Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Doshwaster

StevieJ wrote: »

What about Islington :-)

I can't see the Momentumites of Islington selecting someone they consider to be a Tory Clone.

seven-day-weekend

setmefree2 wrote: »

In other news:-



http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/sadiq-khan-sparks-huge-row-by-likening-sottish-nationalism-to-racism-a3475926.html

English Nationalism gets labelled that way...why not Scottish....?

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

As long as the job gets done. Who cares? Nothing wrong in bland. Certainly is competent and tough enough.

I agree. The point I was trying to make is that if Labour had a more charismatic leader (which clearly they do not) that person would be challenging someone who has little charisma (however competent she is). It seems to me that charisma is what you need these days rather than competence. Labour cannot even get to first base in the game, so May does not need to be charismatic or competent (the latter of which she undoubtedly is)

Sapphire

BobQ wrote: »

I agree. The point I was trying to make is that if Labour had a more charismatic leader (which clearly they do not) that person would be challenging someone who has little charisma (however competent she is). It seems to me that charisma is what you need these days rather than competence. Labour cannot even get to first base in the game, so May does not need to be charismatic or competent (the latter of which she undoubtedly is)

Personally, I like Teresa May's style, and I do think she has charisma (as well as competence), though she has a quiet way about her. She seems very different from political leaders we've had in the past – though I still need to see how she will do.

I am definitely so thoroughly sick of the constant spin and lying that occurred especially with people like Bliar, Campbell, Osborn, Cameron, etc.

ukcarper

Sapphire wrote: »

Personally, I like Teresa May's style, and I do think she has charisma (as well as competence), though she has a quiet way about her. She seems very different from political leaders we've had in the past – though I still need to see how she will do.

I am definitely so thoroughly sick of the constant spin and lying that occurred especially with people like Bliar, Campbell, Osborn, Cameron, etc.

You don't think Teresa May is spinning ?

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

I agree. The point I was trying to make is that if Labour had a more charismatic leader (which clearly they do not) that person would be challenging someone who has little charisma (however competent she is). It seems to me that charisma is what you need these days rather than competence. Labour cannot even get to first base in the game, so May does not need to be charismatic or competent (the latter of which she undoubtedly is)

Assuming you mean 'charisma' in the sense of a 'capacity to inspire devotion or enthusiasm', rather than the theological sense of a 'divinely conferred power', then maybe. Corbyn seems to be able to inspire both devotion and enthusiasm from the (ahem) activists within Labour, it's just everybody else that thinks that he's useless.

Quite possibly, getting rid of Corbyn, and finding somebody else to do the job, might well persuade some Labour voters to return to the fold. But that still leaves us with the fundamental problem of !!!!!! is the point of the Labour Party?

It needs something like a coherent economic and fiscal policy for one thing. Even if it's nothing more than; we're going to backpedal on austerity, and pump a bit more into the NHS and social care, or whatever. There has to something. Blaming every ill on 'evil Tory scum' is only going to get Labour so far.

Doshwaster

In case anyone is losing track, the Indy has a good summary of everyone who is to blame for Labour's defeat in Copeland:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/copeland-by-election-who-labour-blamed-and-why-a7596911.html

I'd love to know what Cat Smith has been smoking. They must have some good quality hallucinogens on Planet Corbyn.

Thrugelmir

ukcarper wrote: »

You don't think Teresa May is spinning ?

There's nothing to spin currently. The media are left to create their own feeding frenzy based on what if scenarios to fill the void.

BobQ

setmefree2 wrote: »

The other is that the working classes /blue collar workers globally are rejecting the Liberal Elite's view of the world - which is unfettered globalisation and tons of free movement in order to make themselves rich....so David Miliband is yesterday's man....

Not sure he is yesterday's man, but he has two other limitations. First he is called Milliband and second, why on earth would he risk it?

It would be a bid risk to him, but to a credible centre left candidate who has nothing to lose, it might make sense. Dan Jarvis or Rachael Reeves for example.

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

It needs something like a coherent economic and fiscal policy for one thing. Even if it's nothing more than; we're going to backpedal on austerity, and pump a bit more into the NHS and social care, or whatever. There has to something. Blaming every ill on 'evil Tory scum' is only going to get Labour so far.

These days I do not think the public votes for coherence. Blair got elected by soundbites. But I agree it needs a positive message.