[Politics] Next leader of the Labour party

[Frutos]

promoting socialist policies that clearly have a support of the majority of the population.

As someone who does agree with a fair amount of Corbyn's policies (but by no means all), may I ask what evidence this claim is based on?

 

[Lower West Stander]

membership grown from 150,000 to almost 600,000

more votes in 2017 and 2019 than Milliband in 2015, Brown in 2010 and Blair in 2005

higher percentage of the vote in 2017 than in the above 3 elections

promoting socialist policies that clearly have a support of the majority of the population

been subjected to more smears and personal abuse that any party leader since Michael Foot (including by most of his own PLP)

mobilising thousands of people on the streets in support of socialist policies

and he never ran away and hid in a fridge.

given the sh*t he has had to deal with his leadership has actually been a relative success - certainly more successful than most Blairite LP leaders over the past 40 years.

He’s back [emoji1][emoji1][emoji1]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Chicken Run]

membership grown from 150,000 to almost 600,000

more votes in 2017 and 2019 than Milliband in 2015, Brown in 2010 and Blair in 2005

higher percentage of the vote in 2017 than in the above 3 elections

promoting socialist policies that clearly have a support of the majority of the population

been subjected to more smears and personal abuse that any party leader since Michael Foot (including by most of his own PLP)

mobilising thousands of people on the streets in support of socialist policies

and he never ran away and hid in a fridge.

given the sh*t he has had to deal with his leadership has actually been a relative success - certainly more successful than most Blairite LP leaders over the past 40 years.

All those members FAILED to win two elections

All those votes and he’s out of a job

All that high percentage and still not in power

Promoting policy’s that didn’t get him elected

Smears, only losers blame smears

Mobilising thousands of people who he let down in the end

He should be in a fridge

Oh and let’s not forget that nearly 70 % of the electorate didn’t trust him to form a government.!

HE FAILED [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

1. When I was (a lot) younger I held the view that a socialist society was imminent - as you mature you realise that time is relative. Homo Sapiens Sapiens have been on the planet somewhere between 30K-75K years - the stone age existed for the bulk of that time - followed by slave society for maybe 4K years and feudalism for 1K years . Capitalism has been on the planet for about 250 years. As society changed/evolved the pace that the evolution accelerated. It is not possible to predict when (of even if) a socialist society will emerge - what we can say is that capitalism has reached its limits and is in what could be called its 'death agony'. Since WW2 the elites have held the power to destroy the planet by the use of nuclear weapons (and there haven't been just 2 atomic bombs - there have been in excess of 2,000 atomic bombs exploded since then) - but there has been a much more long-term destruction as a result of capitalism - the use of fossil fuels that has driven capitalist development over the past 250 years. Unlike a nuclear war - there would be no 'judgement day' - and as I pointed out before, the elites believe they can exploit this crisis for profit. Unfortunately - environmental destruction makes a socialist revolution all the more imperative because capitalism is killing the planet and cannot but act in that fashion because the driving force of capitalism is the use of fossil fuels. The alternative is environmental collapse and a return to what some have termed 'barbarism' - the world of the redneck preppers and survivalists. As a result - socialist revolution is far more likely in the near to mid-term than at any time since the inter-war period.

What we can predict is that revolutions will occur - and will occur on a consistent and ongoing basis - today we have revolutionary upheavals taking place in Hong Kong, Iran, Chile, Ecuador, Lebanon and the opposition to the counter-revolutionary coup in Bolivia. These upheavals are a symptom of the death agony of capitalism - people will protest and will revolt. Most of these upheavals will be suppressed - often with extreme brutality - but all that is needed is for one of these revolutionary upheavals to develop a socialist character and be carried through to a successful conclusion - this would have a domino effect globally. We have no idea where this might take place - there are reasons why they might happen and reasons that would mitigate against such a movement in every part of the world. In Britain and Ireland for example - and the situation in both countries is very closely linked - it is not remotely a prospect at the moment, in the short to medium term - a Tory Brexit and the potential of sectarian conflict in the North of Ireland because of the national question are significant counter-revolutionary pressures on these islands - yet the whiff of counter-revolution can often provoke a revolutionary or pre-revolutionary movement that would not have seemed the remotest possibility only months earlier. Socialists agitate around these points - putting forward arguments in support of reforms and linking them to the need to change society. Socialists do not ferment discontent or upheaval - but recognise that it is inevitable under capitalism and the task for socialists is to give it an organised and disciplined character with clear objectives.

2. I don't have a problem working on political objectives with people of all strands of political outlook (except fascists) - for example - when the Blairite council decided to close Hove library the Tories launched a campaign against the closure. If I was in Hove I would had no problem participating in a campaign against that closure - but I would have done so on the basis of pointing out the hypocrisy of the Tories, the fact that the closure was been driven by Tory policies of austerity (that were being supported by the Blairites) and by arguing that working class people should take ownership of the campaign and not allow the Tories to use it as a political football. You take every measure on an issue-by-issue basis and, as a socialist, ask the question - is this in the interests of working class people? Your approach as a socialist is then determined by that answer (and yes it is subjective). What I do oppose is political compromise with pro-capitalist elements - because the only outcome of such a compromise are pro-capitalist (i.e. Tory) policies - and there is copious amounts of evidence to demonstrate this across all countries and political issues.


Yes it is - and there is a reason for that - it serves the interests of the political establishment to portray politics as comprising of 'leaders' and 'followers' - god forbid that people are capable of thinking for themselves. And even when leaders don't exist - the political establishment create them. Case in point - for 25 years the media and political circles in Ireland portrayed a guy called Joe Higgins as the 'leader' of the Socialist Party. Joe Higgins was, over this time, a member of the Irish Parliament and also for a period an MEP. To start with the Socialist Party does not have a leader - it has a collective leadership made up of a national committee - but in terms of influence Joe Higgins (or any member of the SP national committee) has no more power or influence within the SP than I do as an ordinary rank-and-file member. As you correctly pointed out - I consistently speak about a 'movement' - not a leader - and when I mention Corbyn, the vast majority of the time I am not talking about Corbyn as an individual - rather what his leadership of the LP represents in political terms for rank-and-file members of the LP and for working class people. In fact the biggest issue for the LP is the focus on who should be 'leader' - rather than the politics it should promote.

Can't argue with that

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

As someone who does agree with a fair amount of Corbyn's policies (but by no means all), may I ask what evidence this claim is based on?

railway nationalisation - 64 per cent in favour

water companies’ renationalisation - 63 per cent in favour

Royal Mail - 69 per cent wanting public ownership

public ownership of bus companies - 55 per cent in favour

BBC run in the public sector - 57 per cent in favour

With support increasing in most cases since the 2017 election - and interestingly - a majority of Tory voters also supporting nationalisation of railways

rejection of economic policies was cited by 6% of voters as their reason for not supporting LP.

YouGov Poll on 11-12 December.

The reason why LP lost was the shift away from supporting Leave and a mistrust of Corbyn (most likely because they didn't trust him because he flipped his position from Leave to Remain).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-election-corbyn-leader-polls-nationalisation-a9248511.html

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

As someone who does agree with a fair amount of Corbyn's policies (but by no means all), may I ask what evidence this claim is based on?

Wishful thinking.

 

[Triggaaar]

It is not possible to predict when (of even if) a socialist society will emerge - what we can say is that capitalism has reached its limits and is in what could be called its 'death agony'.

No we can't. We have had socialism, and all socialist societies have failed, and either fallen far behind the rest of the world, or changed to capitalism.

Since WW2 the elites have held the power to destroy the planet by the use of nuclear weapons (and there haven't been just 2 atomic bombs - there have been in excess of 2,000 atomic bombs exploded since then) - but there has been a much more long-term destruction as a result of capitalism - the use of fossil fuels that has driven capitalist development over the past 250 years.

Fossil fuels have also driven socialist development. You're aware that places like Russia and China have used a shit ton of fossil fuels?

What we can predict is that revolutions will occur - and will occur on a consistent and ongoing basis - today we have revolutionary upheavals taking place in Hong Kong, Iran, Chile, Ecuador, Lebanon and the opposition to the counter-revolutionary coup in Bolivia. These upheavals are a symptom of the death agony of capitalism - people will protest and will revolt.

You are claiming that the revolutionary upheaval in Hong Kong is a symptom of capitalism? Wow.

Socialists do not ferment discontent or upheaval - but recognise that it is inevitable under capitalism and the task for socialists is to give it an organised and disciplined character with clear objectives.

So capitalist West Germany, alongside Socialist East Germany. Where were the people discontent and wanting to revolt again?

Have you been mad long sir?

 

[Eeyore]

railway nationalisation - 64 per cent in favour

water companies’ renationalisation - 63 per cent in favour

Royal Mail - 69 per cent wanting public ownership

public ownership of bus companies - 55 per cent in favour

BBC run in the public sector - 57 per cent in favour

With support increasing in most cases since the 2017 election - and interestingly - a majority of Tory voters also supporting nationalisation of railways

rejection of economic policies was cited by 6% of voters as their reason for not supporting LP.

YouGov Poll on 11-12 December.

The reason why LP lost was the shift away from supporting Leave and a mistrust of Corbyn (most likely because they didn't trust him because he flipped his position from Leave to Remain).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-election-corbyn-leader-polls-nationalisation-a9248511.html

I agree. If this hadn't been a BREXIT election, and Corbyn hadn't been demonised so much, it would have been close. The Tories didn't win, Labour lost.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

I’d be interested to know what Unite members feel about their Union taking legal action against Anna Turley. A good use of members contributions?

IMHO a shit use of my contributions

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

No we can't. We have had socialism, and all socialist societies have failed, and either fallen far behind the rest of the world, or changed to capitalism.

To start with - and this will be a shock to you - we have never had a socialist society anywhere in the world - even the likes of Lenin recognised this about Russia (he in fact was the first to argue that you could not have socialism in Russia).

If you want to lump the Stalinist countries all in together then you have to include China which is currently the powerhouse of the world economy - hardly a 'failure'.

Fossil fuels have also driven socialist development. You're aware that places like Russia and China have used a shit ton of fossil fuels?

No - fossil fuels drove industrialisation in the Stalinist economies - grossly underdeveloped agrarian economies where the bureaucracy had to drive industrialisation to compete with the capitalist west, preventing a capitalist counter-revolution - and it was a quite brutal industrialisation akin to the industrialisation in Victorian Britain.

You are claiming that the revolutionary upheaval in Hong Kong is a symptom of capitalism? Wow.

I would contend that the Chinese economy today is a capitalist economy operating in a one party state - and the upheaval in Hong Kong is primarily driven by opposition to state repression and it has a very complex and confused character - largely liberal in leadership but with a left leaning core on the ground. It is quite disorganised because there no is large political party or trade union involved (both of which would change the character of the movement) - and I know this because I have held regular discussions with and get regular reports from socialists participating in the protests on the ground.

So capitalist West Germany, alongside Socialist East Germany. Where were the people discontent and wanting to revolt again?

Again - where have I defended the Stalinist dictatorship in East Germany. Interestingly enough - when the revolutionary upheavals began in East Germany in the late 1980s - specifically in the weekly protests in Leipzig - the demands of the hundreds of thousands on the streets were not for a return to capitalism but for the overthrow of the dictatorship and the democratisation of the nationalised economy - it was the East German CP who threw open the borders and invited the West German government in to take control.

Have you been mad long sir?

You are not the first to accuse me of that - but you will have to do a little better than your soundbites to prove your case.

 

[wellquickwoody]

1. When I was (a lot) younger I held the view that a socialist society was imminent - as you mature you realise that time is relative. Homo Sapiens Sapiens have been on the planet somewhere between 30K-75K years - the stone age existed for the bulk of that time - followed by slave society for maybe 4K years and feudalism for 1K years . Capitalism has been on the planet for about 250 years. As society changed/evolved the pace that the evolution accelerated. It is not possible to predict when (of even if) a socialist society will emerge - what we can say is that capitalism has reached its limits and is in what could be called its 'death agony'. Since WW2 the elites have held the power to destroy the planet by the use of nuclear weapons (and there haven't been just 2 atomic bombs - there have been in excess of 2,000 atomic bombs exploded since then) - but there has been a much more long-term destruction as a result of capitalism - the use of fossil fuels that has driven capitalist development over the past 250 years. Unlike a nuclear war - there would be no 'judgement day' - and as I pointed out before, the elites believe they can exploit this crisis for profit. Unfortunately - environmental destruction makes a socialist revolution all the more imperative because capitalism is killing the planet and cannot but act in that fashion because the driving force of capitalism is the use of fossil fuels. The alternative is environmental collapse and a return to what some have termed 'barbarism' - the world of the redneck preppers and survivalists. As a result - socialist revolution is far more likely in the near to mid-term than at any time since the inter-war period.

What we can predict is that revolutions will occur - and will occur on a consistent and ongoing basis - today we have revolutionary upheavals taking place in Hong Kong, Iran, Chile, Ecuador, Lebanon and the opposition to the counter-revolutionary coup in Bolivia. These upheavals are a symptom of the death agony of capitalism - people will protest and will revolt. Most of these upheavals will be suppressed - often with extreme brutality - but all that is needed is for one of these revolutionary upheavals to develop a socialist character and be carried through to a successful conclusion - this would have a domino effect globally. We have no idea where this might take place - there are reasons why they might happen and reasons that would mitigate against such a movement in every part of the world. In Britain and Ireland for example - and the situation in both countries is very closely linked - it is not remotely a prospect at the moment, in the short to medium term - a Tory Brexit and the potential of sectarian conflict in the North of Ireland because of the national question are significant counter-revolutionary pressures on these islands - yet the whiff of counter-revolution can often provoke a revolutionary or pre-revolutionary movement that would not have seemed the remotest possibility only months earlier. Socialists agitate around these points - putting forward arguments in support of reforms and linking them to the need to change society. Socialists do not ferment discontent or upheaval - but recognise that it is inevitable under capitalism and the task for socialists is to give it an organised and disciplined character with clear objectives.

2. I don't have a problem working on political objectives with people of all strands of political outlook (except fascists) - for example - when the Blairite council decided to close Hove library the Tories launched a campaign against the closure. If I was in Hove I would had no problem participating in a campaign against that closure - but I would have done so on the basis of pointing out the hypocrisy of the Tories, the fact that the closure was been driven by Tory policies of austerity (that were being supported by the Blairites) and by arguing that working class people should take ownership of the campaign and not allow the Tories to use it as a political football. You take every measure on an issue-by-issue basis and, as a socialist, ask the question - is this in the interests of working class people? Your approach as a socialist is then determined by that answer (and yes it is subjective). What I do oppose is political compromise with pro-capitalist elements - because the only outcome of such a compromise are pro-capitalist (i.e. Tory) policies - and there is copious amounts of evidence to demonstrate this across all countries and political issues.


Yes it is - and there is a reason for that - it serves the interests of the political establishment to portray politics as comprising of 'leaders' and 'followers' - god forbid that people are capable of thinking for themselves. And even when leaders don't exist - the political establishment create them. Case in point - for 25 years the media and political circles in Ireland portrayed a guy called Joe Higgins as the 'leader' of the Socialist Party. Joe Higgins was, over this time, a member of the Irish Parliament and also for a period an MEP. To start with the Socialist Party does not have a leader - it has a collective leadership made up of a national committee - but in terms of influence Joe Higgins (or any member of the SP national committee) has no more power or influence within the SP than I do as an ordinary rank-and-file member. As you correctly pointed out - I consistently speak about a 'movement' - not a leader - and when I mention Corbyn, the vast majority of the time I am not talking about Corbyn as an individual - rather what his leadership of the LP represents in political terms for rank-and-file members of the LP and for working class people. In fact the biggest issue for the LP is the focus on who should be 'leader' - rather than the politics it should promote.

You have two things in common with Jezza, you actually believe the grubbiness you spout and you actually revel in the spouting.

 

[Triggaaar]

To start with - and this will be a shock to you - we have never had a socialist society anywhere in the world

No, that's not a shock claim. Obviously when it, inevitably, doesn't work, just claim it wasn't done right.

If you want to lump the Stalinist countries all in together then you have to include China which is currently the powerhouse of the world economy - hardly a 'failure'.

I would include China, but China was failing, so they switched to capitalism and became, in your words, the powerhouse of the world economy.

No - fossil fuels drove industrialisation in the Stalinist economies

It's driven industrialisation under all government systems. Why you claim it as an evil of capitalism I don't know.

I would contend that the Chinese economy today is a capitalist economy operating in a one party state

Indeed it is.

and the upheaval in Hong Kong is primarily driven by opposition to state repression

Indeed. Nothing to do with capitalism, as you had claimed.

Again - where have I defended the Stalinist dictatorship in East Germany.

You claimed that people were discontent with capitalism and revolution was the natural result, but it seems that it's more natural for societies attempting to be socialist.

You are not the first to accuse me of that

Not surprised.

but you will have to do a little better than your soundbites to prove your case.

Firstly, I don't have to prove a case. Secondly, I'm not giving soundbites. I commented off the top of my head on each of your points. Socialism doesn't work. Your argument seems to be that no one has tried it yet, but despite that, you're telling us that's what will happen everywhere. This is basically like listening to a Jehovah's Witness telling us the judgement day is coming.

I don't try and convince Jehovah's Witnesses that they're mistaken, it would be pointless, and I won't try and convince you that you're mistaken either. You'll carry on with your beliefs, but the world will carry on ignoring you. Judgement day will forever be coming, and never arrive.

 

[beorhthelm]

To start with - and this will be a shock to you - we have never had a socialist society anywhere in the world - even the likes of Lenin recognised this about Russia (he in fact was the first to argue that you could not have socialism in Russia).

always amusing come back to the observation socialism has failed, to claim either it wasnt socialist enough or the wrong type.

 

[Titanic]

"Rebecca Long-Bailey has confirmed she is considering standing in the contest to be Labour's next leader"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50942825

Is it really that difficult for her to make her mind up?

 

[Two Professors]

"Rebecca Long-Bailey has confirmed she is considering standing in the contest to be Labour's next leader"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50942825

Is it really that difficult for her to make her mind up?

Definitely,maybe.

 

[Nitram]

"Rebecca Long-Bailey has confirmed she is considering standing in the contest to be Labour's next leader"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50942825

Is it really that difficult for her to make her mind up?

Predictable. Trade Union and Momentum approval. They will move the chairs around but it will be basically the same. Probably Cummings choice as well!

 

[Chicken Run]

Predictable. Trade Union and Momentum approval. They will move the chairs around but it will be basically the same. Probably Cummings choice as well!

I don’t see why Momentum have anything to do with selection? Jolly Red Gnat assures us they only make up about 10 percent of the MASSIVE USEFUL MEMBERSHIP ....iirc

 

[Chicken Run]

https://youtu.be/3kf1YKeq7lA

 

[London Irish]

https://youtu.be/3kf1YKeq7lA

This is the guy who had to eat his own book - literally, he had to put it in his own mouth and chew it - because he got the 2017 so badly wrong

 

[London Irish]

I don’t see why Momentum have anything to do with selection? Jolly Red Gnat assures us they only make up about 10 percent of the MASSIVE USEFUL MEMBERSHIP ....iirc

It's almost as if they have the best ideas that convince everyone else, right. The 10 per cent figure is correct in terms of their smaller weighting, in fact it's a bit less than that