What exactly is Jeremy Corbyn's plan?

randella

ToneControl said:

Philly_Q said:

ICBM said:

ToneControl said:

what about Andy Burnham ?

What about him? He couldn't even beat Corbyn when the other choices were Mrs Balls and Liz Kendall.

A man so lacking in charisma that he even makes Owen Smith seem like a potential leader of the Labour Party…

The thing that's struck me about Burnham is that he's just about the only senior Labour figure, who actually held office in the Blair/Brown days, who hasn't rebelled against Corbyn but has meekly accepted Shadow Cabinet posts.  I don't know if that means he's scared of sticking his head above the parapet, or if he's just binding his time.

biding his time I think

I think so too.  There's a good chance he'll be elected to the new Greater Manchester mayoral office, in which case all the talk from the Corbyn camp about how he's spineless and doesn't stand for anything is going to look a bit silly as 'elected to office' is something very unlikely to happen to Corbyn without a stray tactical nuclear strike taking out the Cons and SNP in 2020. 

ICBM

Philly_Q said:

The thing that's struck me about Burnham is that he's just about the only senior Labour figure, who actually held office in the Blair/Brown days, who hasn't rebelled against Corbyn but has meekly accepted Shadow Cabinet posts.  I don't know if that means he's scared of sticking his head above the parapet, or if he's just biding his time.

Or just completely lacking in any sort of backbone or personality.

If there had been even one credible, competent centrist standing against Corbyn we wouldn't be where we are now.

Unfortunately the Blair/Brown days produced careerist yes-people with no substance or principles, exemplified by three of the candidates last time. Corbyn deserved to win - the only problem is that he's proved inept as a leader.

If anyone's biding his time - other than Khan - it's probably Hilary Benn. He may feel it's just too much of a poisoned chalice though.

randella

ICBM said:

Philly_Q said:

The thing that's struck me about Burnham is that he's just about the only senior Labour figure, who actually held office in the Blair/Brown days, who hasn't rebelled against Corbyn but has meekly accepted Shadow Cabinet posts.  I don't know if that means he's scared of sticking his head above the parapet, or if he's just biding his time.

Or just completely lacking in any sort of backbone or personality.

If there had been even one credible, competent centrist standing against Corbyn we wouldn't be where we are now.

Unfortunately the Blair/Brown days produced careerist yes-people with no substance or principles, exemplified by three of the candidates last time. Corbyn deserved to win - the only problem is that he's proved inept as a leader.

If anyone's biding his time - other than Khan - it's probably Hilary Benn. He may feel it's just too much of a poisoned chalice though.

I don't mind Burnham so much, but I'll agree with the rest. I read an interesting angle the other week (Graun I think) about how Brown's determination to have his time in the spotlight trampled on a lot of emerging talent in the 00's.

Whatever the reason though, we are where we are due to an absolute paucity of talent in Labour. A few more leadership candidates of talent last year and no-one would know who Corbyn was. Benn and Kinnock Jnr. clearly want nothing to do with it, as I suspect they know that if Jesus himself rose from the grave and offered to lead the party Momentum would bet against him so strong has Corbynmania become. 

Philly_Q

I think there are a few candidates who seem quite credible, in the sense that they might actually attract some votes from the general public at large as opposed to Labour party members - Hilary Benn, Stephen Kinnock, Dan Jarvis and even my local MP Chuka Umunna.  But now is not the time for them to be putting themselves forward, they'd have zero chance of beating Corbyn.

Heartfeltdawn

Evilmags said:

A Tory MP must feel like he´s in Real Madrid or Barcelona going out to face a pub team. I nearly feel sorry for the Labour MPs who will be facing sitting behind the bearded jackass while his repeated humiliations at the hands of May at PMQs keep their polling right down. 

It's unarguable that he is a poor leader but the real failure has been on that Blairite side to sort their party out once the vicar left office, once Brown had been kicked out of Downing Street, and then the Milliband years. They've brought it upon themselves, not least with the change to membership and voting, one of the finest bits of shooting yourself in the foot, face, and balls all at the same time in modern politics. 

I doubt a Labour party led by the like of the charisma vacuum Burnham or Liz Kendall would do any better than Corbyn right now. 

Evilmags

Neither Benn nor Kinnock junior would embarrass themselves so regularly in parliament. They must be looking at the speed, lack of fuss and purpose of the Tories and thinking "how did we ever become this bad". If Blair had of possessed the gumption to sack Brown and replace him with Darling (a vastly superior chancellor who was not blinded by Paul Krugman) I doubt they´d be in this position. 

The SNP peaked by appealing to many of the same activists who support Corbyn and managed to destroy Labour in Scotland. But the opposition there are now the Tories and unionists (55% of the population at the last vote) are likely to throw their weight in with one party. The only unambiguous one is Ruth Davidson´s tories. 

If Corbynmania delivers the Conservative party a 100 seat majority (read we can do what ever the fuck we like and you cant do anything about it) how on earth has that helped the UK left. After the work done by people like Kinnock, Smith and Dewar to clear that rabble out, 20 years later they are in control again. 

holnrew

I miss Ed. 

Evilmags

holnrew said:

I miss Ed. 

Ed, bless him, at least had the basic manners to chat to the PM at a war memorial and wear appropriate clothes. I mean they fitted him and everything. He would not have tolerated the on line abuse, real life abuse and entryisim that Corbyn has, nor would he have implicitly threatened 140 MPs with deselection. I also suspect that post events, in a couple of years time, he´d be quite chatty and convivial over beers with Cameron and Osbourne because for all his political faults, he was not a total asshole. Corbyn and McConnell really are. 

ToneControl

Heartfeltdawn said:

I doubt a Labour party led by the like of the charisma vacuum Burnham or Liz Kendall would do any better than Corbyn right now. 

you're kidding?
he's the worst disaster  since the  labour party started, can you not see that?

Evilmags

ToneControl said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

I doubt a Labour party led by the like of the charisma vacuum Burnham or Liz Kendall would do any better than Corbyn right now. 

you're kidding?
he's the worst disaster  since the  labour party started, can you not see that?

The amazing thing is so few can. (except the 80% of Labour MPs who voted no confidence in him). He´s got two more years of making an arse of himself on a very public stage, and being crucified weekly by somebody who´s nous and level of education is so far beyond his that it is embarrassing to watch.

As for the argument that he will pull the debate to the left? It has to be the most naive argument I have heard in years. Has nobody noticed that the essentially blairite Notting Hill Set Tories have been replaced by a cabinet that is the most state educated in history? The paternalistic public school boys banished to the back benches for more red blooded Tories? That and a likely 100 seat Tory majority (probably two electoral cycles to get out of power) at the next election is not shifting the debate. It´s losing it.   

Heartfeltdawn

ToneControl said:

you're kidding?
he's the worst disaster  since the  labour party started, can you not see that?

Ah, so you're another one of these people who has incredible clarity of vision that nobody else has. Thanks for that. 

I don't consider him the worst disaster since the Labour party started. After Brown, the party needed a serious discussion with itself. It didn't have that discussion and so the Milliband era came about, an era that wasn't Blairite enough to appeal fully to that faction nor grabbed the trad union lefties or the upcoming younger left wing wave. 

Kendall, Cooper, or Burnham as leader would have continued that. Tell me, how do you think the tabloids would have gone with the Chilcott Inquiry result with Yvette Cooper in power, a woman who voted against an investigation into the Iraq War?  

What's more, it was the Milliband era which changed the voting process for Labour leader. They gave the chance for Corbyn to come into power. They're the idiots who not only left the hen house open but who created a whole new hen house without a fucking door on the front. 

The disaster for the Labour party came with Iraq and was compounded by Brown's economic mistakes. Wearing a crumpled suit and not wanting to pucker up when God Save The Queen strikes up doesn't come anywhere near to the level of those disasters. 

Heartfeltdawn

Evilmags said:

ToneControl said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

I doubt a Labour party led by the like of the charisma vacuum Burnham or Liz Kendall would do any better than Corbyn right now. 

you're kidding?
he's the worst disaster  since the  labour party started, can you not see that?

The amazing thing is so few can. (except the 80% of Labour MPs who voted no confidence in him). He´s got two more years of making an arse of himself on a very public stage, and being crucified weekly by somebody who´s nous and level of education is so far beyond his that it is embarrassing to watch.

Those in this forum who proclaim themselves to be left-leaning people, they're under no illusions. Find me someone on here who thinks Corbyn and Labour will win in 2020. By jingo, old bean, most of us are as critical of Corbyn as leader as you are! 

Had anyone else in that leadership election won, the party would still be in a mess. By opening up the leadership vote in complete contrast to the Tories, there was always going to be the possibility of some major public squabbling in the party. As you rightly said earlier, the Tory leadership campaign was swift and decisive, as you'd expect with comparatively few voters compared to the Opposition process. 
 

ICBM

I also wouldn't be too sure that Corbyn hasn't moved the debate to the left - he already has. He may not be successful with it himself, but there is now an awareness that there actually *is* mainstream politics to the left of centre, and that the Blairite New Labour wasn't.

I agree that Blair was a bigger disaster. He was not only responsible for some truly monumental mistakes, he effectively removed the Labour Party's reason for existence. Once the Tories had got themselves back together again, who needed or wanted a pseudo-Tory Party with if anything more authoritarian tendencies? He may have "made Labour electable" but he went far too far, and unnecessarily - Labour would have won the '97 election almost whatever policies it had at that point, after eighteen years of the Tories.

We need a proper left-of-centre party. The problem is that most of the Labour Party MPs don't want to be in it.

Axe_meister

The problem is the left of centre policies that are beeing talked about have no place in a global economy.
We as a nation are not very productive as it is, and we need to compete with the the the likes of China/India.
A high tax high spend unionised economy will kill us.
Mind you the economic policies of the American right are not much better to be honest.
We in the west have to tread a very fine line until the China/India have income parity.
We'll never be able to compete on unskilled labour our only chance is with a highly educated work force.
Unfortunatly neither party seems to have any policies to turn our education system around.

Evilmags

Ex Iraq war and Blair would still be fondly remembered and probably ennobled by now. He made one huge mistake but other than that was popular at the time. (And was probably over confident due to sucessfull intervention in Kosova). Blair moved the Tories left, now they are going rightwards, as is evident by the cabinet changes. 

Michael Foot did exactly the same thing. It took a lot of work to get Labour back into power. The centre point of UK politics is the Tory party because Labour are so ineffective in parliament. 

randella

Evilmags said:

Ex Iraq war and Blair would still be fondly remembered and probably ennobled by now. 

I think this is one of the things that annoys me most about the Momentum lot.  Anything, literally anything, that's tainted by 'Blairism' is to be 'fought'.  Why are you fighting your own party?  He was the only Labour leader to be elected to No. 10 in 40-odd years, surely any rational person could look at his time in office and learn a thing or two without turning into a duplicitous warmonger overnight.  Why not look at Iraq, digest what Chilcot tells us, get some robust policy in place to minimise any risk of anything similar happening again, and move on, all the better educated to prevent a repeat performance.

Heartfeltdawn

Evilmags said:

Ex Iraq war and Blair would still be fondly remembered and probably ennobled by now. He made one huge mistake but other than that was popular at the time. (And was probably over confident due to sucessfull intervention in Kosova). Blair moved the Tories left, now they are going rightwards, as is evident by the cabinet changes. 

Michael Foot did exactly the same thing. It took a lot of work to get Labour back into power. The centre point of UK politics is the Tory party because Labour are so ineffective in parliament. 

But you can't exclude it, just as you can't exclude the other aspects of his time as PM (PFI rocketing up, the cross-party campaign against ID cards, his role in the financial collapse etc). He was indeed popular but I suspect he wouldn't have lasted three terms had he faced the modern online barrage.

Now as a leader trying to win a General Election in 2020, then I and most other people like ICBM in this thread agree that Corbyn is not the man for it. But simply carrying on with a load of regurgitated policies from the days of Mandelson and Campbell with a leader in the form of Cooper, Kendall, or Burnham was not the answer. The divisions in the party had to be address, the disconnect between the unions and the metropolitan types, the rise of the younger vote, the fallout from the one member one vote system adopted, how they were going to solve the issue of traditional Labour voters going for Leave whilst city and urban Labour voters went Remain. Those issues are still firmly unsolved. Right now Labour are as unelectable as the Tories were in the years between Major and Cameron. 

Heartfeltdawn

randella said:

Evilmags said:

Ex Iraq war and Blair would still be fondly remembered and probably ennobled by now. 

I think this is one of the things that annoys me most about the Momentum lot.  Anything, literally anything, that's tainted by 'Blairism' is to be 'fought'.  Why are you fighting your own party?  He was the only Labour leader to be elected to No. 10 in 40-odd years, surely any rational person could look at his time in office and learn a thing or two without turning into a duplicitous warmonger overnight.  Why not look at Iraq, digest what Chilcot tells us, get some robust policy in place to minimise any risk of anything similar happening again, and move on, all the better educated to prevent a repeat performance.

Some of the union types might well ask why Blair went out to fight supporters of his own party, in other words the unions themselves.

One of the defining problems of left-wing politics is a failure to come together when it matters. Far too many little groups fighting for their own turf that seldom unite to form the bigger picture. The Tories have infighting, we've all seen it, but most conservative groups find a way to present the unified front. When this fails, they collapse spectacularly (the end of the Major era Tory party for instance and the Republican party in the US now). Blair's time was significant not so much because of his policies but because all the various groups within Labour actually stopped fighting and bitching for a while and came together. You could say the same for Cameron as well. The rumblings within the party were allowed to occur but they did actually pull things together for two good election results. 

Right now it's the other extreme. There is no unity. There is union division on who to lead and policy when they do have a leader. There was no unity over the referendum which leaves problems in the wake of that result. Until all of these differences are ironed out and a consensus on action is reached, it doesn't matter if you have the corpse of Michael Foot as leader or a cybernetic version of Tony Blair taking the party to the centre ground. The overwhelming impression I had when Corbyn came to Bristol as detailed earlier in this thread was that he's a man who, as leader, has absolutely no way of tying together the various strands of support. 

 

randella

Heartfeltdawn said:

Some of the union types might well ask why Blair went out to fight supporters of his own party, in other words the unions themselves.

One of the defining problems of left-wing politics is a failure to come together when it matters. Far too many little groups fighting for their own turf that seldom unite to form the bigger picture. The Tories have infighting, we've all seen it, but most conservative groups find a way to present the unified front. When this fails, they collapse spectacularly (the end of the Major era Tory party for instance and the Republican party in the US now). Blair's time was significant not so much because of his policies but because all the various groups within Labour actually stopped fighting and bitching for a while and came together. You could say the same for Cameron as well. The rumblings within the party were allowed to occur but they did actually pull things together for two good election results. 

Right now it's the other extreme. There is no unity. There is union division on who to lead and policy when they do have a leader. There was no unity over the referendum which leaves problems in the wake of that result. Until all of these differences are ironed out and a consensus on action is reached, it doesn't matter if you have the corpse of Michael Foot as leader or a cybernetic version of Tony Blair taking the party to the centre ground. The overwhelming impression I had when Corbyn came to Bristol as detailed earlier in this thread was that he's a man who, as leader, has absolutely no way of tying together the various strands of support.
 

I think, in a way, we're trying to say (at least some of) the same things.  (Christ, how about that for a bland opening sentence?)

I'm not suggesting Blair was the messiah, far from it.  The GE in which he eventually won his third term was the first time I've not voted Labour, as JC's first GE will probably, barring a minor miracle, be the second.  Neither time was it to do with the leader,  I can appreciate it's not a US-style presidential election; I didn't like the direction Labour was going in 2005, and I actively dislike what's left of the party now.

One of the things we can try and learn from Blair, surely, is how to unify a party.  It's as well to say that until the disunity is ironed out it doesn't matter who's in charge, but surely (chicken and egg) it's supposed to be the job of the person in charge to do just that?  Some of Corbyn's supporters vaguely talk of winning on a left coalition of parties (Greens, Dems), but he can't even cobble together anything resembling a coalition in his own party.  As for McDonnell's comments re. Heidi Alexander that appearing on the Jnr. Doctors' picket line was 'keeping her honest', well - I think that goes a long way to show the utter bloody disdain with which he views his own party's MPs; him and JC wonder why they keep resigning.

For the record, I don't think Smith's the man either.  Too green, too lightweight.  I'll vote for him in the leadership contest (ABC, right?) for all the good that'll do, but I don't reckon for one minute he's no. 10 material.

Such is the disgust for anything smelling of Blair amongst the Corbynites that we won't ever look to find some of the things that won him three terms - exactly what you outlined above about getting the groups to stop sniping at each other for half an hour, and present a unified front. 

Heartfeltdawn

@randella 1997 was my first chance to vote in a General Election. New Labour were everywhere, creating a climate where even the like of the Sun and New Musical Express were unified in supporting Blair. I didn't vote for him then and I'm proud to say that I never voted for him. Even to a 19 year old me, he felt like a cheap facsimile of Bill Clinton, a man with a permanent smile who would have been perfect in Transmetropolitan. Blair did manage to create the unified front and then he shat all over that unity. He kept the unions at arm's length for the most part. 

Ultimately though it isn't hard to understand why Blairism is treated like cat shit on the sofa. Think of the various groups involved in Labour now:

-Many of those new Labour members are young. They didn't grow up under Thatcher or see images of the mining strikes on the news. They grew up under Blair, the man who took us into a war that spiralled out of control, the man who helped us into recession, the leader of the party that went gaga for PFI and introduced tuition fees. It was notable at the Bristol rally that it wasn't mention of Thatcher that brought out the boos: it was Blair. To many younger people, and I'm going from the uni students now to approaching 40 idiots like me, Blair is their wicked witch, not Thatcher.

-For the older union types, they remember how Blair treated the unions.

-Blair was firmly behind Europe. Why would trad Labour voters in Hartlepool want a Blairite approach which was firmly behind being in Europe? 

I don't see one policy that the Labour party could unite round at the minute. Trident? Nope. Education? The Blairite way and the Corbyn way won't mesh. Unions? Nil chance. The one saving grace could be the NHS and I am positive that, should Corbyn hold onto the leadership role, that will be the main centrepiece of his future campaigns. At the Bristol rally, the NHS was the key policy issue (one reason why Abbott was there). In the referendum, Leave showed how emotive the NHS issue is.