In effect your views count for nothing you just want to win.
You need to win in order to effect change, otherwise you remain a protest party, very principled but lacking the power to change things for the good (and for the good of the very people that you are trying to help).
I agree with you. Labour appear to have become obsessed with PR jargon and like to try to use the word 'progressive' whenever they can. But unfortunately they don't seem to be able to consider whether where they are progressing from to where they are progressing to is actually a wise path to go down. As long as they can say they are 'progressive' they don't seem to care and will blindly continue 'progressing' to oblivion if need be.
Sometimes it's worth looking at the past and consider a point in time where a mistake has been made, and then progressing from an earlier point in the timeline. If you come to a dead end, as Labour appear to have done in the last General Election, you don't stubbornly refuse to look at what mistakes you made and blindly 'progress' forward in the misguided belief that you didn't do anything wrong.
Times change and it may just be the case that at this current point in time Jeremy Corbyn's view may be the correct way of looking at things. It may not be, but then again it might be.
I don't think that at that point in time (Kinnock onwards) Labour DID make a mistake. They moved with changing times at a point when they had been considered and proved unelectable in the minds of most of the electorate after many many years of Thatcherism, which had made sweeping cultural changes in the UK. It was a landslide Labour election victory in 97, and Tony Blair, pre Iraq war, was for a long time an extremely popular prime minister. And it WAS different from the Conservatives before, no doubt about it.
However, times have moved on yet again from that picture - the New Labourites are looking very out of date now. What we saw starting to happen in the 2015 election was very different from what was going on in 97. In particular, you are getting a lot more people - of all political persuasions - saying "our government does not represent me and my views. We need new ways of talking about this." That includes, for some, a return to what they see as more core left-wing values a la Corbyn, and also what they saw from the SNP. For others, more right-wing values. And for others, particular issues to be addressed.
So I don't think this is really just about traditional party politics anymore or 'going back to the seventies'; it's about values and issues. It's natural and a good thing for democracy for assumptions to be challenged, and I think that's what's happening now with Corbyn and others. It's been pretty notable too that many of the 'popular' politicians in the last few months are those who, regardless of whether you agree with them or not, came across as genuine and passionate about their views and were unafraid to state them.
Tbh, I don't think I know any leftwingers right now who AREN'T Corbyn supporters. Perhaps those who aren't are just keeping quiet...
I like Corbyn but there is no way he is winning an election
He would never win over boroughs like Finchley and Golders Green in London. just won't happen
Outside of the optimistic imagination of a few left wing die-hards, I don't think anyone is really expecting Corbyn to become PM. What they do think is that by electing him as leader it will 'smash' the stranglehold that the Blairites have over the party. And that maybe then Labour will be free to put it's efforts into a free discussion of policy direction and strategic options; rather than obsessing about newspaper coverage and narrow focus group feedback.
I don't want Labour to try and bring back the Soviet Union, but I would like to listen to a front bench spokesman who sounds as though they are thinking for themselves rather than regurgitating pre-approved drivel.
I don't think that at that point in time (Kinnock onwards) Labour DID make a mistake. They moved with changing times at a point when they had been considered and proved unelectable in the minds of most of the electorate after many many years of Thatcherism, which had made sweeping cultural changes in the UK. It was a landslide Labour election victory in 97, and Tony Blair, pre Iraq war, was for a long time an extremely popular prime minister. And it WAS different from the Conservatives before, no doubt about it.
However, times have moved on yet again from that picture - the New Labourites are looking very out of date now. What we saw starting to happen in the 2015 election was very different from what was going on in 97. In particular, you are getting a lot more people - of all political persuasions - saying "our government does not represent me and my views. We need new ways of talking about this." That includes, for some, a return to what they see as more core left-wing values a la Corbyn, and also what they saw from the SNP. For others, more right-wing values. And for others, particular issues to be addressed.
So I don't think this is really just about traditional party politics anymore or 'going back to the seventies'; it's about values and issues. It's natural and a good thing for democracy for assumptions to be challenged, and I think that's what's happening now with Corbyn and others. It's been pretty notable too that many of the 'popular' politicians in the last few months are those who, regardless of whether you agree with them or not, came across as genuine and passionate about their views and were unafraid to state them.
Tbh, I don't think I know any leftwingers right now who AREN'T Corbyn supporters. Perhaps those who aren't are just keeping quiet...
Agreed.
In a grown up democracy there would be a Corbyn Labour party, Kendall social democratic party, Nick Clegg Liberal party, Cameron Tory party and Farage conservative party all represented in parliament and competing/co-operating to come up with a government that represents at least 50% of the general public.
I don't think that at that point in time (Kinnock onwards) Labour DID make a mistake. They moved with changing times at a point when they had been considered and proved unelectable in the minds of most of the electorate after many many years of Thatcherism, which had made sweeping cultural changes in the UK. It was a landslide Labour election victory in 97, and Tony Blair, pre Iraq war, was for a long time an extremely popular prime minister. And it WAS different from the Conservatives before, no doubt about it.
Economically for a large chunk of that first period he was following Conservative spending limits - which is why the PSBR went negative (surplus). At that time he was cozying up to big business (some ex-directors even got ministerial positions). Labours control of the media managed to keep that largly quiet.
Labour needed to change from the pro-nationalisation, centrally controlled planned economy that it was pushing - but that does not mean it needs to become Conservartive-Lite. It is not about changing in order to get elected, it is about finding a way of achieving what you want in a different way.
£3 and an instant vote for leader. How cheap and disposable does that sound.
It should have been more like £15 or £20 and eligibility to vote only after being a full member for 6 months or a year. That would have stopped all this mischievous nonsense at a stroke.
Though it does sound like that people would only have a problem with this because all the new members are going to vote for supposedly the "wrong" candidate. If he was the "right" one, it would be much less of an issue.
That's just Burnham's inability to disagree with anyone. Everything is wonderful, everyone is right, apart from the previous Labour government who were of course wrong about whatever you don't like. Be excellent to each other. Please by my friend, it was a big boys fault
The general public are crying out for politicians that consider... well... the general public. All the various scandals and inquiries of late just help to cement the idea that most of the current lot have no clue or care about the lives of average people.
The left-wing in the shape of Corbyn in therefore gaining attention, whether the public actually want left-wing policy is debatable, but they want politicians who are thinking through the issues from the viewpoint of their effect on the general public, rather than from purely economic or business viewpoints.
They also want solutions which are designed to deliver social results, rather than economic results.
The general public are crying out for politicians that consider... well... the general public. All the various scandals and inquiries of late just help to cement the idea that most of the current lot have no clue or care about the lives of average people.
The left-wing in the shape of Corbyn in therefore gaining attention, whether the public actually want left-wing policy is debatable, but they want politicians who are thinking through the issues from the viewpoint of their effect on the general public, rather than from purely economic or business viewpoints.
They also want solutions which are designed to deliver social results, rather than economic results.
You can only spend what the taxpayers can afford and are willing to pay for.
Out of the four offerings, Corbyn is the right (better) man (person). Yes, he might not get the support from the electorate as a whole, but politics is not a popularity contest. I'd rather see more straight talking Corbyn, erring left as Labour should ( and he's not extreme left as some think he is, he speaks general sense, just not everyone agrees, which is how it is for anyone's voice irrelevant as to their political standing.)
The general election is always a popularity contest.
Comments
You need to win in order to effect change, otherwise you remain a protest party, very principled but lacking the power to change things for the good (and for the good of the very people that you are trying to help).
http://order-order.com/2015/08/13/burnham-backs-corbyn-in-cooper-bunfight/#:QU7lEk6gS7tS-A
I don't think that at that point in time (Kinnock onwards) Labour DID make a mistake. They moved with changing times at a point when they had been considered and proved unelectable in the minds of most of the electorate after many many years of Thatcherism, which had made sweeping cultural changes in the UK. It was a landslide Labour election victory in 97, and Tony Blair, pre Iraq war, was for a long time an extremely popular prime minister. And it WAS different from the Conservatives before, no doubt about it.
However, times have moved on yet again from that picture - the New Labourites are looking very out of date now. What we saw starting to happen in the 2015 election was very different from what was going on in 97. In particular, you are getting a lot more people - of all political persuasions - saying "our government does not represent me and my views. We need new ways of talking about this." That includes, for some, a return to what they see as more core left-wing values a la Corbyn, and also what they saw from the SNP. For others, more right-wing values. And for others, particular issues to be addressed.
So I don't think this is really just about traditional party politics anymore or 'going back to the seventies'; it's about values and issues. It's natural and a good thing for democracy for assumptions to be challenged, and I think that's what's happening now with Corbyn and others. It's been pretty notable too that many of the 'popular' politicians in the last few months are those who, regardless of whether you agree with them or not, came across as genuine and passionate about their views and were unafraid to state them.
Tbh, I don't think I know any leftwingers right now who AREN'T Corbyn supporters. Perhaps those who aren't are just keeping quiet...
Outside of the optimistic imagination of a few left wing die-hards, I don't think anyone is really expecting Corbyn to become PM. What they do think is that by electing him as leader it will 'smash' the stranglehold that the Blairites have over the party. And that maybe then Labour will be free to put it's efforts into a free discussion of policy direction and strategic options; rather than obsessing about newspaper coverage and narrow focus group feedback.
I don't want Labour to try and bring back the Soviet Union, but I would like to listen to a front bench spokesman who sounds as though they are thinking for themselves rather than regurgitating pre-approved drivel.
Agreed.
In a grown up democracy there would be a Corbyn Labour party, Kendall social democratic party, Nick Clegg Liberal party, Cameron Tory party and Farage conservative party all represented in parliament and competing/co-operating to come up with a government that represents at least 50% of the general public.
Economically for a large chunk of that first period he was following Conservative spending limits - which is why the PSBR went negative (surplus). At that time he was cozying up to big business (some ex-directors even got ministerial positions). Labours control of the media managed to keep that largly quiet.
Labour needed to change from the pro-nationalisation, centrally controlled planned economy that it was pushing - but that does not mean it needs to become Conservartive-Lite. It is not about changing in order to get elected, it is about finding a way of achieving what you want in a different way.
Though it does sound like that people would only have a problem with this because all the new members are going to vote for supposedly the "wrong" candidate. If he was the "right" one, it would be much less of an issue.
That's just Burnham's inability to disagree with anyone. Everything is wonderful, everyone is right, apart from the previous Labour government who were of course wrong about whatever you don't like. Be excellent to each other. Please by my friend, it was a big boys fault
Because ;-)
He was more hirsute then.
The left-wing in the shape of Corbyn in therefore gaining attention, whether the public actually want left-wing policy is debatable, but they want politicians who are thinking through the issues from the viewpoint of their effect on the general public, rather than from purely economic or business viewpoints.
They also want solutions which are designed to deliver social results, rather than economic results.
Can't you have both?
Who else might Corbyn have in his shadow cabinet?
I knew someone could come up with a reason to vote for Corbyn. Pity I missed the deadline to pay £3
Burnham is desperate for a shadow Ministry.
I'm sure Diane will make a good Foreign secretary. After all Jamacian mothers go to the wall while the white man plays divide and rule.
Naturally Dennis Skinner will get a job. Home secretary. That way he can go after members of terrorist organisations. Mainly the Conservative party.
Derek Hatton will become Lord Hatton and lead Labour in the upper house. The House of lords will have to be renamed to the house of comrades first.
Except he hasn't .......... (unless you are economical with the headline)
You can only spend what the taxpayers can afford and are willing to pay for.
The general election is always a popularity contest.
Better to be a loser with principles though ;-)
Every cloud has a silver lining
Solutions are no good without the power to implement them.
Or until the IMF come knocking on your door.
Oh yes that's the "let's borrow lots of money and spend it all and to hell with tomorrow" economic theory.