The BBC 1 'Prime Minister' debate

[MrGongGong]

Isn't what you are saying an example of Binary thinking ?
I'd say Labour have attempted to move away from that. in fact they have specifically tried to frame current politics as something other than "Remain vs Leave" , and their tactics , though they may be open to debate, have reinforced that.

I think one can only really say that Corbyn has " failed" by reference to his election results ( and the big one in 2017 was generally seen as a qualified success) or if you want Labour policy to be something other than it is.

He may yet fail , ( and I think, primarily because of the endless media hostility he may be becoming a liability) but I don't think he can be said to have failed.

I think branding everyone who says anything critical of Corbyn as a "Tory" and therefore BAD is what I'm talking about
The Labour party have tried to avoid the elephant by talking about things which ARE important (YES, I'm sure there is widespread support for us owning our own railways etc ) but avoiding the central issue which IS Brexit.

There is, IMV, a bit of a need for many of those in the Labour party who are enthusiastic opponents of the EU as a capitalist club that doesn't act in the interests of the workers to do a bit of a privilege check. The ones I meet/know are largely old enough to be securely housed and often on pensions from teaching and /or local authority jobs. NOT the folks I meet when I work in Middlesborough, Possil and today's group in Birmingham all of whom will be the most to suffer as a result of the UK leaving the EU.
and

Yes, I am biased.
But I happen to think that we benefit massively from the cultural and other exchanges that being in the EU facilitates, Musical life in the UK benefits from the rights to free movement and so on...

[gradus]

[QUOTE=teamsaint;745025]I've thought about this post, and the problem seems to be that nothing that you mention has any connection to actual facts, or real events..

EG civil unrest and unemployment are always at their worst under tory governments. True they stopped strikes by more or less banning them, but the current rail strikes are a direct result of Tory government policy.

( I clearly remember high unemployment 30/40 years ago. I graduated in the year of peak thatcher unemployment.)

Re your first point about strikes - I don't think that they're always at their worst ie in terms of total days lost to industrial action under Tory governments - although it might be reasonable to suppose that they would or have been. A quick look at the ONS stats shows almost 3 times more strike days under Labour than the Tories since 1945. Civil unrest, perhaps so.
The Tories banned (inter alia) secondary action and insisted on secret ballots reaching certain thresholds which doesn't seem unreasonable given that one of the principal aims of secondary action was physical intimidation similarly strike votes sanctioned by a show of hands. The current rail strikes are I believe principally at the behest of RMT a union with a long and proud record of using the strike weapon to further it's aims.

[Dave2002]

He may yet fail , ( and I think, primarily because of the endless media hostility he may be becoming a liability) but I don't think he can be said to have failed.

He may not be the cause, totally, but he can hardly be said to have succeeded.

In times now seemingly long gone when there were two big parties a “leader” might have been able to do very little and wait for the other side to implode. That doesn’t work for Labour now. Scotland has largely abandoned Labour, and the space between the two biggest parties has been fragmented by other smaller parties. Even if Labour does better than expected, which was a spin put on things in 2017, that hardly constitutes success.

Strategic thinking does not seem to be part of JC's plan - though maybe it's such a cunning one that we can't discern what it is. Simply hoping that things will get better in the long term for Labour is not sensible, nor is really hoping that the Tories will do such a bad job that it's inevitable that victory for Labour will follow. Telling us that this is a long game and that is the plan just doesn't wash.

So, if the opposite of success is failure, in UK wide electoral terms, or potential vote terms, then I do think JC can be said to have failed, even if he has succeeded with his own supporters.

[teamsaint]

[QUOTE=gradus;745088]

I've thought about this post, and the problem seems to be that nothing that you mention has any connection to actual facts, or real events..

EG civil unrest and unemployment are always at their worst under tory governments. True they stopped strikes by more or less banning them, but the current rail strikes are a direct result of Tory government policy.

( I clearly remember high unemployment 30/40 years ago. I graduated in the year of peak thatcher unemployment.)
Gradus replied:
Re your first point about strikes - I don't think that they're always at their worst ie in terms of total days lost to industrial action under Tory governments - although it might be reasonable to suppose that they would or have been. A quick look at the ONS stats shows almost 3 times more strike days under Labour than the Tories since 1945. Civil unrest, perhaps so.
The Tories banned (inter alia) secondary action and insisted on secret ballots reaching certain thresholds which doesn't seem unreasonable given that one of the principal aims of secondary action was physical intimidation similarly strike votes sanctioned by a show of hands. The current rail strikes are I believe principally at the behest of RMT a union with a long and proud record of using the strike weapon to further it's aims.

Solving the rail strikes in in the hands of government and the franchises. Government sets the rules. all they have to do ( AFAIUI) is to guarantee a guard on all trains ( something that as a customer I am in favour of, although the customers don't seem to have been asked ) and the problem would be solved.

I think most people at a certain point agreed that strike law needed reform. But the conservatives set out to completely neuter the power of the unions, and to a considerable degree succeeded, to the detriment of most working people.

Anyway, back to unemployment and stagnating wages................

( I wonder what Bella's much needed changes are.)

[teamsaint]

He may not be the cause, totally, but he can hardly be said to have succeeded.

In times now seemingly long gone when there were two big parties a “leader” might have been able to do very little and wait for the other side to implode. That doesn’t work for Labour now. Scotland has largely abandoned Labour, and the space between the two biggest parties has been fragmented by other smaller parties. Even if Labour does better than expected, which was a spin put on things in 2017, that hardly constitutes success.

Strategic thinking does not seem to be part of JC's plan - though maybe it's such a cunning one that we can't discern what it is. Simply hoping that things will get better in the long term for Labour is not sensible, nor is really hoping that the Tories will do such a bad job that it's inevitable that victory for Labour will follow. Telling us that this is a long game and that is the plan just doesn't wash.

So, if the opposite of success is failure, in UK wide electoral terms, or potential vote terms, then I do think JC can be said to have failed, even if he has succeeded with his own supporters.

He's had one general election, when he did better than almost anybody expected. He didn't win, so it can't be called a success, but he did gain seats and vote share, and stopped the tories getting a majority, so it wasn't a failure, IMO.

Labour clearly does have a strategic plan on Europe. It's there in party policy, and they have ( more or less) been following it through, despite internal conflicts.

[MrGongGong]

Labour clearly does have a strategic plan on Europe. It's there in party policy, and they have ( more or less) been following it through, despite internal conflicts.

Here's a bit

Labour respects the result of the referendum, and Britain is leaving the EU. But we will not support any Tory deal that would do lasting damage to jobs, rights and living standards.

or

"Labour is happy to go along with a dishonest and dubious vote because it is worried that it might lose votes amongst those who have bought the whole story about furriners stealing our jobs"

and this ??????

"There will be some who will tell you that Brexit is a disaster for this country and some who will tell you that Brexit will create a land of milk and honey. The truth is that it’s in our hands: Brexit is what we make of it together."
JEREMY CORBYN, LEADER OF THE LABOUR PARTY

Saddle up the unicorns....

[ardcarp]

Good to hear Ed Davey and Jo Swinson head to head on Channel 4 news tonight. Civilkised, sensible people both.
There's a perfectly clear path for committed Europeans. Join the Lib Dems now...in droves...whatever your previous party affiliations!

[Joseph K]

Good to hear Ed Davey and Jo Swinson head to head on Channel 4 news tonight. Civilkised, sensible people both.
There's a perfectly clear path for committed Europeans. Join the Lib Dems now...in droves...whatever your previous party affiliations!

Ummm, both have ruled out forming a coalition with Labour even if it came with the condition of another referendum! Both are/have been also committed to austerity.

[Jazzrook]

Ummm, both have ruled out forming a coalition with Labour even if it came with the condition of another referendum! Both are/have been also committed to austerity.

...and both said they were prepared to press the nuclear button!

JR

[Conchis]

Good to hear Ed Davey and Jo Swinson head to head on Channel 4 news tonight. Civilkised, sensible people both.
There's a perfectly clear path for committed Europeans. Join the Lib Dems now...in droves...whatever your previous party affiliations!

Both Swinson and Davey are cheap dates. They will form a coalition with anyone. Both have already demonstrated their form’ in this area.

Swinson is also naive and a poor strategist, as well as being a flexible friend.

[cloughie]

Both Swinson and Davey are cheap dates. They will form a coalition with anyone. Both have already demonstrated their form’ in this area.

Swinson is also naive and a poor strategist, as well as being a flexible friend.

Clearly you are very impressed by the pair of them! and one of the biggest fans of the Lib Dems.

[ardcarp]

Oh well, that just shows that the 'middle ground' of politics isn't seen as a viable [obvious? sensible?] solution to the UK's current crisis

I'll get me coat....

[cloughie]

Oh well, that just shows that the 'middle ground' of politics isn't seen as a viable [obvious? sensible?] solution to the UK's current crisis

I'll get me coat....

Based on what they want to squander the nations borrowings on it appears that the two finalists in the PM competition do not think there is much middle ground in their Tory member electorate. Losing the plot seems to be their specialist subject, second only to running scared of Farage!

[ardcarp]

What puzzles me is that they're behaving as if they are trying to win a general election (e.g. extravagant promises) not a partly leadership. If their constituent voters (i.e. Tory Party Members) are as business savvy as we're led to believe, surely they're not going to be coaxed by giveaway sweeties? Are they???

[Richard Barrett]

Oh well, that just shows that the 'middle ground' of politics isn't seen as a viable [obvious? sensible?] solution to the UK's current crisis

But what is this "middle ground" exactly? As has been said, it isn't always in the same place: in the period 1945-80 it shifted leftwards somewhat and since then it has shofted rightwards quite alarmingly. But in any case surely the real divide is between the many and the few, and most of what goes under the name of politics is orientated towards getting people to throw in their lot with one or the other. People who are young, old, ill, disabled or otherwise vulnerable never benefit from Tory governments, and the latter encourage the idea that when choosing who to vote for one should think only of oneself and not of all those others. That, and the minusculeness of the proportion of the population who actually do benefit from conservative policies, means that the true picture is surely a lot less symmetrical than most of the "left/right/centre" rhetoric one hears tries to lead us to believe. I'm a committed European (having lived on the continent for most of the last 27 years) but I'm a more committed socialist. That means I don't have a "party affiliation" but a set of convictions which might lead to supporting one party or another, depending on how committed they are to bringing society closer to the "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" principle at the heart of socialist thinking. It's pretty obvious which of the main parties in the UK that would be at this point in history. Is that more important than Brexit? Yes I think it is. I would be very surprised if Brexit occurs at the end of October in any recognisable shape or form anyway, as I've said all along.