What exactly is Jeremy Corbyn's plan?

axisus

Clarky said:

there is something about May though… not sure what it is..
but I have a feeling that she could be the right leader at the right time..
she seems to have real spine
and post Brexit, we need a leader that can pick up this country by the scruff of the neck, somehow hold everything together and try to launch it in some sort of direction that is as good as can be outside of the EU
I really do hope that she turns out to be the person that I hope her to be..

You know, I'm thinking you are right there. The tories have cut out the dead wood and are back with what appears to be strong leadership. I think that the boat has sailed and Labour missed it by a mile. 

LoFi

impmann said:

<snip>and the borrowing (admittedly some of which was due to the outgoing administration's screw ups)<snip>

Could you elaborate on this? The budget deficit was on a downward trend in the last couple of years of the Major govt, and the widely-accepted narrative is that the reason this continued (and resulted in a budget surplus) in the first few years of the Blair govt was because it initially stuck to the taxation and spending plans on the outgoing administration.

impmann

May is a nasty piece of work that is in the pocket of several internationals (such as Murdoch) - she may well be the right leader for the Tories right now and I think she will lead with an iron fist. I don't think we will all be rejoicing at her endeavours in the long term - especially with regard to the NHS. But hey, I'm no fan of Tory policies.

To pick up on something said above - two things in fact:

The labour consitution is very different to that of the Tories. A vote of no confidence from the MPs has *no basis* - yes IDS and Thatch-bitch were toppled after votes from their MPs but that is very different to the way the Labour party works.

The fact that he's "clung on" is that he is making a point... he was voted in with the biggest majority of any leader in recent times by *the party* NOT the MPs. Whether or not you (or they) agree is irrelevant, because that is democracy in action (much like the argument for the Brexit vote).
By doing this he has shown up that the current set up in the Labour party is divorced from what should be there. Its shown that those that support the party want something very different from the MPs - therefore are those MPs *actually* representing the views of those that vote for them? Interesting way of looking at... Perhaps it will drive change in the long run and perhaps it will be for the best... perhaps not. Much like the rest of politics at the moment.

I would agree that it *is* a mess - Jeremy is getting a hard time from all sides and accusations of all sorts. He *is* a good man... the anti-semetic thing is bullshit, and if you read what he says carefully he is criticising the actions of Israel against the Palestinians - which are frankly abhorent. Yes, there are reasons for those actions but an eye for an eye never fixes anything and the Israeli govt have no intention of trying to broker peace. That isn't anti-semetic. I would agree that the language he used was clumsy - and it did upset a few people. Also the IRA thing - no, he didn't "support" them as the Daily Heil Mail accused him. He wanted, as most did, to try to find a peaceful solution so he met with certain individuals at a time when it was not deemed a good idea to meet with them... it backfired on him, and peace didn't get acheived. That is one thing that Tony Blair can take a tiny piece of credit for... But support them? God, no - he was just trying to get the process of talking to each other rather than blowing each other up started.

Its clear that the general consensus on here is that he isn't liked. There have been some unkind things said on this thread - scruffy... well, is he any better dressed than you... and does it really matter? - and perhaps the message from the Labour website is rubbish... no, no perhaps about it. However, at the moment the only source of information is via Social Media - JC and his allies are pretty good at that but the Labour website is, at a guess, maintained by the PLP which means they won't be spreading any love for JC's policies/ideas etc.

I agree that Labour need to stop fighting and bitching, though - if they hadn't been so fragmented post-Brexit they could have capitalised massively but screwed up by blaming each other and the attempted coup (Tony Benn would not have approved of his son's actions) was foolish timing. Its time to rebuild - the fact remains that JC is still very very popular (clearly not here) and perhaps if he was given a chance to show what his ideas are, without the House of Thrones, Game of Cards silliness in the background it would be a different discussion.

ESBlonde

It was Margaret Thatcher (and the SAS) that brought the IRA to the negotiating table, Tony Blair then benefitted from the hard work done before. Jeremy was irrelevant.
There is/was another outsider politician that likes to speak to terrorists and rouge states, he was recently seen on Big Brother. Nice one George!

LoFi

impmann said:

The fact that he's "clung on" is that he is making a point... he was voted in with the biggest majority of any leader in recent times by *the party* NOT the MPs. Whether or not you (or they) agree is irrelevant, because that is democracy in action (much like the argument for the Brexit vote).

Yep - the will of the millions of members of the public who've voted for the Labour MPs being overruled by the will of the hundreds of thousands of members of the party who've *paid* to vote.

(Not a dig at you, and I'm well aware of how the party runs itself - I just get a little irked when Corbyn supporters on FB or similar start banging on about "Democracy" and completely missing the irony)

randella

impmann said:

Tony Benn would not have approved of his son's actions

That's a bit bloody rich - wasn't it Corbyn who stuck up Benn Snr. to try and oust Kinnock?

Look - we're never going to agree, nor is it a personal attack on you, not by a long shot; I don't really do ad-homimen, I'll leave that to the shouters in the Guardian comments.  If this does illustrate one thing though, it's that the party is woefully split.  I'm struggling to see a way back.

And I maintain he could dress a bit better.  That's not an insult, it's an observation.  Whether we like it or not, dressing for the occasion is a societal norm; certainly one I would expect of a man being paid £125,000 a year whose aspiration it is to lead the country and whose job it currently is to hold the country's government to account.

Clarky

axisus said:

Clarky said:

there is something about May though… not sure what it is..
but I have a feeling that she could be the right leader at the right time..
she seems to have real spine
and post Brexit, we need a leader that can pick up this country by the scruff of the neck, somehow hold everything together and try to launch it in some sort of direction that is as good as can be outside of the EU
I really do hope that she turns out to be the person that I hope her to be..

You know, I'm thinking you are right there. The tories have cut out the dead wood and are back with what appears to be strong leadership. I think that the boat has sailed and Labour missed it by a mile. 

the post referendum week could have been a Monty Python boxing match..
from the blue corner, the Tory threw an ill conceived punch [the referendum] that made him slip over, dazed him a bit, but he was not completely out cold..
in the red corner, Labour looked on at the opponent on his knees, and decided to completely knock himself out..

how to secure defeat from the jaws of victory does not come close to the level of ineptitude that Labour demonstrated

Philly_Q

impmann said:

The fact that he's "clung on" is that he is making a point... he was voted in with the biggest majority of any leader in recent times by *the party* NOT the MPs. Whether or not you (or they) agree is irrelevant, because that is democracy in action (much like the argument for the Brexit vote).
By doing this he has shown up that the current set up in the Labour party is divorced from what should be there. Its shown that those that support the party want something very different from the MPs - therefore are those MPs *actually* representing the views of those that vote for them?

But the people who voted for the MPs are not the same as the party members who voted for Corbyn.

It's probably true that a majority of the 500,000-odd party members would like Labour's policies to be recast more in the Corbyn mould.  But the millions of ordinary members of the public who voted Labour may have been entirely happy with what their MPs stood for.  Corbyn doesn't necessarily represent their views at all.

The real test will be a general election.

ToneControl

Diane Abbot makes me laugh
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36853932

"Labour MPs have been accused of deliberately undermining leader Jeremy Corbyn by refusing to cheer him at Prime Minister's Questions."
She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme they had "sat on their hands" and sulked instead of getting behind him....
"When Theresa May came in she got huge cheers from the Tory benches. When Jeremy came in there was silence."
She added: "If your own side isn't behind you it's really difficult to hit your stride. I thought he did fine but if Owen Smith is worried, first and foremost, talk to Labour MPs and get them to support Jeremy in the chamber."

so  AFAIK that would mean that the 82.5% of Labour MPs who voted that they had no confidence in him,
probably have no confidence in him

duhh

Clarky

impmann said:

May is a nasty piece of work that is in the pocket of several internationals (such as Murdoch) - she may well be the right leader for the Tories right now and I think she will lead with an iron fist. I don't think we will all be rejoicing at her endeavours in the long term - especially with regard to the NHS. But hey, I'm no fan of Tory policies.

I hope that this is not true now she's "Da Boss"

and…. working from the sidelines and steering the ship are not the same thing
so if this is true, I hope being "Da Boss" tempers any possible nasty bits..

seriously.. I've never felt so much hope in a PM since Blair first took over..
I seriously hope that this feeling of hope is not as misplaced as it was back then..
my lil' fingers and toes are totally crossed that she can be really strong, whilst managing to hold our United Kingdom of Us Guys family together, somehow manage to remain really good mates with the EU folks next door, keep the country wealthy, and most of all, try to bring our country back together..

Garthy

ToneControl said:

Diane Abbot makes me laugh
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36853932

"Labour MPs have been accused of deliberately undermining leader Jeremy Corbyn by refusing to cheer him at Prime Minister's Questions."
She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme they had "sat on their hands" and sulked instead of getting behind him....
"When Theresa May came in she got huge cheers from the Tory benches. When Jeremy came in there was silence."
She added: "If your own side isn't behind you it's really difficult to hit your stride. I thought he did fine but if Owen Smith is worried, first and foremost, talk to Labour MPs and get them to support Jeremy in the chamber."

so  AFAIK that would mean that the 82.5% of Labour MPs who voted that they had no confidence in him,
probably have no confidence in him

duhh

She doesn't make me laugh. Anyone who comes second best to Jodie Marsh in a debate probably shouldn't be in politics either. 

ToneControl

impmann said:

The fact that he's "clung on" is that he is making a point... he was voted in with the biggest majority of any leader in recent times by *the party* NOT the MPs. Whether or not you (or they) agree is irrelevant, because that is democracy in action (much like the argument for the Brexit vote).
............

I agree that Labour need to stop fighting and bitching, though - if they hadn't been so fragmented post-Brexit they could have capitalised massively but screwed up by blaming each other and the attempted coup (Tony Benn would not have approved of his son's actions) was foolish timing. Its time to rebuild - the fact remains that JC is still very very popular (clearly not here) and perhaps if he was given a chance to show what his ideas are, without the House of Thrones, Game of Cards silliness in the background it would be a different discussion.

-----I'm  starting to think it's undemocratic to let party members choose a leader when a party is in power:  you are letting the activists choose a country's leader. It's probably most democratic to let the MPs of that part choose.
In opposition, not so bad, but Labour opened up the voting. Now a self-selected group of more active people can choose the leader. Clearly this will never be a random sample of the party's voters, so can never represent them

Corbyn's approval ratings among labour voters was down to 4% by last December, he is not "very popular", unless you can find some evidence that proves otherwise.  As anecdotal evidence, I'm a life-long labour voter, and will definitely not be voting labour in the next election if he is still leader, so - who is that "core voter" he wants to appeal to? He just lost  my vote

ToneControl

Garthy said:

ToneControl said:

Diane Abbot makes me laugh
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36853932

"Labour MPs have been accused of deliberately undermining leader Jeremy Corbyn by refusing to cheer him at Prime Minister's Questions."
She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme they had "sat on their hands" and sulked instead of getting behind him....
"When Theresa May came in she got huge cheers from the Tory benches. When Jeremy came in there was silence."
She added: "If your own side isn't behind you it's really difficult to hit your stride. I thought he did fine but if Owen Smith is worried, first and foremost, talk to Labour MPs and get them to support Jeremy in the chamber."

so  AFAIK that would mean that the 82.5% of Labour MPs who voted that they had no confidence in him,
probably have no confidence in him

duhh

She doesn't make me laugh. Anyone who comes second best to Jodie Marsh in a debate probably shouldn't be in politics either. 

send me  a link please

Clarky

ToneControl said:

impmann said:

The fact that he's "clung on" is that he is making a point... he was voted in with the biggest majority of any leader in recent times by *the party* NOT the MPs. Whether or not you (or they) agree is irrelevant, because that is democracy in action (much like the argument for the Brexit vote).
............

I agree that Labour need to stop fighting and bitching, though - if they hadn't been so fragmented post-Brexit they could have capitalised massively but screwed up by blaming each other and the attempted coup (Tony Benn would not have approved of his son's actions) was foolish timing. Its time to rebuild - the fact remains that JC is still very very popular (clearly not here) and perhaps if he was given a chance to show what his ideas are, without the House of Thrones, Game of Cards silliness in the background it would be a different discussion.

-----I'm  starting to think it's undemocratic to let party members choose a leader when a party is in power:  you are letting the activists choose a country's leader. It's probably most democratic to let the MPs of that part choose.
In opposition, not so bad, but Labour opened up the voting. Now a self-selected group of more active people can choose the leader. Clearly this will never be a random sample of the party's voters, so can never represent them

Corbyn's approval ratings among labour voters was down to 4% by last December, he is not "very popular", unless you can find some evidence that proves otherwise.  As anecdotal evidence, I'm a life-long labour voter, and will definitely not be voting labour in the next election if he is still leader, so - who is that "core voter" he wants to appeal to? He just lost  my vote

given that most labour voters are also usually anti-Tory.. what's the viable alternative??

impmann

ToneControl said:

impmann said:

The fact that he's "clung on" is that he is making a point... he was voted in with the biggest majority of any leader in recent times by *the party* NOT the MPs. Whether or not you (or they) agree is irrelevant, because that is democracy in action (much like the argument for the Brexit vote).
............

I agree that Labour need to stop fighting and bitching, though - if they hadn't been so fragmented post-Brexit they could have capitalised massively but screwed up by blaming each other and the attempted coup (Tony Benn would not have approved of his son's actions) was foolish timing. Its time to rebuild - the fact remains that JC is still very very popular (clearly not here) and perhaps if he was given a chance to show what his ideas are, without the House of Thrones, Game of Cards silliness in the background it would be a different discussion.

-----I'm  starting to think it's undemocratic to let party members choose a leader when a party is in power:  you are letting the activists choose a country's leader. It's probably most democratic to let the MPs of that part choose.
In opposition, not so bad, but Labour opened up the voting. Now a self-selected group of more active people can choose the leader. Clearly this will never be a random sample of the party's voters, so can never represent them

Corbyn's approval ratings among labour voters was down to 4% by last December, he is not "very popular", unless you can find some evidence that proves otherwise. 

I think the evidence will be the huge number of people that have shelled out £25 to vote for him...

And fwiw, I totally agree with you about the voting system. This whole mess has highlighted the disconnect between the PLP, the Labour Party at large and the electorate.

Reverend

Realistically,  could anyone win power without the backing of the Sun? 

Blair and Cameron wooed Murdoch. I can't see Corbyn doing so.

Jalapeno

I think Corbyn's plan escaped today - we're going back to the 70s/80s - mandatory reselection of sitting MPs .  He doesn't want power in Parliament, he's about reforming the Labour party in his Trotskyist view of the world.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36852222

And the call for party unity is hysterical - he spent the last 30yrs disobeying the party !

scrumhalf

What would happen if the much-vaunted party membership voted as leader someone who's not an MP? If their vote is to be sovereign what will happen?

ChuckManual

There is (and always has been) a section of the Labour Party membership that is so anti-establishment that they're more than happy for the party to be no more than a pressure group - in fact, that's their preference - and, from time to time, they raise their heads above the parapet and make a lot of noise.

We are, unfortunately, in one of those times right now.

It's the Michael Foot years all over again... 

Myranda

LoFi said:

impmann said:

The fact that he's "clung on" is that he is making a point... he was voted in with the biggest majority of any leader in recent times by *the party* NOT the MPs. Whether or not you (or they) agree is irrelevant, because that is democracy in action (much like the argument for the Brexit vote).

Yep - the will of the millions of members of the public who've voted for the Labour MPs being overruled by the will of the hundreds of thousands of members of the party who've *paid* to vote.

(Not a dig at you, and I'm well aware of how the party runs itself - I just get a little irked when Corbyn supporters on FB or similar start banging on about "Democracy" and completely missing the irony)

Are these the same MPs who have had a year of not being able to speak to or hear from their leader - including one MP who he nominated for a cabinet post but didn't inform until he fired her for not being there, so she contacted JC the mix up was sorted and she became a shadow cabinet minister until she resigned because her boss couldn't be contacted when needed and gave no policy advice. 

Yes he was elected... But he's not doing the job... So the people paid to represent the country have taken a stand... Against a leader who is unable or unwilling to lead.