How Much is a Corbyn?

antrobus

cells wrote: »

He could just introduce state competitors. ......that wouldn't or shouldn't upset people he is just increasing competition....

That would qualify as market abuse, and upset the EU, who would be down on it like a ton of bricks.

Moby

Can't think of any other politician who could give a speech like Gordon Brown just gave. Magnificent he was!

MS1950

Moby wrote: »

Can't think of any other politician who could give a speech like Gordon Brown just gave. Magnificent he was!

I think there is little doubt that Brown or those that have persuaded him to speak now have carefully chosen to do so precisely when the ballot papers are about to be emailed or posted out.

He and/or they clearly hope that he will have the same impact as his last minute intervention in the Scottish referendum supposedly had.

However, his intervention may instead prove to be as unsuccessful as his last minute intervention in the General Election in Scotland proved to be:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/05/gordon-brown-speech-labour-snp-general-election-201_n_7215538.html

Fella

From the BBC:

Gordon Brown covered almost the entire history of the Labour Party - but there was one point that he was very clearly making.
It doesn't matter what your principles are, what you believe in. None of that is any good unless you can get into power

An unintentionally superb summary of the detestable Broon & his Nulabor chums:

Principles don't matter, all that does is getting into power.

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

Can't think of any other politician who could give a speech like Gordon Brown just gave. Magnificent he was!

For those that are interested in this kind of thing, Prospect has the full text of the speech.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/other/full-text-gordon-browns-speech-on-the-labour-leadership

MS1950

antrobus wrote: »

For those that are interested in this kind of thing, Prospect has the full text of the speech.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/other/full-text-gordon-browns-speech-on-the-labour-leadership

Yes I've read it and while in the main it is stirring stuff about the history and purpose of the Labour Party that frankly Corbyn could have delivered, overall I think it is a dishonest speech. It is peppered with oblique innuendos about one of the candidates while not suggesting whether and why any of the other three would be more successful in pursuing Labour's 'sacred trust'; which I think undermines it's implied 'high minded' purpose.

For example:

“yet we find that the grouping in the party that Labour electors want to give the most votes to is the grouping they themselves say is least likely to be able to take Labour into power”

“The problem is not just that the policies presented as new are simply new labels like the people’s QE for old ideas”.

“don’t tell me….that we can do much for the poor of the world if the alliances we favour most are with Hezbollah, Hamas, Hugo Chavez’s successor in Venezuela and Vladimir Putin’s totalitarian Russia”.

And as for his citing of Ghandi:

“What Ghandi said in the last century is relevant today: “Before you do anything, stop and recall the face of the poorest most helpless destitute person you have seen and ask yourself, Is what I am about to do going to help him?”;

ironically, as I've posted before, The Gandhi Foundation' thought that Corbyn was worthy of their 'International Peace Award' in 2013.......

http://gandhifoundation.org/2014/01/09/the-gandhi-foundation-international-peace-award-2013/

shortchanged_2

I am in favour of renationalisation of the railways and water companies because there is absolutely no competition within these areas.

At least with the likes of the energy sector and telecoms there is customer choice. Whether they truly function as free markets is another matter though.

antrobus

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Mainly because there is no consenus regarding which principles you should have.

Fella

No this is wrong. Principles are principles. Whether they're also "correct" is another matter. Principles are something you either have or you don't. Corbyn (who may be a fool) appears to have them. Brown clearly wasn't a fool, and equally clearly didn't have any (& continues not to do so).

Brown would have sold his granny to get in power, no-one with an IQ over 30 doubts this. A man with that lack of principal would be my last choice to run the country every time.

antrobus

Fella wrote: »

No this is wrong. Principles are principles. Whether they're also "correct" is another matter. Principles are something you either have or you don't. Corbyn (who may be a fool) appears to have them. Brown clearly wasn't a fool, and equally clearly didn't have any (& continues not to do so).

Brown would have sold his granny to get in power, no-one with an IQ over 30 doubts this. A man with that lack of principal would be my last choice to run the country every time.

That's where I think you are going astray. There is no contradiction between (a) having principles and (b) being prepared to compromise those principles in the interests of getting things done. In my view that is an ethically superior position because, by being prepared to compromise you are implicitly recognising that other people have principles too, and they are just as valid yours.

Simply proclaiming that your principles are somehow better than anybody else's, or even claim that your opponents have none at all, is just plain arrogance.:)