and how they do it - how the permissible parameters of political discourse are set. While "public opinion" can occasionally buck those parameters, the mechanisms of control - the state, the media, those who benefit from our current pseudo-democracy - always kick in to drag the centre of the discourse back to what favours *them*.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> we are already in the much worse stage.



No we're not. We'll start getting to a worse stage (in Britain) when Osborne implements the latest in tax credits. It's never the "worst" while it's only the fringes ((immigrants, disabled, sick, students, etc) taking the brunt.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> affiliated to labour party i suppose



The Unions need themselves to wake up and that will have to start from downwards. Their leaderships are useless.


----------



## zxspectrum (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> My "suggestion" to my dad yesterday with regard to Corbyn: "if he somehow won the vote, there'll be a  "voting scandal" uncovered within hours".


That would be a bit obvious surely!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I'm not sure the membership is significantly left of the leadership anyway tbh. Maybe it was a few years ago but my impression is that that's long gone now.



I left in '94-95.
By 2001 about 90% of the local (Streatham) CLP's activists (mostly left-moderates) had left the party. Yes, that's an inner London CLP, so 90% might not be a valid figure to extrapolate nationally from, but even if you extrapolated a 50% loss nationally, it'd still leave the party less anchored to the left, and more amenable to the creeping rightism of neoliberally-inclined Labour.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2015)

MochaSoul said:


> No we're not. We'll start getting to a worse stage (in Britain) when Osborne implements the latest in tax credits. It's never the "worst" while it's only the fringes ((immigrants, disabled, sick, students, etc) taking the brunt.


compared to where we were five years or ten years ago, let alone under thatcher, we're in a far worse stage. i don't doubt things will get worse, but they're pretty bloody bad now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

MochaSoul said:


> Why doesn't UNITE back Left Unity then?



Because backing Corbyn allows Unite to make a point, whether Corbyn wins or loses. Unite know he won't win, but they've decided that hitching their wagon in such a way that it says "we support leftward politics" makes more sense than either keeping _schtumm_, or backing any of the gibbering idiots who have eaten von Hayek's faeces.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 6, 2015)

FaradayCaged said:


> That's because Kendall et al are blairite's, of course theyr'e going to say that. At the end of the day it is up to the many thousands of members and union members to decide what went wrong and who is best placed to fix it.



If your entire project is to compete with the Tories for the chance to help administrate neo-liberalism then a vote for Corbyn would be insane - which is precisely why he isn't going to win. 

The idea that Labour Party members and the unions have progressive pro working class politics which are constantly thwarted by 'the leadership' is absolutely risible. Where? When? On what issues? As for Corbyn his politics aren't even radical - they are a throwback to 80's social-democratic metropolitan identity politics. 

As one of the key players in the formation of the Labour Party, Beatrice Webb, put it when the spectre of working class rule by the working class reared its head " The General Strike will fail ... We have always been against a General Strike ... The failure of the General Strike of 1926 will be one of the most significant landmarks in the history of the British working class. Future historians will, I think, regard it as the death gasp of that pernicious doctrine of ‘workers’ control’ of public affairs through the trade unions, and by the method of direct action ... On the whole, it was a proletarian distemper which had to run its course and like other distempers it is well to have it over and done with at the cost of a lengthy convalescence".


----------



## 8ball (Jul 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well, the leadership of the country's biggest union thinks differently at least.


 
This is a statement of affiliation and political leanings - it's a lament for a world we don't live in.
They know he won't win.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> compared to where we were five years or ten years ago, let alone under thatcher, we're in a far worse stage. i don't doubt things will get worse, but they're pretty bloody bad now.



We could compare it to Victorian times, why don't we?
Okay, I'll rephrase. Rock bottom. What I mean is, while the right wing media is able still to reach a public willing to be fooled we can't really say we've reached rock bottom even if that's what we think it is.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I left in '94-95.
> By 2001 about 90% of the local (Streatham) CLP's activists (mostly left-moderates) had left the party. Yes, that's an inner London CLP, so 90% might not be a valid figure to extrapolate nationally from, but even if you extrapolated a 50% loss nationally, it'd still leave the party less anchored to the left, and more amenable to the creeping rightism of neoliberally-inclined Labour.




Yes exactly. Obviously it's not a representative sample or anything but most people I know who were members left years ago. The only people I still know who are involved are a couple of ex-colleagues I still see on Facebook discussing it with their friends and none of them are left wing in any sense that I'd recognise.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because backing Corbyn allows Unite to make a point, whether Corbyn wins or loses. Unite know he won't win, but they've decided that hitching their wagon in such a way that it says "we support leftward politics" makes more sense than either keeping _schtumm_, or backing any of the gibbering idiots who have eaten von Hayek's faeces.



But that also assumes that the labour party can be steered back leftward. It's a waste of time, money and speeches. I really can't see the point in keeping an affiliation with labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I left in '94-95.
> By 2001 about 90% of the local (Streatham) CLP's activists (mostly left-moderates) had left the party. Yes, that's an inner London CLP, so 90% might not be a valid figure to extrapolate nationally from, but even if you extrapolated a 50% loss nationally, it'd still leave the party less anchored to the left, and more amenable to the creeping rightism of neoliberally-inclined Labour.


In that same period i saw my CLP go from consisting mostly of long term members from areas such as railways, post office, bus drivers etc with the odd teacher to one dominated by lawyers, high up local council managers - and they squeezed out those long term members, including people who had been in the party since the 30s. That's not a point about their politics btw the older members tended to be from the old-right wing of the unions tradition, it's a point about whose interests are put forward.

I really can't understand why this conversation keeps happening.


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I really can't understand why this conversation keeps happening.


I think many people struggle to see an alternative is all.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> In that same period i saw my CLP go from consisting mostly of long term members from areas such as railways, post office, bus drivers etc with the odd teacher to one dominated by lawyers, high up local council managers - and they squeezed out those long term members, including people who had been in the party since the 30s. That's not a point about their politics btw the older members tended to be from the old-right wing of the unions tradition, it's a point about whose interests are put forward.
> 
> I really can't understand why this conversation keeps happening.



Yeah, when I joined the LP my CLP was blue collar union members who were more radical on the economy than on identity politics. When I left the situation was reversed both in terms of the class composition and with the influx of middle classers not interested in the economic questions but obsessed with 'equality'.

I think the conversation keep happening because a drowning man will clutch at any straw.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 6, 2015)

Gosh! Why am I feeling so young in this conversation?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> If your entire project is to compete with the Tories for the chance to help administrate neo-liberalism then a vote for Corbyn would be insane - which is precisely why he isn't going to win.
> 
> The idea that Labour Party members and the unions have progressive pro working class politics which are constantly thwarted by 'the leadership' is absolutely risible. Where? When? On what issues? As for Corbyn his politics aren't even radical - they are a throwback to 80's social-democratic metropolitan identity politics.
> 
> As one of the key players in the formation of the Labour Party, Beatrice Webb, put it when the spectre of working class rule by the working class reared its head " The General Strike will fail ... We have always been against a General Strike ... The failure of the General Strike of 1926 will be one of the most significant landmarks in the history of the British working class. Future historians will, I think, regard it as the death gasp of that pernicious doctrine of ‘workers’ control’ of public affairs through the trade unions, and by the method of direct action ... On the whole, it was a proletarian distemper which had to run its course and like other distempers it is well to have it over and done with at the cost of a lengthy convalescence".


jesus thats some quote. I can almost hear the accent


----------



## the button (Jul 6, 2015)

Their recommendation to vote for Thunderbirds as second preference is probably as significant as them backing Corbyn, tbh. I can see Andy Burnham getting through as the "most people's second choice" candidate, as well as having significant support as a first preference.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

zxspectrum said:


> That would be a bit obvious surely!



It's tried and tested, and oh so easy to do.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

MochaSoul said:


> But that also assumes that the labour party can be steered back leftward. It's a waste of time, money and speeches. I really can't see the point in keeping an affiliation with labour.


it's not about steering Labour leftward. Unite *know* that won't happen. It's about putting down a marker for potential union members, and making a statement to their existing membership about where they are, politically (even if the statement is a lie, and Unite's actual pragmatic perspective is far from even Corbyn's quasi-leftism).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> In that same period i saw my CLP go from consisting mostly of long term members from areas such as railways, post office, bus drivers etc with the odd teacher to one dominated by lawyers, high up local council managers - and they squeezed out those long term members, including people who had been in the party since the 30s. That's not a point about their politics btw the older members tended to be from the old-right wing of the unions tradition, it's a point about whose interests are put forward.
> 
> I really can't understand why this conversation keeps happening.



Purely because people want to believe in something better, but won't step outside the bounds of "parliamentary democracy" to look for it. If more did, we wouldn't see the "vote Labour with no illusions" trope in play *quite* so often, IMO.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2015)

8ball said:


> This is a statement of affiliation and political leanings - it's a lament for a world we don't live in.
> They know he won't win.


You're probably right, of course. Burnham as 2nd pref is more an indication of something they think could happen. But sometimes a lament is worth hearing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

MochaSoul said:


> Gosh! Why am I feeling so young in this conversation?



Because you weren't a member of the Labour Party in the early '90s?


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 6, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I'm not sure* the membership* is significantly left of the leadership anyway tbh. Maybe it was a few years ago but my impression is that that's long gone now.


Why don't you ask him? He posts here.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> (even if the statement is a lie, and Unite's actual pragmatic perspective is far from even Corbyn's quasi-leftism).



Yes, That does remind me of Jerry Hicks and how they sabotaged him.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because you weren't a member of the Labour Party in the early '90s?



That was sigh of reminiscence of my young and naive years. D'you know, I came to Britain all full of optimism the Monday after Tony Blair was elected? Hahaha "OMG!", I kept saying to myself, "It's the end of the Thatcher years." LOL
I know, I know... argh... and when they introduced tax credits. I have no words.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2015)

MochaSoul said:


> That was sigh of reminiscence of my young and naive years. D'you know, I came to Britain all full of optimism the Monday after Tony Blair was elected? Hahaha "OMG!", I kept saying to myself, "It's the end of the Thatcher years." LOL
> I know, I know... argh... and when they introduced tax credits. I have no words.


Each of us has a moment stuck in our memories when we finally realised that Labour were no good.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2015)

MochaSoul said:


> That was sigh of reminiscence of my young and naive years. D'you know, I came to Britain all full of optimism the Monday after Tony Blair was elected? Hahaha "OMG!", I kept saying to myself, "It's the end of the Thatcher years." LOL
> I know, I know... argh... and when they introduced tax credits. I have no words.


canadian friend of the family came here in his teens wide eyed at the thought of moving to what he thought was a 'socialist country'. This was the year thatcher got in. Unlucky.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> canadian friend of the family came here in his teens wide eyed at the thought of moving to what he thought was a 'socialist country'. This was the year thatcher got in. Unlucky.



There is nothing, like a little perspective.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader
> 
> You can still get 12-1 on Corbyn. If you think he has a serious chance I'd get a few quid on him if I were you.



soo..

£3 to get a vote. For every vote also place £1 on Corbyn to win. Corbyn wins you get £12, minus £3 for the vote = £9 profit!! kerching!!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2015)

MochaSoul said:


> We could compare it to Victorian times, why don't we?
> Okay, I'll rephrase. Rock bottom. What I mean is, while the right wing media is able still to reach a public willing to be fooled we can't really say we've reached rock bottom even if that's what we think it is.


who do you think has been fooled? the 1/4 who voted tory? do you think things would be any better under e.g. a labour govt? i don't think the media as central as you do, else there'dhave been a bigger tory vote.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> it's not about steering Labour leftward. Unite *know* that won't happen. It's about putting down a marker for potential union members, and making a statement to their existing membership about where they are, politically (even if the statement is a lie, and Unite's actual pragmatic perspective is far from even Corbyn's quasi-leftism).



Being more cynical about it, it's to help Andy Burnham to counter the whole "in the union's pockets" crap that the Tories come out with, so he can get away from that shitfest during and after the leadership campaign. Unite/Mcluskey are particular targets of that line so him being able to distance himself from Unite will be useful to him. Corbyn isn't going to win and everyone knows it, Unite will like backing him for all the reasons you've given and have made a nice deal with Burnham that works for both of them.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Jul 6, 2015)

I wonder why Jeremy Corbyn stays in the party, what does he see that most don't ?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2015)

constituency first for a decent mp I suppose


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> who do you think has been fooled? the 1/4 who voted tory? do you think things would be any better under e.g. a labour govt? i don't think the media as central as you do, else there'dhave been a bigger tory vote.



And, no, I don't believe in Labour any more than I believe the tories neither am I fooled into thinking that a vote for Labour says anything other than a vote for a continuation of what is at the mo.  But I don't forget that 30% of the vote DID go to Labour.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yes but it won't be the labour party and it won't be the labour party under corbyn. and as for the real appetite it is striking that none of the many attempts over the past 20 years to start a proper centre-left to left party has met with resonance from the public.


 
You've heard of Scotland?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> I wonder why Jeremy Corbyn stays in the party, what does he see that most don't ?



He's committed to parliamentary politics.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Each of us has a moment stuck in our memories when we finally realised that Labour were no good.



They became irredeemable for me with Clause 4, although I stayed a member on sufferance from the Militant purge-onward.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

Fedayn said:


> You've heard of Scotland?



No, where's that?


----------



## belboid (Jul 6, 2015)

The nomination is partly about making sure that there isn't a serious discussion about Labour affiliation at Unite rules conference this year - _how could we seriously propose JC while also talking about disaffiliation?_ Would be the cry.  And if it doesnt get on this agenda, then it will be off it for at least four years (till the next rules conf, just before the next election). Given the way the EC are trying to fix these agendas, (any motion proposed by the unelected Officers Group automatically rendering any other motion in that area null and void) it would probably mean disaffiliation was off the agenda for ever.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> They became irredeemable for me with Clause 4, although I stayed a member on sufferance from the Militant purge-onward.


I was a bit slow as I didn't quite twig the full significance of clause 4 at the time. For me it was when Blair committed to Tory spending plans pre-election.


----------



## zxspectrum (Jul 6, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> I wonder why Jeremy Corbyn stays in the party, what does he see that most don't ?


Where would he go?

If he went independent he might lose enough of the support that keeps him elected.

I wonder the same about John McDonnell who seems another good bloke in a sea of red tories - didn't they stuff his attempt to run for leader?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2015)

zxspectrum said:


> Where would he go?
> 
> If he went independent he might lose enough of the support that keeps him elected.
> 
> I wonder the same about John McDonnell who seems another good bloke in a sea of red tories - didn't they stuff his attempt to run for leader?


He's probably also very attached to his constituency. A friend of mine knows him well and lives in his constituency. He's a pretty active local mp. I don't condemn him for staying in.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I was a bit slow as I didn't quite twig the full significance of clause 4 at the time. For me it was when Blair committed to Tory spending plans pre-election.


But aren't you back for more now? That'show i read your earlier post - that to be a genuine socialist you have to believe that the labour party can be won to some sort of socialism?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> But aren't you back for more now? That'show i read your earlier post - that to be a genuine socialist you have to believe that the labour party can be won to some sort of socialism?


No, but to see a left candidate win the leadership of Labour would be a welcome thing, regardless of whether or not it made Labour electable. Not that I do think he will win.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> that to be a genuine socialist you have to believe that the labour party can be won to some sort of socialism?



I fell for that for a while. But then I reread Animal Farm.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2015)

Labour's 1983 election manifesto has, I think wrongly, been portrayed as extremist and hard-left. But it did contain things that I would recognise as socialism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2015)

Fedayn said:


> You've heard of Scotland?


how stand the gallant ssp?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I was a bit slow as I didn't quite twig the full significance of clause 4 at the time. For me it was when Blair committed to Tory spending plans pre-election.


yeh the signficance of clause 4 never reported by the media or explained to lp members.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh the signficance of clause 4 never reported by the media or explained to lp members.


What was the point of you posting this?


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> how stand the gallant ssp?


 
For 7 years ok, 130,000 votes in 2003 etc etc.... Currently.....Hmmmmm.....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What was the point of you posting this?


i was being sarcastick, it was exhsustively reported at the time and regarded as a major change for the labour party. even now tho never anlp member i can recall the wording of c4


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Labour's 1983 election manifesto has, I think wrongly, been portrayed as extremist and hard-left. But it did contain things that I would recognise as socialism.



They never do ditch the whole shebang. I wish they did. At least, they'd be truer to their identity.
The media portrayal of Labour as hard-left whenever they turn slightly leftward along with the conflation of socialism with stalinism et al has a lot to answer for people rolling their eyes at socialism. The power of the media can be overestimated but I don't think it's particularly clever to  underestimate it either.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i was being sarcastick, it was exhsustively reported at the time and regarded as a major change for the labour party. even now tho never anlp member i can recall the wording of c4


Sarcasm doesn't really work as a response to someone admitting they'd been a bit slow on the uptake, does it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i was being sarcastick, it was exhsustively reported at the time and regarded as a major change for the labour party. even now tho never anlp member i can recall the wording of c4



without googling, 'to secure for the workers by hand and by brain the product of their labour'

close [question mark]


----------



## belboid (Jul 6, 2015)

_To secure for the workers by hand *or *by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange._

There's another bit after that that I've forgotten. Tony Benn wanted it amended to read like Dotties version - as 'every worker uses their hands and their brain'


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i was being sarcastick, it was exhsustively reported at the time and regarded as a major change for the labour party. even now tho never anlp member i can recall the wording of c4


 
Perhaps embarrassingly I could 

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sarcasm doesn't really work as a response to someone admitting they'd been a bit slow on the uptake, does it?


you're often a bit slow on the uptake and not sure always due to inattention


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you're often a bit slow on the uptake and not sure always due to inattention



 FFS! What is that all about?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's committed to parliamentary politics.


they pay the bills


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

MochaSoul said:


> FFS! What is that all about?



Longstanding mutual aggression pact.


----------



## belboid (Jul 6, 2015)

Apparently McCluskey didn't want to back Corbyn, but the EC pushed them into it. He blames RS21!!


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jul 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Each of us has a moment stuck in our memories when we finally realised that Labour were no good.



Mine was student loans. Here was a cabinet who'd all had grants forcing kids into debt and the hands of a pure shit capitalist society. I'd marched against Keith Joseph introducing it and now Bliar was doing the tories bidding. "Education, education, education".


----------



## Dandred (Jul 6, 2015)

I still haven't paid back a penny. Fuck them and their loans.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2015)

on the student loan front and my money, you don't get blood from a stone. I dread to think how most working class kids feel about university these days, since the fees and UCAS points were ramped up to fuck-you levels.


----------



## zxspectrum (Jul 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> on the student loan front and my money, you don't get blood from a stone. I dread to think how most working class kids feel about university these days, since the fees and UCAS points were ramped up to fuck-you levels.


I borrowed 5k in 2000 to attend uni (which was shit, but that's another pitiful anecdote), my last statement said (having not paid a penny back) I owed 12k.

So that's 7k profit drummed up by the necromancy of capitalism off the back of my inability to earn big bucks.

Assuming I ever start paying.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Longstanding mutual aggression pact.


Not really. I'm not aggressive towards Pickman's model. He is frequently an insulting shit towards me. And not just me.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 9, 2015)

belboid said:


> The nomination is partly about making sure that there isn't a serious discussion about Labour affiliation at Unite rules conference this year - _how could we seriously propose JC while also talking about disaffiliation?_ Would be the cry.  And if it doesnt get on this agenda, then it will be off it for at least four years (till the next rules conf, just before the next election). Given the way the EC are trying to fix these agendas, (any motion proposed by the unelected Officers Group automatically rendering any other motion in that area null and void) it would probably mean disaffiliation was off the agenda for ever.



Agree this will be used to put off the question of disaffiliation.




belboid said:


> Apparently McCluskey didn't want to back Corbyn, but the EC pushed them into it. He blames RS21!!



Really? Who did you hear that from? RS21? And bearing in mind your earlier statement, are RS21 responsible for giving the leadership a reason not to discuss disaffiliation?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jul 9, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, where's that?



It's where the Brigadoon Bullshitters hold sway, for the moment at least.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 11, 2015)

> 'Labour leadership contender Liz Kendall has warned about the growth of the *“hard left”* in the party during the past five years.
> 
> 'Her comments came amid a surge in support for Jeremy Corbyn, an *unreconstructed left-winger*, who only narrowly made it on to the list of four candidates for the role.'




Full article 





> While few MPs expect Mr Corbyn to win the race to succeed Ed Miliband there are growing expectations that he could finish strongly in the first round.
> 
> That would send out a strong signal that Labour remains wedded to an old-fashioned socialist agenda, some Blairites fear.
> 
> ...


 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba3f3e42-2713-11e5-9c4e-a775d2b173ca.html#axzz3fWiVz9Oc


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2015)

Fuck me. His own party playing the terrorism card. 

She should be fucking ashamed of herself. But I'm sure she isn't. 

Called Syriza 'extremists' yesterday, too. She is scum.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 11, 2015)

> Jeremy Corbyn’s prospects in the Labour leadership election were boosted when it was confirmed that about 30,000 Unite members have signed up as registered party supporters, making them eligible to vote in the contest.
> 
> The trade union has been supporting the leftwing candidate. He was initially seen as on the fringes of the four-way race, but he is gaining so much support that he is being taken more seriously.



Unite is the winner here.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/10/labour-leadership-election-unite-jeremy-corbyn-boost
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/10/labour-leadership-election-unite-jeremy-corbyn-boost


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 11, 2015)

I haven't heard of Labour First but they sound as appalling as Progress (a misnomer surely?). The BBC gleefully announces that they urge a vote against Corbyn.


> Labour First said Mr Corbyn - who is seen as the most left-wing candidate in the race - would "destroy Labour's chances of electability".
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33490959



The media, the Blairites and the Tories comfort themselves with the notion that left politics is unpopular and there can be no counter-discourse to austerity. Yet many voters want a party that will stand up to the neoliberal consensus. Corbyn's message is simple and not full of catchphrases, buzzwords, slogans and impenetrable jargonese.  Audiences respond well to him. This unnerves the Tories and the Blairites, who believe they own discourse.

ETA: Labour First is Luke Akehurst's party within party.


----------



## FaradayCaged (Jul 18, 2015)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-battle-to-succeed-ed-miliband-10391640.html



#jezwecan


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2015)

Jezyoucan't.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 18, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> ETA: Labour First is Luke Akehurst's party within party.



 Dilettante tendency ?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 18, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I haven't heard of Labour First but they sound as appalling as Progress (a misnomer surely?). The BBC gleefully announces that they urge a vote against Corbyn.
> 
> 
> The media, the Blairites and the Tories comfort themselves with the notion that left politics is unpopular and there can be no counter-discourse to austerity. Yet many voters want a party that will stand up to the neoliberal consensus. Corbyn's message is simple and not full of catchphrases, buzzwords, slogans and impenetrable jargonese.  Audiences respond well to him. This unnerves the Tories and the Blairites, who believe they own discourse.
> ...


And of course LF has nothing to do with Tom Watson no siree not at all not ever honest guv


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 19, 2015)

The establishment reaction to Corbyn's relative success, without and within the party, reminds me of their complete misread of the surge of "yes" in Indyref. Most of the establishment walked away laughing their tits off, having very consciously and deliberately lied through their teeth. Labour came off worst. The same establishment lied through their teeth at the general election (again using scotland as one of many bases). Labour came off worst. Now the same establishment is at it again. Labour don't learn very quickly do they?


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 19, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> many voters want a party that will stand up to the neoliberal consensus.



But as we have just learned, if such a party was ever to be elected it would last about two seconds in power before being removed by capitalist _fiat._

Electoral politics is (sometimes) an entertaining soap opera.  The chances of it producing the desperately-needed change in our economic system are less than zero.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 19, 2015)

*Luke Akehurst*
Director at We Believe in Israel

London, United Kingdom
Public Policy

*Background*
*Experience*
*Director*
*We Believe in Israel*
August 2011 – Present (4 years)

*




*
*Councillor*
*London Borough of Hackney*
May 2002 – May 2014 (12 years 1 month)
Chief Whip, 2002-2009; Chair of Health Scrutiny Commission 2010-2014

*Member, National Executive Committee*
*Labour Party*
September 2010 – September 2012 (2 years 1 month)

*



*
*Director*
*Weber Shandwick Public Affairs*
October 2000 – August 2011 (10 years 11 months)

*



*
*Press Officer*
*London Borough of Lewisham*
June 2000 – October 2000 (5 months)

*



*
*Labour Group Political Assistant*
*London Borough of Hackney*
February 1998 – June 2000 (2 years 5 months)

*Organiser, Holborn & St Pancras CLP*
*The Labour Party*
September 1996 – January 1998 (1 year 5 months)

*Honors & Awards*
*Additional Honors & Awards*
Public Affairs News UK Consultant of the Year 2008


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 19, 2015)

Corbyn and his supporters are just not realistic.

Backing $100,000,000,000s in derivative madness and banking crime, smashing the poor, selling off the NHS, blaming foreigners and covering up the mass rape of kids - these are realistic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> *Luke Akehurst*
> Director at We Believe in Israel
> 
> London, United Kingdom
> ...


never done a day's work in his life


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> never done a day's work in his life


Natural born leadership material if ever there was!


----------



## smokedout (Jul 19, 2015)

belboid said:


> _To secure for the workers by hand *or *by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange._
> 
> There's another bit after that that I've forgotten. Tony Benn wanted it amended to read like Dotties version - as 'every worker uses their hands and their brain'



'by hand or by brain' would've been better if it decribed the tactic anyway, as in okay, we''ll make the intellectual argument on your terms, but if that doesn't work we'll kick your fucking heads in


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 20, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> But as we have just learned, if such a party was ever to be elected it would last about two seconds in power before being removed by capitalist _fiat._


I don't disagree but I think we're all aware of the contempt shown towards a politically conscious electorate by the establishment (for want of a better word). The last thing the Tories or the Blairites want is an oppositional discourse to the neoliberal consensus.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 20, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I don't disagree but I think we're all aware of the contempt shown towards a politically conscious electorate by the establishment (for want of a better word). The last thing the Tories or the Blairites want is an oppositional discourse to the neoliberal consensus.


A better word(s) might be _financialised capital.





http://newleftreview.org/II/71/wolfgang-streeck-the-crises-of-democratic-capitalism_

Those last two sentences, (referring to Broon's 'saving of the world'), really do remind us where power lies.


----------



## the button (Jul 20, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> *Luke Akehurst*
> Director at We Believe in Israel
> 
> London, United Kingdom
> Public Policy



Ah, Luke the Nuke, who famously grassed someone up to the Met when they threatened to "drown [him] in a var of piss" (sic) on Twitter.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 20, 2015)

Wouldn't Corbyn's election make the party more ideologically honest ?...It would get the voters they truly desrve .....and they would have a party that they truly deserve.....

No more fake smiles and suits


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2015)

.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2015)

Tankus said:


> Wouldn't Corbyn's election make the party more ideologically honest ?...It would get the voters they truly desrve .....and they would have a party that they truly deserve.....
> 
> No more fake smiles and suits


real smiles
real suits


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 20, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I don't disagree but I think we're all aware of the contempt shown towards a politically conscious electorate by the establishment (for want of a better word). The last thing the Tories or the Blairites want is an oppositional discourse to the neoliberal consensus.



Agreeing. You can bet your life that if Corbyn got a surprise win, a huge amount of fire (even more than he's getting so far) would be aimed at him and his politics by almost all mainstream media and by almost all mainstream politicians (very much including those inside the Labour Party).


----------



## ska invita (Jul 20, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Agreeing. You can bet your life that if Corbyn got a surprise win, a huge amount of fire (even more than he's getting so far) would be aimed at him and his politics by almost all mainstream media and by almost all mainstream politicians (very much including those inside the Labour Party).


sounds fun to me


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2015)

I'd like him to win just for the defeat it would represent to cunts like maurice picarda.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jul 20, 2015)

If Corbyn wins he'll face a huge problem from the current party machine which Blair changed to make the member irrelevant and keep new labour in charge. Some rule changes will be needed to allow party members to work on policy again and to remove some of the parties with in party. A good old fashioned purge.


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2015)

Corbyn goes on the attack as soon as the welfare debate begins, LP to abstain


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2015)

dp error


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2015)

He is becoming quite dynamic is Jeremy.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2015)

Corbyn goes on the attack as soon as the welfare debate begins, LP to abstain stop


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 20, 2015)

19sixtysix said:


> If Corbyn wins he'll face a huge problem from the current party machine which Blair changed to make the member irrelevant and keep new labour in charge. Some rule changes will be needed to allow party members to work on policy again and to remove some of the parties with in party. A good old fashioned purge.



Lets not put all of this on Blair. there were a whole swathe of cunts behind the scenes (Mandelson, Liddle, St. Mo of Mowlam and many others) from '94 on laying the groundwork for disenfranchising the membership.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 22, 2015)

> Corbyn’s success led Margaret Beckett, one of the senior MPs that put Corbyn on the ballot paper, to admit she had made a mistake.
> “I was concerned that people would feel that they had been deprived of the opportunity for that point of view to be aired,” she said. “I am beginning to wish that I hadn’t.”



"In my eagerness, to keep the pretence of "listening to the party membership" rolling, I have completely miscalculated. For that I am sorry!" -- Mwahahaha!

EtA: http://www.theguardian.com/politics...l-not-win-if-it-steps-away-from-centre-ground


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 22, 2015)

"I have now realised that we don't actually want to listen to people after all, because they keep telling us things we don't like."


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 22, 2015)

A pro-Corbyn piece in the national press: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...most-people-actually-agree-with-10407148.html


----------



## Fingers (Jul 22, 2015)

Jezza has just outed himself as the only one that has not smoked pot


----------



## Fingers (Jul 22, 2015)

I suspect Cooper was lying and I also suspect that Tory Liz smokes a lot of pot.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 22, 2015)

"Smokes"?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 22, 2015)

I don't think any of them have smoked weed, they are far too po faced!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 23, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I don't think any of them have smoked weed, they are far too po faced!


its fine to admit you smoked pot at uni now, even in polite circles. If you said you spent 2 years on the dole smoking copious amounts of skunk while lounging bare chested playing playstation 1 games you bought on the taxpayer money....not so much


----------



## Wilf (Jul 23, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> its fine to admit you smoked pot at uni now, even in polite circles. If you said you spent 2 years on the dole smoking copious amounts of skunk while lounging bare chested playing playstation 1 games you bought on the taxpayer money....not so much


Yes, we've got a PM and Chancellor who are running on 'I haven't taken class As since entering politics', iirc.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 23, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> its fine to admit you smoked pot at uni now, even in polite circles.



I'd go further and suggest it's a requirement of acceptance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Yes, we've got a PM and Chancellor who are running on 'I haven't taken class As since entering politics', iirc.


it's such a pity that all their policies seem to have been developed during the comedown from a bad trip.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 23, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> "I have now realised that we don't actually want to listen to people after all, because they keep telling us things we don't like."


I've not been following, but did anyone actually make that point to her/in general?

There seems to be this ongoing narrative that votes for Corbyn are generally out of mischief or foolhardiness, rather than reflecting a genuine trend of where the members of the party would like that party to go.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 23, 2015)

Interestingly, both Tory Liz and Copper have said they would not served as a front bencher under Corbyn, Burnham was his usual vague self.

Jezza seems to have positioned himself as the anti Westminster candidate and could do quite well out of it.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 23, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> There seems to be this ongoing narrative that votes for Corbyn are generally out of mischief or foolhardiness, rather than reflecting a genuine trend of where the members of the party would like that party to go.



That seems to be the ongoing narrative fed by the right wing media and their lackey clowns such as Guido Fawkes.  They seem to be flapping about having an actual opposition instead of a Tory lite opposition, particularly the Torygraph.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 23, 2015)

Fingers said:


> They seem to be flapping about having an actual opposition instead of a Tory lite opposition, particularly the Torygraph.


But they seem to be quite happy about the idea of Corbyn becoming leader, presumably because they think he'll be dogged by infighting and a 'battle for the soul of the party' as the Labour right try to undermine him at every turn, thus leaving the Tories looking sensible and in control in the meantime.

I mean, it'd be _nice_ if Labour could provide a genuine opposition, but I think the feeling is Corbyn would be too busy fighting the opposition in his own party. Which is basically what I said in that first sentence


----------



## Fingers (Jul 23, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> But they seem to be quite happy about the idea of Corbyn becoming leader, presumably because they think he'll be dogged by infighting and a 'battle for the soul of the party' as the Labour right try to undermine him at every turn, thus leaving the Tories looking sensible and in control in the meantime.
> 
> I mean, it'd be _nice_ if Labour could provide a genuine opposition, but I think the feeling is Corbyn would be too busy fighting the opposition in his own party. Which is basically what I said in that first sentence



I think the Torygraph's campaign to try and undermine democracy by urging Tory voters to sign up and vote for him was a blatant attempt to try and undermine him which has not worked.  i cannot imagine many Torys coughing up £3 to Labour party funds.

It seems to have backfired and he is getting support from many grass roots Labour party activists who want the party to return to it's original values and not be a sad second rate Tory party. 

But yeah, there will be a lot of infighting but Corbyn has to rise above it and prove his leadership. 

As far as i am concerned, the Blue Labour lot can fuck off to the Tory party or UKIP if they wish.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 23, 2015)

yep it is nice to see the right wing press flailing ha.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 23, 2015)

Fingers said:


> As far as i am concerned, the Blue Labour lot can fuck off to the Tory party or UKIP if they wish.


I have been wondering what their motivation for not doing that is. They clearly see themselves as not of that party, as something different, and I'd be really interested to know where they make that distinction. Do the basically think they're "not as mean" as the Tories? 


Fingers said:


> I think the Torygraph's campaign to try and undermine democracy by urging Tory voters to sign up and vote for him was a blatant attempt to try and undermine him which has not worked.  i cannot imagine many Torys coughing up £3 to Labour party funds.
> 
> It seems to have backfired and he is getting support from many grass roots Labour party activists who want the party to return to it's original values and not be a sad second rate Tory party.
> 
> But yeah, there will be a lot of infighting but Corbyn has to rise above it and prove his leadership.


Even if Tories aren't actually signing up to vote for him, there's a clear a narrative being spun that Labour are in disarray and a bit of a shambles party that doesn't know what it wants to be. I mean hell, that accusation could easily have been levelled at the Tories for the past 20 years but following the election they seem to have got themselves in at least some kind of order, and while Labour are busy with the leadership election and having to deal with 'rebels' then the Tories can just go on governing however they want to.

Is there anything to suggest Corbyn _could_ rise above it? I didn't know of the man until this so I don't know, but there's a lot of talk that he didn't/doesn't even really want to be leader!


----------



## Fingers (Jul 23, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> Do the basically think they're "not as mean" as the Tories?



Positioned slightly to the left of the Tories as demonstrated when all but 48 of their MPs effectively voted for devastating Tory cuts earlier this week thus providing fuck all opposition



Lord Camomile said:


> Even if Tories aren't actually signing up to vote for him, there's a clear a narrative being spun that Labour are in disarray and a bit of a shambles party that doesn't know what it wants to be



The clear narrative is being spun by the media (which is mostly right wing) Whilst it is true they are in disarray it is a good time to rebuild the party into something that represents working class principles again. They lost a lot of votes to UKIP who positioned themselves as the wroking class alternative to Labour, especially in the North.  And lets not forget the loses they made to the SNP in Scotland. A lot of SNP voters I have spoken to voted SNP because the labour party was no longer recognisable from the Tory party.



Lord Camomile said:


> Is there anything to suggest Corbyn _could_ rise above it?



He didn't rise up to the baiting from Tony Blair yesterday. He treated it with the contempt it deserved.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 23, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Positioned slightly to the left of the Tories as demonstrated when all but 48 of their MPs effectively voted for devastating Tory cuts earlier this week thus providing fuck all opposition


That's what I'm saying though. If they can't bring themselves to vote against such a bill, exactly where do they think they're different to the Tories? Or were they just too scared to because they think it's what the voters want?

Either way, you still have to ask: in what way do they believe themselves to be different from the Tories?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 23, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> That's what I'm saying though. If they can't bring themselves to vote against such a bill, exactly where do they think they're different to the Tories? Or were they just too scared to because they think it's what the voters want?
> 
> Either way, you still have to ask: in what way do they believe themselves to be different from the Tories?



They're the B team.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> Either way, you still have to ask: in what way do they believe themselves to be different from the Tories?


Well, they can get a load of lefties and liberals to give them £3. That's one difference.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 23, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> I have been wondering what their motivation for not doing that is. They clearly see themselves as not of that party, as something different, and I'd be really interested to know where they make that distinction. Do the basically think they're "not as mean" as the Tories?



It's easier to pretend that this country is a democracy if you have more than one party. Even the DDR and Francoist Spain had opposition parties which were allowed to operate within certain parameters or maybe slightly outside of those parameters if they were sufficiently obscure.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 23, 2015)

J Ed said:


> It's easier to pretend that this country is a democracy if you have more than one party. Even the DDR and Francoist Spain had opposition parties which were allowed to operate within certain parameters or maybe slightly outside of those parameters if they were sufficiently obscure.


Indeed and this is the sort of thing many Tories would like see: a token opposition. They hate opposition of any kind, as the dissolution of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils more than adequately demonstrates.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 23, 2015)

J Ed said:


> It's easier to pretend that this country is a democracy if you have more than one party.



It also comes in handy for eroding people's confidence in any sort of political process (and "it" as a whole). A resigned people is a lot easier to control.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2015)

J Ed said:


> It's easier to pretend that this country is a democracy if you have more than one party. Even the DDR and Francoist Spain had opposition parties which were allowed to operate within certain parameters or maybe slightly outside of those parameters if they were sufficiently obscure.


Your man Streeck (again)...

_Is it the unavoidable consequence of weaknesses inherent in a democratic-capitalist society?_

Conflict and contradictions are, as I said, what you must expect under capitalism. They take different forms in different periods. Their latest version is the breaking-up of the marriage between capitalism and democracy under the pressure of financialization. This was an arranged marriage after 1945 and the honeymoon was short. Now the two try to do without each other: *which is what we call post-democracy, where democracy is allowed to continue to exist as public entertainment on condition that it leaves the governance of the economy to the so-called “market forces”.
*​'Post democracy' in which zombie parties exist as 'machines for getting access to the state administration' of the hollowed-out, shallow state in order to consolidate and shrink the state at the behest of finacialised capital. Great, innit?
​


----------



## J Ed (Jul 23, 2015)

J Ed said:


> It's easier to pretend that this country is a democracy if you have more than one party. Even the DDR and Francoist Spain had opposition parties which were allowed to operate within certain parameters or maybe slightly outside of those parameters if they were sufficiently obscure.



It's also difficult to over-emphasise just how chummy people in the PLP orbit are with Tories, a Labour spad I know from uni is friends almost exclusively with Tories from the university and he has continued those relationships in London where he hangs out with Tory spads too. They have basically the same political beliefs - neoliberalism, anti-Scottish sentiment, anti-trade unionism and so on. The Labour spads and the Tory spads also loathe the electorate and the 'populist' elements of their own parties' support so they have an awful lot in common.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 23, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Your man Streeck (again)...
> 
> _Is it the unavoidable consequence of weaknesses inherent in a democratic-capitalist society?_
> 
> ...



I know that Streeck is saying that this process goes beyond that but I think it's instructive how obvious this is. For example, in the US media the only programme which airs even mildly anti-neoliberal views (while generally accepting the TINA premise and nonsense like Britain/Sweden/Denmark are socialist countries) is The Daily Show and you can see a very similar process developing in the UK with Have I Got News For You which is the only BBC politics programme on which I have seen a detailed critique of PFI.

I also wonder if another manifestation of this is the rise of feministish/vaguely progressive articles about pop culture which seem to be all over the likes of the Graunid, the NYT and so on. 'You lot can debate Rihanna and Jay Z while the serious people ensure that the economy is covered in the right way'


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 23, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I know that Streeck is saying that this process goes beyond that but I think it's instructive how obvious this is. For example, in the US media the only programme which airs even mildly anti-neoliberal views (while generally accepting the TINA premise and nonsense like Britain/Sweden/Denmark are socialist countries) is The Daily Show and you can see a very similar process developing in the UK with Have I Got News For You which is the only BBC politics programme on which I have seen a detailed critique of PFI.


you'll occaisonally see similar from the FT, the analysis that boils down to 'what happens when we impoverish the people who buy our stuff?'

Christ, even the racist class warrior par exellance Henry Ford got this. Either you pay people right or they can't buy. Frighten them with austerity and they will save or leave. Regardless, the liquidity is out of circulation. Its nonsense even by their own rules. Where are we supposed to go with this? the SEZ's of the thirld worldist countries? We buy the goods they make cheap cos they have no labour protection laws! So where does it end? Thatcher notoriously had to reign in pure neoliberalism and make it 'pragmatic' (bail out business cos the invisible hand just fisted you up the shitpipe)

And when a Corbyn irascibaly snaps some stuff about maybe sorting this shit out, he is the hard left ideologue


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 23, 2015)

oh and tories always despised PFI (although iirc it was major who proposed it) because it puts the state, the treasury, right in hock and you know how much they cunts value parliamentary soveriegnty. I made some good coin in the PFI years. I got three schools in my town and a hospital wing, all new builds, up to user-readiness. Good work, well paid. Every contractor took the rise and was billed for three or four visits including my own employers. When that bill hits the NHS, thats what we will get. Headlines proclaiming 'NHS owes 70 billion quid! wasteful cunts!'


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 24, 2015)

J Ed said:


> a Labour spad I know from uni is friends almost exclusively with Tories from the university and he has continued those relationships in London where he hangs out with Tory spads too. .


 
*Scribbles in notebook*

Handy to know for when the time comes for those PD People's Drones to fly


----------



## treelover (Jul 24, 2015)

JC at the Oxford Union, he acquits himself well against characters like Hannan.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> *oh and tories always despised PFI *(although iirc it was major who proposed it) because it puts the state, the treasury, right in hock and you know how much they cunts value parliamentary soveriegnty. I made some good coin in the PFI years. I got three schools in my town and a hospital wing, all new builds, up to user-readiness. Good work, well paid. Every contractor took the rise and was billed for three or four visits including my own employers. When that bill hits the NHS, thats what we will get. Headlines proclaiming 'NHS owes 70 billion quid! wasteful cunts!'


No they didn't. Who told you this nonsense?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 24, 2015)

3am me?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 28, 2015)

Hannah Sell interviewed in the Indy on Corbyn yesterday:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-new-party-says-socialist-group-10419988.html


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 28, 2015)

Joseph Stiglitz throws in his two cents.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...yn-labour-leadership-contender-anti-austerity


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> 3am me?


3am eternal


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 28, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Hannah Sell interviewed in the Indy on Corbyn yesterday:
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-new-party-says-socialist-group-10419988.html


so basically if Corbyn wins the SP will re-enter Labour??!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 28, 2015)

bring the old name back as well, MT was a much cooler name


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> bring the old name back as well, MT was a much cooler name


who doesn't have a militant tendency?


----------



## Favelado (Jul 28, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> who doesn't have a militant tendency?



I like the fact it's just a tendency. How about "Radical Penchant"?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 28, 2015)

Favelado said:


> I like the fact it's just a tendency. How about "Radical Penchant"?


"the revolutionary gut feeling in your stomach when something just feels right".


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 28, 2015)

> Ms Sell said that even if Mr Corbyn eventually lost, her party  and the new ranks of  young socialists would encourage him to “escape from the prison of  pro-austerity Labour” and form a new party.



This is a sheer fantasy. Why would he want to?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2015)

Militant tendency is a trotsky quote /allusion.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 28, 2015)

I didn't really think it meant "naughty streak" but I didn't know that it was a Trotsky quote.


----------



## belboid (Jul 28, 2015)

Favelado said:


> I didn't really think it meant "naughty streak" but I didn't know that it was a Trotsky quote.


it isn't, really (tho he did like a good tendency). It's after the biggest lefty group in America's paper. When they split in 1937ish, the other lot became Socialist Appeal - a tradition Ted Grant maintained when he split from the British group


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 28, 2015)

Favelado said:


> I like the fact it's just a tendency. How about "Radical Penchant"?



Isn't Radical Penchant a PD youth front?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 28, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> so basically if Corbyn wins the SP will re-enter Labour??!



If you read the press statement on which the article is based it makes it clear that we wouldn't.

"The Socialist Party (formerly the Militant Tendency) wishes Jeremy Corbyn well in the Labour leadership election. If he is victorious it would be a real step forward and, in effect, the formation of a new party.

However, we are part of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) along with the transport workers' union, the RMT, and many other socialists and trade unionists. TUSC stood over 700 candidates in the elections which took place on 7 May 2015 aiming to begin to create the basis for a new - 100% anti-austerity - party of the working class. We are not encouraging TUSC supporters to join the Labour Party, but rather to continue to build TUSC."

Furthermore that's in response to allegations that we were registering people to vote for him.

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/ar...rites-terror-at-popularity-of-left-wing-ideas



frogwoman said:


> This is a sheer fantasy. Why would he want to?



Because him and his 9 or so Parliamentary supporters would be better off doing that that than keeping the back benches warm while Burnham/Cooper sleepwalk into another election defeat mirroring the Tories every step of the way? What do you suggest we encourage him to do?

He may well refuse to do it but if you want an anti-austerity alternative you should surely float the idea.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 28, 2015)

Why do you keep claiming he has nine parliamentary supporters? What about the new intake like Clive Lewis and Cat Smith who are not part of the campaign group? Anyway 9 MPs is still more than TUSC are likely to have for a while. 

Not that I'm a Corbyn supporter.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 28, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why do you keep claiming he has nine parliamentary supporters? What about the new intake like Clive Lewis and Cat Smith who are not part of the campaign group? Anyway 9 MPs is still more than TUSC are likely to have for a while.
> 
> Not that I'm a Corbyn supporter.



Even better then. The Campaign Group are 9 I think. But whatever, the 9 could declare their intention to form a new party and appeal to all Labour MP's to join them. 

And yes, you're right, it is more than TUSC has, thanks for pointing that out. So it would be a much more significant base for a new party to be built on. Add in the Labour MP's/councillors that might potentially defect and the handful of TUSC councillors and you have the basis on which to create a new formation.


----------



## toblerone3 (Jul 28, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn's rivals for the Labour leadership are so incredibly uninspiring.  Jeremy Corbyn needs to become less "oppositional" if he wants to win.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Even better then. The Campaign Group are 9 I think. But whatever, the 9 could declare their intention to form a new party and appeal to all Labour MP's to join them.
> 
> And yes, you're right, it is more than TUSC has, thanks for pointing that out. So it would be a much more significant base for a new party to be built on. Add in the Labour MP's/councillors that might potentially defect and the handful of TUSC councillors and you have the basis on which to create a new formation.


tbh i think you're living in cloud-cuckoo land.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 28, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Even better then. The Campaign Group are 9 I think. But whatever, the 9 could declare their intention to form a new party and appeal to all Labour MP's to join them.
> 
> And yes, you're right, it is more than TUSC has, thanks for pointing that out. So it would be a much more significant base for a new party to be built on. Add in the Labour MP's/councillors that might potentially defect and the handful of TUSC councillors and you have the basis on which to create a new formation.


Bonkers Bruno. I thought the SP were more realistic than that. Why would Jezza leave Labour now, when he hasn't before?

ETA - actually the SP are more realistic - the press release in the Indy was just about using the Jez surge to promote the SP, to remind people that you exist. Let's not pretend the party really believes what you're saying.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 28, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh i think you're living in cloud-cuckoo land.



Fair enough like, but given our commitment to building a new mass party of the working class (which you're free to conclude is a pointless or impossible project) it seems the most sensible approach to take to me.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 28, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Bonkers Bruno. I thought the SP were more realistic than that. Why would Jezza leave Labour now, when he hasn't before?
> 
> ETA - actually the SP are more realistic - the press release in the Indy was just about using the Jez surge to promote the SP, to remind people that you exist. Let's not pretend the party really believes what you're saying.



Oh, you did read it then 

It didn't say we _thought he would._

E2A: I didn't say I thought he would either, but the point is to illustrate what would be possible. If he wants to sink back into dreary insignificance afterwards, fine, but he's built some profile here.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 28, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Oh, you did read it then
> 
> It didn't say we _thought he would._


fairplay, I was getting carried away


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Fair enough like, but given our commitment to building a new mass party of the working class (which you're free to conclude is a pointless or impossible project) it seems the most sensible approach to take to me.


you've had more than 20 years to get somewhere with the sp... after that length of time you should at least have someone in the welsh assembly.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 28, 2015)

Surely he would be more likely to fall into insignificance if he joined the sp/tusc than if he stayed labour? Even under a kendal victory he might get a chance to have one or two of his policies listened to...


----------



## killer b (Jul 28, 2015)

The Socialist Party urging Corbyn to join with them or sink into dreary insignificance? Do you read this stuff back before clicking 'post reply'?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> The Socialist Party urging Corbyn to join with them or sink into dreary insignificance? Do you read this stuff back before clicking 'post reply'?


yeh it's pitiful


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> The Socialist Party urging Corbyn to join with them or sink into dreary insignificance? Do you read this stuff back before clicking 'post reply'?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 28, 2015)

He to could end up as a CAB worker in Coventry


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> He to could end up as a CAB worker in Coventry


more likely to end up as a cabby in corby


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 28, 2015)

he is the second coming of Benn.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> he is the second coming of Benn.


viscount stansgate?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 28, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Isn't Radical Penchant a PD youth front?


you are thinking of Radical Pedant, the sister-journal to \workers girder which focuses exclusively on the bad grammar and spelling in the newspapers of splitters and traitors.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> you are thinking of Radical Pedant, the sister-journal to \workers girder which focuses exclusively on the bad grammar and spelling in the newspapers of splitters and traitors.


Edited by one Pickman's model Esq


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Edited by one Pickman's model Esq


by no means, it's edited by one of the younger generation of uberpedants who have surpassed anything i might hope to do


----------



## Favelado (Jul 28, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> by no means, it's edited by one of the younger generation of uberpedants who have surpassed anything i might hope to do



Real uberpedants surely use umlauts.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 28, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> by no means, it's edited by one of the younger generation of uberpedants who have surpassed anything i might hope to do


it must warm your heart to see cmrds carrying the torch on into new fields and onto heights we never thought possible


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Real uberpedants surely use umlauts.


exactly


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> it must warm your heart to see cmrds carrying the torch on into new fields and onto heights we never thought possible


----------



## brogdale (Jul 28, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


>


Does that translate as "*to boldly go where no pedant has gone before?"*


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Does that translate as "*to boldly go where no pedant has gone before?"*



To go boldly, I think you'll find.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 29, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> bring the old name back as well, MT was a much cooler name



yes, much cooler


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 29, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> To go boldly, I think you'll find.


the split infinitive is a rule that really only applies to Latin. In english we apply different grammatical rules as it is a hybrid tongue which while coming from a latinate base, as do all the western european languages, has no business with modern grammatical rules as applied to english. Indeed the whole split infinitive controversy was the work of some crusty old vicar who probably crapped himself at night.

So stick that in your pedants pipe and smoke it. Smoke it sir! get a good long draw on it.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Does that translate as "*to boldly go where no pedant has gone before?"*



It says something like Glory to the Heroes of the Motherland. It's basically Burnham's 2020 GE campaign slogan.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 29, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> It says something like Glory to the Heroes of the Motherland. It's basically Burnham's 2020 GE campaign slogan.


Burnhams election slogan is far more likely to be along the lines of a microsoft advert flogging more of their shonky software to big business at huge liscensing cost


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 29, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> the split infinitive is a rule that really only applies to Latin.



Seeing as it is impossible to split a Latin infinitive (what with it being a single word), I am intrigued as to how you arrived at this astonishing revelation


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 29, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> In english we apply different grammatical rules as it is a hybrid tongue which while coming from a latinate base, as do all the western european languages, has no business with modern grammatical rules as applied to english.


This sentence shows why we need proper grammar 

Are you saying that all Western Euro languages come from a Latinate base? If so, that's not true. There's German, for one.

Or if you're saying the other languages don't follow the split infinitive rule either? In Spanish it's actually impossible not to follow this rule because the infinitive is made up of one word in each case. I think this is true of Italian and French, too.

Sort yer grammarz out


----------



## brogdale (Jul 29, 2015)

Hey, hey...I was only attempting *to amusingly engage* with Pickmans


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Hey, hey...I was only attempting *to amusingly engage* with Pickmans


yeh but the uberpedants of today won't let you


----------



## brogdale (Jul 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh but the uberpedants of today won't let you


Yeah, they appear keen *to pedantically forbid* such fun and games.


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, they appear keen *to pedantically forbid* such fun and games.


I think you'll  find the preferred term is 'semantic precisionism' these days


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, they appear keen *to pedantically forbid* such fun and games.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> I think you'll  find the preferred term is 'semantic precisionism' these days


OK, but would you be able to amusingly split an infinitive with that, then?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you've had more than 20 years to get somewhere with the sp... after that length of time you should at least have someone in the welsh assembly.



C'mon, you're better than that. This is not the '90's.



frogwoman said:


> Surely he would be more likely to fall into insignificance if he joined the sp/tusc than if he stayed labour? Even under a kendal victory he might get a chance to have one or two of his policies listened to...



We're not asking him to join the SP/TUSC, we're saying we're happy to work with him, the MP's that support him, the unions that back him and the thousands that have registered to support him to build a new party. I certainly wouldn't want him in the SP, he doesn't share enough of our politics for that to be good for either of us.

As for Kendall (or the other two) listening to one or two of Corbyn's, dream on.



killer b said:


> The Socialist Party urging Corbyn to join with them or sink into dreary insignificance? Do you read this stuff back before clicking 'post reply'?



Yes but I wonder what the point is when you seem incapable of reading through a simple press release.

I'll have one last go at further clarity: The support JC has in Parliament, in the unions, in the Left outside of Labour and in the people who have signed up to vote for him is the basis of something much larger than TUSC. On its own all TUSC can do is highlight the possible, that's why we're responding to media allegations that we're infiltrating Labour again in this way.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> This is not the '90's.


well spotted.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

Corbyn reassures everyone he loves the EU

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...embership-of-eu?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Facebook


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Corbyn reassures everyone he loves the EU
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...embership-of-eu?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Facebook


and you were complaining about people deliberately mis-reading brief articles only a page back???


----------



## mather (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> and you were complaining about people deliberately mis-reading brief articles only a page back???



What did he misread exactly?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> and you were complaining about people deliberately mis-reading brief articles only a page back???



Fair. 

Alright then, Corbyn says there are problems with the EU but it should be reformed. Much like Cameron and Tsipras.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

mather said:


> What did he misread exactly?



He did make some vague criticisms of the EU and said some vague things about reforming it. It wasn't uncritical support.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Fair.
> 
> Alright then, Corbyn says there are problems with the EU but it should be reformed. Much like Cameron and Tsipras.


in what way is corbyn's opinion on eu reform "much like" david cameron's?


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

There's more in the New Statesman (and an even fuller piece to follow tomorrow) - http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/jeremy-corbyn-wants-britain-stay-eu

Pretty much your usual left reformist stuff, but probably still better than some of the pseudo-left rejectionist stuff we get.


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> in what way is corbyn's opinion on eu reform "much like" david cameron's?


in the same way that Peter Taafes anti-eu opinion is much like Nigel Farages


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> in what way is corbyn's opinion on eu reform "much like" david cameron's?



It's not, obviously, but it will seem that way to a great many people. "There are problems with the EU but we will fix them..."


----------



## andysays (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> It's not, obviously, but it will seem that way to a great many people. "There are problems with the EU but we will fix them..."



That's not what I've gathered about his position, seems to be more 

"There are problems with the EU (quite different to what Cameron suggests are the problems) and we should try to fix them, but we should also be prepared to think about getting out if we can't fix them..."


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

andysays said:


> That's not what I've gathered about his position, seems to be more
> 
> "There are problems with the EU (quite different to what Cameron suggests are the problems) and we should try to fix them, but we should also be prepared to think about getting out if we can't fix them..."


it seems to me that cameron objects to any vestige of social europe and so wants to leave unless it can be eradicated, while corbyn wants to see more of social europe and wants to leave if it is going to be eradicated.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

andysays said:


> That's not what I've gathered about his position, seems to be more
> 
> "There are problems with the EU (quite different to what Cameron suggests are the problems) and we should try to fix them, but we should also be prepared to think about getting out if we can't fix them..."



Where have you gathered that from? I'm not aware of him mentioning leaving if reform couldn't be secured. In any case I'm pretty sure Cameron has said things like "you'll have the chance to decide to leave if I can't get reform" so kinda moot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Where have you gathered that from? I'm not aware of him mentioning leaving if reform couldn't be secured. In any case I'm pretty sure Cameron has said things like "you'll have the chance to decide to leave if I can't get reform" so kinda moot.


but what is this reform? eh?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> it seems to me that cameron objects to any vestige of social europe and so wants to leave unless it can be eradicated, while corbyn wants to see more of social europe and wants to leave if it is going to be eradicated.



If it's going to be eradicated? Social Europe is gone. It was only window dressing anyway.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 29, 2015)

I dont understand the SP position on this at all. Why would corbyn deliberately split from the party he's been an MP of for 32 years? He probably thinks that under a right wing labour administration he can have more of an impact still in the party than if there was an acrimonious split and he went off to join his former opponents?

And the idea stated by taaffe that if he won labour would be a new party? How are they going to placate those who voted for Kendal, Cooper and Burnham if that is the case?


----------



## andysays (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Where have you gathered that from? I'm not aware of him mentioning leaving if reform couldn't be secured. In any case I'm pretty sure Cameron has said things like "you'll have the chance to decide to leave if I can't get reform" so kinda moot.



I can't remember where I read it (probably either the BBC or the Guardian website) but that's what I gathered was his position. Wherever it was, it definitely mentioned the possibility of leaving if suitable reform couldn't be achieved.

Cameron has clearly said we will be having a referendum, but everything I've read has him insisting he will get the reform he wants and that it will be Tory party policy to recommend a vote to stay in.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

andysays said:


> I can't remember where I read it (probably either the BBC or the Guardian website) but that's what I gathered was his position. Wherever it was, it definitely mentioned the possibility of leaving if suitable reform couldn't be achieved.
> 
> Cameron has clearly said we will be having a referendum, but everything I've read has him insisting he will get the reform he wants and that it will be Tory party policy to recommend a vote to stay in.


and you trust cameron to stick to that?


----------



## andysays (Jul 29, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I dont understand the SP position on this at all. Why would corbyn deliberately split from the party he's been an MP of for 32 years? He probably thinks that under a right wing labour administration he can have more of an impact still in the party than if there was an acrimonious split and he went off to join his former opponents?
> 
> And the idea stated by taaffe that if he won labour would be a new party? How are they going to placate those who voted for Kendal, Cooper and Burnham if that is the case?



From the little I've seen from the SP on this (that piece by Sell and SpackleFrog's contributions here) they seem to be simply using the current Corbyn fever to remind the world of their existence. Fair enough, I suppose, but I doubt many of those supposedly newly enthused by Corbyn really care.

ETA spelling corrected courtesy of PM


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

andysays said:


> From the little I've seen from the SP on this (that piece by Sell and SpackleFrog's contributions here) they seem to be simply using the current Corbyn fever to remind the world of their existence. Fair enough, I suppose, but I doubt many of those supposedly newly enfused by Corbyn really care.


infused? enthused?


----------



## andysays (Jul 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> and you trust cameron to stick to that?



I don't trust Cameron in the slightest, but what are you suggesting he is likely to do instead of that?

The EU ref is all about out-flanking UKIP and anti EU Tories - Cameron no more wants us to vote out of EU than he wanted Scotland to vote out of UK.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

andysays said:


> I don't trust Cameron in the slightest, but what are you suggesting he is likely to do instead of that?
> 
> The EU ref is all about out-flanking UKIP and anti EU Tories - Cameron no more wants us to vote out of EU than he wanted Scotland to vote out of UK.


he's such a crap twat that he will see us in europe as he will see the tory party in scotland


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Where have you gathered that from? I'm not aware of him mentioning leaving if reform couldn't be secured. In any case I'm pretty sure Cameron has said things like "you'll have the chance to decide to leave if I can't get reform" so kinda moot.


how about in all those reports that led to him making this 'clarification'?  The reports which said he'd consider a no vote.

Christ, man, argue against him, by all means, but do at least argue against what he is actually saying.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 29, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I dont understand the SP position on this at all. Why would corbyn deliberately split from the party he's been an MP of for 32 years? He probably thinks that under a right wing labour administration he can have more of an impact still in the party than if there was an acrimonious split and he went off to join his former opponents?
> 
> And the idea stated by taaffe that if he won labour would be a new party? How are they going to placate those who voted for Kendal, Cooper and Burnham if that is the case?


If anything he more likely to stay in following this as he probably feels there is more reason to stay in and fight. I think he would only leave as part of a large split, in which case I am sorry to say TUSC and the SP will be insignificant.


----------



## killer b (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yes but I wonder what the point is when you seem incapable of reading through a simple press release.


I haven't read the press release, why would I do that? I was responding to your post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> I haven't read the press release, why would I do that? I was responding to your post.


that was your mistake


----------



## mather (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> He did make some vague criticisms of the EU and said some vague things about reforming it. It wasn't uncritical support.



I read that article earlier today and fair enough Corbyn is supporting the EU critically but what real difference does that make? It is obvious that the EU cannot be reformed to the benefit of working people, even the most mildest social democratic type of reforms are impossible (both politically and institutionally) so it really is a case of either accepting the EU as it stands or leaving it, no other options are available. Corbyn is being naive when it comes to the EU, it was never about Social Europe or other meaningless phrases as the EU exists solely to enforce neo-liberalism and the needs of Capital on a continent wide basis.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I dont understand the SP position on this at all. Why would corbyn deliberately split from the party he's been an MP of for 32 years? He probably thinks that under a right wing labour administration he can have more of an impact still in the party than if there was an acrimonious split and he went off to join his former opponents?
> 
> And the idea stated by taaffe that if he won labour would be a new party? How are they going to placate those who voted for Kendal, Cooper and Burnham if that is the case?



Sorry Froggy, I thought you were taking the piss. 

We don't know what JC will do, or even why he's standing. But the attacks he's already endured from his own party _should _demonstrate to him fairly clearly his influence in the party is non-existent. Now maybe he still will think he'll have more of an influence as some sort of mascot to keep the trade unions onside, but he most definitely would be wrong there. What we're doing is trying to point out the possibilities _even if he loses _and create the beginnings of some pressure on him to act. If reports of increased Labour membership/supporters are true he's given hope to a lot of people. He would let them down if he sat on the back benches and went back to being a left cheerleader for Labour.

What Taaffe means is that most of the PLP wouldn't tolerate him as leader, so might simply split or declare independence from his leadership. That would in effect create two Labour parties. It won't be possible to placate the Blairites if Corbyn wins.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Sorry Froggy, I thought you were taking the piss.
> 
> We don't know what JC will do, or even why he's standing. But the attacks he's already endured from his own party _should _demonstrate to him fairly clearly his influence in the party is non-existent. Now maybe he still will think he'll have more of an influence as some sort of mascot to keep the trade unions onside, but he most definitely would be wrong there. What we're doing is trying to point out the possibilities _even if he loses _and create the beginnings of some pressure on him to act. If reports of increased Labour membership/supporters are true he's given hope to a lot of people. He would let them down if he sat on the back benches and went back to being a left cheerleader for Labour.
> 
> What Taaffe means is that most of the PLP wouldn't tolerate him as leader, so might simply split or declare independence from his leadership. That would in effect create two Labour parties. It won't be possible to placate the Blairites if Corbyn wins.


why do you confuse "the parliamentary labour party" with "the labour party"?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

andysays said:


> From the little I've seen from the SP on this (that piece by Sell and SpackleFrog's contributions here) they seem to be simply using the current Corbyn fever to remind the world of their existence. Fair enough, I suppose, but I doubt many of those supposedly newly enthused by Corbyn really care.
> 
> ETA spelling corrected courtesy of PM



Harsh, but if you want to read it that way, fine. For the sake of accuracy we're responding to reports in the press about us which have reminded the world we exist though. I think we're also pointing out the possibilities which have been generated by Corbyn's challenge in terms of developing political representation for the working class and being realistic about what would be likely to happen if he won. That's fair, no?


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

mather said:


> I read that article earlier today and fair enough Corbyn is supporting the EU critically but what real difference does that make? It is obvious that the EU cannot be reformed to the benefit of working people, even the most mildest social democratic type of reforms are impossible (both politically and institutionally) so it really is a case of either accepting the EU as it stands or leaving it, no other options are available. Corbyn is being naive when it comes to the EU, it was never about Social Europe or other meaningless phrases as the EU exists solely to enforce neo-liberalism and the needs of Capital on a continent wide basis.


'solely'?  Jesus.  I'm for leaving as I am far from convinced by the possibilities of reform, but that's just nonsense.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> how about in all those reports that led to him making this 'clarification'?  The reports which said he'd consider a no vote.
> 
> Christ, man, argue against him, by all means, but do at least argue against what he is actually saying.



Reports claimed he said he'd consider a no vote. He says nothing of the sort. What's your issue?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> 'solely'?  Jesus.  I'm for leaving as I am far from convinced by the possibilities of reform, but that's just nonsense.



It really isn't.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> I haven't read the press release, why would I do that? I was responding to your post.



Fair enough. If you want to read it it sets out the party position. Me, I'm just a lowly grunt.


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Reports claimed he said he'd consider a no vote. He says nothing of the sort. What's your issue?


The fact that he did say that, and then clarified his view.  


SpackleFrog said:


> It really isn't.


read some history, not just Taafe's bullshit.


----------



## mather (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> 'solely'?  Jesus.  I'm for leaving as I am far from convinced by the possibilities of reform, but that's just nonsense.



What are these other reasons then?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Sorry Froggy, I thought you were taking the piss.
> 
> We don't know what JC will do, or even why he's standing. But the attacks he's already endured from his own party _should _demonstrate to him fairly clearly his influence in the party is non-existent. Now maybe he still will think he'll have more of an influence as some sort of mascot to keep the trade unions onside, but he most definitely would be wrong there. What we're doing is trying to point out the possibilities _even if he loses _and create the beginnings of some pressure on him to act. If reports of increased Labour membership/supporters are true he's given hope to a lot of people. He would let them down if he sat on the back benches and went back to being a left cheerleader for Labour.
> 
> What Taaffe means is that most of the PLP wouldn't tolerate him as leader, so might simply split or declare independence from his leadership. That would in effect create two Labour parties. It won't be possible to placate the Blairites if Corbyn wins.



Thanks for your reply. No i wasnt. 
But there have always been left wingers in the party. IIRC mcdonnell stood for election a few years ago but the SP line then was that it was still a totally 'bourgeois' group. Labour has always been a party with both left and right wingers in it, a lot less left wingers after the expulsion of Militant and others. I dont understand why corbyn winning would mean the right wing would necessary leave when they didn't under tony benn, michael foot, etc. Why would the majority of the party decide to leave if the others didn't win?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> The fact that he did say that, and then clarified his view.



Where? I haven't seen that. 




belboid said:


> read some history, not just Taafe's bullshit.



Fully capable of reading for myself ta, and have. I have to say lately I'm very tempted to point out that certain ex-trots have quite happily swallowed a lot of bullshit for decades very uncritically indeed, and have undergone incredible conversions lately. It's a bit like ex smokers that suddenly want to tell everyone how they're putting terrible chemicals in their bodies.

But I'll be nice, I get that the scars are still pretty raw.


----------



## andysays (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Harsh, but if you want to read it that way, fine. For the sake of accuracy we're responding to reports in the press about us which have reminded the world we exist though. I think we're also pointing out the possibilities which have been generated by Corbyn's challenge in terms of developing political representation for the working class and being realistic about what would be likely to happen if he won. That's fair, no?



Possibly harsh, but I think your take on "the possibilities which have been generated by Corbyn's challenge in terms of developing political representation for the working class" is actually totally unrealistic, both in general and in the influence the SP (or any other similar group, TBF) can have over the process or the wider debate.

If you were being truely realistic, you would respond to reports of SP "infiltration" by admitting that you don't actually have the numbers or the influence to make a significant difference.


----------



## youngian (Jul 29, 2015)

Jeremy appoints next Labour by-election candidate to prepare for a shadow cabinet reshuffle






But lets get real shall we, Labour desperately needs a man of Chris Leslie's titan abilities and political charisma as shadow chancellor to challenge George Osborne


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

mather said:


> What are these other reasons then?


Social Europe was, and still is, a key part of the process. Read Delors' comments. Then explain why reforms are 'impossible' - as opposed to just very unlikely given the current political set up.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Thanks for your reply. No i wasnt.
> But there have always been left wingers in the party. IIRC mcdonnell stood for election a few years ago but the SP line then was that it was still a totally 'bourgeois' group. Labour has always been a party with both left and right wingers in it, a lot less left wingers after the expulsion of Militant and others. I dont understand why corbyn winning would mean the right wing would necessary leave when they didn't under tony benn, michael foot, etc. Why would the majority of the party decide to leave if the others didn't win?



Well, hang on, you're drawing comparisons with the early 80's there, it's a different organisation entirely. Benn was never leader and under Foot the right wingers did leave and form the SDP. And we're not saying they would all leave - we're saying they wouldn't tolerate his leadership. If they declared no confidence in him and had another leadership contest, what would Corbyn do? Meekly accept? Refuse to accept? If he accepts he'd be a joke and if he refuses he's basically declared a split.

Think the big difference this time is McDonnell couldn't get on the ballot and the rules are different so 'supporters' can register. Labour is still a bourgeois party, that hasn't changed. But the layer of support Corbyn himself has mobilised is a new development. If it simply gravitates into Labour it may well dissipate into nothing but there is potential for it to do something else.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

emanymton said:


> If anything he more likely to stay in following this as he probably feels there is more reason to stay in and fight. I think he would only leave as part of a large split, in which case I am sorry to say TUSC and the SP will be insignificant.



We might be. We're only a few thousand, and only a few hundred experienced activists. But I reckon that a) the other forces involved will be very inexperienced and not really have a clue what to do and b) we're pretty experienced at street campaigning, doorstepping and organising in a way that the rest of the radical left just isn't. So we'll see. We'll want to put forward our ideas as much as possible, others will want to marginalise us. Same old story.


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> I have to say lately I'm very tempted to point out that certain ex-trots have quite happily swallowed a lot of bullshit for decades very uncritically indeed, and have undergone incredible conversions lately. It's a bit like ex smokers that suddenly want to tell everyone how they're putting terrible chemicals in their bodies.
> 
> But I'll be nice, I get that the scars are still pretty raw.


why would you need to point out such things?  To set up a ludicrously simplistic false dichotomy that you can argue about? Irrelevant.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 29, 2015)

Yeah sorry SpackleFrog my mistake i read something that said benn had been leader but I misread it. not all of the right wingers did leave to join the SDP. Kinnock didn't for example, and several others.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah sorry SpackleFrog my mistake i read something that said benn had been leader but I misread it. not all of the right wingers did leave to join the SDP. Kinnock didn't for example, and several others.


lucky auld sdp


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah sorry SpackleFrog my mistake i read something that said benn had been leader but I misread it. not all of the right wingers did leave to join the SDP. Kinnock didn't for example, and several others.


Kinnock was a good lefty then.  Altho it was his vote that meant Benn didn't win the deputy contest.

Hattersley, now everyone was surprised _he _never left.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah sorry SpackleFrog my mistake i read something that said benn had been leader but I misread it. not all of the right wingers did leave to join the SDP. Kinnock didn't for example, and several others.



No, that's a fair point. But I reckon the right is strong enough now that they could just declare no confidence in Corbyn.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> b) we're pretty experienced at street campaigning, doorstepping and organising in a way that the rest of the radical left just isn't. .



Really??


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> why would you need to point out such things?  To set up a ludicrously simplistic false dichotomy that you can argue about? Irrelevant.



I was getting a bit nasty. Y'kno, like when you tried to insinuate I couldn't think or read for myself and just parrotted whatever Taaffe said.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Really??



Yeah. Purely for reasons of actually doing it, you understand. That's a massive head start though. 

Anyway, if it happens, we'll see, won't we.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yeah. Purely for reasons of actually doing it, you understand. That's a massive head start though.



What street organising and campaigning have TUSC done? What were the results? 

Not having a pop but they have no presence at all here outside of elections and since the GE they have vanished here.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What street organising and campaigning have TUSC done? What were the results?
> 
> Not having a pop but they have no presence at all here outside of elections and since the GE they have vanished here.



I'm talking more about the SP than TUSC really. But a fair bit actually, at least in areas where we have people on the ground, and while the votes were very low (as expected) the experienced gained and the impact on people we could reach was good, especially considering our lack of resources. Give us the resources that the Corbyn supporting unions could muster like FBU, PCS, RMT, maybe even Unite, and I think we'd use them very effectively.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 29, 2015)

Unison = Corbyn 1st, Cooper 2nd.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

'kin 'ell.

http://www.unison.org.uk/media-centre/unison-supports-jeremy-corbyn-in-the-labour-leadership


----------



## Pingu (Jul 29, 2015)

i dont normally give a shit about party politics but i hope he wins. will make a great change from the fucking clones we currently have and the uk is crying out for someone with some actual beliefs and character to pop up in the political landscape


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> I was getting a bit nasty. Y'kno, like when you tried to insinuate I couldn't think or read for myself and just parrotted whatever Taaffe said.


naah, one of the good things I read in the history of the EU was from a link you posted n fb, I think.  Which then surprised me as what you are arguing here is contradicted by what was in that.

Altho thats fuck all like as surprising as Unisons decision!
http://news.sky.com/story/1527269/unison-backs-corbyn-for-labour-leadership


----------



## mather (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> Social Europe was, and still is, a key part of the process.



Do you have any actual evidence to back that up? 

Yes, the EU will throw the odd crumb our way such as the working time directive but the odd concession here and there does not make Europe social, in the same way as it would be ridiculous to talk about a social Britain when New Labour gave us the minimum wage. 



belboid said:


> Read Delors' comments.



I prefer to judge the EU by it's actual policies and actions rather than on the say-so of some unelected has-been Eurocrat like Delors. China still claims that it is a socialist society developing towards communism but we all know that is a load of crap, why should I take the EU's protestations of being social anymore seriously than that of China's claim of being socialist? Ruling classes often like to hide their reactionary policies and naked self interest behind a veneer of noble statements and declarations and on that point the EU is no different from the rest.



belboid said:


> Then explain why reforms are 'impossible' - as opposed to just very unlikely given the current political set up.



They are impossible because even by the low standards of bourgeois democracy the EU has absolutely no democratic mechanisms whatsoever. In the absence of such mechanisms how can the EU be changed, the onus is on you and not me to explain that one.

Again, actions speak louder than words and the way the EU has treated certain member states such as Greece and Italy, installing unelected technocratic governments and ignoring democratic mandates such as the recent Greek referendum, tell me everything I need to know about the EU's attitude towards any form democracy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 29, 2015)

what does this do to the numbers? Unison is a massive union but I wouldn't know whose ticked the opt out box or whatever.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

This surely demonstrates the importance of what I've been talking about. The unions are actually lining up behind Corbyn, even if in some cases because he's their last chance to justify the affiliation fees. The Blairites are making it clear they won't work with him. A split could occur here, and potentially it could involve the left coming out with a handful of MP's, some significant union backing and a lot of (potentially passive at the moment) support.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> what does this do to the numbers? Unison is a massive union but I wouldn't know whose ticked the opt out box or whatever.



It's not about an opt-out any more, you have to opt in. But Unison in particular have really driven on signing members up as Labour supporters. About the only thing they have done as a national union.


----------



## JTG (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> It's not about an opt-out any more, you have to opt in. But Unison in particular have really driven on signing members up as Labour supporters. About the only thing they have done as a national union.


I'm pretty certain I didn't opt in to supporting Labour when I signed up. Then I got an email the other week saying that as a member of the APF they wanted to know who I thought they should back 

Not happy about it tbh, I definitely didn't want my money going to Labour!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 29, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> what does this do to the numbers? Unison is a massive union but I wouldn't know whose ticked the opt out box or whatever.


The affiliated unions as a whole had 28 000 people who can vote as of last weekend. In the 2010 election they had around 200 000 voters.


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

mather said:


> Do you have any actual evidence to back that up?
> 
> 
> Yes, the EU will throw the odd crumb our way such as the working time directive but the odd concession here and there does not make Europe social, in the same way as it would be ridiculous to talk about a social Britain when New Labour gave us the minimum wage.



this really is nonsense.  having a social europe, with minimum (and, yes they are minimum) standards is a central part of having an economy where one part is not undercutting another by means of shoddy employment practises. It is key to the EU. The EU's central tenets are about the free movement of goods, services and people, whether that is done by old school capitalism, or neo-liberalism makes no odds to it (altho it does to Germany, but you shouldn't mistake Germany for the EU).

As to Blairism not being at all 'social',  that is just obviously rubbish. Even an ultra-leftist loon can see that he tried to ameliorate his promotion of neo-liberalism with liberal social policies.  If you deny that, well, there isn't any point trying to discuss anything with you.



> I prefer to judge the EU by it's actual policies and actions rather than on the say-so of some unelected has-been Eurocrat like Delors. China still claims that it is a socialist society developing towards communism but we all know that is a load of crap, why should I take the EU's protestations of being social anymore seriously than that of China's claim of being socialist? Ruling classes often like to hide their reactionary policies and naked self interest behind a veneer of noble statements and declarations and on that point the EU is no different from the rest.


still lacking any of that 'evidence' you were demanding from me, funny that.  This is just vague waffle, saying nothing. It's generally pretty useful to read both the theory of a thing, and look at the practise, it makes you much better infoirmed an gives you an insight into how things do/should/dont work out. 




> They are impossible because even by the low standards of bourgeois democracy the EU has absolutely no democratic mechanisms whatsoever. In the absence of such mechanisms how can the EU be changed, the onus is on you and not me to explain that one.
> 
> Again, actions speak louder than words and the way the EU has treated certain member states such as Greece and Italy, installing unelected technocratic governments and ignoring democratic mandates such as the recent Greek referendum, tell me everything I need to know about the EU's attitude towards any form democracy.


Now, I do agree that the fundamental problem of the EU is one of democracy, and it is the over-riding reason I will vote to leave.  However, to say it has 
'absolutely no democratic mechanisms whatsoever' is just plain wrong. What elections do you think UKIP won last year? Where do you think all those commissioners come from?  God??  Of course it isn't democratic _enough, _nothing is, but it certainly does have a lot of democratic mechanisms (it has to have a lot, so they can appoint some more bureaucrats to oversee it). 

Anyway, this should probably be on another thread.  Then I could post that hilarious/vile Taaffe article so we can all have a good laugh.


----------



## andysays (Jul 29, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What street organising and campaigning have TUSC done? What were the results?
> 
> Not having a pop but they have no presence at all here outside of elections and since the GE they have vanished here.



Given that TUSC is an electoral coalition of various groups, it's hardly surprising that they aren't currently visible as TUSC, but that doesn't mean the groups and individuals aren't active in various ways.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

andysays said:


> Given that TUSC is an electoral coalition of various groups, it's hardly surprising that they aren't currently visible as TUSC.



Well...we try to campaign as the SP, but also as part of TUSC, and where there are local TUSC groups they do. But yeah, it's primarily an umbrella moniker for election time.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 29, 2015)

Is it still the case that you cant join TUSC itself as an individual member? (curiosity, not having a dig or anything)


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Is it still the case that you cant join TUSC itself as an individual member? (curiosity, not having a dig or anything)



You can register as an individual supporter, pay subs, and get full voting rights at national conferences and in any local TUSC group that might exist. Depends if you think that qualifies as membership. Technically the Independent Socialist Network would represent you on the steering committee...but you might not feel very well represented by them, I guess.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 29, 2015)

JTG said:


> I'm pretty certain I didn't opt in to supporting Labour when I signed up. Then I got an email the other week saying that as a member of the APF they wanted to know who I thought they should back
> 
> Not happy about it tbh, I definitely didn't want my money going to Labour!



It's pretty difficult to accidently affiliate to Labour in Unison and always has been, there are two boxes and for someone who knows a bit about politics it's quite easy to figure out which one to tick if you put your mind to it. Unison was actually praised by the Taxpayers Alliance for being the only union that makes the whole political fund thing easy and transparent to understand. You must have been having an off day.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> You can register as an individual supporter, pay subs, and get full voting rights at national conferences and in any local TUSC group that might exist. Depends if you think that qualifies as membership. Technically the Independent Socialist Network would represent you on the steering committee...but you might not feel very well represented by them, I guess.



OK, it used to be the case IIRC that individuals couldn't join and if they wanted to they'd have to join one of the groups. Or i might have imagined that


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> OK, it used to be the case IIRC that individuals couldn't join and if they wanted to they'd have to join one of the groups. Or i might have imagined that



That was the case...which was why the Independent Socialist Network was set up...which became a de facto group and got involved in Left Unity for a bit as well...


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> That was the case...which was why the Independent Socialist Network was set up...which became a de facto group and got involved in Left Unity for a bit as well...



I thought those were two different groups


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I thought those were two different groups


you should know by now that just because groups have different names doesn't mean they have a different membership


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 29, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> Seeing as it is impossible to split a Latin infinitive (what with it being a single word), I am intrigued as to how you arrived at this astonishing revelation


cannabis is a hell of a drug


----------



## JTG (Jul 29, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's pretty difficult to accidently affiliate to Labour in Unison and always has been, there are two boxes and for someone who knows a bit about politics it's quite easy to figure out which one to tick if you put your mind to it. Unison was actually praised by the Taxpayers Alliance for being the only union that makes the whole political fund thing easy and transparent to understand. You must have been having an off day.


Nope, I can read a form thanks. They had my salary range wrong as well


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> You can register as an individual supporter, pay subs, and get full voting rights at national conferences and in any local TUSC group that might exist. Depends if you think that qualifies as membership. Technically the Independent Socialist Network would represent you on the steering committee...but you might not feel very well represented by them, I guess.


what is the point of 'full voting rights' at conference, when all policies are decided in the backroom deals between the different organisations?  And as for the ISN representing anyone but the two of them, we both know that's nonsense.  Come on, deep down, you know TUSC is rubbish, you've just got to keep the pretense up.  It's total lack of democracy means it will never, ever, get anywhere.  Democracy is key, not sticking to some ancient programme you've kept in the bottom drawer for fifty years.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I thought those were two different groups



Lot of crossover. The 2000 odd members LU claimed originally were mostly already TUSC supporters/members of other left groups to be fair.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> Democracy is key, not sticking to some ancient programme you've kept in the bottom drawer for fifty years.


 
SSSSHHHHHH! Nobody's supposed to mention THE BOTTOM DRAWER


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> SSSSHHHHHH! Nobody's supposed to mention THE BOTTOM DRAWER


the SOCK DRAWER


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> what is the point of 'full voting rights' at conference, when all policies are decided in the backroom deals between the different organisations?  And as for the ISN representing anyone but the two of them, we both know that's nonsense.  Come on, deep down, you know TUSC is rubbish, you've just got to keep the pretense up.  It's total lack of democracy means it will never, ever, get anywhere.  Democracy is key, not sticking to some ancient programme you've kept in the bottom drawer for fifty years.



What backroom deals? The (very limited) shared political program is decided at the conference by anyone who wants to turn up. Who stands where is decided in local areas by forces on the ground. The steering committee mostly does admin work. 

The fact that you believe the key problem with TUSC is a lack of democracy, and that this is the key reason it won't go anywhere, is frankly shocking. You're getting on a bit, you must have knocked around in the SWP for a while. If you've learnt nothing more from (own up, how many decades?) of activism than to repeat the standard teenage wadical line of "right, like, what the problem is, like, right, we need to make things like, democratic and that" then, well, to be honest I'm disappointed.



belboid said:


> Democracy is key, not sticking to some ancient programme you've kept in the bottom drawer for fifty years.



Just highlighting this because you wrote that. YOU. Pathetic. "Your ideas are boring, let the masses speak for themselves." Ring your old mates, ask them if they have any jobs going spare at Salvage.


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> What backroom deals? The (very limited) shared political program is decided at the conference by anyone who wants to turn up. Who stands where is decided in local areas by forces on the ground. The steering committee mostly does admin work.
> 
> The fact that you believe the key problem with TUSC is a lack of democracy, and that this is the key reason it won't go anywhere, is frankly shocking. You're getting on a bit, you must have knocked around in the SWP for a while. If you've learnt nothing more from (own up, how many decades?) of activism than to repeat the standard teenage wadical line of "right, like, what the problem is, like, right, we need to make things like, democratic and that" then, well, to be honest I'm disappointed.
> 
> ...


what the fuck are you talking about? Try answering the points.

any of the sects in TUSC can veto policy - that's why it doesn't have a policy on the EU, or on the right to free movement. THAT is undemocratic.  And the SP's programme is just the same as it has been for decades.

The fact you can't actually formulate a reply without the ad hominems (or even with a semblance of coherence) shows just why TUSc will/has fail/ed.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> any of the sects in TUSC can veto policy - that's why it doesn't have a policy on the EU, or on the right to free movement. THAT is undemocratic.



So you think it would be more democratic if the SP forced policy onto the other groups over the EU through sheer weight of numbers for example, rather than simply agreeing to work on what we agree on?

Lets say we did that. We force a vote on the question of the EU Referendum. The SP and RMT successfully win a vote to campaign to leave the EU, and everybody else leaves in a huff. Where would that get us?

Was having this discussion with the ISN folk after last conference. They want to be a party based on One Member One Vote - they were complaining bitterly after they were defeated on the basis of One Member One Vote.



belboid said:


> what the fuck are you talking about? Try answering the points.



What I'm talking about is that TUSC is the latest in a long series of projects/lash ups designed to address the question of w/class/left political representation. The issues around this question are complex. If the best you can manage is "we need more democracy maaaaaan" then you are basically Rik Mayall from the Young Ones.[/QUOTE]


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> So you think it would be more democratic if the SP forced policy onto the other groups over the EU through sheer weight of numbers for example, rather than simply agreeing to work on what we agree on?
> 
> Lets say we did that. We force a vote on the question of the EU Referendum. The SP and RMT successfully win a vote to campaign to leave the EU, and everybody else leaves in a huff. Where would that get us?
> 
> Was having this discussion with the ISN folk after last conference. They want to be a party based on One Member One Vote - they were complaining bitterly after they were defeated on the basis of One Member One Vote.


yup, its a bugger.  but it's the only way to build things.  you will never go beyond the small groups of existing lefties without OMOV.  Maybe you'lll get a couple more union bureaucrats, but they wont carry their troops with them.



> What I'm talking about is that TUSC is the latest in a long series of projects/lash ups designed to address the question of w/class/left political representation. The issues around this question are complex. If the best you can manage is "we need more democracy maaaaaan" then you are basically Rik Mayall from the Young Ones.


[/QUOTE]
I dont recall Rik ever talking about democracy, but there you go.  And if you want to play that game, you just sound like a WW1 general - 'keep on doing exactly the same thing, it'll work in the end.'  It didn't, and it wont. TUSC's votes were abysmal (you do agree on that I hope), and so it is plain tht an at least somewhat different approach is needed.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> yup, its a bugger.  but it's the only way to build things.  you will never go beyond the small groups of existing lefties without OMOV.  Maybe you'lll get a couple more union bureaucrats, but they wont carry their troops with them.


I dont recall Rik ever talking about democracy, but there you go.  And if you want to play that game, you just sound like a WW1 general - 'keep on doing exactly the same thing, it'll work in the end.'  It didn't, and it wont. TUSC's votes were abysmal (you do agree on that I hope), and so it is plain tht an at least somewhat different approach is needed.[/QUOTE]

So you think the SP and RMT should force everyone out over questions of open borders and EU membership?

Where have I implied that we should keep on doing the same thing?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> I dont recall Rik ever talking about democracy, but there you go.  And if you want to play that game, you just sound like a WW1 general - 'keep on doing exactly the same thing, it'll work in the end.'  It didn't, and it wont. TUSC's votes were abysmal (you do agree on that I hope), and so it is plain tht an at least somewhat different approach is needed
> 
> So you think the SP and RMT should force everyone out over questions of open borders and EU membership?
> 
> Where have I implied that we should keep on doing the same thing?


nice to see the auld stereotypes come out


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> So you think the SP and RMT should force everyone out over questions of open borders and EU membership?


Oh no, you might lose Socialist Resistance! I bet you'd be gutted. Even if they hadn't left anyway. If the vote losers didn't like losing, well, they're not exactly believers in a democratic party, are they?  Let them leave.  Would you have walked if it voted for staying in?  What if it were, say, a party of 10,000/20,000 who voted to stay in?

Free movement and EU membership are going to be Ottawa important in the next few years, and we're in the last few too, having to duck both issues will be farcical. 



> Where have I implied that we should keep on doing the same thing?


where have you said anything else?  What would you do differently?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 29, 2015)

Pingu said:


> i dont normally give a shit about party politics but i hope he wins. will make a great change from the fucking clones we currently have and the uk is crying out for someone with some actual beliefs and character to pop up in the political landscape



You'll get all sorts of careerist arselickers suddenly pretending they've always been socialist, and the clones all gathering together and plotting about doing an SDP.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 29, 2015)

Jezza is now favourite at Ladbrokes

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...p-race-in-latest-ladbrokes-odds-10424088.html

In fact he is now favourite with most of the bookies

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader


----------



## Fingers (Jul 29, 2015)

and now has Unison behind him

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33707321


----------



## treelover (Jul 30, 2015)

> On Tuesday evening, the contender attracted more than 400 for a Q&A session in Luton, and an hour later, beginning at 9pm, he addressed a capacity crowd of 800 at London’s Bloomsbury Baptist church, with others listening via a loudspeaker outside.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/29/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-campaign-momentum



400 in Luton, that's pretty incredible, Tommy won't be happy


----------



## treelover (Jul 30, 2015)

> The youngest in the room was Jude Mockridge, from a village near Luton, still at school, aged 14. He asked Corbyn how he could ensure that if elected leader, he could avoid being savaged by the media in the way Michael Foot had been in the 1983 general election.
> 
> Mockridge is a member of the Labour party – the age for joining is 14 – and will vote for Corbyn. Why? “Because I believe in socialism and he is the only socialist,” Mockridge said.



Socialism being talked about by the very young again, I can remember during the Iraq War a similar mood developing, but the SWP vampires,etc soon drained it of any enthusiasm.


----------



## treelover (Jul 30, 2015)

> Jim Thakoordin, one of the founding members of the black trade unionist solidarity movement, who was at the Luton meeting, volunteers three days a week in Bedfordshire. The 72 year old said he could pick up 100 volunteers for Corbyn in Luton alone and had signed up a further five at the meeting. He said volunteers for the other candidates were not visible on the ground.



100 volunteers in Luton?


----------



## chilango (Jul 30, 2015)

'Inconstancy is my very essence,' says the wheel. Rise up on my spokes if you like but don't complain when you're cast back down into the depths. Good time pass away, but then so do the bad. Mutability is our tragedy, but it's also our hope. The worst of times, like the best, are always passing away.


----------



## killer b (Jul 30, 2015)

I'm no lover of the SWP, but it's incredibly simplistic (and just plain wrong) to put it at their door treelover. Their shitness is a symptom (of the lack of an organised working class, and the conditions that might make an organised working class possible) rather than the disease itself. The churn of young socialists quickly becoming disillusioned and dropping out of political activity is likewise a symptom.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2015)

OMG luton!!! A town with 100% labour MPs. And there's always been 14 year old socialists joining the labour party. Andy Burnham was one of them. (btw that lad mentioned above has an active labour party father - often the way).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 30, 2015)

treelover said:


> 100 volunteers in Luton?


yeh cos no one's ever promised anything they couldn't deliver ever before


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 30, 2015)

treelover said:


> Socialism being talked about by the very young again, I can remember during the Iraq War a similar mood developing, but the SWP vampires,etc soon drained it of any enthusiasm.


what did you to promote socialism then? or did you drain the vitality away in your own inimitable fashion?


----------



## chilango (Jul 30, 2015)

What - exactly - is the similarity between the "mood" today around Corbyn's election bid and that around opposition to the Iraq war?

I don't see anything concrete that there is in common except an increase in bandwagon hopping fantasising by a handful of Lefties who have nothing themselves to offer.

It is literally pathetic to watch.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 30, 2015)

chilango said:


> What - exactly - is the similarity between the "mood" today around Corbyn's election bid and that around opposition to the Iraq war?
> 
> I don't see anything concrete that there is in common except an increase in bandwagon hopping fantasising by a handful of Lefties who have nothing themselves to offer.
> 
> It is literally pathetic to watch.


as many people are opposed to treelover's interventions in the labour leadership campaign as opposed blair's plans for intervention in iraq in '03.


----------



## killer b (Jul 30, 2015)

TBF, if a straw poll of my FB contacts is anything to go by Corbyn does seem to have excited a wider range of people than usual - disgruntled labour loyalists, trots and all them people who voted liberal in 2010 and green in 2015 seem to be united in their enthusiasm.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 30, 2015)

killer b said:


> TBF, if a straw poll of my FB contacts is anything to go by Corbyn does seem to have excited a wider range of people than usual - disgruntled labour loyalists, trots and all them people who voted liberal in 2010 and green in 2015 seem to be united in their enthusiasm.


only until he's elected when the knives will once more come forth


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 30, 2015)

belboid said:


> Oh no, you might lose Socialist Resistance! I bet you'd be gutted. Even if they hadn't left anyway. If the vote losers didn't like losing, well, they're not exactly believers in a democratic party, are they?  Let them leave.  Would you have walked if it voted for staying in?  What if it were, say, a party of 10,000/20,000 who voted to stay in?
> 
> Free movement and EU membership are going to be Ottawa important in the next few years, and we're in the last few too, having to duck both issues will be farcical.
> 
> ...



What I think we are trying to do differently is establishing an umbrella label for anti-austerity candidates to stand under on the basis of basic agreement on what we can agree on (which is unsurprisingly limited). Yes, you're right it would be a bit shitty to pack up and leave on the basis of a lost vote, but that is exactly what SR/ISN/SWP and others would do and what's the point? We're where we're at. I don't see the point in having a big conference with a big debate and a big public split. Haven't we done that enough?

You're right that free movement and EU membership will be big issues and individual TUSC groups and candidates are free to put forward their own positions. But TUSC isn't a party, it's not even close. 

I'm not saying we're doing anything particularly exciting but I think your suggestion that what is fundamentally wrong with TUSC is that it lacks 'democracy' is a misunderstanding. It's a lash up of groups; no group has to be bounced into supporting anything they don't want to. In the meantime we're developing practical experience of election campaigning, promoting the idea of an anti-austerity pro-working class party, and working together on what we can agree on. That to me seems qualitatively different to previous attempts.
LU could probably be considered very 'democratic' in some ways, but what has LU done except get mired in increasingly irrelevant debates between the usual sectlets?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 30, 2015)

Luton North was once the constituency of the apartheid-supporting headbanging Thatcherite, John Carlisle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carlisle_(politician)


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 30, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Jezza is now favourite at Ladbrokes
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...p-race-in-latest-ladbrokes-odds-10424088.html
> 
> ...



The thing with that is that it doesn't necessarily mean they think he's most likely to win. It probably means they've had a surge of bets on him - I can't imagine next Labour leader is a big market so it wouldn't take a huge amount to bring his odds down.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 30, 2015)

CWU had just given him their backing


----------



## brogdale (Jul 30, 2015)

Fingers said:


> CWU had just given him their backing


Better than that...


> We think that it is time for a change for Labour. The grip of the Blairites and individuals like Peter Mandelson must now be loosened once and for all. *There is a virus within the Labour party*, and Jeremy Corbyn is the antidote.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 30, 2015)

Another anti Corbyn article in the Guardian today.  They are attacking him for wearing sandals, they really are scraping the barrel now.

The article author  is getting destroyed in the comments section

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-is-the-world-ready-for-his-socks-and-sandals


----------



## treelover (Jul 30, 2015)

> Jeremy Corbyn’s policies may be popular – but they don’t add up to a platform Peter Hain
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/30/jeremy-corbyn-policies-labour



Now the Orange One wades in, with yet another(slightly more nuanced) attack


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 30, 2015)

treelover said:


> Now the Orange One wades in, with yet another atatck


I had not realised Corbyn had aroused DUP ire


----------



## Dandred (Jul 30, 2015)

The problem is, there is no real working class left in the UK. 

Unlike Urban most of the people are far to the right. 

I hope Cobyn wins, but at the end of the day the Tories are going to win again at the next election. 

I'm so glad I left the UK ten years ago. Nothing left but a place for the rich and a platform to demonise the poor.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 30, 2015)

Dandred said:


> The problem is, there is no real working class left in the UK.





Dandred said:


> I'm so glad I left the UK ten years ago.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 30, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Another anti Corbyn article in the Guardian today.  They are attacking him for wearing sandals, they really are scraping the barrel now.
> 
> The article author  is getting destroyed in the comments section
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-is-the-world-ready-for-his-socks-and-sandals



Yeah, I saw that and couldn't be bothered to read past the first paragraph cos it was obviously gonna be utter dross. Funny line of attack for the Grauniad too. Guardian types have long been mocked as 'sandalistas' and such like.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Yeah, I saw that and couldn't be bothered to read past the first paragraph cos it was obviously gonna be utter dross. Funny line of attack for the Grauniad too. Guardian types have long been mocked as 'sandalistas' and such like.


You should have read it as it goes onto to suggest corbyn was about to unleash an ISIS style wave on the UK.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 30, 2015)

Nearer home, Angela Merkel and Wolfgang Schäuble hold the eurozone together, though their austere economic grip may prove politically self-defeating. No, we haven’t even got to Isis yet

 
What


----------



## belboid (Jul 30, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> What I think we are trying to do differently is establishing an umbrella label for anti-austerity candidates to stand under on the basis of basic agreement on what we can agree on (which is unsurprisingly limited). Yes, you're right it would be a bit shitty to pack up and leave on the basis of a lost vote, but that is exactly what SR/ISN/SWP and others would do and what's the point? We're where we're at. I don't see the point in having a big conference with a big debate and a big public split. Haven't we done that enough?
> 
> You're right that free movement and EU membership will be big issues and individual TUSC groups and candidates are free to put forward their own positions. But TUSC isn't a party, it's not even close.
> 
> ...


hmm, so previously it was wrong to say TUSC lacked democracy, but now its that it doesn't matter that TUSC isn't really democratic, because it's just a lash up of groups who can say whatever they like.  What's the point of a conference then? or of an individual joining (even if they could?).  I dont want to be part of a 'lash up', and neither do the vast majority of people. I suppose a local campaigning group may just want to stand under the umbrella to take advantage of some economies of scale, but otherwise, why would they?  And it does sound as if TUSC are just going to carry on doing things the way they have, as if they had had some success.  But the average TUSC vote actually _fell - _by about 25% between the last two elections, desxpite the move away from the 'major parties.'  If you can't accept that, and recognise it (and, sadly, TUSC seem to be in complete denial about that fact) then you _cannot _go forward.  Especially when TUSC simply wont exist between elections, as it is just 'a lash up', as you say.


----------



## chilango (Jul 30, 2015)

The point of an umbrella/franchise that localised and otherwise isolated groups can pick up and use for electoral purposes must surely be similar to franchises elsewhere.

Strong brand identified with a distinctive and consistent product. Right?

TUSC is not that. 

Politically you could look at EF! AFA the EDL, the NF, Al Qaeeda, etc etc as possible examples. Perhaps. 

Nowt on the left fits though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 30, 2015)

chilango said:


> The point of an umbrella/franchise that localised and otherwise isolated groups can pick up and use for electoral purposes must surely be similar to franchises elsewhere.
> 
> Strong brand identified with a distinctive and consistent product. Right?
> 
> ...


what tusc should have done is think of an acronym and then fit words to it rather than do the words and worry about the abbreviation after. choosing something which is both an anagram of 'cuts' and sounds like an elephant's tooth was a bad idea.


----------



## Ole (Jul 30, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> what does this do to the numbers? Unison is a massive union but I wouldn't know whose ticked the opt out box or whatever.



Unison will have about 43,000 voters according to their press release. 28,000 Labour Party members + 15,000 registered supporters.

https://www.unison.org.uk/media-centre/unison-supports-jeremy-corbyn-in-the-labour-leadership


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2015)

i think you misunderstand what i was saying, which was as of last weekend all the unions affiliated to labour had 28 000 people who have signed up through them to vote - nothing else.

And union members who are labour party members will probably be voting as party members - they're not union votes, they're labour party voters.


----------



## Ole (Jul 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> i think you misunderstand what i was saying, which was as of last weekend all the unions affiliated to labour had 28 000 people who have signed up through them to vote - nothing else.
> 
> And union members who are labour party members will probably be voting as party members - they're not union votes, they're labour party voters.


I see - then yes, I misunderstood, I thought you might've just misattributed the 28,000 number. Edited now.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 31, 2015)

belboid said:


> hmm, so previously it was wrong to say TUSC lacked democracy, but now its that it doesn't matter that TUSC isn't really democratic, because it's just a lash up of groups who can say whatever they like.  What's the point of a conference then? or of an individual joining (even if they could?).  I dont want to be part of a 'lash up', and neither do the vast majority of people. I suppose a local campaigning group may just want to stand under the umbrella to take advantage of some economies of scale, but otherwise, why would they?  And it does sound as if TUSC are just going to carry on doing things the way they have, as if they had had some success.  But the average TUSC vote actually _fell - _by about 25% between the last two elections, desxpite the move away from the 'major parties.'  If you can't accept that, and recognise it (and, sadly, TUSC seem to be in complete denial about that fact) then you _cannot _go forward.  Especially when TUSC simply wont exist between elections, as it is just 'a lash up', as you say.



I didn't say TUSC wasn't democratic, that's your take on it. I said that if that was all you could come up with then you either can't or won't discuss the issue properly. 

Lash up. Coalition. Whatever. Of course the vote fell. But TUSC exists between elections in some places. It's down to what people on the ground do with it, or don't. It's just a label.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 31, 2015)

chilango said:


> The point of an umbrella/franchise that localised and otherwise isolated groups can pick up and use for electoral purposes must surely be similar to franchises elsewhere.
> 
> Strong brand identified with a distinctive and consistent product. Right?
> 
> ...





Pickman's model said:


> what tusc should have done is think of an acronym and then fit words to it rather than do the words and worry about the abbreviation after. choosing something which is both an anagram of 'cuts' and sounds like an elephant's tooth was a bad idea.



Feel free to suggest alternatives like.


----------



## chilango (Jul 31, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Feel free to suggest alternatives like.



Why?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Feel free to suggest alternatives like.


like what?


----------



## belboid (Jul 31, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> I didn't say TUSC wasn't democratic, that's your take on it. I said that if that was all you could come up with then you either can't or won't discuss the issue properly.
> 
> Lash up. Coalition. Whatever. Of course the vote fell. But TUSC exists between elections in some places. It's down to what people on the ground do with it, or don't. It's just a label.


'Lash up' and 'coalition' are, or should be, two very different things.

Even you dont really know what TUSC is, no one does.  Hence it will fail.

As for 'of course the vote fell' - what complete and utter tripe. While the centre vote was collapsing, so was TUSC's. It should have gone the other way, but it failed miserably. And the group can't even bring itself to admit this, it still keeps pretending the results were okay, good even. If you can't look reality i nthe face, you have no chance.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 31, 2015)

treelover said:


> Socialism being talked about by the very young again, I can remember during the Iraq War a similar mood developing, but the SWP vampires,etc soon drained it of any enthusiasm.


Seriously?
A brutal, bloody bloody war erupted after some of the biggest protests ever and the movement fell away because 2000 swp members drained the movement?
There are plenty of legitimate complaints about the swp but this is (imo) a stupid statement. 
Surely the fact that a LABOUR prime minister ignored the wishes of millions, the LABOUR left MPs such as Clare Short sold out to keep a cabinet post or the union leaders that refused to call any kind of action against the war and the whole media got behind "our boys" were the real and far more important reason that the mood changed.
On one hand the swp are a pathetic little sect and on the other they are powerful enough to kill the biggest movement  (anti war or otherwise) in 50 years...some claim ever...which isit cos it can not be both.
Like I said, there are plenty of valid criticisms of the swp throughout its' history but this is so over the top.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 31, 2015)

belboid said:


> It should have gone the other way, but it failed miserably.



See, right there. You think all you need to do is slap the word 'Socialist' on an electoral vehicle and success should follow. It doesn't work like that. Consequently you judge everything as failure.


----------



## belboid (Jul 31, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> See, right there. You think all you need to do is slap the word 'Socialist' on an electoral vehicle and success should follow. It doesn't work like that. Consequently you judge everything as failure.


eh?  What are you on about?  I think no such thing, so don't just make stuff up.	Your contention that "Of course the vote fell." is just nonsense, and I dont believe you believed that for a moment before the election.  Why on earth would it if you were doing things right?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 31, 2015)

belboid said:


> eh?  What are you on about?  I think no such thing, so don't just make stuff up.	Your contention that "Of course the vote fell." is just nonsense, and I dont believe you believed that for a moment before the election.  Why on earth would it if you were doing things right?



If we were doing things right? Feel free to enlighten me on how to do it right. I've got this feeling you don't have many ideas about how to do an anti austerity election campaign right though. I'd be interested to know how long it is you've knocked doors 

We said repeatedly, particularly to new members/supporters, that the vote would be squeezed. Inevitably a lot of people, including people who've voted for us before in locals, went for Labour to get the Tories out. UKIP and the Greens were always going to be big spoilers. We didn't do it for the votes. That would have been totally unrealistic. We did it to build profile, to make sure somebody got across an anti-austerity message, and to make contact with potential new supporters/members. We did quite well on recruits to the SP in the aftermath, but if we'd been anything but honest about how poor our votes would be, I bet we wouldn't have.


----------



## chilango (Jul 31, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> anti austerity election campaign



Imo there's a fundamental problem there.

Short-term -ism and short cuts.

You need a stronger, clearer "brand identity" - and some vote credibility before you can pile in on a current issue, electorally. That takes time. Ukip and the Greens for example have been plugging away for years and years before getting anywhere. As did the SNP as did Plaid Cymru.

I've written at more length elsewhere on the boards about the importance of long-term "dogshit politics" I'll try and dig out a link at some point.


----------



## chilango (Jul 31, 2015)

chilango said:


> The thing with threads like this is the same points occur again and again.
> 
> *There are no shortcuts*. Yes, the branding is usually shit and really, really should be done better. Yes, the slogans are just that, rather than more concretely articulated policies. And yes, the name is wrong. And yes, the language is archaic. All of this could easily, and therefore should, change. It's not the answer though.
> 
> ...



Here you go SpackleFrog, you liked it last time I posted it too


----------



## belboid (Jul 31, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> If we were doing things right? Feel free to enlighten me on how to do it right. I've got this feeling you don't have many ideas about how to do an anti austerity election campaign right though. I'd be interested to know how long it is you've knocked doors
> 
> We said repeatedly, particularly to new members/supporters, that the vote would be squeezed. Inevitably a lot of people, including people who've voted for us before in locals, went for Labour to get the Tories out. UKIP and the Greens were always going to be big spoilers. We didn't do it for the votes. That would have been totally unrealistic. We did it to build profile, to make sure somebody got across an anti-austerity message, and to make contact with potential new supporters/members. We did quite well on recruits to the SP in the aftermath, but if we'd been anything but honest about how poor our votes would be, I bet we wouldn't have.


This is just disingenuous rubbish. There were no reasons for your vote to become MORE squeezed than in 2010 - the opposite is the case. As I said, the centre was collapsing, and TUSC completely failed to capitalise.  That is a simple fact. But it isn't one that the SP stated after the election, you pretended it was a step forward. 

If you can't look facts in the face, which ad are adamantly refusing to do, then you cannot move forward. Take your head out of the sand.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 31, 2015)

chilango said:


> Here you go SpackleFrog, you liked it last time I posted it too



Aye, did like it, and agree still. It does take time, and patient work. I'm a big fan of dogshit politics. Where's the contradiction?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 31, 2015)

belboid said:


> This is just disingenuous rubbish. There were no reasons for your vote to become MORE squeezed than in 2010 - the opposite is the case. As I said, the centre was collapsing, and TUSC completely failed to capitalise.  That is a simple fact. But it isn't one that the SP stated after the election, you pretended it was a step forward.
> 
> If you can't look facts in the face, which ad are adamantly refusing to do, then you cannot move forward. Take your head out of the sand.



There clearly were - in 2010 we stood in about 40 seats, this time we stood in nearly 150. In 2010 we stood in areas where we had some existing support, in 2015 a hell of a lot of the candidates weren't much more than paper. Of course the average vote fell.

Your analysis seems to be that the centre has collapsed, and therefore not getting millions of votes was a failure indicative of a lack of democracy. I think you could do with taking on board Chilango's points about electoral politics taking time.


----------



## chilango (Jul 31, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Aye, did like it, and agree still. It does take time, and patient work. I'm a big fan of dogshit politics. Where's the contradiction?



What contradiction?


----------



## belboid (Aug 1, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> There clearly were - in 2010 we stood in about 40 seats, this time we stood in nearly 150. In 2010 we stood in areas where we had some existing support, in 2015 a hell of a lot of the candidates weren't much more than paper. Of course the average vote fell.
> 
> Your analysis seems to be that the centre has collapsed, and therefore not getting millions of votes was a failure indicative of a lack of democracy. I think you could do with taking on board Chilango's points about electoral politics taking time.


When's the novel coming out?  Seeing as you are so fond of complete fiction.

It is simply untrue that you expected the votes to fall, of course you didnt expect to win anything, but to actually lose votes?  And you mostly did, even with the repeat candidates. Even if what you are saying is true, then you were imbeciles for agreeing to stand so many candidates, so many you could never ever campaign for them, mere paper candidates like the SPGB (who got almost as many votes per candidate as TUSC). The one and only result anyone remembers is that poor cunt who got 0 votes.  What a legacy.

As for your opinion of my analysis, it too is complete fiction. TUSC lack of democracy isn't really to blame for its abysmal vote, it simply means that it wont grow, it will remain a rump of small lefty groups huddling together for warmth.  TUSC's failure was its complete inability to engage meaningfully with working class communities - bussing in a few students with no connection to an area is just an insult. Crap leaflets with generic arguments for socialism and no local relevance will get you nothing more than some token votes - just like the SPGB. What you are doing is not slow, patient, work of the kind Chilango mentions, its just (red) flag waving bollocks.

Best idea - just stop.  Really, Stop. Don't bother putting up shit token candidates that are going to do appallingly. Only do it when you have actually built up some standing in an area. Parliament is hardly the be all and end all of politics, so why not do something you're actually good at?  Stop wasting the time and money on elections where you just embarrass yourselves.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 2, 2015)

there's a mundane cam-phone photo doing the rounds on Twitts of JC just getting the nightbus home last week, 700 + retweets and you can see why, it stupidly feels like powerful image in this day and age


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2015)

belboid said:


> When's the novel coming out?  Seeing as you are so fond of complete fiction.
> 
> It is simply untrue that you expected the votes to fall, of course you didnt expect to win anything, but to actually lose votes?  And you mostly did, even with the repeat candidates. Even if what you are saying is true, then you were imbeciles for agreeing to stand so many candidates, so many you could never ever campaign for them, mere paper candidates like the SPGB (who got almost as many votes per candidate as TUSC). The one and only result anyone remembers is that poor cunt who got 0 votes.  What a legacy.
> 
> ...


don't hold your breath waiting for a novel as yer man only does short stories.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 3, 2015)

belboid said:


> When's the novel coming out?  Seeing as you are so fond of complete fiction.
> 
> It is simply untrue that you expected the votes to fall, of course you didnt expect to win anything, but to actually lose votes?  And you mostly did, even with the repeat candidates. Even if what you are saying is true, then you were imbeciles for agreeing to stand so many candidates, so many you could never ever campaign for them, mere paper candidates like the SPGB (who got almost as many votes per candidate as TUSC). The one and only result anyone remembers is that poor cunt who got 0 votes.  What a legacy.
> 
> ...



On what basis have you decided we did not expect the votes to fall? 

On what basis have you decided our material was of no local relevance? 

On what basis have you decided we're not doing patient work in between elections?

How do you suggest we build up standing in an area without campaigning in elections? 

What is it you think we're "actually good at"? Don't remember you praising anything we do


----------



## Santino (Aug 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> don't hold your breath waiting for a novel as yer man only does short stories.


 Like Jorge Luis Borges.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> What is it you think we're "actually good at"?


telling other people what to do. you certainly practise it enough.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> don't hold your breath waiting for a novel as yer man only does short stories.



This is why they don't want me at Salvage


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> telling other people what to do. you certainly practise it enough.



Oh give over, nobodies telling anyone what to do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Oh give over, nobodies telling anyone what to do.


that's just my point.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 3, 2015)

unfortunate typo there


----------



## MochaSoul (Aug 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> unfortunate typo there



It's the letter of the law that which prevails.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> that's just my point.






Pickman's model said:


> telling other people what to do. you certainly practise it enough.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2015)

SpackleFrog after you've admitted to being nobodies telling people what to do (post 353) perhaps it's time to exit gracefully.


----------



## MochaSoul (Aug 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> SpackleFrog after you've admitted to being nobodies telling people what to do (post 353) perhaps it's time to exit gracefully.


That's it! Debate over. Who needs lawyers when pedants are so much cheaper.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2015)

MochaSoul said:


> That's it! Debate over. Who needs lawyers when pedants are so much cheaper.


in all honesty i'm not sure how much SpackleFrog adds to the debate when much of what he's posted seems more informed by fantasy than reality.


----------



## MochaSoul (Aug 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> in all honesty i'm not sure how much SpackleFrog adds to the debate when much of what he's posted seems more informed by fantasy than reality.



Mind me not. Nothing quite as informative as a clash of opinions. I was simply expressing [a very personally mine] annoyance at the way a point of contention is being resolved (not).


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2015)

MochaSoul said:


> Mind me not. Nothing quite as informative as a clash of opinions. I was simply expressing [a very personally mine] annoyance at the way a point of contention is being resolved (not).


it's hard to mind you not when you clearly want to be minded.


----------



## MochaSoul (Aug 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> it's hard to mind you not when you clearly want to be minded.



What else can I say but "You can keep that bike!"


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2015)

MochaSoul said:


> What else can I say but "You can keep that bike!"


----------



## MochaSoul (Aug 3, 2015)

Is the "pedalling" sound part of the ambiance?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2015)

MochaSoul said:


> Is the "pedalling" sound part of the ambiance?


it can be


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> SpackleFrog after you've admitted to being nobodies telling people what to do (post 353) perhaps it's time to exit gracefully.



Ahhhh, right. Yeah, that was an unfortunate typo.




Pickman's model said:


> in all honesty i'm not sure how much SpackleFrog adds to the debate when much of what he's posted seems more informed by fantasy than reality.



An interesting question, but at least I occasionally step away from the keyboard...


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 3, 2015)

Latest online poll from The Mirror - who would you like to be the new Labour leader?

Jeremy Corbyn - 100%
Andy Burnham - 0%
Yvette Cooper - 0%
Liz Kendall - 0%

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-chiefs-under-growing-pressure-6172491


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 3, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Latest online poll from The Mirror - who would you like to be the new Labour leader?
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn - 100%
> Andy Burnham - 0%
> ...



I love the Mirror's polls. I see them as a work of satire against the whole phenomenon of polling, endlessly proving that you can use a poll to produce any result you want.


----------



## killer b (Aug 3, 2015)

The mirror has been against corbyn in all the articles I've seen (including the one linked to). I'm not sure that's the result they want (probably some kind of programming glitch)


----------



## brogdale (Aug 3, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Latest online poll from The Mirror - who would you like to be the new Labour leader?
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn - 100%
> Andy Burnham - 0%
> ...


by all accounts Kendall was lucky to get rounded up to 0%


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 3, 2015)

Even people who don't exist won't vote for her.


----------



## killer b (Aug 3, 2015)

that poll is really odd - if you vote for anyone other than Corbyn, it displays the result to you as 50% Corbyn, 50% whoever you chose...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 3, 2015)

killer b said:


> that poll is really odd - if you vote for anyone other than Corbyn, it displays the result to you as 50% Corbyn, 50% whoever you chose...



Evidently yours was only the second vote.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> An interesting question, but at least I occasionally step away from the keyboard...


and? is that supposed to compensate for the shallow and facile politics you espouse?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 3, 2015)

killer b said:


> that poll is really odd - if you vote for anyone other than Corbyn, it displays the result to you as 50% Corbyn, 50% whoever you chose...


 


SpookyFrank said:


> Evidently yours was only the second vote.


 
*Scribbles in ledger*


> killer b did not vote for Cmbe Cozza - possibly going soft on multitudinous positionism - to be monitored.


----------



## treelover (Aug 3, 2015)

Shadow Chancellor Chris Leslie has attacked JC's economic plans and said he won't serve in his 'hard left' shadow cabinet, I now think a split is becoming more likely.


----------



## killer b (Aug 3, 2015)

No one gives a shit what Chris Leslie thinks.


----------



## treelover (Aug 3, 2015)

Please explain, the media does, the tories will, he is SC, they will use his remarks about Corbyns economic policies to undermine them,

not that they won't try any opportunity anyway.


----------



## andysays (Aug 3, 2015)

killer b said:


> No one gives a shit what Chris Leslie thinks.



I doubt many people even know who he is. Pretty sure I didn't until I heard him on the BBC News earlier today.

There is certainly a continuing right-wing Labour attack on Corbyn, attempting to rubbish everything he's saying, but I don't think it will be nearly as effective as they hope.

Suggestions of splits in the party are as much nonsense after Leslie piped up as they were before.

What is surely far more important is a suitable diminutive for the name Corbyn. I see DaveCinzano using Cozza above, but I prefer Corby. Any other suggestions?


----------



## killer b (Aug 3, 2015)

treelover said:


> Please explain, the media does, the tories will, he is SC, they will use his remarks about Corbyns economic policies to undermine them,
> 
> not that they won't try any opportunity anyway.


Why would I bother explaining anything to you? Its not something you ever feel the need to do.


----------



## andysays (Aug 3, 2015)

And in case anyone is interested, here's a link to the BBC's report on this story, which treelover inexplicibly failed to provide

Labour leadership: Leslie won't serve under Corbyn


----------



## chilango (Aug 3, 2015)

There will be no split in, or from, Labour over this. None. Nothing. No one.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 3, 2015)

only found out yesterday that yvette cooper is married to ed balls. Must pay more attention.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> and? is that supposed to compensate for the shallow and facile politics you espouse?



Bit harsh mate. Look, I love the pedantic jibes, I do, they're often very funny. But you don't espouse politics (I'm sure you have some but you don't attempt to put them across on these boards) and I've got a suspicion you do fuck all in the real world, so I'm not sure how you've arrived at the idea that you're in a position to criticise. In any case, I'm not even espousing anything on this particular thread, just responding to extremely shallow and facile criticism.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> only found out yesterday that yvette cooper is married to ed balls. Must pay more attention.



Oh yes, I was looking forward to the potentail amusement of Balls vs Cooper leadership challenge, before getting the unexpected pleasure of Balls getting ousted at the election


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 3, 2015)

chilango said:


> There will be no split in, or from, Labour over this. None. Nothing. No one.



Wouldn't totally rule it out - although I doubt Corbyn will have the stones to split if he loses.


----------



## treelover (Aug 3, 2015)

Anyone noticed how Corbyn is described as 'hard left', even 'communist', yet Kendall is never described as hard right, nor is Flint who certainly is.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 3, 2015)

its been hard to escape the attempts to depict corbyn as a neo-bolshevik despite the fact that he's just an old school labour social democrat. Grounds shifted that much his position counts as ravening stalinism now.


----------



## chilango (Aug 3, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Wouldn't totally rule it out - although I doubt Corbyn will have the stones to split if he loses.


 
I would.

Completely.

Zero chance of a split.

You can quote me on this!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Bit harsh mate. Look, I love the pedantic jibes, I do, they're often very funny. But you don't espouse politics (I'm sure you have some but you don't attempt to put them across on these boards) and I've got a suspicion you do fuck all in the real world, so I'm not sure how you've arrived at the idea that you're in a position to criticise. In any case, I'm not even espousing anything on this particular thread, just responding to extremely shallow and facile criticism.


let's just get this straight. on the basis that you are ignorant of what i do you think you're in a position to tell me i can't criticise you.

however, even if i did nothing, it's telling that you're reduced to slagging people off on the basis of what you conceive to be their activity rather than what you conceive to be their politics. look at it another way: it's no wonder the organisations in which you're involved, which have pretensions to be mass movements, aren't. tbh your politics are facile. it's follow the labour party round again, in slightly different clothes. it's try to get the labour party to move to the left, with a different vehicle than you tried in the 80s and 90s. it's based around electoral appeals. yet despite your decades of work in this area you've made no impact. your politics have been widely rejected in the arena in which you chose to fight. perhaps some of this has been down to logistical issues: but when you look at how the fascists increased their vote in the 1990s and indeed more recent years with just a bit of legwork - canvassing a few times - it really is pitiful how tusc have done. i don't know, maybe you did get out and canvass. maybe not. but you do have to wonder why you thought it worth losing 150 deposits instead of raising say 15 or 30 and properly fighting it.


----------



## chilango (Aug 3, 2015)

...you might get the odd councillor or individual "figure" (of Owen Jones type "stature") defecting to the Greens or even TUSC.

But no MPs. No collective action. Not even a Marekesque squib of a split.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 3, 2015)

chilango said:


> I would.
> 
> Completely.
> 
> ...



I think its easy to underestimate how loyal labourites can be to the party- the likes of spacklefrog who is younger than me, me myself who only remembers new labour. Well we don't recall a time where they were a force for the good of working class people, when they were a genuine alternative. Not full communism, no. But a bit better than 'yeah me too, capital demands austerity lets deliver it gently'. So it is easy to forget that labourites of corbyns age are utterly dedicated to the vehicle and sincerely believe it can be salvaged.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 3, 2015)

chilango said:


> I would.
> 
> Completely.
> 
> ...



Fair enough, can't fault you for conviction! We'll see.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> let's just get this straight. on the basis that you are ignorant of what i do you think you're in a position to tell me i can't criticise you.
> 
> however, even if i did nothing, it's telling that you're reduced to slagging people off on the basis of what you conceive to be their activity rather than what you conceive to be their politics. look at it another way: it's no wonder the organisations in which you're involved, which have pretensions to be mass movements, aren't. tbh your politics are facile. it's follow the labour party round again, in slightly different clothes. it's try to get the labour party to move to the left, with a different vehicle than you tried in the 80s and 90s. it's based around electoral appeals. yet despite your decades of work in this area you've made no impact. your politics have been widely rejected in the arena in which you chose to fight. perhaps some of this has been down to logistical issues: but when you look at how the fascists increased their vote in the 1990s and indeed more recent years with just a bit of legwork - canvassing a few times - it really is pitiful how tusc have done. i don't know, maybe you did get out and canvass. maybe not. but you do have to wonder why you thought it worth losing 150 deposits instead of raising say 15 or 30 and properly fighting it.



Look, I appreciate and am aware of your criticisms. But it's not as if the SP is a purely electoral organisation, and chooses to fight purely within the electoral arena, is it?

As for the money wasted, and the suggestion that we'd be better off picking target seats and "properly fighting", as has been said several times on these boards, the money came with the condition we stand widely. Within that there are some seats that we really threw a lot at, where candidates like Tony Mulhearn and Dave Nellist were standing, and you know what? Still not even close to getting anyone elected. Honestly, right now, I don't see any way to get independent Socialists elected to Parliament. Even the councillors we've got elected are mostly defectors who were already known as Labour councillors. I still think its worthwhile doing it.

I promise you in Sheffield, we did get out and canvass in one seat, where we've historically focused our attention (don't ask me about the swops, fuck knows what they do). And it was fucking hard graft. Feel free to disbelieve if you like, but effort alone isn't gonna be enough to climb the mountain. You can't change objective conditions through sheer will.

It's true that the BNP built a base on the streets through hard work. But it's also true that they had the benefit of a hell of a lot of publicity, and that the mainstream parties and media happily put out racism and anti-migrant sentiment that chimed very well with they're message. That's not true for us, and it never will be.

Feel free to tell me about your politics, and anything you're involved in doing, I'd be interested to hear it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I think its easy to underestimate how loyal labourites can be to the party- the likes of spacklefrog who is younger than me, me myself who only remembers new labour. Well we don't recall a time where they were a force for the good of working class people, when they were a genuine alternative. Not full communism, no. But a bit better than 'yeah me too, capital demands austerity lets deliver it gently'. So it is easy to forget that labourites of corbyns age are utterly dedicated to the vehicle and sincerely believe it can be salvaged.



Totally agree, I can see Corbyn toddling off to the back benches if he loses. But if he wins, and the Blairites aren't able to quickly depose him, I don't think you can rule out a re-run of the SDP split. The Lib Dems would certainly welcome it. Additionally, if the PLP just refuses to recognise Corbyn, there would be a hell of a lot of pressure on him to do something, and it would be much harder (and more humiliating) if he then tried to slink back into obscurity.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Look, I appreciate and am aware of your criticisms. But it's not as if the SP is a purely electoral organisation, and chooses to fight purely within the electoral arena, is it?
> 
> As for the money wasted, and the suggestion that we'd be better off picking target seats and "properly fighting", as has been said several times on these boards, the money came with the condition we stand widely. Within that there are some seats that we really threw a lot at, where candidates like Tony Mulhearn and Dave Nellist were standing, and you know what? Still not even close to getting anyone elected. Honestly, right now, I don't see any way to get independent Socialists elected to Parliament. Even the councillors we've got elected are mostly defectors who were already known as Labour councillors. I still think its worthwhile doing it.
> 
> ...


tbh most of the time i would in years gone by have spent fomenting disorder goes on being a union rep. as for my politicks i would have thought that over the past two years you've been here i'd made them abundantly clear.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 3, 2015)

killer b said:


> No one gives a shit what Chris Leslie thinks.



Does anyone really give a shit what any of them thinks?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh most of the time i would in years gone by have spent fomenting disorder goes on being a union rep. as for my politicks i would have thought that over the past two years you've been here i'd made them abundantly clear.



Broadly but I haven't picked up the detail. Unison HE isn't it?


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 3, 2015)

The last thing the Tories and their masters want is the illusion of a united anti austerity opposition.
They will use their thousand plus years experience to nullify any stirrings of dissent and unruly stances.
As Josef Goebbels said, 'the press is a giant keyboard on which governments can play'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Broadly but I haven't picked up the detail. Unison HE isn't it?


yes


----------



## charliez (Aug 4, 2015)

This Corbyn bloke looks like an absolute wet flannel/cunt.

If he gets the Labour leader job, Tories are almost guaranteed the next term.

Shite beard too.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 4, 2015)

charliez said:


> This Corbyn bloke looks like an absolute wet flannel/cunt.
> 
> If he gets the Labour leader job, Tories are almost guaranteed the next term.
> 
> Shite beard too.



Top bantz m8


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> The last thing the Tories and their masters want is the illusion of a united anti austerity opposition.
> They will use their thousand plus years experience to nullify any stirrings of dissent and unruly stances.
> As Josef Goebbels said, 'the press is a giant keyboard on which governments can play'.


cameron is cacafonix then


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 4, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> its been hard to escape the attempts to depict corbyn as a neo-bolshevik despite the fact that he's just an old school labour social democrat. Grounds shifted that much his position counts as ravening stalinism now.



That's kind of where I see that value of this whole business though.

There's value in having a Labour leader who is willing to make the case from that position for anything other than 100% neoliberal consensus, even if he accomplishes absolutely nothing else (which given the veto capital has over democracy seems likely)

In my head at least the value of 'Corbynmania' is a bit like the value of the Greeks voting 'no' even though Syriza sold them out a few days later.

It makes the clash between democracy and capital and its impact on the interests of ordinary people more widely and clearly apparent.


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2015)

There's a response to Chris leslie here from the economist who wrote most of corbyn's economic policy btw: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...xfs&st_refDomain=t.co&st_refQuery=/WhfxCNl5yL


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 4, 2015)

charliez said:


> This Corbyn bloke looks like an absolute wet flannel/cunt.
> 
> If he gets the Labour leader job, Tories are almost guaranteed the next term.
> 
> Shite beard too.



Pad that out a little and you've got a great shot at a job at the Guardian.


----------



## Belushi (Aug 4, 2015)

Fuck off Toynbee

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...amble-labour-future-yvette-cooper-best-chance


----------



## two sheds (Aug 4, 2015)

killer b said:


> There's a response to Chris leslie here from the economist who wrote most of corbyn's economic policy btw: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...xfs&st_refDomain=t.co&st_refQuery=/WhfxCNl5yL



I understood bits of that  . Looks very clear and very sensible. 

Why is the aim for slight inflation by the way? I'd have thought you'd want to aim for zero inflation, or is it for example supposed to be tied to GDP in some way?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 4, 2015)

of course she backs the patronising deputy head, the pompous shit plays the same role herself


----------



## andysays (Aug 4, 2015)

two sheds said:


> I understood bits of that  . Looks very clear and very sensible.
> 
> Why is the aim for slight inflation by the way? I'd have thought you'd want to aim for zero inflation, or is it for example supposed to be tied to GDP in some way?



I heard the economist/adviser interviewed on World at One yesterday, and he was saying that we actually need some inflation to create/stimulate growth.

He also made the point that there was no real argument about using public money to bail out the banking crisis, but these moderate plans to inject public money to create jobs doing things the country actually needs are being described as tantamount to Marxism, whereas it's actually trad social democracy/Keynesism. The whole piece, including comments from a Kendall supporter, is worth listening to, IMO

ETA: it's in here somewhere


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 4, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> cameron is cacafonix then



He ought to be suspended from his tree.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 4, 2015)

charliez said:


> This Corbyn bloke looks like an absolute wet flannel/cunt.
> 
> If he gets the Labour leader job, Tories are almost guaranteed the next term.
> 
> Shite beard too.


Nurse! This one's dead!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2015)

killer b said:


> No one gives a shit what Chris Leslie thinks.



Who the fuck is Chris Leslie (in the sense of "why does he think Corbyn would offer him a job merely because he's Shadow Chancellor)? Looks like another Blairite wankshaft.


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2015)

He's not planning on offering anyone cabinet jobs I don't think - isn't he proposing the shadow cabinet be elected by the PLP?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 4, 2015)

"Shrunken politics"? How about "lazy journalism from a piss-poor opinion former"? Here's some dreck from Iain Martin's online rag CapX.


> Such a party would be explicitly a coalition of interest groups – of fandoms, if you like. And each of these would look out rather than in, for example putting on joint events or offering shared memberships with other groups (such as the National Trust, TaxPayers’ Alliance or even the One Direction fanclub).
> http://www.capx.co/trump-and-corbyn-are-a-symptom-of-our-shrunken-politics/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2015)

andysays said:


> What is surely far more important is a suitable diminutive for the name Corbyn. I see DaveCinzano using Cozza above, but I prefer Corby. Any other suggestions?



The Corbster
El Corberino
Yeremy Yosipovych (MI5's favourite!)


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who the fuck is Chris Leslie (in the sense of "why does he think Corbyn would offer him a job merely because he's Shadow Chancellor)? Looks like another Blairite wankshaft.


another talentless blairite wankshaft


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who the fuck is Chris Leslie (in the sense of "why does he think Corbyn would offer him a job merely because he's Shadow Chancellor)? Looks like another Blairite wankshaft.



I'd honestly never heard of him before yesterday. His job title should really be 'Short-Term stopgap Shadow Chancellor' - he's just a bloke who's in a position because someone has to be and it can't be anyone who's going to actually try and do anything.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2015)

killer b said:


> He's not planning on offering anyone cabinet jobs I don't think - isn't he proposing the shadow cabinet be elected by the PLP?



Yep. Something he should be pointing out at every opportunity - he's for putting power back in the hands of the PLP (and of the CLPs), and the Progressites hate it, because members of the PLP can become something more than lobby-fodder.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I'd honestly never heard of him before yesterday. His job title should really be 'Short-Term stopgap Shadow Chancellor' - he's just a bloke who's in a position because someone has to be and it can't be anyone who's going to actually try and do anything.


his number came up and they're readying the bullet with his name on it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2015)

treelover said:


> Anyone noticed how Corbyn is described as 'hard left', even 'communist', yet Kendall is never described as hard right, nor is Flint who certainly is.



Noticed and noted previously on this thread and others.


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep. Something he should be pointing out at every opportunity - he's for putting power back in the hands of the PLP (and of the CLPs), and the Progressites hate it, because members of the PLP can become something more than lobby-fodder.


it also rules out the dread spectre of Diane Abbot in the shadow cabinet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> its been hard to escape the attempts to depict corbyn as a neo-bolshevik despite the fact that he's just an old school labour social democrat. Grounds shifted that much his position counts as ravening stalinism now.



The fact that incrementalist quasi-Fabianism is nothing like communism cannot be allowed to get in the way of journalism!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2015)

killer b said:


> it also rules out the dread spectre of Diane Abbot in the shadow cabinet.





I do kind of wish Bernie Grant were still alive and representing.


----------



## andysays (Aug 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Corbster
> El Corberino
> Yeremy Yosipovych (MI5's favourite!)



Why do I get the impression you're not taking this very seriously...?


----------



## charliez (Aug 4, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Nurse! This one's dead!



But not as dead as the Labour Party clearly is with this no mark Corbyn as front runner.

If you consider that body language accounts for 55% of communication (7% verbal and 38% tone of voice), then you realise that this Geography teacher looking lightweight can only further damage the LP to a situation of near beyond repair.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 4, 2015)

88.7 % of all statistics are totally made-up


----------



## cantsin (Aug 4, 2015)

charliez said:


> But not as dead as the Labour Party clearly is with this no mark Corbyn as front runner.
> 
> If you consider that body language accounts for 55% of communication (7% verbal and 38% tone of voice), then you realise that this Geography teacher looking lightweight can only further damage the LP to a situation of near beyond repair.



meanwhile, 1500 @ Camden Town hall last night, photos of locked out youngers crowding onto window sills to hear JC speak...but thanks for sharing your insights.

As for 'lightweight' , what does that even mean in this context ? What 'heavyweights' are you comparing him to ?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2015)

charliez said:


> But not as dead as the Labour Party clearly is with this no mark Corbyn as front runner.
> 
> If you consider that body language accounts for 55% of communication (7% verbal and 38% tone of voice), then you realise that this Geography teacher looking lightweight can only further damage the LP to a situation of near beyond repair.



Crap invented stats. Body language varies from individual to individual.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2015)

/.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I do kind of wish Bernie Grant were still alive and representing.


met the great man once.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who the fuck is Chris Leslie (in the sense of "why does he think Corbyn would offer him a job merely because he's Shadow Chancellor)? Looks like another Blairite wankshaft.



My local MP. A complete nonentity as far as I can tell. Unless Labour's talent pool has well and truly run dry I can't see him getting a permanent job in a proper shadow cabinet.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 88.7 % of all statistics are totally made-up



This figure has risen to around 94% since the internet came along.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> This figure has risen to around 94% since the internet came along.


experts believe it will reach 102.8% by mid-2020.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 4, 2015)

charliez said:


> But not as dead as the Labour Party clearly is with this no mark Corbyn as front runner.
> 
> If you consider that body language accounts for 55% of communication (7% verbal and 38% tone of voice), then you realise that this Geography teacher looking lightweight can only further damage the LP to a situation of near beyond repair.



Isn't it traditional to have some sort of election where the general public decides which party gets into government? Rather than just allowing a bunch of loudmouth idiots to decide the matter years in advance by telling everyone which candidates can win and which can't, based on no real evidence one way or the other?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 4, 2015)

charliez said:


> But not as dead as the Labour Party clearly is with this no mark Corbyn as front runner.
> 
> If you consider that body language accounts for 55% of communication (7% verbal and 38% tone of voice), then you realise that this Geography teacher looking lightweight can only further damage the LP to a situation of near beyond repair.


Hilarious and riddled with hand-me-down clichés from the Tory press. My, you're really excelling yourself here, bubba.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 4, 2015)

As for him looking like a geography teacher, have a wee glance at the current Tory cabinet and tell me if you think looks are really a key factor in determining who gets into government. Michael Gove is in the government, and he looks like an elderly foetus.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who the fuck is Chris Leslie (in the sense of "why does he think Corbyn would offer him a job merely because he's Shadow Chancellor)? Looks like another Blairite wankshaft.


Or Chris (I'm going for a) Leslie.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Or Chris (I'm going for a) Leslie.


yeh but then people would start thinking it was to do with lovely lesley judd


----------



## J Ed (Aug 4, 2015)

How do I vote that cat in?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2015)

J Ed said:


> How do I vote that cat in?


just write it in.


----------



## Libertad (Aug 4, 2015)

Jason.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2015)

Libertad said:


> Jason.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Corbster
> El Corberino
> Yeremy Yosipovych (MI5's favourite!)


Oswald Corbynpot?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> Oswald Corbynpot?


cor byny gov


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 4, 2015)

Mikhail Corbynchev?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep. Something he should be pointing out at every opportunity - he's for putting power back in the hands of the PLP (and of the CLPs), and the Progressites hate it, because members of the PLP can become something more than lobby-fodder.



Should he? The PLP are the ones that are gonna do him in the first chance they get if he wins. Just like Benn, he seems to believe that the Labour Right are not only to be tolerated but actively enabled.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Should he? The PLP are the ones that are gonna do him in the first chance they get if he wins. Just like Benn, he seems to believe that the Labour Right are not only to be tolerated but actively enabled.



IMO he's got to show the PLP it's better to support him than shit on him, and part of how he might achieve that with the more "independent" back-benchers is by letting them know he's not going to micro-manage them.
Probably a forlorn hope, though.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 4, 2015)

> The PLP are the ones that are gonna do him in



The thinking is presumably to weaken support from perpetual backbencher types for a right-wing coup by offering a them little something for good behaviour.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> IMO he's got to show the PLP it's better to support him than shit on him, and part of how he might achieve that with the more "independent" back-benchers is by letting them know he's not going to micro-manage them.
> Probably a forlorn hope, though.



I don't see him getting any concessions or leniency from the Blairites - how many Labour MP's have already said they wouldn't serve in his cabinet? Allowing them in the cabinet would be total madness.

Guess it depends on what he's decided - does he believe that if he plays nice he'll be allowed to lead the party? If so he's probably already thinking about concessions. If he doesn't he may be attempting to appear as reasonable as possible for the sake of political expediency.


----------



## chilango (Aug 4, 2015)

andysays said:


> Why do I get the impression you're not taking this very seriously...?



Given the press tv and Palestinian stuff likely to be chucked around...

Jeremy Corbynladen


----------



## BigTom (Aug 4, 2015)

two sheds said:


> I understood bits of that  . Looks very clear and very sensible.
> 
> Why is the aim for slight inflation by the way? I'd have thought you'd want to aim for zero inflation, or is it for example supposed to be tied to GDP in some way?



I think some of the inflation/deflation thing is academic economics and I'd be surprised if it really mattered (in this way) in the real world - clearly will with high levels of deflation/inflation but low levels I don't see it affecting people's decisions that much, though perhaps accross the economy as a whole it adds up to be noticeable.

The academic argument runs that when you have deflation, this means that prices are falling, so if you have £1 and spend it today, you'll get £1 worth of stuff. But if you wait, save it, and spend it tomorrow, you'll get £1.10 worth of stuff. So deflation provides an incentive to save, and not to spend or invest. Inflation works the other way, and encourages people to spend/invest or their money loses value. If inflation gets too high then it's a problem due to confidence in the currency, but a small amount of inflation is not a problem (in these terms - 2% inflation is a fucker when wages aren't rising but food prices are).

There's also the slightly more real world point that inflation is inevitable, people want pay rises (partly because of inflation, partly because of how good it feels to get a pay rise) and this means that (a) costs rise and (b) people have more money to spend so causing inflation (which then feeds back into more need/demand for pay rises). So aiming for zero inflation is working against the nature of the system, a small amount of inflation actually gives you a more steady state.

Personally I'd not be too worried about deflation at the moment, given how much real wages have fallen in the past decade, it'd be a good thing if prices fell for a while imo.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 4, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Personally I'd not be too worried about deflation at the moment, given how much real wages have fallen in the past decade, it'd be a good thing if prices fell for a while imo.



I'd take issue with this point. Firstly, despite deflation happening, prices don't always automatically fall - it's not the case for rail fares or housing at the moment for example. Plus which, if people do wait to buy things as you say, causing demand to fall, or if falling prices affect profit margins, companies will respond with wage cuts and job losses.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 4, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'd take issue with this point. Firstly, despite deflation happening, prices don't always automatically fall - it's not the case for rail fares or housing at the moment for example. Plus which, if people do wait to buy things as you say, causing demand to fall, or if falling prices affect profit margins, companies will respond with wage cuts and job losses.



First bit, yeah, totally, and the detail of inflation/deflation is really important, not just the headline figure - no good if luxury goods are collapsing in price whilst neccessary stuff gets more expensive, and the balance is that RPI/CPI falls.
Second bit, I'm not just not convinced that it's a factor outside of academia, I don't think people really respond to inflation/deflation by spending more/less because their money will be worth less/more tomorrow - not to small levels of it anyway, hyper inflation/deflation certainly, but a few %, I'm not convinced it'll happen. If it did happen then yes, it'd be shit and need correcting, I just don't think it will.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 4, 2015)

BigTom said:


> First bit, yeah, totally, and the detail of inflation/deflation is really important, not just the headline figure - no good if luxury goods are collapsing in price whilst neccessary stuff gets more expensive, and the balance is that RPI/CPI falls.
> Second bit, I'm not just not convinced that it's a factor outside of academia, I don't think people really respond to inflation/deflation by spending more/less because their money will be worth less/more tomorrow - not to small levels of it anyway, hyper inflation/deflation certainly, but a few %, I'm not convinced it'll happen. If it did happen then yes, it'd be shit and need correcting, I just don't think it will.



It happens to an extent - with big purchases people do wait until things are cheaper. January sales etc prove that. Those with savings/better incomes do tend to wait for the best time to buy. And those on the breadline already consciously travel in the cheapest way, buy food from the cheapest places etc. When I was a kid my parents would go to three different supermarkets just to get the best prices on everything we needed - households do factor in this stuff. In any case, even without that, deflation hurts profits in some/many sectors and the capitalist class doesn't just sit back and take the hit.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 4, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> It happens to an extent - with big purchases people do wait until things are cheaper. January sales etc prove that. Those with savings/better incomes do tend to wait for the best time to buy. And those on the breadline already consciously travel in the cheapest way, buy food from the cheapest places etc. When I was a kid my parents would go to three different supermarkets just to get the best prices on everything we needed - households do factor in this stuff. In any case, even without that, deflation hurts profits in some/many sectors and the capitalist class doesn't just sit back and take the hit.



January sales and the like are a certainty though, what I don't think happens is that people sit around and think, oh there's 2% deflation so I won't buy anything today cos price might have dropped next month. The changes are too small and unpredictable to affect peoples' spending. I don't think that a small amount of inflation affects peoples' spending either, in the sense that people don't rush to spend their paycheck as soon as it's in because by the end of the month prices might have been nudged up (whereas with big inflation people definitely would). I don't think it affects the proportions of how much people spend or save basically, though it does affect how much they can buy, that's not the effect that academic economists are talking about when they get worried about spending/investment falling due to deflation ime/imo.
Profits though yeah, I wasn't thinking about that at all.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 4, 2015)

It's already the case that in things like tech that prices generally fall over time and it doesn't seem to stop people buying new stuff. If you want a new computer or something similar the chances are it will be cheaper in the future but you want the use value out of it in that time.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 4, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> another talentless blairite wankshaft



Another clueless talentless blairite wankshaft


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 4, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> It's already the case that in things like tech that prices generally fall over time and it doesn't seem to stop people buying new stuff. If you want a new computer or something similar the chances are it will be cheaper in the future but you want the use value out of it in that time.



Well, I wait for shit. Just got me a PS3 - only £80


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 4, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Well, I wait for shit. Just got me a PS3 - only £80



I reckon you could have got one for fifty if you'd hung on for a year.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 4, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I reckon you could have got one for fifty if you'd hung on for a year.



BUGGER


----------



## two sheds (Aug 4, 2015)

and in three years it'll be worth bugger all


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 4, 2015)

two sheds said:


> and in three years it'll be worth bugger all



But in fifteen years it might be worth a bit...

Not that it will matter as I still won't have completed GTA 4


----------



## charliez (Aug 5, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Hilarious and riddled with hand-me-down clichés from the Tory press. My, you're really excelling yourself here, bubba.



So you basically agree with me if not reluctantly.

Do you know whether Corbyn has passed the bacon sandwich test yet?

His scraggy beard may impede him.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 5, 2015)

He keeps coming with policies that will be overwhelmingly popular: 

*



			Tony Blair could face trial over 'illegal' Iraq war, says Jeremy Corbyn
		
Click to expand...

*


> Corbyn, the Labour leadership frontrunner, claims Chilcot report may lead to ‘consequences’ for former PM over decisions made during 2003 invasion



http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...uld-face-trial-illegal-iraq-war-jeremy-corbyn

They admit that Corbyn's leadership 'frontrunner' and don't even mention his beard or scruffy clothing. What's going on?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2015)

two sheds said:


> He keeps coming with policies that will be overwhelmingly popular:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the times they are a-changin'


----------



## two sheds (Aug 5, 2015)

Eve of destruction


----------



## Libertad (Aug 5, 2015)




----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 5, 2015)

charliez said:


> So you basically agree with me if not reluctantly.


You're delusional. Go and have a lie down.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 5, 2015)

two sheds said:


> He keeps coming with policies that will be overwhelmingly popular:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


At the risk of pissing on everyone's parade, isn't it a classic trope of politics to promise lots of things only to be hamstrung by the machinations of the political machine? Campaign in poetry, govern in prose sort of thing?

I just remember a lot of headline claims, promises and policies from any number of candidates that then failed to materialise when that candidate got into power.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 5, 2015)

"Labour leadership vote: Harriet Harman asks MPs to vet new party members

Move follows concerns that votes for Jeremy Corbyn from trade unionists as well as bogus rightwing applicants could undermine integrity of party ballot"

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=twt_politics*gdnukpolitics


----------



## andysays (Aug 5, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> "Labour leadership vote: Harriet Harman asks MPs to vet new party members
> 
> Move follows concerns that votes for Jeremy Corbyn from trade unionists as well as bogus rightwing applicants could undermine integrity of party ballot"
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/04/labour-leadership-harriet-harman-mps-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=twt_politics*gdnukpolitics



I just saw that


> Harriet Harman is so concerned that the Labour leadership contest may be infiltrated by entryists on the left and the right that she has written to every Labour MP with the names of people in their constituency who have signed up as party members or registered as supporters since the election.The interim Labour leader wants the MPs to report any of the new members or registered supporters who are members of other parties or are *known troublemakers*


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> You're delusional. Go and have a lie down.


not sure that will effect a cure


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 5, 2015)

andysays said:


> I just saw that
> 
> 
> 
> > The interim Labour leader wants the MPs to report any of the new members or registered supporters who are members of other parties or are *known troublemakers*





I suppose at least they're consistent with trying to be more right wing.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 5, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> At the risk of pissing on everyone's parade, isn't it a classic trope of politics to promise lots of things only to be hamstrung by the machinations of the political machine? Campaign in poetry, govern in prose sort of thing?
> 
> I just remember a lot of headline claims, promises and policies from any number of candidates that then failed to materialise when that candidate got into power.



Yes, could be, but he does seem to believe the things he says - in this instance was actively against the war. The policies he's suggesting do seem to make economic sense and he's suggesting them in full knowledge that the media will have a field day attacking him. This seems very different from, for example, Burnham today saying he'll nationalize the railways which just looks like he wanted a policy that would be popular but didn't really care what it was and will immediately forget it if elected.

As you say though ...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 5, 2015)

two sheds said:


> Yes, could be, but he does seem to believe the things he says


I'm not suggesting he doesn't believe the things he says, just that reality may differ from what he wants to do. There's countless politicos who with all the best intentions have failed to make good on their promises because of all the others who don't want them to.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 5, 2015)

Here's another one of those "support for Corbyn reflects an emotional spasm" pieces written by a former Labour communications manager. Nuff said.


> “You call that statesmanship? I call it an emotional spasm.”
> 
> _Aneurin Bevan, shadow foreign secretary, 1959 Labour party conference_
> 
> ...


----------



## killer b (Aug 5, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> I'm not suggesting he doesn't believe the things he says, just that reality may differ from what he wants to do. There's countless politicos who with all the best intentions have failed to make good on their promises because of all the others who don't want them to.


Blair is never going on trial for war crimes, and Corbyn will have no expectation of it ever happening. It's rhetoric.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2015)

two sheds said:


> He keeps coming with policies that will be overwhelmingly popular:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They believe that straightforwardly hinting that Corbyn supports the idea of Blair being tried is harmful enough, the Cloud-Cuckooland wankers.


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 5, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> "Harriet Harman [concerned that]...bogus rightwing applicants could undermine integrity of party ballot"



How would this distinguish them from the majority of the leadership candidates themselves?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 5, 2015)

killer b said:


> Blair is never going on trial for war crimes, and Corbyn will have no expectation of it ever happening. It's rhetoric.



He would be on the first flight to the US at the merest hint of it happening (assuming he was spending any time at all in the UK) but the fact that he is willing to say that it should happen is progress imo.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2015)

J Ed said:


> He would be on the first flight to the US at the merest hint of it happening (assuming he was spending any time at all in the UK) but the fact that he is willing to say that it should happen is progress imo.


are all the hes in your post referring to the same person?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 5, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> are all the hes in your post referring to the same person?



If they are then the lizards have already won


----------



## killer b (Aug 5, 2015)

J Ed said:


> He would be on the first flight to the US at the merest hint of it happening (assuming he was spending any time at all in the UK) but the fact that he is willing to say that it should happen is progress imo.


What choice does he have? He's on record for saying it in the past, and is running as the straight talking no bullshit candidate - so when questioned on the topic he's got to say the same thing he's been saying for years or be branded a flip-flopping u-turner.


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 5, 2015)

J Ed said:


> He would be on the first flight to the US at the merest hint of it happening (assuming he was spending any time at all in the UK) but the fact that he is willing to say that it should happen is progress imo.



he says it could happen not that it should.

eta he says not he say's etc.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2015)

the sun could have a coronal mass ejection that acts like an EMP and wipes out half the worlds computers but its not likely anytime soon.

in some parallel world where that happened he could hide out with Assange playing ping pong in the embassy


----------



## Ole (Aug 5, 2015)

Buckaroo said:


> he say's it could happen not that it should.


He definitely said 'should'.


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 5, 2015)

Ole said:


> He definitely said 'should'.



Where did he say should?

Not in the Newsnight interview? He comes close but he doesn't say it.


----------



## Ole (Aug 5, 2015)

Buckaroo said:


> Where did he say should?
> 
> Not in the Newsnight interview? He comes close but he doesn't say it.



At 7m:48s and again at 8m:05s.


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 5, 2015)

Ole said:


> At 7m:48s and again at 8m:05s.



He says "if he committed war crimes, yes" and "I wanna see all those who commit war crimes tried". Should he be tried for war crimes, well yes if he committed war crimes. Someone else said it was a war crime etc The leader of your party was a war criminal, if that's what you think, say it! He doesn't say it should happen.


----------



## Ole (Aug 5, 2015)

Buckaroo said:


> He says "if he committed war crimes, yes" and "I wanna see all those who commit war crimes tried". Should he be tried for war crimes, well yes if he committed war crimes. Someone else said it was a war crime etc The leader of your party was a war criminal, if that's what you think, say it! He doesn't say it should happen.



He wobbled and wavered from stating it as clearly as he could have but I think it's fair to say what it amounted to was 'should'.

"So should he be tried for war crimes?"

- "If he's committed a war crime, yes. Everybody's who's committed a war crime should be."

"Do you think he has?"

- "I think it was an illegal war. I'm confident about that - indeed Kofi Annan confirmed it was an illegal war, and therefore he has to explain to that. Is he going to be tried for it? I don't know. Could he be tried for it? Possibly."

"You would like to see him tried for war crimes?"

- "I want to see all those that committed war crimes tried for it, and those that made the decisions that went with it."


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 5, 2015)

Not sure how much more people want here. 

He'd be crucified for coming straight out and saying he wanted Blair arrested. He's making his position wrt the war and Blair's role and responsibilities within it as clear as he can without coming straight out with calling Blair a war criminal. 

Seems a pretty decent position given who he is.


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure how much more people want here.
> 
> He'd be crucified for coming straight out and saying he wanted Blair arrested. He's making his position wrt the war and Blair's role and responsibilities within it as clear as he can without coming straight out with calling Blair a war criminal.
> 
> Seems a pretty decent position given who he is.



I agree it's as much as could be hoped for and way more than most public figures would be prepared to say. But he's hardly going to make them stop asking with a response like 'if he/someone committed a war crime, he/they should be tried for it'. It's a convoluted way to try and position yourself, given that the purpose of a trial would be to establish exactly that, so to only try people who had already been proven to have committed one would be a redundant process.


----------



## andysays (Aug 6, 2015)

Prompted by another email from Unite this morning and the story yesterday of Harman's plan to get new supporters "vetted" by their local MP I've now taken the opportunity to sign up (for free, as I'm already a member of Unite).

If nothing else, I'll find out if David Lammy has me down on his list of "trouble makers"...


----------



## treelover (Aug 6, 2015)

100's queuing outside at Norwich JC meeting


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 6, 2015)

treelover said:


> 100's left outside at Norwich JC meeting



Nah they're hard working people left stranded by the transport industrial dispute.


----------



## treelover (Aug 6, 2015)

Couldn't bear to read it but apparently in the D/M , Burnham is now saying Labour "were too soft on welfare", any corroboration?


----------



## sihhi (Aug 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure how much more people want here.
> 
> He'd be crucified for coming straight out and saying he wanted Blair arrested. He's making his position wrt the war and Blair's role and responsibilities within it as clear as he can without coming straight out with calling Blair a war criminal.
> 
> Seems a pretty decent position given who he is.



The only point that matters is this:

Q: You would like to see him tried for war crimes?"

A: I want to see all those that committed war crimes tried for it, and those that made the decisions that went with it.

The answer for anyone human is obviously 'Yes', he's entering Miliband mealy-mouthed nonsense territory. 
No responsibility no clarity. Would Corbyn accept this kind of drivel from a Tory MP about John Major or David Cameron's war crimes?
He's undercut his case to be an effective opposition.
Either you think a case should be brought against Blair or it shouldn't, he ums and ahs to no effect.

It looks like fraud written all over, will Corbyn immediately gut all of Britain's nuclear weapons and begin immediate withdrawal from NATO?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Aug 6, 2015)

I think his answer's not a bad one, myself... it's totally correct!


----------



## cantsin (Aug 6, 2015)

" the supposedly anti-union laws brought in since 1979"  - highlight of a Martin Kettle anti Corbyn / anti Union whineathon in the Graun today - he's linking to Aaronivitch leader column rants on his Twitter , this shits really exposing the Grauniadistas


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 7, 2015)

sihhi said:


> The only point that matters is this:
> 
> Q: You would like to see him tried for war crimes?"
> 
> ...


It looks to me like a left social democrat being about the best he can be given his position and aims.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 7, 2015)

We'll very likely be visiting Merthyr Tydfil (!) at noon on Tuesday to hear Jeremy Corbyn speak ...

Merthyr's more or less on the way to our Shropshire holiday next week ahead of Farmer Phil's Festival, so it seems like a good opportunity for us curious types


----------



## MochaSoul (Aug 7, 2015)

On himself v media 
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-and-my-campaign--and-the-truth-10443302.html


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> us curious types


at least you're not a lib dem


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 7, 2015)

Times and Grauniad have had a load more whining about Militant style infiltration today. Times piece is pay walled, although I can paste text when I get in if people are desperate to read it. Grauniad piece is here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ndidates-and-members-rival-parties-apply-vote

Upshot is despite last weeks coverage of us denying that we're trying to influence the result, Clive Heemskirk was on Channel 4 news a little while ago and we're getting another article in the Indy on Sunday.

Which is nice like, but I cant help but feel frustrated about how little coverage we got in the election, especially as we're now getting national media attention for doing sweet football.

I know that's exactly what I should expect but it's still annoying.


----------



## belboid (Aug 7, 2015)

The Times piece is pictured/written up on the Labour Leadership thread


----------



## BigTom (Aug 7, 2015)

Just had an email saying I've got a vote as a member of unite community union - treelover  I think you might have asked about this earlier in the thread?

Kendall #1 yeah?


----------



## youngian (Aug 8, 2015)

There might be some comment somewhere about how Thatcher, unlike her imitators Brown and Blair, understood the limits of imposing the free market on Middle England; she wouldn't touch rural railway station or post office privatisation for example. Looks like Marxist Jeremy from Wiltshire means business



> Labour leadership contender Jeremy Corbyn has made a rare intervention in support of the Prince of Wales.
> In the interview for BBC Radio 4's On Your Farm programme, he said: "I happen to think the small farmer, the smallholder, is absolutely crucial to the maintenance of food security.
> 
> "It can't all be done by gigantic corporations, agribusinesses. Some of them try, but a lot of them are not interested in biodiversity or culture or rural communities."
> ...


http://uk.infosocial24.com/article/...ight-to-speak-out-in-support-of-small-farmers


----------



## treelover (Aug 8, 2015)

He is pretty smart, the farmers have been looking for support, maybe he will be their champion.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 8, 2015)

That's surely the first time the "baking industry" has appeared in any political commentary of the last hundred years and not been a typo.


----------



## treelover (Aug 8, 2015)

the bakers union is pretty left wing


----------



## eoin_k (Aug 8, 2015)

mauvais said:


> That's surely the first time the "baking industry" has appeared in any political commentary of the last hundred years and not been a typo.



I imagine you'll have seen a few political comment pieces in 1978, when the bakers went on strike. The ability to keep bread on the shelves can quickly become a political issue.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 8, 2015)

eoin_k said:


> I imagine you'll have seen a few political comment pieces in 1978, when the bakers went on strike. The ability to keep bread on the shelves can quickly become a political issue.


Let them eat cake! Oh, wait...


----------



## eoin_k (Aug 8, 2015)

mauvais said:


> Let them eat cake! Oh, wait...



If there was a bread shortage today, do you think the 2 for £3 offer would keep running run on Sainsbury's Brownie Bites, or would market conditions lead to a change in their price?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 8, 2015)

eoin_k said:


> If there was a bread shortage today, do you think the 2 for £3 offer would keep running run on Sainsbury's Brownie Bites, or would market conditions lead to a change in their price?


Predicting just which way the economic cookie will crumble is a rocky road to travel, but the free market will surely provide. One man's bread shortage is another man's shortbreadage.


----------



## treelover (Aug 9, 2015)

> Jeremy Corbyn denies he would bring back Labour's nationalising clause IV
> 
> Spokesperson says leftwing frontrunner for leadership supports ‘some forms of public ownership in some cases’ after criticism of response in interview
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/09/jeremy-corbyn-denies-would-bring-back-clause-iv




He is beginning to flip a bit, stay true JC.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2015)

treelover said:


> He is beginning to flip a bit, stay true JC.


anyone in the labour party for more than a short time is likely to have flipped


----------



## andysays (Aug 9, 2015)

treelover said:


> He is beginning to flip a bit, stay true JC.



I know that clause IV is kind of totemic for many old lefties (like my dad, a long-time LP activist who left when it was abolished) but it seems to me that JC is better sticking to specific concrete measures like rail nationalisation, large scale social housing construction, people's quantitative easing, etc than getting drawn into abstract discussions about the securing for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service, which probably has little resonance with the wider public


----------



## treelover (Aug 9, 2015)

I agree with that, actually, JC is being very shrewd,

btw, Sunday Mirror has come out for Burnham with Cooper as 'Secretary of State' whatever that is.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 9, 2015)

treelover said:


> btw, Sunday Mirror has come out for Burnham with Cooper as 'Secretary of State' whatever that is.


Like with a lot of things on social media, they've probably just C+P'd something American and changed a couple of words.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 9, 2015)

It just means a cabinet minister

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_(United_Kingdom)


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> It just means a cabinet minister
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_(United_Kingdom)


Well, the most senior cabinet member after the PM, they'd stand in for the leader if he was away


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 9, 2015)

belboid said:


> Well, the most senior cabinet member after the PM, they'd stand in for the leader if he was away


No, that would be the deputy PM wouldn't it?


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> No, that would be the deputy PM wouldn't it?


Nope, Clegg rarely stood in for Cameron.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 9, 2015)

belboid said:


> Nope, Clegg rarely stood in for Cameron.


Hmm, yeah. I just read that it doesn't mean they stand in. Plus there isn't always a deputy PM. Nor is there always a 1st Sec of State.

I suppose we have a 'flexible' system which means they can just do whatever they feel like...


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> I suppose we have a 'flexible' system which means they can just do whatever they feel like...


That's the one!


----------



## andysays (Aug 9, 2015)

treelover said:


> I agree with that, actually, JC is being very shrewd,
> 
> btw, *Sunday Mirror has come out for Burnham with Cooper as 'Secretary of State' whatever that is*.



Seems especially odd given that there is also a Deputy Leader contest going on...


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2015)

andysays said:


> Seems especially odd given that there is also a Deputy Leader contest going on...


Burnham has already said he'd appoint a female 'second in command' to deputise for him in parliament. The deputy election is something different,it's largely about organising the Labour Party nationally, not simply in the HoC


----------



## youngian (Aug 9, 2015)

Favourite Corbyn joke of the week:  socialist lion walked into a bar, the barman said "what's the big Clause Four?"

I went to take a look at Corbyn this week in Norwich. As the earlier photo suggested it was packed to the rafters and not the usual suspects on the radical left. The woman next to me hadn't been to a political meeting for 30 years. Jeremy being the gentleman went outside to do a pavement speech before he was due to speak for those who couldn't get in.

What struck me is that Corbyn is no tub thumping pulpit preacher whipping his audience into a frenzy but embellishes his audience with a quiet confidence and sense of purpose. A telling anecdote from Clive Lewis MP explained why he got this ball rolling and persuaded Corbyn to stand: In a PLP Q&A with the other leadership candidates Lewis asked if they would oppose the social housing sell offs; he was met with waffling obfuscation and jelly nailing about having to appeal to aspirant voters. All the candidates look scared of their own shadow and are managers not leaders.

What Corbyn is offering through his public house building programme is a policy you can sell to left leaning voters and so called aspirants in marginals as an expanded housing stock lowers prices and gives people are better chance of getting on the housing ladder it they so wish. I can't see Captain Scarlett, Nicola Murray and Mrs and Mr Cooper selling to either constituency, they have no conviction and can't fake sincerity like Blair. Corbyn however doesn't have to.


----------



## Ole (Aug 9, 2015)

youngian said:


> Favourite Corbyn joke of the week:  socialist lion walked into a bar, the barman said "what's the big Clause Four?"
> 
> I went to take a look Corbyn this week in Norwich. As the earlier photo suggested it was packed to the rafters and not the usual suspects on the radical left. The woman next to me hadn't been to a political meeting for 30 years. Jeremy being the gentleman went outside to do a pavement speech before he was due to speak for those who couldn't get in.
> 
> ...



 very good.


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2015)

> You represent a clear alternative to the suffocating consensus that says there is no alternative to neoliberalism: marketisation, deregulation, privatisation, financialisation, an assault on the bargaining power of labor, regressive tax regimes, and cuts to welfare.
> 
> You will not tell us to be ‘intensely relaxed’ about people getting ‘filthy rich’ and you will not sneer at the trade union movement.
> 
> ...


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2015)

Left Foot Forward refuse to back Corbyn, primarily because of his attitude to Islamists, brave stance.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 10, 2015)

That's Alan Johnson coming out against it rather than the site itself and Left Foot Forward has a few of writers whose overriding concern is the promotion of a neocon foreign policy in social democratic clothing.

Other examples include Henry Jackson Society members Rupert Sutton and James Bloodworth


----------



## BigTom (Aug 10, 2015)

treelover said:


> Left Foot Forward refuse to back Corbyn, primarily because of his attitude to Islamists, brave stance.



not Left Foot Forward, that's a letter from:

*Alan Johnson is the editor of Fathom – For a deeper understanding of Israel and the region, and works for the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM)*

Hardly suprising given who he works for that he'd not support Corbyn.

Left Foot Forward setup by Will Straw iirc, not likely to be favourable to Corbyn anyway.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 10, 2015)

I don't like hezbollah and hamas but they're not exactly ISIS are they?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 10, 2015)

Fathom are dodgy as fuck, its an 'academic' journal printing scholarly propaganda for the Israeli state, who is funding them


----------



## J Ed (Aug 10, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I don't like hezbollah and hamas but they're not exactly ISIS are they?





BigTom said:


> not Left Foot Forward, that's a letter from:
> 
> *Alan Johnson is the editor of Fathom – For a deeper understanding of Israel and the region, and works for the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM)*
> 
> ...



Yeah, look at his other articles it doesn't seem to me like he cares about anything other than defending his employer which is the Israeli state.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 10, 2015)

Ole said:


> very good.


Yeah that nails him, nice one youngian


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 10, 2015)

J Ed said:


> That's Alan Johnson coming out against it rather than the site itself and Left Foot Forward has a few of writers whose overriding concern is the promotion of a neocon foreign policy in social democratic clothing.
> 
> Other examples include Henry Jackson Society members Rupert Sutton and James Bloodworth



I'd be surprised if the rightwing twat Bloodworth was a member of the HJS. He wrote an article a couple of years ago saying Labour should cut all ties with the society:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/20/labour-cut-ties-henry-jackson-society

Joining would be a spectacular u-turn in a short period of time!


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 10, 2015)

Ive got 12 mutual friends with him on fb


----------



## killer b (Aug 10, 2015)

He was in the AWL or something (which allows him to claim belonging to 'the left' while not being of the left at all)


----------



## J Ed (Aug 10, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I'd be surprised if the rightwing twat Bloodworth was a member of the HJS. He wrote an article a couple of years ago saying Labour should cut all ties with the society:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/20/labour-cut-ties-henry-jackson-society
> 
> Joining would be a spectacular u-turn in a short period of time!



Oh, you are right (though I was right about Rupert Sutton) but I still maintain that he is very much within that particular orbit. He speaks at HJS events, for example.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 10, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Oh, you are right (though I was right about Rupert Sutton) but I still maintain that he is very much within that particular orbit. He speaks at HJS events, for example.



Wow. He has even less integrity than I gave him credit for. 2013: 'Labour should cut all ties with the HJS'. 2014: addresses the HJS.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 10, 2015)

He is an idiot who knows _just enough_ to speak untruths to power and make money doing so.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 10, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> We'll very likely be visiting Merthyr Tydfil (!) at noon on Tuesday to hear Jeremy Corbyn speak ...
> 
> Merthyr's more or less on the way to our Shropshire holiday next week ahead of Farmer Phil's Festival, so it seems like a good opportunity for us curious types




Well that was before the Merthyr meeting was cancelled this afternoon (odd website to find that out  , but still).

He's going to be at Aneurin Bevan's old turf at Tredegar instead, at 2:30, then at Cardiff at 7 pm. For various reasons either option would be too complicated for us tomorrow (Tues) 

And we're not even going to Shropshire until Wednesday morning, now .... but the Cardiff venue will be rammed/unenterable, there are too many tempting pubs in Cardiff ahead of 7 pm anyway  , and now, we have to set off pretty damned early on Weds.

Oh well, good luck to Jeremy in South Wales. Not all about us etc. We'd have appreciated getting to hear/see him though.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Yeah, look at his other articles it doesn't seem to me like he cares about anything other than defending his employer which is the Israeli state.



'Different perspectives on Gaza' lol. The guy is being paid by Israel, and thats not even an exaggeration.



> In late 2012 BICOM launched a quarterly ‘journal’
> called Fathom, with the tag line ‘for a deeper
> understanding of Israel and the region’. Edited by
> BICOM’s Senior Researcher Alan Johnson, among
> ...



How can you pretend to have any sort of journalistic or editorial integrity as a 'left wing' website and then give a platform to this shit? Johnson is quite open about who he is and what he does, its not like hes keeping it a secret! 

Wait till ISIS is recognised as a State, then we'll have some pretend lefty writing stuff like 'different perspectives on the yezidi slaves' or 'different perspectives on the death of the crusader pilot'


----------



## mauvais (Aug 11, 2015)

On a personal note, has anyone who signed up as an affiliated supporter via the link in a Unite email actually heard anything? I've had nothing except the original web page that said someone will be in touch.

Deadline is tomorrow so I'm wondering.


----------



## Duncan2 (Aug 11, 2015)

mauvais said:


> On a personal note, has anyone who signed up as an affiliated supporter via the link in a Unite email actually heard anything? I've had nothing except the original web page that said someone will be in touch.
> 
> Deadline is tomorrow so I'm wondering.


i haven't actually-hopefully tomorrow.


----------



## magneze (Aug 11, 2015)

mauvais said:


> On a personal note, has anyone who signed up as an affiliated supporter via the link in a Unite email actually heard anything? I've had nothing except the original web page that said someone will be in touch.
> 
> Deadline is tomorrow so I'm wondering.


Yep, endless spam.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 11, 2015)

magneze said:


> Yep, endless spam.


But no actual confirmation or contact from Labour?



Duncan2 said:


> i haven't actually-hopefully tomorrow.


I guess it doesn't matter until September, but I'm suspicious that the request won't ever be processed.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 11, 2015)

Well posting here on its own marks you down as undesirables.


----------



## JTG (Aug 11, 2015)

mauvais said:


> But no actual confirmation or contact from Labour?
> 
> I guess it doesn't matter until September, but I'm suspicious that the request won't ever be processed.


Ballot papers start going out end of the week so you'll know soon enough


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 11, 2015)

I went to the Cardiff meeting tonight. Over a thousand, loads of young people, usual suspects were present but more importantly lots of people who really aren't. As someone else said, this wasn't tub thumping radicalism but a rather calm analysis of why he felt social democracy was not only morally and politically but strategically the best thing to do. It's evident that for a lot of young people it's Blair who's the outdated dinosaur in 2015 and these ideas are new and exciting. What will happen, we shall see.


----------



## andysays (Aug 11, 2015)

mauvais said:


> On a personal note, has anyone who signed up as an affiliated supporter via the link in a Unite email actually heard anything? I've had nothing except the original web page that said someone will be in touch.
> 
> Deadline is tomorrow so I'm wondering.



Me too


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 11, 2015)

Plumdaff said:


> I went to the Cardiff meeting tonight. Over a thousand, loads of young people, usual suspects were present but more importantly lots of people who really aren't. As someone else said, this wasn't tub thumping radicalism but a rather calm analysis of why he felt social democracy was not only morally and politically but strategically the best thing to do. It's evident that for a lot of young people it's Blair who's the outdated dinosaur in 2015 and these ideas are new and exciting. What will happen, we shall see.



Were there a lot of people who were queueing, but who couldn't get in to that meeting, Plumdaff ?

We'd half-thought about going, after today's Merthyr meeting** was cancelled, but we feared severe inaccessibility at Cardiff in the evening.

**(Merthyr one originally scheduled for noon Tuesday)


----------



## Zabo (Aug 11, 2015)

Plumdaff said:


> I went to the Cardiff meeting tonight. Over a thousand, loads of young people, usual suspects were present but more importantly lots of people who really aren't. As someone else said, this wasn't tub thumping radicalism but a rather calm analysis of why he felt social democracy was not only morally and politically but strategically the best thing to do. It's evident that for a lot of young people it's Blair who's the outdated dinosaur in 2015 and these ideas are new and exciting. What will happen, we shall see.



Sounds good.

In my heart of hearts I would love to support him indirectly but my conscience wouldn't allow me to even piss on the Labour Party let alone give them £3. Each time one of them takes the Royal Oath I just shake my head in despair. I have never been able to reconcile in my mind a party that espouses a pretend egalitarianism  yet has done not a single thing to unshackle itself from the establishment and the monarchy. ''The People's Princess' for fucks sake!

My heartfelt hope is that this sudden 'left' upsurge will rip the so called People's Party to shreds and show it for what it is. I sincerely hope a new party can be formed. A party formed from the grass roots - bottom up. Might even be better not to call it a Party!

It doesn't need me to repeat what many people have said over numerous threads about the Labour Party. In small areas it may be responsive but overall most are nothing more than self-serving. No better than the Vermin or Lie-Dems.

You know when the time is up when they can't even decide whether to vote against the vermin or abstain over welfare cuts?! What the fuck kind of moral dilemma is that?!

Why haven't they had the balls to expel Bliar and his fellow war criminals? So much for ethics.

I hope Jeremy goes awol and becomes a guiding light for a new organisation that has people at its heart. He's not perfect, are any of us?, but he can start the ball rolling.

Good Luck Jeremy


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 12, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Were there a lot of people who were queueing, but who couldn't get in to that meeting, Plumdaff ?
> 
> We'd half-thought about going, after today's Merthyr meeting** was cancelled, but we feared severe inaccessibility at Cardiff in the evening.
> 
> **(Merthyr one originally scheduled for noon Tuesday)



There may well have been queueing which we didn't see because we arrived 6ish to make sure we got in. It was a huge room, 750-800 seater but anyone arriving after half 6 was standing. I think they went the shove everyone in and we'll stress about the fire regs later route - it was very hot and packed. Apparently they got 500 in Tredegar!


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 12, 2015)

andysays said:


> Me too



Me too.

Although I've registered so I have the option of voting, I'm far from convinced that I want to, or that it'll end well for the Labour Party or the left if he actually gets it.

I said several times in threads around the election, in response to Blairite rubbish about how Milliband failed because he didn't convince people fully enough of his centre-barely-left credentials, that I thought they'd have done far better with a proper leftwing manifesto instead of the pleasing-neither-side compromise they cobbled together, that the climate has changed again and what held true in the late 1990s no longer does. But now there's a real prospect of the party acting along those lines, I wonder whether it'll just lead to eighteen months of dispiriting in-fighting before he's dumped for someone more Murdoch-friendly.

Maybe the better long-term prospect is for this supposed massive groundswell of inspired/engaged leftiness to be forced to confront the probability that it's too late to use the Labour Party as the vehicle for that, and to have to do something else about it instead?

It's rare that I'm this much in two minds about anything...


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> Me too.
> 
> Although I've registered so I have the option of voting, I'm far from convinced that I want to, or that it'll end well for the Labour Party or the left if he actually gets it.
> 
> ...


this is a good read, just posted on the other thread.


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> this is a good read, just posted on the other thread.



I guess you meant to post this, that teqniq posted on the other thread: A party of enemies has no future. Labour’s left and right need to go their separate ways.

I agree - very good summary of how things stand.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 12, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> I guess you meant to post this, that teqniq posted on the other thread: A party of enemies has no future. Labour’s left and right need to go their separate ways.
> 
> I agree - very good summary of how things stand.


Assuming corbyn wins (I'm still not convinced he will) the chances of a split in the party certainly increase.  However it all depends on the make up of the party after the leadership election.  He's seemingly doing well in all categories who can vote in the election, but most of the registered supporters will remain just that i.e. non-members.  Much of the party, it's MPs, the policy advisers, the machine remains new-lab/neo-liberal.  A Corbyn victory wouldn't of itself produce a left manifesto or indeed left leadership in the local authorities labour still holds. The other thing is the FPTP electoral system, which does little to encourage splits.  There's a possibility of the right jumping ship, but to where - libs? tories?  Most likely outcome would be Labour muddling on with a strengthened left, slow motion civil war and losing again in 2020.

I'm not into electoral politics and don't see social democracy itself as positive outcome - it is after all a form of capitalism. However I do think a confidently expressed and united social democratic/Keynesian voice could do okay in 2020.  However a corbyn victory wouldn't actually produce that.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 12, 2015)

I suspect a lot of the blairite MPs would end up deciding the best course of action was to quit at the next election and move on to their inevitable end of career positions on the boards of the companies they'd done the bidding of while in power. Their chance to cash in those chips diminishes the further from power they've become, so I'd be surprised not to see a bit of an exodus at the next election (if corbyn wins and keeps the leadership til then).


----------



## andysays (Aug 12, 2015)

free spirit said:


> *I suspect a lot of the blairite MPs would end up deciding the best course of action was to quit at the next election* and move on to their inevitable end of career positions on the boards of the companies they'd done the bidding of while in power. Their chance to cash in those chips diminishes the further from power they've become, so I'd be surprised not to see a bit of an exodus at the next election (if corbyn wins and keeps the leadership til then).



On what basis do you reckon suspect that?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 12, 2015)

For avoidance of doubt & the possibility that Unite will cock things up, I registered directly at http://support.labour.org.uk/

Edit: the email response included this:

"Thank you for saying you support the Labour Party"

Oh _hello_. "Thanks" for _claiming_ to have "genuine" interest, "sir", if that _is_ your real name.


----------



## Fingers (Aug 12, 2015)

I have not had a call from the Labour party yet to confirm I am bonafide or be accused of being an entryist.

I want to undergo some McCarthyist type rigorous interrogation.


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2015)

andysays said:


> On what basis do you reckon suspect that?


I don't think there are many deeply committed blairites tbh - most of the PLP are 'pragmatists' with no real politics. I reckon most will just fall in line rather than drop out.


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> I don't think there are many deeply committed blairites tbh - most of the PLP are 'pragmatists' with no real politics. I reckon most will just fall in line rather than drop out.



Possibly only for as long as it looks likely to be as profitable/career-advancing as quitting and taking on more non-executive directorships or bogus consultancy roles, though.


----------



## belboid (Aug 12, 2015)

If Cameron's reorganisation of constituencies goes through, there will have to be mass reselection of candidates anyway, so its possible a few of the noisy Blairite reactionaries could find themselves thrown out by the new members


----------



## free spirit (Aug 12, 2015)

andysays said:


> On what basis do you reckon suspect that?



gut feeling mostly, but also Burnham gave an interview recently where he was saying that he thought MPs should quite after 20-25 years, and he wanted the chance to have a 2nd career after parliament. He'd be approaching that point at the next election.

I doubt he's the only one who's thinking that way.



> He said: “I think modern politics is intense - it’s changed in my 14 years in parliament. I always felt I would give it my all for 20, 25 years. Never put a time limit on it but then maybe finish off my career by doing something different. If you’ve had a seat for 25 years, people should let some new thinking in.”


 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/andy-burnham-says-mps-should-6194623


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2015)

Burnham isn't a blairite though?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2015)

I'd be more inclined to read that as a vieled dig against corbyn whose been an MP since time began- 'new ideas'


----------



## J Ed (Aug 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> Burnham isn't a blairite though?



He voted for their wars, close enough


----------



## free spirit (Aug 12, 2015)

I probably should have used a different expression, but I was meaning to refer to all the neoliberal types really.


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2015)

It isn't close enough if you're using 'blairite' to describe a particular ideological group within the LP, as FS was doing.


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2015)

if you're counting Burnham as a 'neoliberal type', that's pretty much everyone to the right of the campaign group walking?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> if you're counting Burnham as a 'neoliberal type', that's pretty much everyone to the right of the campaign group walking?



Are you not counting Burnham as a neoliberal then?


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2015)

Not really, no - I don't think it's helpful to crudely lump everyone who's served in a neo-liberal administration in as neoliberals when talking about where they are in the party. Either way he's certainly not on the right of the (parliamentary) party - expecting him and those to the right of him to walk leaves fuck all left.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> Not really, no - I don't think it's helpful to crudely lump everyone who's served in a neo-liberal administration in as neoliberals when talking about where they are in the party. Either way he's certainly not on the right of the (parliamentary) party - expecting him and those to the right of him to walk leaves fuck all left.



I don't think that he is on the right of the party, and it would be tactically stupid for Corbyn supporters to expect and call for him to be pushed out of the party but I am having difficulty reconciling the idea of what he has actually done in power with the idea that he is not a neoliberal. Even the Tories are impressed by the NHS privatisation signed off on by Burnham, he supports the Tory two child policy, voted for the welfare cuts in the budget and favours the welfare cap itself. His whole schtick, especially on welfare, is a more polished version of Kendall's rants. He has also parroted the right of the Labour Party, yellow and blue Tories by implicitly agreeing that the recession in Britain was caused by overspending. He is a neoliberal advocating neoliberal policies in a neoliberal party, the fact that that does not put him on the right of the PLP just shows where the PLP is rather than much else.


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2015)

I'm responding to free spirit 's suggestion that those on the right of the party would drop out by the next election, using a quote from Burnham as an example. I'm not particularly interested in debating Burnham's record.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 12, 2015)

Oh. I don't think that he is on the right of the party or that those who are will drop out.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 12, 2015)

Burnham seems more like a 'these are my deeply held principles and beliefs, but if you don't like them I have others' type than he does right or left tbh. If the party goes one way or another he'd probably just go with it.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> I'm responding to free spirit 's suggestion that those on the right of the party would drop out by the next election, using a quote from Burnham as an example. I'm not particularly interested in debating Burnham's record.


Let no one doubt the hypocritical avarice at the heart of most MP's. The Labour MP'S slagging Corbyn now will be climbing his greasy passage after he wins the leadership and if he goes on to become PM.


----------



## Ole (Aug 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> Burnham isn't a blairite though?


He is. He has called himself a Blairite, although he's trying to rebrand himself now.



> Of his fellow leadership candidates, David Miliband was often touted as a possible challenger to Gordon Brown, while Ed Balls and Ed Miliband were close aides of Mr Brown. Mr Burnham was widely seen as a supporter of Mr Blair but described himself as a "Blairite for Brown".



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10590932


----------



## TopCat (Aug 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> Burnham isn't a blairite though?



He's a cunt.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 12, 2015)

TopCat said:


> He's a cunt.



but we need someone to be tough in future negotiations with the Mysterons


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2015)

S☼I said:


> but we need someone to be tough in future negotiations with the Mysterons


burnham has all the backbone of a lowly worm


----------



## free spirit (Aug 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> if you're counting Burnham as a 'neoliberal type', that's pretty much everyone to the right of the campaign group walking?


I didn't say all of them would walk.

But I do think a lot of those making the loudest noises about Corbyn / stating they'd not serve under him etc would decide on that course of action rather than going in to fight an election on a manifesto they didn't support, with only the potential reward of a seat on the back benches if they won or lost.

That's if Corbyn were able to make it through to the next election as Leader, and they'll probably have a good stab at ensuring that he doesn't make it that far, but once it gets to that 18 month or so run in to the election period I think more of them will consider their options and decide it's a good time to start that second career rather than further destabilising the party in the election period. 

If he does win the leadership contest then there's likely to be a continued surge in left of centre membership to support him, which will leave the more neoliberal wing of the PLP more and more isolated from the rest of the party.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 12, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> burnham has all the backbone of a lowly worm



Fucking hell, Richard Scarry. Our school library had quite a few of his books, and not a single page was without each animal sporting an enormous cock, some of them with dotted lines etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I didn't say all of them would walk.
> 
> But I do think a lot of those making the loudest noises about Corbyn / stating they'd not serve under him etc would decide on that course of action rather than going in to fight an election on a manifesto they didn't support, with only the potential reward of a seat on the back benches if they won or lost.
> 
> ...


i love the smell of speculation in the afternoon

some day this election will be over...


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I didn't say all of them would walk.
> 
> But I do think a lot of those making the loudest noises about Corbyn / stating they'd not serve under him etc would decide on that course of action rather than going in to fight an election on a manifesto they didn't support, with only the potential reward of a seat on the back benches if they won or lost.
> 
> ...


Seems a bit odd to use Burnham as an example then, seeing as he said he would serve under him?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> Seems a bit odd to use Burnham as an example then, seeing as he said he would serve under him?


i don't want to use burnham as an example, i want to make an example of him: completely different


----------



## free spirit (Aug 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> Seems a bit odd to use Burnham as an example then, seeing as he said he would serve under him?


can you really see all of them deciding to stay on and fight the next election on a corbyn manifesto if they had potentially lucrative 2nd careers in the city calling (or elsewhere)?

90 MPs stood down at the last election, 150 odd at the previous election. If their efforts to turn the party back in their direction fail then I'd see a bit of an exodus at the next election as a fairly likely result.


----------



## Fingers (Aug 12, 2015)

Labour leadership row: Jeremy Corbyn will be ousted 'on day one', Simon Danczuk

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...im-says-labour-mp-simon-danczuk-10451581.html

If/when Corbyn wins, his first task should be to deselect Tory entryist arseholes like Simon Danczuk.  Rid the entire party of the right wing filth that have infested it to further their own careers without needing the balls to admit they are actually Tories.

We may then have an effective opposition.


----------



## treelover (Aug 12, 2015)

Then, a bigger Tory majority as some of them cross the floor.


----------



## Fingers (Aug 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> Then, a bigger Tory majority as some of them cross the floor.



They can cross the floor if they are Tories, they are no use in a socialist party.  I would assume they would not fair well in the resulting byelection.


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2015)

There wouldn't be a by election.


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2015)

But nor will many cross the floor.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 12, 2015)

Why would they?


----------



## Fingers (Aug 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> There wouldn't be a by election.



possibly due to lack of integrity


----------



## YouSir (Aug 12, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Why would they?



Being optimistic, because they genuinely hate Socialism and don't think it'll be win. Bizarrely enough I dream of a Lib Dem surge with a Corbyn win, let them all jump ship and find out just how wrong they are. Or rot in obscurity. Or die hideous fucking deaths. All good with me.


----------



## Fingers (Aug 12, 2015)

Oh look, Blair has chimed in again with a piece in the Guardian which totally lacks addressing the issues of why Corbyn and his policies are so popular with Labour party voters and those that are being re-energised.

As a writer, this piece is as shit as the state he left the Labour party in.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-dont-take-labour-over-cliff-edge-tony-blair


----------



## two sheds (Aug 13, 2015)

I think the Corbyn camp has blown it this time  



> Jeremy Corbyn supporters accused of launching SNP-style cyber attacks on Labour leader rivals



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...attacks-on-labour-leader-rivals-10452587.html

After a campaign which has concentrated solely on the political issues and been mercifully free of attacks on any individual candidate, corbyn supporters have been accused of calling liz kendall 'a tory'


----------



## gimesumtruf (Aug 13, 2015)

I've wondered why there are no politically and satirical funny programmes on television these days and it's because the press and real political figures are more ridiculous, inept and blatant liars than any TV programme ever could be.
Do any politicos actually sit down and think anything through before writing/commenting or maybe it's a money for rope thing to them?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 13, 2015)

two sheds said:


> I think the Corbyn camp has blown it this time
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The notorious SNP cyberattacks, I can think of nothing worse


----------



## chilango (Aug 13, 2015)

Fucking hell...

There's not going to be an en masse defection to the Tories (or anyone else).

There's not going to be an en masse retirement of right-wing Labour MPs.

There's not going to be a split.

You might get an individual trying to make a name for themselves. But it'll be purely an act of individual opportunism. There will be no collective political/idealogical departures motivated by "principles".

I think people are really, really overstating the impact of a Corbyn win.

Sure he's pulling a few "crowds" here and there and, yes, *gasp* there's some "young people" there. But once the votes happened that "force" will amount to fuck all influence or power and Corbyn or not the Labour Party will carry on being the Labour Party we know and loathe.

There really will be nothing to see.


----------



## Fingers (Aug 13, 2015)

two sheds said:


> I think the Corbyn camp has blown it this time
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am very guilty of calling her 'Tory Liz' on a number of www platforms. I mean, calling a Tory, a Tory.  Whatever next.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 13, 2015)

J Ed said:


> The notorious SNP cyberattacks, I can think of nothing worse


They are the Scottish Nazi Party after all!


----------



## two sheds (Aug 13, 2015)

I'm waiting for urban quotes to start appearing as examples of corbyn supporters' nefarious tactics.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 13, 2015)

chilango said:


> Fucking hell...
> 
> There's not going to be an en masse defection to the Tories (or anyone else).
> 
> ...



Corbyn winning would be a political earthquake. It may end up with him being turfed out and the labour establishment reasserting control. It may end up with the blairites finished and the labour party being opened up to its (newly engorged) membership - and it offering a radical  alternative to neo-liberal concensus - and yes a moderate programme of social democracy would be radial in the current political set up. Either would invovle an ideological civil war. There could be all sorts of other permutations. Whatever happens the labour party - and wider politics - will never be the same again.


----------



## chilango (Aug 13, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Corbyn winning would be a political earthquake. It may end up with him being turfed out and the labour establishment reasserting control. It may end up with the blairites finished and the labour party being opened up to its (newly engorged) membership - and it offering a radical  alternative to neo-liberal concensus - and yes a moderate programme of social democracy would be radial in the current political set up. Either would invovle an ideological civil war. There could be all sorts of other permutations. Whatever happens the labour party - and wider politics - will never be the same again.



None of this will happen.

You can quote me on this later.



* though I was equally sure Galloway wouldn't win that Bradford by-election too tbf


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2015)

Yeah, its a bit silly making definitive political predictions atm, I think ever one I've made in the last year has proved completely wrong...


----------



## chilango (Aug 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> Yeah, its a bit silly making definitive political predictions atm, I think ever one I've made in the last year has proved completely wrong...



That's the fun of it though!


----------



## andysays (Aug 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> Yeah, its a bit silly making definitive political predictions atm, I think ever one I've made in the last year has proved completely wrong...



This is true. I do think though that those making predictions of political earthquakes and it being either the end or the remaking in its true image of the Labour party if JC is elected leader are dealing more in hype than reality.


----------



## youngian (Aug 13, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Yeah that nails him, nice one youngian


I'm not a natural Corbyn suppoter and only a few weeks back saw him as a British George McGovern. What his Labour party detractors need to understand is this: If Corbyn can run rings around you by just going about being Jeremy Corbyn how the fuck do you expect to to fare against Osborne and Crosby in 2020? In that respect Corbyn is doing the party a favour as well as putting some lead back in members' pencils.

And he has the integrity to walk away if it all goes tits up in 12 months time. Could you say that about Cooper or Burnham still hanging on in 2018 despite scoring in the low 30s in the polls? There are some rising stars in the Labour PLP that look like leaders. Not regional branch managers for Argos.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2015)

chilango said:


> None of this will happen.
> 
> You can quote me on this later.
> 
> ...


tbh I think, to some extent, some of what Tim says has already happened. I don't think that the LP will ever be quite the same again; the fact that the party hierarchy/elite have evidently lost control of their wider party and the electoral process would seem to indicate that internal reforms will result. Also the very public 'organic crisis'/divisive anger of the Blairites suggests that ideological re-positioning is inevitable.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 13, 2015)

brogdale said:


> tbh I think, to some extent, some of what Tim says has already happened. I don't think that the LP will ever be quite the same again; the fact that the party hierarchy/elite have evidently lost control of their wider party and the electoral process would seem to indicate that internal reforms will result. Also the very public 'organic crisis'/divisive anger of the Blairites suggests that ideological re-positioning is inevitable.


you'd hope so wouldn't you


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2015)

ska invita said:


> you'd hope so wouldn't you


Hope is not a word I associate with any political party.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 13, 2015)

Jsut enjoy the moment guys. The tears of rage from Blair, Toynbee, Cohen, Rentoul, Danczuk etc etc etc ... savour their delicious taste.


----------



## Fingers (Aug 13, 2015)

Yvette Cooper sticks the boot in claiming his policies are not credible whilst failing to put forward any policies of her own apart from some wishy washy clap trap, undermined by the fact that she in effect, voted for the Tory's massive assault on those most needy. Keep on digging that hole chinless Blairites.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33880848


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2015)

Not really sticking the boot in is she? That would suggest she has the upper hand and Corbyn was on the ropes. The situation is the opposite - it's panicked lashing out.


----------



## Fingers (Aug 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> Not really sticking the boot in is she? That would suggest she has the upper hand and Corbyn was on the ropes. The situation is the opposite - it's panicked lashing out.



True...


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Aug 13, 2015)

Yvette Cooper: Vote for me cos I'm a woman.

Don't be so patronising, love.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 13, 2015)

two sheds said:


> I think the Corbyn camp has blown it this time
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wouldn't give that too much credence, because it also ignores the vitriol coming from the other side, who believe themselves to be purer than the driven snow. Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em all. Fucking bland cunts.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 13, 2015)

Well tbh i hope andy burnham wins simply because of the prospect of financial gain i'll be £45 richer if he does.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 13, 2015)

Would you say the prospect of financial gain has made you... aspirational?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 13, 2015)

Andy Burnham today.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 13, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> Would you say the prospect of financial gain has made you... aspirational?



Yes, I aspire to being a bit richer tbh.


----------



## Fingers (Aug 13, 2015)

Corbyn, speaks about thee attack by Blair and treats him with the contempt he deserves

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-do-personal-i-dont-do-abuse?CMP=share_btn_fb


----------



## gareth taylor (Aug 13, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Corbyn, speaks about thee attack by Blair and treats him with the contempt he deserves
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-do-personal-i-dont-do-abuse?CMP=share_btn_fb


 the labour party soon be dead in water !


----------



## Fingers (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> the labour party soon be dead in water !



it has been dead in the water for years to be fair


----------



## gareth taylor (Aug 13, 2015)

Fingers said:


> it has been dead in the water for years to be fair


dread to think on here if they lose more seats at next election some start frothing at mouth like dog on heat, as much as the right wing gets stick always nice to see lefties in trouble I say !


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> dread to thing on here if they lose more seats at next election some start frothing at mouth like dog on heat, as much as the right wing gets stick always nice to see lefties in trouble I say !



I wonder which language  google translated this from.


----------



## Fingers (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> dread to thing on here if they lose more seats at next election some start frothing at mouth like dog on heat, as much as the right wing gets stick always nice to see lefties in trouble I say !



Were you the fella who voted UKIP?  There was not shortage of foaming there. Not sure what makes you think Labour will loose seats.


----------



## gareth taylor (Aug 13, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Were you the fella who voted UKIP?  There was not shortage of foaming there. Not sure what makes you think Labour will loose seats.


 no I voted plaid at the election get facts right


----------



## Fingers (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> no I voted plaid at the election get facts right



Good for you. tell as what you think of Corbyn then, whilst you are on this thread about Corbyn.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 13, 2015)

DON'T Vote Corbyn cos otherwise the Labour Party won't be able to carry on its proud history of imperialism


----------



## gareth taylor (Aug 13, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Good for you. tell as what you think of Corbyn then, whilst you are on this thread about Corbyn.


 pillock hate him and what he stands for, ps I am anti union as well


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Corbyn, speaks about thee attack by Blair and treats him with the contempt he deserves
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-do-personal-i-dont-do-abuse?CMP=share_btn_fb


A very composed and consummate political response from Corbyn. He does appear un-naturally gifted at taking the higher ground.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> pillock hate him and what he stands for, ps I am anti union as well



so brave


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> pillock hate him and what he stands for, ps I am anti union as well


What particular aspects of Corbyn's ideology or policy platform do you object to? And...anti-union? What's that about?


----------



## Fingers (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> pillock hate him and what he stands for, ps I am anti union as well



Which bits of what he is about do you hate? And why do you hate organisations that fight for worker's rights?


----------



## gareth taylor (Aug 13, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Which bits of what he is about do you hate? And why do you hate organisations that fight for worker's rights?


 unions have killed parts of uk building industry


----------



## two sheds (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> unions have killed parts of uk building industry



No i think you'll find it's employers' unsafe building practices that have killed parts of the uk building industry, unions have been trying to make it safer.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> unions have killed parts of uk building industry


Do you represent the building employers, (including the blacklisters)?


----------



## Fingers (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> unions have killed parts of uk building industry



Amazingly compelling argument there my chinless Tory friend.


----------



## gareth taylor (Aug 13, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Amazingly compelling argument there my chinless Tory friend.


 people like ricky Tomlinson deserved to be locked up


----------



## stethoscope (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> pillock hate him and what he stands for, ps I am anti union as well



_Look at me. Look at me._


----------



## Fingers (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> people like ricky Tomlinson deserved to be locked up



Poor quality troll relies on attention seeking shocker


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> people like ricky Tomlinson deserved to be locked up


Granted that he sometimes played the role in a rather one dimensional way, there were moments of genuine pathos...such as the bathroom scene...seriously...bad enough to be locked up? You sure?


----------



## gimesumtruf (Aug 13, 2015)

g taylor-says-unions have killed parts of uk building industry
Have you been snorting with osborne in his northern power house?


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> unions have killed parts of uk building industry



Yes, I mean look at all the strikes going on. There definitely aren't any problems with training shortfalls leading to a skills gap (which the unions campaign to get more funding for), white collar types grabbing shedloads of money for commissioning shitty rush work (which the unions campaign against) or resource shortages pushing prices up (which unions have nothing to do with).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> pillock hate him and what he stands for, ps I am anti union as well



So you'd agree that you're a bit of an idiot, then?


----------



## gareth taylor (Aug 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you'd agree that you're a bit of an idiot, then?


 no


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> pillock hate him and what he stands for, ps I am anti union as well




Wow..controversial . That's really outrageous man . I'm spitting bolshie feathers after seeing that . I well and truly am . Bloody hell your going to " show us" and no flipping mistake .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> unions have killed parts of uk building industry



Only if you're a boss. You want a fair day's work from your employees, you pay a fair day's wage. Any company that can't hack that, big or small,deserves to go to the wall.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> no



You'd have to be an idiot to be anti-union and as thick as you've shown yourself to be.


----------



## JimW (Aug 13, 2015)

Then again, the UK building industry has killed enough union members, so only fair they have a go back.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> unions have killed parts of uk building industry



Are you sure it wasn't the policy of selling off government housing stock en masse and not reinvesting the proceeds of the sale in building more homes ? Believing the hidden hand of the free market and the trickle down pixies would sort stuff instead ? 

And focussing the economy on playing in the stock market casino and other weird fucked up ideas like that which devastated every other sector of the British manufacturing and industrial base too ? 

But it was the unions you say ? 

Hmmmm. Interesting .


I've pondered this and come to the conclusion you're an arsewipe .


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 13, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> people like ricky Tomlinson deserved to be locked up


----------



## chilango (Aug 13, 2015)

Tell you what gareth taylor take a stroll down the road into Holywell. I know there's no buses this time of night, but it's only a few miles you'll be there in about 40 minutes max. Have a look around. Tell me how much of what you see is down to "the Unions". Then tomorrow morning when the buses are back on take a trip to Point of Ayr, to Shotton, he'll even to the Wrecsam coalfields if you like and see what the Unions did. Go on. Then come back here and talk about being anti Union.


----------



## Libertad (Aug 13, 2015)

chilango said:


> Tell you what gareth taylor take a stroll down the road into Holywell. I know there's no buses this time of night, but it's only a few miles you'll be there in about 40 minutes max. Have a look around. Tell me how much of what you see is down to "the Unions". Then tomorrow morning when the buses are back on take a trip to Point of Ayr, to Shotton, he'll even to the Wrecsam coalfields if you like and see what the Unions did. Go on. Then come back here and talk about being anti Union.



My grandad was a brickie at Shotton Steel Works.
Deeside's a very sad place to walk around these days. (((Connah's Quay)))


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 14, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> unions have killed parts of uk building industry


People have been killed because the UK building industry likes to cut corners. Get it right.


----------



## treelover (Aug 14, 2015)

chilango said:


> Tell you what gareth taylor take a stroll down the road into Holywell. I know there's no buses this time of night, but it's only a few miles you'll be there in about 40 minutes max. Have a look around. Tell me how much of what you see is down to "the Unions". Then tomorrow morning when the buses are back on take a trip to Point of Ayr, to Shotton, he'll even to the Wrecsam coalfields if you like and see what the Unions did. Go on. Then come back here and talk about being anti Union.




I remember having a fund raising party at my house during the Miners Strike to raise money for the Point Of Ayr families, now all gone


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> people like ricky Tomlinson deserved to be locked up


again? how many times must he pay for his crimes?


----------



## free spirit (Aug 14, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> unions have killed parts of uk building industry


by unions did you mean free market government policies that pointlessly prevent investment in council house building, infrastructure etc unless it's a big prestige project in London?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

gareth taylor I hope you understand that collectively organising in a union has no real left/right bias. Thats right, even tories join unions. Its wider self interest at the end of the day.


----------



## Libertad (Aug 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> gareth taylor I hope you understand that collectively organising in a union has no real left/right bias. Thats right, even tories join unions. Its wider self interest at the end of the day.



He wont understand that, you give him too much credit.


----------



## gareth taylor (Aug 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> again? how many times must he pay for his crimes?


 every who comes out of jail is innocent then,,,,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## two sheds (Aug 14, 2015)

You really do have problems stringing a sentence together, don't you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

two sheds said:


> You really do have problems stringing a sentence together, don't you.


not to mention a thought.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> not to mention a thought.



Yes I was idly speculating as I was writing it .... 'thought, sentence, thought, sentence ...'


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

two sheds said:


> Yes I was idly speculating as I was writing it .... 'thought, sentence, thought, sentence ...'


long sentence was what struck me, in connection with the wittering about prisons.


----------



## A380 (Aug 22, 2015)

Have we had this yet?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...-leadership-race_n_8003646.html?utm_hp_ref=tw


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 22, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> unions have killed parts of uk building industry


Lol hopefully they will kill your mum


----------



## gareth taylor (Aug 23, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Lol hopefully they will kill your mum


 you are sick mods want that comment taken off now !!!!!!


----------



## Shirl (Aug 23, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> people like ricky Tomlinson deserved to be locked up


Oh come on, Brooky wasn't that bad.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 1, 2016)




----------



## J Ed (Mar 1, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> View attachment 84146



It wasn't a 'free vote', he was sent as a representative of Unite. He is either being mendacious or does not understand the process or a bit of both.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 1, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It wasn't a 'free vote', he was sent as a representative of Unite. He is either being mendacious or does not understand the process or a bit of both.



I thought he was a Young Labour rep not a Union one.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 1, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> I thought he was a Young Labour rep not a Union one.



Yes, the tweet certainly does create that wrong impression.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 1, 2016)

Well if Zac can in practice choose to vote for whoever, but is mandated to vote a particular way which is enforced like this then the process if flawed.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 1, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Well if Zac can in practice choose to vote for whoever, but is mandated to vote a particular way which is enforced like this then the process if flawed.



Perhaps it is, but perhaps he should voice that concern or not participate in the process rather than insinuating that he is being forced to vote one way or another by the eeeevil unions


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 1, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Perhaps it is, but perhaps he should voice that concern or not participate in the process rather than insinuating that he is being forced to vote one way or another by the eeeevil unions



Surely he was being forced to vote one way or another


----------



## brogdale (Mar 1, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Surely he was being forced to vote one way or another


Goes with the territory, if you seek the role of a delegate.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 1, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Surely he was being forced to vote one way or another


He's not being _forced_ to do anything, he's a delegate and there to carry out the instructions of his branch (or whichever body instructed him). If he didn't feel he could vote the way they decided he shouldn't have taken the role.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 1, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Surely he was being forced to vote one way or another



When I was a CPSA delegate we would have a branch meeting at which all branch members  could vote to instruct their delegates which way to vote on the motions published ahead of conference; my instructions often went against my personal preferences on matters such as Labour Party affiliation and withdrawal of troops from the six counties. They weren't my votes; they were the branch's votes. So if Zac was casting a vote as a Unite delegate - a vote on which the branch had taken a decision - then I don't see what the problem is asking for him to provide evidence that he has acted in accordance with the branch's wishes...it is what he's there to do.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------

