Corbynomics: A Dystopia

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

It is fairly obvious that the plan by the unions is to put tom watson in place in '19 who will then be 'sensible' to the centrists and still follow the spirit of corbyn for the faithful.

Tom Watson is a political thug. It won't be him.

Private Eye reports that Dan Jarvis is 'building his profile' and that there is some money behind him. And he is the current favourite.

michaels wrote: »

As this is the politics thread....

No, it's an economics thread.

Don't give them any excuses.

lvader

michaels wrote: »

As this is the politics thread, does anyone else find cameron's choreographed 'battle' with the eu over hiss 'deal' completely sickening. Guess what, it will be a struggle, but he will stand firm for britain and achieve a victory for us to vote on in the referendum. Has political life always been so obviously stage-managed.

That has more to do with EU politics than anything Cameron is doing.

This kind of reminds me of the EU rebate from 1984, at the time it was seen as a nothing deal and considered as victory for the French.

Sapphire

lvader wrote: »

That has more to do with EU politics than anything Cameron is doing.

Yes. The whole thing is as absurd as forcing the Euro on countries with widely different economies. Trying to impose a unified political system on countries that have completely different histories and national characters will never work.

To anyone who has the faintest inkling about the histories of various European countries, it is clear that different countries have different outlooks and will stick to their guns on certain issues (more than Britain does) – among other things on such issues like accepting migrants that Germany attempts to force on them, while at the same time wanting their citizens to be able to travel freely around Europe, taking advantage of generous benefits in Britain (paid for by indigenous taxpayers, many of whom have paid taxes for years), which has resulted in over-population and hugely over-stretched services like the NHS and accommodation.

The EU is just absurdly dysfunctional and should be allowed to die a death (sure, trade agreements are a great idea, but not imposing political union on sovereign nations).

There are rumours about Deutsche Bank being in a very weak position, not to mention Italian and other economies, and the problems being caused by the non-European economic migrant issue. Should we really be in a EU that is imploding?

kinger101

michaels wrote:

It is fairly obvious that the plan by the unions is to put tom watson in place in '19 who will then be 'sensible' to the centrists and still follow the spirit of corbyn for the faithful..

Even the union vote is fairly meaningless now with the £3 votes, though the current fiasco could have been avoided if gormless MPs hadn't nominated a candidate whom they did not wish to become leader. Restaurant owners don't put cold vomit on the menu in the interests of "diversity".

I can't see what's wrong with a system of the PLP selecting the candidate. Why would I want to vote for anyone that hadn't been endorsed by the Labour Party itself?

setmefree2

Filo25 wrote: »

the issues the NHS faces at present aren't a great reflection on the Tories, no doubt we will soon get the clarion call that it is unsavable and only the market can save the day, you know like it does in the US, a health system which must be close to the worst in the world in terms of value for money!

The Obesity Crisis is going to destroy the NHS and that's down to the British people not MPs .

setmefree2

Filo25 wrote: »

You seem to get this a lot from the more Corbynista wing of the Labour party, an obsession with ideological purity, and complete indifference to actual electability.

I can only assume its based on the assumption that they are so obviously right, that eventually everyone will be educated to see the rightness of their cause, even though the general public have not shown much inclination to do so in recent history.

antrobus wrote: »

Depends on your criteria for success.

There are a lot of people on the Labour left who would regard a 20% vote share in 2020 as a resounding victory if the Labour Party fought on the basis of truly 'socialist' manifesto. You might regard that as an electroral disaster; they would regard that as a good start.

Indeed. Tony Benn hailed the 1983 general election result, in which Labour won just 27.6 per cent of the vote and 209 seats, as a “remarkable” advance by an “openly socialist” party.

:rotfl:

You couldn't make it up.

setmefree2

antrobus wrote: »

I think that the whole point of a 'coup' would be to get Saint Jeremy to resign. Once he resigns and creates a vacancy, there is no way in this world that the current PLP would make the same mistake again. So you'd be faced with a choice between that Chuka fella and Tristram whatisname.

Not if Corbyn has his way

Labour may scrap MPs veto in leadership races to allow more 'Jeremy Corbyns' to stand

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-scrap-mps-veto-who-7387799

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/17/labour-will-stop-mps-vetoing-leadership-candidates-says-ken-livingstone

antrobus

setmefree2 wrote: »

Not if Corbyn has his way

I would not disagree.

I am not even convinced that Corbyn would resign even if Labour suffered the mother of all defeats in 2020.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

I would not disagree.

I am not even convinced that Corbyn would resign even if Labour suffered the mother of all defeats in 2020.

AIUI Labour have never sacked a leader, they have relied on defeated leaders to resign.

Mr Corbyn is 67 this year and so is likely to be north of 70 by the next election. I wonder how much longer after that he would want to remain as head of the party. Churchill made it to 81 as PM I think but his second term in the 1950s was largely titular AIUI. Staying to the 2025 election after a defeat in 2020 would put him in Churchill territory although admittedly 80 today isn't what it was in the fifties.

I think the problem remains for Labour: who has the talent, support and desire to lead Labour to victory. They just seem so anonymous and dreadful. Ed Milliband may well be the best they have and I think that says more for the rest of the PLP than it does for Mr Milliband.

Moby

Generali wrote: »

AIUI Labour have never sacked a leader, they have relied on defeated leaders to resign.

Mr Corbyn is 67 this year and so is likely to be north of 70 by the next election. I wonder how much longer after that he would want to remain as head of the party. Churchill made it to 81 as PM I think but his second term in the 1950s was largely titular AIUI. Staying to the 2025 election after a defeat in 2020 would put him in Churchill territory although admittedly 80 today isn't what it was in the fifties.

I think the problem remains for Labour: who has the talent, support and desire to lead Labour to victory. They just seem so anonymous and dreadful. Ed Milliband may well be the best they have and I think that says more for the rest of the PLP than it does for Mr Milliband.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367974/MP-Dan-Jarvis-Widowed-father-juggling-politics-bringing-2-children.html