Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: GMR Aug 19 2015, 07:15 PM

The Labour leadership is creating great interest. Who do you want to win and why? Do you think your choice will be enough to win in 2020?

Who do you prefer out of Yvette Cooper, Jeremy Corbyn, Liz Kendall or Andy Burnham? Or do you prefer somebody else?

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 19 2015, 07:23 PM

I can't stick any of them, except I think Corbyn speaks well.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 19 2015, 08:22 PM

I would like Corbyn to lead Labour, none of the others get a look-in for me. I like his principles, and his manner. However, I don't know that I like his politics so I don't know if that makes Labour a viable option for me in 2020, and even if I do grow to like his politics (and I'm open to persuasion) that doesn't mean that I'll like the candidate that Labour field in Newbury.

But yes, I think with Corbyn as Leader Labour could be electable. Socialism has a lot to recommend it and there's five years for Labour to sell its politics to us, and he's certainly the most plausible politician we've had for a very long time, and that might come as something of a breath of fresh air. In the end though I think Labour will rip itself apart in a power-struggle and this might just be Labour's last hurrah.

There are some good sound sensible principled people in Labour, and some of their politics is viable and ethical, but there are also rather a lot of knuckle-dragging idiot-spawn who really would take us back to the 70's and the winter of discontent with their greed and indolence. I have no interest in a class-struggle (other than the occasional mockery of the middle class as prurient reactionary curtain-twitching establishment-apologists) and while I might find Corbyn interesting I would like to see what comes out of the woodwork if he is put in charge.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 19 2015, 09:49 PM

Couldn't give a toss as long as it keeps them out of power.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Aug 19 2015, 09:57 PM

Corbyn, be like putting one of the Chuckle Brothers in charge. Make sure they never get reelected.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 19 2015, 10:11 PM

I suspect the party will out-last him.

Posted by: CrackerJack Aug 19 2015, 10:22 PM

Admit it... you only warmed to him because he's a fellow allotment holder...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-dont-win-labour-6138128

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 19 2015, 10:31 PM

I did see that, and it's another thing to like the guy for.

Posted by: CrackerJack Aug 19 2015, 10:35 PM

If he gets the job then PMQs should be interesting. His supporters are now referring to him as 'JC', which could be prophetic as he'll be crucified every time he stands up. A simple "does the honourable gentlemen condemn the latest rocket attacks by Hamas against Israel" or "does the honourable gentlemen have an opinion on the IRA bomb attacks at (insert location here") in (insert year here)". His answer (assuming he sticks to his principles) will have the Marxists applauding his response but will leave the rest of us shuddering.

It's become a one horse race. But I think Labour would have been better off with Alan Johnson.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Aug 19 2015, 11:14 PM

Or David Milliband. Although a Tory to my bootstraps I did grieve for the loss of John Smith. In my mind the finest statesman we never had.

Posted by: James_Trinder Aug 20 2015, 09:42 AM

I don't really care because I would never vote Labour anyway but out of the candidates on offer my preference would definitely be Liz Kendall.

Posted by: GMR Aug 20 2015, 03:51 PM

On that front I agree with you. He's also handled the press very good.

Posted by: GMR Aug 20 2015, 03:53 PM

Actually we should give a toss, even though we would never vote for a Labour party. All governments need strong oppositions, without strong oppositions you get weak, arrogant governments who think they can just push things through as they feel fit.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 20 2015, 05:46 PM

All the candidates worry me, because it doesn't appear that any of them have ever done anything that could be construed as a real job. They are all 'professional' politicians. That is School / University / apprenticeship with some lobbying organisation / 'the Party' - then elected. Might not seem important, but they've never experienced much else other than Westminster. For me, the important thing would be to have a leader who espouses the basic principles and values of the Party - so that rules all the others out, save Corbyn.

Posted by: GMR Aug 20 2015, 06:26 PM

To be fair doesn't that apply to all MPs and all parties? None them know the real world.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 20 2015, 06:32 PM

To some extent that's truest also a growing trend. There are still a number who worked in professions other than politics. Theresa May was in Banking, Michael Gove worked for a newspaper, Vince Cable an oil company.

Posted by: CrackerJack Aug 20 2015, 06:34 PM

Well you can't say he's a fair weather Labour politician. His second marriage hit the rocks and ended in divorce because his wife wanted one of their sons to go to Grammar School, which he strongly opposed. The more you read about him the more you think he ticks every cliche of what you'd imagine a Labour politician SHOULD be.

There are few like him (maybe Ken Livingstone?).

Posted by: GMR Aug 20 2015, 06:37 PM

And they are real working man's jobs?

Posted by: GMR Aug 20 2015, 06:41 PM

The irony here is that Corbyn, himself, also received a grammar school education, at the prestigious Adams school. His ex-wife obviously wanted, for their child, what was good enough for their father.

Posted by: Blake Aug 20 2015, 07:07 PM

It hardly takes a genius to see that Corbyn is a thinly veiled Marxist. If it looks like a Marxist, sounds like a Marxist and acts like a Marxist, then that is exactly what he is.

In his youth, Marxists were urged by the revolutionary sects they operated in to infiltrate mainstream politics (known as entryism) and then secure positions of authority. When there were enough of them or they were in strategic places, then the takeover would begin. This is precisley how Marxists took power in the Iron Curtain states after 1945.

If he gets anywhere near power, he needs to be fully vetted to see who is pulling his strings and who he has associated with. There are certainly reasons to be concerned.

Posted by: blackdog Aug 20 2015, 07:15 PM

So what? What's wrong with Marx?

I wouldn't want a Stalinist, Leninist or Trotskyite in a position of too much influence, but Marx pretty much set the ethos of the traditional Labour party.

Posted by: Blake Aug 20 2015, 07:57 PM

I'll tell you what's wrong, Marx demanded the dictatorship of the proletariat and the elimination of the middle class.

Hardly something we'd ever want to see again.

Posted by: Cognosco Aug 20 2015, 08:31 PM

Should this also apply to all politicians? What about who funds and directs the Conservative Party IE: the Financial and Business sectors?

Posted by: On the edge Aug 20 2015, 09:12 PM

I suppose that's worse than the dictatorship of the aristocracy which we have today?

Posted by: On the edge Aug 20 2015, 09:16 PM

Arguably yes...they had a boss and earned a wage.

Who is Working and who is Middle class? There are only workers and bosses these days.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Aug 21 2015, 12:53 PM

Even bosses are usually working for the shareholders...

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 21 2015, 01:37 PM

It's not about whether you work, it is about your background and the type of professional you are.

Middle Class usually refers to qualified managerial professionals of above average salary who have had a private education. This isn't to say that lower class cannot be as wealthy or skilled, but usually comes down to 'breeding'.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2015, 03:27 PM

I agree, what is wrong with Marx? Yes, he might be dead, but he is still relevant today. One of my favourite stories about Marx; he was canoodling with a woman when there was a knock on the door, the woman said, "My husband, quick, duck behind the couch." So Groucho goes behind he couch, the husband comes in and Groucho pops his head up and says "There is no duck behind this couch".

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2015, 03:29 PM

On that bases you could argue that MPs and the Lords are working as they also get a wage.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 21 2015, 05:57 PM

Yes, the way politics operates today, that's probably quite true. It's now seen as simply as a raft of essentially management roles - ironically, much of what they do could be automated. However, I'm not convinced that is the best way to run the Country.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 21 2015, 06:01 PM

Having met rather too many louche and seriously deficient individuals who would so qualify, it certainly has little to do with breeding. The old categorisations are woefully inadequate, which is why other categorisation methods are used, which far better identify population segments.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 21 2015, 07:38 PM

'Breeding' because one doesn't normally grow up in a housing association estate, learning received English from a private education. Of course it is an inadequate classification system, but most generalisations are; however, it depends on what it is you wish to measure or observe.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 21 2015, 08:17 PM

Again, I'd wholly disagree. In fact a good few people who grew up in public housing who went to comprehensive schools do rightly regard themselves as middle class. Estuary English has wiped RP off the board as far as differentiating by language us concerned. As for education; that's probably the last bastion of distinction, but that is because division is perpetuated by the State system. For instance, it's inconceivable that St Barts will be a 'failing' school. What it all means is that class distinction based on the old measure is dead, consequently Labour is about ending what it sees as inequality.

Posted by: Blake Aug 21 2015, 08:38 PM

Tony Blair's recent comments on the leadership are one of the few times I agree with him.

Corbyn is insane. His paradigm is that of another era which was of questionable validity anyway. What I see in him is a puppet of the great international conspiracy.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 21 2015, 08:46 PM

You seem to be being rather obtuse: my summary of the meaning of Middle Class shouldn't be seen as an endorsement.

Being well qualified, or commanding a good salary, or in management doesn't necessarily mean being middle class.

Like with class and cars, class isn't a easily definable thing: winning the Euro Millions doesn't make one Upper Class.

Posted by: blackdog Aug 22 2015, 01:48 PM

Which great international conspiracy is that?

Posted by: Blake Aug 22 2015, 07:50 PM

Socialism

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 22 2015, 08:44 PM

I want Corbyn to win. I don't agree with his politic.

But I do believe that people should be given a choice between left and right.

This has not happened since Kinnock / Foot.

People need to believe in a political ideology, even if that ideology is unlikely to win.

Since Blair its all been a sort of Simon Cowell political who is the flavour of the day contest.

Let's face it, the only reason Cameron won was because he was more "electable" than Milliband.
Not because he had the best politic.

Personally I'd like to see Osborne (Much better and far more intelligent man than Cameron) v Corbyn (Left wing intelligent man who has an ideology),

BUT..... This won't ever happen

Posted by: HeatherW Aug 23 2015, 08:23 AM

When I worked for the council many years ago (in London) I met Jeremy Corbyn and he is a very nice man. A conviction politician and passionate. But I don't know if I would want him in charge of this country. His socialism blinds him a lot. Of course that can apply to people from the middle ground and the right. Personally I think if he got elected he would tear the Labour party apart, and allow the Tory party to go unchallenged in many areas.

Posted by: Spider Aug 23 2015, 10:51 AM

I am a former Lib-Dem, but since joining in coalition with the Conservative party I've moved back to Labour. Corbyn says some great things, but I am not sure if he is right for today's politics. So I've voted for Yvette Cooper. But whether she is good enough to win in 2020 is another matter. Whoever wins has to sort out Scotland (win them back) and also convince England.

Posted by: Nothing Much Aug 23 2015, 11:43 AM

Mr Corbyn MP has been a complication for a while.
He lives up the hill from me as does Cooper & Balls.
He is always standing by a placard.Nothing I can do.
Islington is Labour...I do vote Tory..It is a dogs dinner

Posted by: On the edge Aug 23 2015, 01:15 PM

That's interesting. Corbyn certainly doesn't fit today's politics, some might say thank goodness. That might just be because he's the man for tomorrow. Ironically, he might also have the key to Scotland. The Glaswegian voter didn't migrate to SNP simply because they liked Salmond, more they hated Blair! Clydeside in particular is red in tooth and claw; indeed, they might just feel Corbyn is actually too right wing for their taste.

Posted by: Mr Brown Aug 23 2015, 01:43 PM

Party politics have become much of a muchness; no difference whoever you choose. So Jeremy Corbyn would provide some real choice and it is time some of the worst excesses of Thatherite economics were moderated.