Tories win Copeland b-election.

[Chippy_boy]

When Corbyn was first elected it was claimed that more of his supporters read the Guardian than the Mirror.

Do you think that's the case now? Genuinely I don't know, but it seems to me that a fair proportion of the what is it, 550,000 members? are unemployed or very low paid.

 

[mcfc1632]

Thereby lies the problem,mate, when Miliband introduced this scheme he unleashed a shit storm that's destroying
the Labour party, and although I've not supported them for many a year, I'm saddened that decent, sensible Labour supporters
are now stuck with this commie lite tosspot throwback.
Idealist students, anarchists, No borders fruitcakes, militant unionists and various other nutters flocked to join
in their thousands and have scuppered Labour's chances of ever gaining power.

As an ex-Eccles lad that was a Labour voter by upbringing for many years I think that you have hit the nail on the head here. Democratic Socialism is clearly a utopian model, but we live in the 21st century..............

 

[Chippy_boy]

I think a lot of mistaking a narrative that a lot of those that voted for corbyn in the 1st leadership election were voting for him or this percieved cult of personality, they weren't, they were voting for an idea that labour would reject the "tory lite" as it is termed direction of the party and yes the left wing cranks like swp and it's ilk latched on, but I and many I know in the local party would have voted McDonald if he had stood instead of corbyn in the 1st election as it was about the partys future, not the person.
I don't know anyone who would have voted kendal or cooper, in fact if jezza hadn't stood Burnham would be leader now.
Anyway 2nd election, if a credible left of centre candidate with similar views as corbyn, but not in such an imobile way (like the future of nuclear power which cost them copeland), but they didn't a twat called smith did.
Corbyn has been elected twice only because he isn't a member of the progress wing of the party, I would have him fucked off tomorrow if the leadership callengers weren't also shit as he's becoming a liability with his stuborness and single minded stances.
As for momentun, they are daft twats as much as progress, both should be banned in my opinion from being associated and member barred from being in them and labour.

As for the guardian, I read it and the independant amd huff post, as do a lot of working class people, another narrative set, if you read a broadsheet you are some kind of elitish snob, champaigne socialist, 1are you fuck, you just realise the red tops are akin to reading the beano or dandy for any news of merit, and tbf the guardian hates corbyn, they are a pro lib dem paper and do at least a couple of labour negative stories each week.

Corbyn goes tomorrow I wouldn't care, but labour lurching back to the right would kill it as much as keeping the old bugger in charge

Interesting post and quite a bit I would agree with. Can I ask a question or two though?

What's your definition of Tory-lite? You see, my definition, if I am to think about it, might be policies centred around providing decent public services, prioritising jobs and care for the most needy in our society, BUT being mindful of economic and financial responsibility and therefore not simply spending like mad and wrecking the economy in so doing. Do you share that sort of definition?

If you do, then I cannot see why a move away from Corbyn and in that direction, would be a terrible thing? The daft ideas Corbyn and even worse McDonnell have are far more damaging than the sorts of policies the above would lead to.

If you don't agree, genuinely I'd be interested in what you think Tory-lite is? Hard-left simply does not work, and whether it does or not, it's unelectable so that's a moot point. What would centre-left do that's different from what I describe?

 

[urban genie]

Interesting post and quite a bit I would agree with. Can I ask a question or two though?

What's your definition of Tory-lite? You see, my definition, if I am to think about it, might be policies centred around providing decent public services, prioritising jobs and care for the most needy in our society, BUT being mindful of economic and financial responsibility and therefore not simply spending like mad and wrecking the economy in so doing. Do you share that sort of definition?

If you do, then I cannot see why a move away from Corbyn and in that direction, would be a terrible thing? The daft ideas Corbyn and even worse McDonnell have are far more damaging than the sorts of policies the above would lead to.

If you don't agree, genuinely I'd be interested in what you think Tory-lite is? Hard-left simply does not work, and whether it does or not, it's unelectable so that's a moot point. What would centre-left do that's different from what I describe?

Firstly let me say I think a lot of the achievements of new labour (NHS walk in centre to eleviate a&e and gp's, sure start, minimum wage etc) were great and true to labours calling, and the economic stabilty under them was prosperous until the global crash, but the model used to sustain this, of reliance on the finacial service sector and the introduction of pfi, academies, zero hr contracts etc while not dealing with the problems of the de-industrialisation of th ecountry and the swathes of comunities affected, this ideology that a capitalist system linked to a deregulated finacial market without any state interests and a non reliance on manufactuing.

That Cameran ran on pretty much a new labour mantra says ot all.

Now I agree we cannot have a socialist utopia, it aint gonna happen, but the neo liberal model started in the 80's with reagan and thatcher and continued , in modified forms depending on your left/right leanings is resulting in an unequal society. this model with a social jusice slant is why I use dthe term tory light, conservatism with a little bit of conscience

 

[Chippy_boy]

Firstly let me say I think a lot of the achievements of new labour (NHS walk in centre to eleviate a&e and gp's, sure start, minimum wage etc) were great and true to labours calling, and the economic stabilty under them was prosperous until the global crash, but the model used to sustain this, of reliance on the finacial service sector and the introduction of pfi, academies, zero hr contracts etc while not dealing with the problems of the de-industrialisation of th ecountry and the swathes of comunities affected, this ideology that a capitalist system linked to a deregulated finacial market without any state interests and a non reliance on manufactuing.

That Cameran ran on pretty much a new labour mantra says ot all.

Now I agree we cannot have a socialist utopia, it aint gonna happen, but the neo liberal model started in the 80's with reagan and thatcher and continued , in modified forms depending on your left/right leanings is resulting in an unequal society. this model with a social jusice slant is why I use dthe term tory light, conservatism with a little bit of conscience

Thanks - another considered post, and I respect your views. Personally, I'd disagree with a couple of things though.

First, I am not sure we had "economic stability" under New Labour. They inherited an economy that was in great shape and took over at a time of high GDP growth across the globe and a generally favourable economic environment. And they were not so left wing (obviously) as the likes of say, Michael Foot, who would have just gone around nationalising everything and bankrupting the country in perhaps 1 term or less. But nevertheless, the spending-spree Blair and Brown went on - however justified or not - was unaffordable. To fund his "habit", Brown raided just about every tax pot he could think of, and invented more when the easy-pickings were exhausted. Usually hidden (tax on pension funds) or cleverly disguised as not being tax at all, but just necessary for environmental friendliness (airline taxes, huge road tax increases). Brown loved his "no more return to boom and bust" line, but it was a sham, supported only by him being chancellor during a period of worldwide growth and prosperity. Despite all his tax hikes, Brown had managed to run up a 3% budget deficit (from what was previously a surplus), even before the crash of 2008. Clearly the crash made things a whole load worse, but in some ways it's an easy excuse. The reality is the wheels were already falling off. It's just that had taken 10+ years to break things rather than the usual five.

Second, Cameron didn't pick up where Brown left off at all. He decided that we must do something to reduce the deficit, and ideally to eliminate it and get back into debt repayment. This didn't even feature in Labour's rhetoric. I hardly remember either Blair or Brown talk about the national debt at all, during the three terms in power.

And I think this is where the ideological divide between conservatism and labour lies. I don't know anyone on either side who believes that inequality and social injustice are good things to which we should aspire. But unfortunately I have yet to see evidence of a society that prioritises taking money off rich people, in order to give it to poor people, thrive in the long term. Ultimately it damages the economy, to the benefit of no-one. So it's about a balance, and trying to balance the rich-poor divide by penalising people for being successful is not the answer.

 

[blueinsa]

Imagine a country where the parliament is filled with free thinking, independent MP's, not blindly towing a party line, but genuinely acting for and representing their respective electorates.

The current status quo is broken and frankly a real turn off for the majority of voters.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Thanks - another considered post, and I respect your views. Personally, I'd disagree with a couple of things though.

First, I am not sure we had "economic stability" under New Labour. They inherited an economy that was in great shape and took over at a time of high GDP growth across the globe and a generally favourable economic environment. And they were not so left wing (obviously) as the likes of say, Michael Foot, who would have just gone around nationalising everything and bankrupting the country in perhaps 1 term or less. But nevertheless, the spending-spree Blair and Brown went on - however justified or not - was unaffordable. To fund his "habit", Brown raided just about every tax pot he could think of, and invented more when the easy-pickings were exhausted. Usually hidden (tax on pension funds) or cleverly disguised as not being tax at all, but just necessary for environmental friendliness (airline taxes, huge road tax increases). Brown loved his "no more return to boom and bust" line, but it was a sham, supported only by him being chancellor during a period of worldwide growth and prosperity. Despite all his tax hikes, Brown had managed to run up a 3% budget deficit (from what was previously a surplus), even before the crash of 2008. Clearly the crash made things a whole load worse, but in some ways it's an easy excuse. The reality is the wheels were already falling off. It's just that had taken 10+ years to break things rather than the usual five.

Second, Cameron didn't pick up where Brown left off at all. He decided that we must do something to reduce the deficit, and ideally to eliminate it and get back into debt repayment. This didn't even feature in Labour's rhetoric. I hardly remember either Blair or Brown talk about the national debt at all, during the three terms in power.

And I think this is where the ideological divide between conservatism and labour lies. I don't know anyone on either side who believes that inequality and social injustice are good things to which we should aspire. But unfortunately I have yet to see evidence of a society that prioritises taking money off rich people, in order to give it to poor people, thrive in the long term. Ultimately it damages the economy, to the benefit of no-one. So it's about a balance, and trying to balance the rich-poor divide by penalising people for being successful is not the answer.

Excellent post.

 

[urban genie]

Thanks - another considered post, and I respect your views. Personally, I'd disagree with a couple of things though.

First, I am not sure we had "economic stability" under New Labour. They inherited an economy that was in great shape and took over at a time of high GDP growth across the globe and a generally favourable economic environment. And they were not so left wing (obviously) as the likes of say, Michael Foot, who would have just gone around nationalising everything and bankrupting the country in perhaps 1 term or less. But nevertheless, the spending-spree Blair and Brown went on - however justified or not - was unaffordable. To fund his "habit", Brown raided just about every tax pot he could think of, and invented more when the easy-pickings were exhausted. Usually hidden (tax on pension funds) or cleverly disguised as not being tax at all, but just necessary for environmental friendliness (airline taxes, huge road tax increases). Brown loved his "no more return to boom and bust" line, but it was a sham, supported only by him being chancellor during a period of worldwide growth and prosperity. Despite all his tax hikes, Brown had managed to run up a 3% budget deficit (from what was previously a surplus), even before the crash of 2008. Clearly the crash made things a whole load worse, but in some ways it's an easy excuse. The reality is the wheels were already falling off. It's just that had taken 10+ years to break things rather than the usual five.

Second, Cameron didn't pick up where Brown left off at all. He decided that we must do something to reduce the deficit, and ideally to eliminate it and get back into debt repayment. This didn't even feature in Labour's rhetoric. I hardly remember either Blair or Brown talk about the national debt at all, during the three terms in power.

And I think this is where the ideological divide between conservatism and labour lies. I don't know anyone on either side who believes that inequality and social injustice are good things to which we should aspire. But unfortunately I have yet to see evidence of a society that prioritises taking money off rich people, in order to give it to poor people, thrive in the long term. Ultimately it damages the economy, to the benefit of no-one. So it's about a balance, and trying to balance the rich-poor divide by penalising people for being successful is not the answer.

When I said cameron carried on new labour I meant in the sense he isn't a true blue tory like may and IDS, he was more in the same bracket as blair in his neo libralism, of course as a tory austerity was the only mindset he had in the crisis, and yes I agree left and right have many traits the same, even when it comes to state control, but left is more egalitarian where right is more dog eat dog.

Any if i am honest my own personal ideological beliefs are not akin to corbyn,but I do believe in a ln egalitarian system where all benifit and those who can support those who can't.

I am more inclined to the ideas of people like peter kropotkin, but a society where all work as a co operative for the common good and advancement of the species to better themselves and go beyond petty squabbles over land, resources and money is never gonna be realised, so I stick to socialism instead. :-)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

This is a farewell speech from a senior party employee called Mike Creighton who has just retired after 27 years service.

http://chalkhilldigital.info/author/mcreighton/

It's worth a read in full but the two bits that stood out were his quote from an interview that Vogue did with Alastair Campbell. In that interview Anna Wintour, the editor, said “Leadership is coming up with an idea and executing it. Ideas themselves are a dime a dozen”. Can anyone seriously claim that Corbyn has the ability to execute his ideas? The ability to execute is why politicians like Churchill, Atlee, Wilson, Thatcher & Blair stand head and shoulders above non-entities like Major, Brown & Cameron (and probably May as well).

At the end, he tells the story of a Blair visit to Hove where, among the Iraq war protestors, are 2 women who wanted to thank him for setting up Sure Start, which helped them turn their lives around after being battered by their partners. The point being that worthy ideas are all very well but you need to be able to execute them and to do that you need to be in power. Ideas on their own won't win you elections.

 

[mcfc1632]

Thanks - another considered post, and I respect your views. Personally, I'd disagree with a couple of things though.

First, I am not sure we had "economic stability" under New Labour. They inherited an economy that was in great shape and took over at a time of high GDP growth across the globe and a generally favourable economic environment. And they were not so left wing (obviously) as the likes of say, Michael Foot, who would have just gone around nationalising everything and bankrupting the country in perhaps 1 term or less. But nevertheless, the spending-spree Blair and Brown went on - however justified or not - was unaffordable. To fund his "habit", Brown raided just about every tax pot he could think of, and invented more when the easy-pickings were exhausted. Usually hidden (tax on pension funds) or cleverly disguised as not being tax at all, but just necessary for environmental friendliness (airline taxes, huge road tax increases). Brown loved his "no more return to boom and bust" line, but it was a sham, supported only by him being chancellor during a period of worldwide growth and prosperity. Despite all his tax hikes, Brown had managed to run up a 3% budget deficit (from what was previously a surplus), even before the crash of 2008. Clearly the crash made things a whole load worse, but in some ways it's an easy excuse. The reality is the wheels were already falling off. It's just that had taken 10+ years to break things rather than the usual five.

Second, Cameron didn't pick up where Brown left off at all. He decided that we must do something to reduce the deficit, and ideally to eliminate it and get back into debt repayment. This didn't even feature in Labour's rhetoric. I hardly remember either Blair or Brown talk about the national debt at all, during the three terms in power.

And I think this is where the ideological divide between conservatism and labour lies. I don't know anyone on either side who believes that inequality and social injustice are good things to which we should aspire. But unfortunately I have yet to see evidence of a society that prioritises taking money off rich people, in order to give it to poor people, thrive in the long term. Ultimately it damages the economy, to the benefit of no-one. So it's about a balance, and trying to balance the rich-poor divide by penalising people for being successful is not the answer.

Absolutely spot on and of course Brown did more even more damage to fuel his Viv Nicholson approach to spending, such as:

• Selling off 50% of UK's gold reserves almost precisely at the bottom of the market
• Damaging the value of the UK's oil reserves through inappropriate acceleration of production and unwise tax policy that disincentivised investment in new fields
• and of course, as has been previously mentioned, mandating the use of PFI when cheaper funding options were available and therefore binding the UK to decades of liabilities