[Politics] Next leader of the Labour party

[Jolly Red Giant]

Well apparently he's so far to the left that's not surprising.

An academic who has made a handsome living out of the 'race relations' industry - whatever you could describe him as, 'left' would hardly figure into it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The likelihood is that the next leader of the LP will make more concessions - and that is what will lead the LP to lose the next election.

A good read, as always. Till this last bit. Not making concessions to the electorate is what makes labour lose. That and appearing to be being a bit rubbish.

A GE is like any leadership contest; the candidates ask one important question in the end: "will you follow me?". They may also ask "given the difference in policies between me and the othe b'stards, notwithstanding or common humanity, I have a cunning plan and know that it is right, it is socialist/conservative (I am being even handed here) and it is right so come with me and support my plan, which has many details that you can read in my fully-costed manifesto", but if they don't hit the gut with the first bit, people will say "no, you're alright, mate, I've already got most of that, and the other bloke is much funnier/confident/believable" (take your pick). "Not going to follow you, mate, but you seem nice. Some good ideas. And that.".

Voting is visceral. This may or may not be right, but it is the way it is. That's why Foot, Kinnock, Duncan Smith, several other tories whose names I have forgotten, that weird robotic yorkshireman who spoke as a 15 year old at one of the Thatcher-fests, and Corbyn, lost.

Nobody likes a loser, especially when they drone on about how their policies are still correct, and only circumstances (Brexit) and a getting-the-message-across failure (which was largely the fault of the stupid electorate anyway, and the Murdoch press, obviously) stopped them marching to a joyous victory.

Compromising with the electorate is what makes an election winner most of the time - only when the other b'stard is a complete plum duff will a bare-faced liar, who isn't planning on compromise, win. Which is how Boris won.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

A good read, as always. Till this last bit. Not making concessions to the electorate is what makes labour lose. That and appearing to be being a bit rubbish.

A GE is like any leadership contest; the candidates ask one important question in the end: "will you follow me?". They may also ask "given the difference in policies between me and the othe b'stards, notwithstanding or common humanity, I have a cunning plan and know that it is right, it is socialist/conservative (I am being even handed here) and it is right so come with me and support my plan, which has many details that you can read in my fully-costed manifesto", but if they don't hit the gut with the first bit, people will say "no, you're alright, mate, I've already got most of that, and the other bloke is much funnier/confident/believable" (take your pick). "Not going to follow you, mate, but you seem nice. Some good ideas. And that.".

Voting is visceral. This may or may not be right, but it is the way it is. That's why Foot, Kinnock, Duncan Smith, several other tories whose names I have forgotten, that weird robotic yorkshireman who spoke as a 15 year old at one of the Thatcher-fests, and Corbyn, lost.

Nobody likes a loser, especially when they drone on about how their policies are still correct, and only circumstances (Brexit) and a getting-the-message-across failure (which was largely the fault of the stupid electorate anyway, and the Murdoch press, obviously) stopped them marching to a joyous victory.

Compromising with the electorate is what makes an election winner most of the time - only when the other b'stard is a complete plum duff will a bare-faced liar, who isn't planning on compromise, win. Which is how Boris won.

This

 

[Weststander]

A good read, as always. Till this last bit. Not making concessions to the electorate is what makes labour lose. That and appearing to be being a bit rubbish.

A GE is like any leadership contest; the candidates ask one important question in the end: "will you follow me?". They may also ask "given the difference in policies between me and the othe b'stards, notwithstanding or common humanity, I have a cunning plan and know that it is right, it is socialist/conservative (I am being even handed here) and it is right so come with me and support my plan, which has many details that you can read in my fully-costed manifesto", but if they don't hit the gut with the first bit, people will say "no, you're alright, mate, I've already got most of that, and the other bloke is much funnier/confident/believable" (take your pick). "Not going to follow you, mate, but you seem nice. Some good ideas. And that.".

Voting is visceral. This may or may not be right, but it is the way it is. That's why Foot, Kinnock, Duncan Smith, several other tories whose names I have forgotten, that weird robotic yorkshireman who spoke as a 15 year old at one of the Thatcher-fests, and Corbyn, lost.

Nobody likes a loser, especially when they drone on about how their policies are still correct, and only circumstances (Brexit) and a getting-the-message-across failure (which was largely the fault of the stupid electorate anyway, and the Murdoch press, obviously) stopped them marching to a joyous victory.

Compromising with the electorate is what makes an election winner most of the time - only when the other b'stard is a complete plum duff will a bare-faced liar, who isn't planning on compromise, win. Which is how Boris won.

McCluskey, Corbyn, Lansman, McDonnell, Long-Bailey and Burgon always appear primarily interested in maintaining control of a major party over all of a softer persuasion, than becoming electable to Middle England and Wales. Revelling in their control, stemming from Beckett’s famous 2015 blunder in nominating Corbyn to notionally widen the field. Dogma, class war, spite, the politics of envy, hate .... and not just to Tories, but to vocal dissenters within.

This isn’t over, it’s just Unite. The newly enlarged membership may see sense and play the long game in electing Starmer and a deputy who isn’t a charmless, bungling fool when interviewed.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

A good read, as always. Till this last bit. Not making concessions to the electorate is what makes labour lose. That and appearing to be being a bit rubbish.

Making 'concessions' - concessions to what? I was talking about concessions that RLB will make to the Blairites - the exact same Blairites who spent four years attacking Corbyn and sabotaged the LP election campaign.

But if you are talking about 'concessions' in terms of policies - then you are off base. Corbyn's policies have repeatedly proved to be popular with a significant majority of the population - it wasn't policies that cost Corbyn the election, it was flip-flopping on Brexit and as a result being seen as untrustworthy. 'Concessions' in this context means adopting Tory policies and we already have the Tories and the Blairites for that.

McCluskey, Corbyn, Lansman, McDonnell, Long-Bailey and Burgon always appear primarily interested in maintaining control of a major party over all of a softer persuasion, than becoming electable to Middle England and Wales. Revelling in their control, stemming from Beckett’s famous 2015 blunder in nominating Corbyn to notionally widen the field. Dogma, class war, spite, the politics of envy, hate .... and not just to Tories, but to vocal dissenters within. .

Corbyn got more votes than Blair in 2005, Brown in 2010 and Miliband in 2015 - the 'softer persuasion' is the Tory persuasion - why is three a need two Tory parties.

As I outlined above - Corbyn's policies have proven to be popular with a significant majority of the population - it is not the 'softer persuasion' that is needed - it is sticking to the policies that are needed and are popular, and not compromising with people who have no interest in implementing these policies and will wreck the LP to prevent them being implemented.

 

[WilburySeagull]

The labour party has only once been elected on what jrg might call a proper socialist manifesto and that was in 1945 in the special conditions following the war. However popular the Corbyn policies were (and I take claims of that with a pinch of salt) it was clear on the doorstep that the electorate did not believe they could all be implemented at once nor did they believe Corbyn was the person to do it. Of course brexit was a big problem but so was Corbyn. I can vouch for the latter as my other half did some canvassing and he was often mentioned as a reason not yto vote labour. You can go on wanting the purity of real spocialism but some time you will have to compromise not with other party factions but with the electorate.

 

[Gwylan]

The labour party has only once been elected on what jrg might call a proper socialist manifesto and that was in 1945 in the special conditions following the war..

The 1964 manifesto was pretty radical with all its talk of national plans, the involvement of trades unions, increasing the tax burden on the rich and the nationlisation of the steel industry. It was certainly well to the left of Corbyn's manifesto

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

the exact same Blairites who spent four years attacking Corbyn and sabotaged the LP election campaign.
.

Blairites sabotaged the LP GE Campaign?

Corbyn, McDonnell, Burgon et al did that all by themselves.

 

[Bold Seagull]

McCluskey, Corbyn, Lansman, McDonnell, Long-Bailey and Burgon always appear primarily interested in maintaining control of a major party over all of a softer persuasion, than becoming electable to Middle England and Wales. Revelling in their control, stemming from Beckett’s famous 2015 blunder in nominating Corbyn to notionally widen the field. Dogma, class war, spite, the politics of envy, hate .... and not just to Tories, but to vocal dissenters within.

This isn’t over, it’s just Unite. The newly enlarged membership may see sense and play the long game in electing Starmer and a deputy who isn’t a charmless, bungling fool when interviewed.

Starmer leading the way for me at the moment. Think it shows he has the capacity to address those big issues like how the Union moves forward after Brexit. He doesn't seem wedded to a particular faction, but his remain stance maybe a huge problem in winning back the voters they lost due to their Brexit stance, perhaps a stance he helped create.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Making 'concessions' - concessions to what? I was talking about concessions that RLB will make to the Blairites - the exact same Blairites who spent four years attacking Corbyn and sabotaged the LP election campaign.

But if you are talking about 'concessions' in terms of policies - then you are off base. Corbyn's policies have repeatedly proved to be popular with a significant majority of the population - it wasn't policies that cost Corbyn the election, it was flip-flopping on Brexit and as a result being seen as untrustworthy. 'Concessions' in this context means adopting Tory policies and we already have the Tories and the Blairites for that.



Corbyn got more votes than Blair in 2005, Brown in 2010 and Miliband in 2015 - the 'softer persuasion' is the Tory persuasion - why is three a need two Tory parties.

As I outlined above - Corbyn's policies have proven to be popular with a significant majority of the population - it is not the 'softer persuasion' that is needed - it is sticking to the policies that are needed and are popular, and not compromising with people who have no interest in implementing these policies and will wreck the LP to prevent them being implemented.

Wow. You really think Corbyn lost the GE only because of his untrustworthiness over Brexit,? Well, in as much as it exemplifies his general untrustworthiness (your take, not mine - I didn't see him as untrustworthy as such) or incoherence (my take - he has seemed incoherent to me throughout his career) I guess you're right. But.... the only reason why you think massively popular Labour didn't get a landslide? The man, not the policies? What about the power of The Issues (to paraphrase Tony Benn)? Do you think issues are not important to the electorate?

Let's think about this a bit more. Are you blaming Corbyn for being untrustworthy, or the electorate for being foolish for perceiving him as untrustworthy, or for allowing their correct assessment that he is untrustworthy to cloud their judgement and vote tory even though they loved labour's policies?

OK I understand you are a historian, rather than a student of politics but, well, I think your view about why labour lost doesn't stand up to any analysis. It is naive at best.

I have undertaken various surveys in my job. One was about a text book (mine as it happens) that wasn't selling well in the US. The publisher put together a survey of US professors. It asked them what they liked about my book, and what could be imporoved. We made the changes for the next edition and it didn't sell any better. We did the survey again and I asked the question 'if we made all the (new) changes would you recommend the book to your students?'. The answer was a resounding 'no'. This is because the yanks have been using two textbooks for years, write their lectures around them, and set their exams based on them. Of course they won't change.

So it does not matter how 'popular' labour's policies are. The only vote that counts is the general election. ALL other discussion is null and void. Losing a general election is not an endorsement of popularity. And getting the highest number of votes since Blair's first win is not actually a 'win' as some on the left still think. It is barely virtuous. It is certainly not a harbinger of a win, or an indicator that if the same policies are pursued it is only a matter of time till the win happens. Crikey, as Einstein said (to paraphrase) the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing again and again (or sticking with the same policies, strategies and tactics, but especially the policies) and expecting a different outcome. But, anyway, if you don't really care about winning, none of this matters.

Like the leave-voting labour supporters who won the general election for Boris (ahem...), I take Brexit seriously too and if labour elects a hard Brexiter (you can't be a soft brexiter since that's just 'betrayal of Brexit') then I won't vote labour for the econd only time in my life (the other time was a tactical vote to stop the tories). That said, Brexit will be done and dusted by the time of the next election (forgotten, Boris having delivered the sunny uplands, or beyond reversal having left us all bleeding out of every orifice and fighting for survival, or somewhere in between), so Corbyn's other policies (if RLB becomes supreme chairman of the executive) will have an unfettered free run to electoral triumph....

 

[Weststander]

Starmer leading the way for me at the moment. Think it shows he has the capacity to address those big issues like how the Union moves forward after Brexit. He doesn't seem wedded to a particular faction, but his remain stance maybe a huge problem in winning back the voters they lost due to their Brexit stance, perhaps a stance he helped create.

Starmer came across brilliantly on BBC Breakfast today. Personable, warm, and never stuck in the bitter class warrior tones of the charmless automatons RLB, Burgon, Rayner and Thornberry.

As a floating voter, Labour under him would be of interest to me. But it would also depend on the deputy chosen, the content of the next manifesto and the general tone spoken by the shadow cabinet. Would they be looking at a sensible tax and spend mix, abandon their spiteful and dogmatic policies, and looking to genuinely woo small business owners and the aspirational?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Starmer came across brilliantly on BBC Breakfast today. Personable, warm, and never stuck in the bitter class warrior tones of the charmless automatons RLB, Burgon, Rayner and Thornberry.

As a floating voter, Labour under him would be of interest to me. But it would also depend on the deputy chosen, the content of the next manifesto and the general tone spoken by the shadow cabinet. Would they be looking at a sensible tax and spend mix, abandon their spiteful and dogmatic policies, and looking to genuinely woo small business owners and the aspirational?

Softly softly. Hw won't reveal his hand.

But stand by for a vicious anti Starmer campaign from the usual suspects if looks like he's going to win.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Wow. You really think Corbyn lost the GE only because of his untrustworthiness over Brexit,? Well, in as much as it exemplifies his general untrustworthiness (your take, not mine - I didn't see him as untrustworthy as such) or incoherence (my take - he has seemed incoherent to me throughout his career) I guess you're right. But.... the only reason why you think massively popular Labour didn't get a landslide? The man, not the policies? What about the power of The Issues (to paraphrase Tony Benn)? Do you think issues are not important to the electorate?

In this last election there was ONE issue - 'Get Brexit done' - supporting Leave would have changed the debate to what type of society Britain should have when it leaves.

Let's think about this a bit more. Are you blaming Corbyn for being untrustworthy, or the electorate for being foolish for perceiving him as untrustworthy, or for allowing their correct assessment that he is untrustworthy to cloud their judgement and vote tory even though they loved labour's policies?

Parliamentary elections are all about momentum. In 2017 Corbyn was expected to take a hammering - yet developed significant momentum around the election campaign. Brexit was largely a non-issue because Corbyn adopted a Leave position and the election became about the type of economy that people wanted - thousands turned up to the rallies for Corbyn, tens of thousands joined the LP and there was a a significant shift to the LP based on the left policies espoused by Corbyn and McDonnell. Just as in 2016 the Blairites completely misread the situation - like the media, they expected Corbyn to be hammered. The LP jumped by 10% and Corbyn won almost 13million votes. The Tories were returned because of the implosion of UKIP.

At this stage the correct strategy for Corbyn was to build on the momentum from the election campaign - push forward with mandatory reselection, calling on Labour councils to refuse to implement Tory cuts (and deselecting Blairite councillors who refused), launched public campaigns for the renationalisation of the railways and buses, for a reversal of privatisation in the NHS, stopping the privatisation of schools, scrapping the Welfare Reform Act and universal credit and the awful degrading assessment system in the UK etc, and - crucially - calling on the TUC to start the process of a campaign of industrial action against privatisation, zero hour contracts, the race bottom and protect workers rights.

Instead Corbyn was listening to people whispering in his ear - probably McDonnell and Lansman - telling him not to rock the boat and keep the Blairites onside and he could become PM. Rather than build on the momentum of the 2017 campaign, Corbyn took his foot off the gas, allowed the Blairites to regroup and then faced an onslaught of smears and slander that he refused to challenge head-on. In the meantime the Blairite councils kept cutting services, the smears continued and had an impact - and when Corbyn agreed to effectively flip-flop to a Remain position he lost working class voters in the Midlands and the North of England. He compounded this by refusing to back Scottish independence which has seen the LP drop collapse from 56 seats in Scotland less than 20 years ago to the sum total of 1 seat in the last election.

Working class voters had high expectations of Corbyn - that is why he secured a significant bounce in 2017 - and these expectations were dashed by a combination of Corbyn failing to stand up to the Blairites (and the Blairite councils), failing to challenge the smears and, crucially, failing to maintain support Leave (which the Labour heartlands north of Watford supported because the pro-EU policies of the Tories and the Blairites had destroyed the industrial working class communities outside of London and the South East.

OK I understand you are a historian, rather than a student of politics but, well, I think your view about why labour lost doesn't stand up to any analysis. It is naive at best.

PhD in History - MA in Politics and a BA in Sociology - on top of 40 years of political experience nationally in Ireland, as well as political activity in Britain on numerous occasions during that period - and there is significant evidence to back up my analysis - some of which I have linked to on here.

So it does not matter how 'popular' labour's policies are. The only vote that counts is the general election. ALL other discussion is null and void. Losing a general election is not an endorsement of popularity. And getting the highest number of votes since Blair's first win is not actually a 'win' as some on the left still think. It is barely virtuous. It is certainly not a harbinger of a win, or an indicator that if the same policies are pursued it is only a matter of time till the win happens. Crikey, as Einstein said (to paraphrase) the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing again and again (or sticking with the same policies, strategies and tactics, but especially the policies) and expecting a different outcome. But, anyway, if you don't really care about winning, none of this matters.

On the contrary - I absolutely do care about winning - by winning I mean the establishment of a workers government implementing socialist policies and providing for the most vulnerable in society. I reject winning on the basis that the super rich cannot be touched and therefore nothing can change. Parliamentary democracy is an instrument of capitalist rule - any political party that focuses solely on winning a parliamentary majority will inevitably succumb and implement policies in the interests of the capitalist class.

And it is interesting that you attempt to quote Einstein (and he didn't say what you attribute to him) - but this is a direct quote from Einstein

[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion.

Einstein was a Marxist and wrote extensively about socialism - this quote is from an article written in 1949 entitled 'Why Socialism' and published in a journal called Monthly Review

Like the leave-voting labour supporters who won the general election for Boris (ahem...), I take Brexit seriously too and if labour elects a hard Brexiter (you can't be a soft brexiter since that's just 'betrayal of Brexit') then I won't vote labour for the econd only time in my life (the other time was a tactical vote to stop the tories). That said, Brexit will be done and dusted by the time of the next election (forgotten, Boris having delivered the sunny uplands, or beyond reversal having left us all bleeding out of every orifice and fighting for survival, or somewhere in between), so Corbyn's other policies (if RLB becomes supreme chairman of the executive) will have an unfettered free run to electoral triumph....

And now we get to the blame game - blaming pro-Leave working class voters who are fed up of being told that the EU is good for them when they can see with their own eyes the wreckage that it has caused. The EU is a pro-globalisation, pro-imperialist power block that has brought deregulation, privatisation, a migration crisis, control by financial capital (and bailing out their gambling debts when they f*ck up), a race to the bottom and massive inequality on a European-wide and global basis. The EU is now galloping head-long into international conflict with the different power blocs - USA - Russia - China - and the European working class are the ones who will suffer the consequences.

Electing the likes of Starmer is akin to doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result - tweedledum and tweedledee - the Tories and the Blairites.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Electing the likes of Starmer is akin to doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result - tweedledum and tweedledee - the Tories and the Blairites.

Sorry to ignore the rest of your reply.

So you think Starmer is the Blairite candidate. Interesting. I thought you thought as much. As will the Wrong Baileyistas. Standby momentum smears then....

If supporting Starmer means recreating the same old Blairite situation (three GE wins) then I'm all up for that - doing the same thing and expecting the same result (winning), I think you'll find .

 

[drew]

This thread is dying a death. JRG is doing here what he did on the Hughton thread, repeating the same old drivel over and over again.

What he wants is revolution and if he doesn't get it he'll throw his toys out of the pram!!!

 

[Billy the Fish]

PhD in History - MA in Politics and a BA in Sociology - on top of 40 years of political experience nationally in Ireland,

What's it like being the most educated man in the asylum?

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

This thread is dying a death. JRG is doing here what he did on the Hughton thread, repeating the same old drivel over and over again.

I take it you have a counter-argument - or are you just mouthing off for the sake of it.

What he wants is revolution and if he doesn't get it he'll throw his toys out of the pram!!!

I don't 'want' a revolution - I recognise that a revolution is necessary (at the very least to save the planet) - and after 40 years my toys are well scattered around the place.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

If supporting Starmer means recreating the same old Blairite situation (three GE wins) then I'm all up for that - doing the same thing and expecting the same result (winning), I think you'll find .

Yes - Starmer is a Blairite - he adopted a different strategy than others - quite possibly by agreement. Some, as drew says, threw their toys out of the pram, some engaged in smears, some went into hiding waiting for future opportunities and some, like Starmer, moved to influence Corbyn's team. Starmer was primarily responsible for Corbyn dropping Leave and adopting the Remain position that cost the LP the election. So you would have to say that he was the most effectual of the Blairites in terms of undermining Corbyn.

I will give two guarantees if Starmer is elected leader of the LP - at some point there will be a purge of the membership of the LP to preserve the rule of the Blairties within the LP - and - unless there is a complete f*ck-up, the Tories will comfortably win the next election. A Starmer leadership could also prompt a section of the trade union movement to move to establish a new LP (a positive development in those circumstances) - because it is likely that under Starmer the LP could move further to the right than under Blair.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

In this last election there was ONE issue - 'Get Brexit done' - supporting Leave would have changed the debate to what type of society Britain should have when it leaves.


Parliamentary elections are all about momentum. In 2017 Corbyn was expected to take a hammering - yet developed significant momentum around the election campaign. Brexit was largely a non-issue because Corbyn adopted a Leave position and the election became about the type of economy that people wanted - thousands turned up to the rallies for Corbyn, tens of thousands joined the LP and there was a a significant shift to the LP based on the left policies espoused by Corbyn and McDonnell. Just as in 2016 the Blairites completely misread the situation - like the media, they expected Corbyn to be hammered. The LP jumped by 10% and Corbyn won almost 13million votes. The Tories were returned because of the implosion of UKIP.

At this stage the correct strategy for Corbyn was to build on the momentum from the election campaign - push forward with mandatory reselection, calling on Labour councils to refuse to implement Tory cuts (and deselecting Blairite councillors who refused), launched public campaigns for the renationalisation of the railways and buses, for a reversal of privatisation in the NHS, stopping the privatisation of schools, scrapping the Welfare Reform Act and universal credit and the awful degrading assessment system in the UK etc, and - crucially - calling on the TUC to start the process of a campaign of industrial action against privatisation, zero hour contracts, the race bottom and protect workers rights.

Instead Corbyn was listening to people whispering in his ear - probably McDonnell and Lansman - telling him not to rock the boat and keep the Blairites onside and he could become PM. Rather than build on the momentum of the 2017 campaign, Corbyn took his foot off the gas, allowed the Blairites to regroup and then faced an onslaught of smears and slander that he refused to challenge head-on. In the meantime the Blairite councils kept cutting services, the smears continued and had an impact - and when Corbyn agreed to effectively flip-flop to a Remain position he lost working class voters in the Midlands and the North of England. He compounded this by refusing to back Scottish independence which has seen the LP drop collapse from 56 seats in Scotland less than 20 years ago to the sum total of 1 seat in the last election.

Working class voters had high expectations of Corbyn - that is why he secured a significant bounce in 2017 - and these expectations were dashed by a combination of Corbyn failing to stand up to the Blairites (and the Blairite councils), failing to challenge the smears and, crucially, failing to maintain support Leave (which the Labour heartlands north of Watford supported because the pro-EU policies of the Tories and the Blairites had destroyed the industrial working class communities outside of London and the South East.


PhD in History - MA in Politics and a BA in Sociology - on top of 40 years of political experience nationally in Ireland, as well as political activity in Britain on numerous occasions during that period - and there is significant evidence to back up my analysis - some of which I have linked to on here.


On the contrary - I absolutely do care about winning - by winning I mean the establishment of a workers government implementing socialist policies and providing for the most vulnerable in society. I reject winning on the basis that the super rich cannot be touched and therefore nothing can change. Parliamentary democracy is an instrument of capitalist rule - any political party that focuses solely on winning a parliamentary majority will inevitably succumb and implement policies in the interests of the capitalist class.

And it is interesting that you attempt to quote Einstein (and he didn't say what you attribute to him) - but this is a direct quote from Einstein


Einstein was a Marxist and wrote extensively about socialism - this quote is from an article written in 1949 entitled 'Why Socialism' and published in a journal called Monthly Review


And now we get to the blame game - blaming pro-Leave working class voters who are fed up of being told that the EU is good for them when they can see with their own eyes the wreckage that it has caused. The EU is a pro-globalisation, pro-imperialist power block that has brought deregulation, privatisation, a migration crisis, control by financial capital (and bailing out their gambling debts when they f*ck up), a race to the bottom and massive inequality on a European-wide and global basis. The EU is now galloping head-long into international conflict with the different power blocs - USA - Russia - China - and the European working class are the ones who will suffer the consequences.

Electing the likes of Starmer is akin to doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result - tweedledum and tweedledee - the Tories and the Blairites.

Have you ever worked? Genuine question. If you have did the business need to generate money to pay you.

 

[Bish Bosh]

Yes - Starmer is a Blairite - he adopted a different strategy than others - quite possibly by agreement. Some, as drew says, threw their toys out of the pram, some engaged in smears, some went into hiding waiting for future opportunities and some, like Starmer, moved to influence Corbyn's team. Starmer was primarily responsible for Corbyn dropping Leave and adopting the Remain position that cost the LP the election. So you would have to say that he was the most effectual of the Blairites in terms of undermining Corbyn.

I will give two guarantees if Starmer is elected leader of the LP - at some point there will be a purge of the membership of the LP to preserve the rule of the Blairties within the LP - and - unless there is a complete f*ck-up, the Tories will comfortably win the next election. A Starmer leadership could also prompt a section of the trade union movement to move to establish a new LP (a positive development in those circumstances) - because it is likely that under Starmer the LP could move further to the right than under Blair.

Evidence since the mid-70s is that enough English voters respond well to a robust right-wing leader who appeals to a version of patriotism. Under fptp this secures big majorities.

What would lead you to conclude that Johnson could ever lose an election...scandal maybe? After all bad economic news will never be 'owned' by Government, it would always be someone elses fault.