Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Jason74

chris_m wrote: »

There were also excellent speeches by Yvette Cooper, Alan Johnson and Margaret Beckett - two of whom I've never had any time for, and the other not a lot, in the past.

One thing that did impress me about the debate was how well the House behaved throughout. There were very few occasions when Mr Speaker had to pull Members up.

Indeed. The debate was a timely and much needed reminder that there are a lot more competent and decent politicians on the Labour benches than it would appear from the current shambles. Now, if they can just get rid of the idiots who are somehow running the show (after a fashion) at the moment, we might be able to get a meaningful opposition / alternative Government. Regardless of where we are as individuals on the political; spectrum, we'd surely all agree that for the sake of democracy, we certainly need one.

Moby

Jason74 wrote: »

Indeed. The debate was a timely and much needed reminder that there are a lot more competent and decent politicians on the Labour benches than it would appear from the current shambles. Now, if they can just get rid of the idiots who are somehow running the show (after a fashion) at the moment, we might be able to get a meaningful opposition / alternative Government. Regardless of where we are as individuals on the political; spectrum, we'd surely all agree that for the sake of democracy, we certainly need one.

Many in Labour will rue the day they widened the electorate for the leadership election. Instead of drawing in more people who represented a range on the political spectrum....... they attracted activists....who tend to be more left wing. They then voted for Corbyn in huge numbers. We now have the problem of a PLP which is basically against him, a membership which voted him in in huge numbers and the electorate at large. Of course he is unelectable within the country and will be lucky to get in the high twenties percentage wise. The question is how long will he be given before this becomes an overriding factor.

Generali

Moby wrote: »

Many in Labour will rue the day they widened the electorate for the leadership election. Instead of drawing in more people who represented a range on the political spectrum....... they attracted activists....who tend to be more left wing. They then voted for Corbyn in huge numbers. We now have the problem of a PLP which is basically against him, a membership which voted him in in huge numbers and the electorate at large. Of course he is unelectable within the country and will be lucky to get in the high twenties percentage wise. The question is how long will he be given before this becomes an overriding factor.

I thought you were in favour of Mr Corbyn. Still there is more joy in heaven for the sinner that repenteth and all that...

I think the question really is how do you get rid of him? Mr E Milliband might have broken the Labour Party. The less electable Mr Corbyn and his friends become the more marginalised Labour become. There is no mechanism for the PLP to take back the reins of power. I have a horrible feeling that this all ends with UKIP or worse as HMLO.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

.... There is no mechanism for the PLP to take back the reins of power. I have a horrible feeling that this all ends with UKIP or worse as HMLO.

Has the Rule Book been changed?

It used to be the case that anyone could challenge for the leadership at conference if they got 20% of the PLP to nominate them. The trouble is, that there would be no point in doing so, unless you thought there was a chance that the membership had changed their mind about Corbyn.

And there doesn't seem to be any sign of that. In fact, the suggestion is that significant number of Corbyn's followers don't care if he does lose Labour the next election.

cells

Generali wrote: »

Somebody needs to win the war and get a proper system of governance in place.

but how is that possible when winning a war in this context means at best the other side dissolving into the ether just waiting to erupt and more likely years of killings and bombings and people disappearing in the night never to be seen again. how do you forget a civil war and forgive the other side and live peacefully.

our own past is of course full of power struggles and lots of pillaging raping and dead people.

maybe Europe was lucky in that we had a couple hundred years of 'unity' fighting other Europeans. when things got so deadly that we couldn't fight any more without destruction we largely stopped.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

Has the Rule Book been changed?

It used to be the case that anyone could challenge for the leadership at conference if they got 20% of the PLP to nominate them. The trouble is, that there would be no point in doing so, unless you thought there was a chance that the membership had changed their mind about Corbyn.

And there doesn't seem to be any sign of that. In fact, the suggestion is that significant number of Corbyn's followers don't care if he does lose Labour the next election.

Nominating someone isn't the problem, it's getting them elected.

The longer this farce goes on the more extremists will be elected and the more moderate people will drift away. As a result it will get increasingly hard for Labour to elect someone that can carry enough of the country to get in.

I honestly believe we are watching the death of the Labour party. All that remains is to decide who replaces them.

Sapphire

cells wrote: »

maybe Europe was lucky in that we had a couple hundred years of 'unity' fighting other Europeans. when things got so deadly that we couldn't fight any more without destruction we largely stopped.

Very different societies – those of the Near/Middle East have been tribal for thousands of years, despite the earliest (magnificent) civilisations having existed way before we Europeans left the mud. They've also always had strong (and often cruel) rulers who kept a rein on sectarianism. The sectarian 'mentality' is very much alive today in these societies, and is (very) unfortunately being exported. I fear this is a fundamental fact that many in the West do not realise, thinking that 'democracy' is something that can be introduced into these societies.:cool:

Sapphire

Generali wrote: »

I honestly believe we are watching the death of the Labour party. All that remains is to decide who replaces them.

Yes – I've been thinking about this recently. There are some decent people, like Hilary Benn, apparently, in the labour party. However, a large proportion consists of discredited blairites, and the looney left of the 'politburo' ilk that existed decades ago. (How ludicrous it is that Corbyn constantly states he'll consult 'party members' on policies, rather than considering what voters in Britain actually think.)

Trouble is, labour was founded when there was still a working class, with workers toiling in factories, mines and heavy industry, and often being severely mistreated. There was a definite need for a party such as this at the time – but the traditional needs of part of the population for such a party no longer exist…

Perhaps there is room for a type of social democratic party, which would incorporate some much-needed care for the planet in its policies (not a green party, though)?

cells

Sapphire wrote: »

Very different societies – those of the Near/Middle East have been tribal for thousands of years, despite the earliest (magnificent) civilisations having existed way before we Europeans left the mud. They've also always had strong (and often cruel) rulers who kept a rein on sectarianism. The sectarian 'mentality' is very much alive today in these societies, and is (very) unfortunately being exported. I fear this is a fundamental fact that many in the West do not realise, thinking that 'democracy' is something that can be introduced into these societies.:cool:

didn't England have a few civil wars and a military dictator in the form of cromwell. didnt we effectively have [STRIKE]war [/STRIKE] lords who would back one faction or anther and commit their men to kill the other side. Didn't England and Scotland kill each other (maybe like the kurds in the north vs the Shia in the south).


I think democracy can work but it needs a shifting of power every few cycles. If you dont get your own way you grind your teeth and hope for better luck in 4-5 years time and even when not in power you get to slag off the other side. If on the other hand its always their way and never yours then you probably would go to war.

I think a decent example of this was Turkey recent elections. Things were getting very heated and were it a dictator it might have erupted into civil war but when the leading party got over 50% of the vote the rest kinda went quiet and just said if the people are dumb enough to vote for him what can we do

Sapphire

cells wrote: »

didn't England have a few civil wars and a military dictator in the form of cromwell. didnt we effectively have [STRIKE]war [/STRIKE] lords who would back one faction or anther and commit their men to kill the other side.

I think a decent example of this was Turkey recent elections. Things were getting very heated and were it a dictator it might have erupted into civil war but when the leading party got over 50% of the vote the rest kinda went quiet and just said if the people are dumb enough to vote for him what can we do

I have studied the prehistory and history of the Near East, as well as that of Britain, and believe me, the sectarianism was/is much worse in the former.

When it comes to Turkey, I have a Turk in my family and he (and his friends and family) detest Erdogan because of his strong religious views and oppression of people that disagree with him. However, my b-i-l said he wanted him to win the election precisely because he was hard and could hold the country together, suppressing the opposition and thereby ensuring relative peace in the society. I actually remember the first time I went to Turkey. It was about 20 years ago, just after martial law had been imposed. My b-i-l's relatives in Turkey said they were really pleased about the imposition of martial law. Before that the country had been descending into chaos, with leftist groups fighting each other as well as right-wing groups (and vice versa). In the process, many people were being killed on the streets, e.g. a professor would be shot at a bus stop and the gunmen would also take out bystanders nearby in the process. At night, you could hear gunfire throughout the night. Yet I remember that the West condemned Turkey for its 'brutal suppression' of these groups. Again, it appeared to me that it failed to understand what was happening there, and that the people there are different from us, with very different history and religion, factors that do have a very strong bearing on the character of the society. And Turkey is less extreme than other countries in the region (due to Attaturk)…