The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I guess a lot of people see him as a person of good principle that would be a better 'guide' or leader than some suit that has private audiences with Murdoch to find out what to think and thinks radical policy is to tweek tiny little edges of tory benefits cuts

I'm sure that's right, at least to a point. I would think that 80% of those things you list  are probably the sort of views/beliefs that many of the "left wing" (ish) people in the UK also believe.

I'm also sure that simply "not being like Blair or Cameron" isn't a reason to be a good leader of a party or a reason why someone's performance as leader is good. I mean Natalie Bennett (probably) also believes all those things, and she too increased her party membership by a big chunk. But she's a rubbish leader as well. The issue is starker with Labour because there's a greater chance that they could form government (or at least there was).

Under a different electoral system (PR), Corbyn would be a less poor choice for Labour Leader, perhaps. But under a first past the post system, Labour has to get power by persuading people who don't believe the things you list that they would be a competent and credible Gov't. Republicanism, abolishing Pomp and Ceremony, Trident, and a range of other things will prevent him getting power. I'm not saying his views on those things are "wrong" (to me) - it's not what I think, it's what enough people who would switch from tory labour  under the current system to elect Labour think and what appeals to enough of them and enough of core labour people and melding that into a credible and fair plan that matters.

 

[TrentVilla]

39 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Standing by his principles? Does that not count any more? Or are we all ready to sell our souls for some power?

Sure standing by principles is great but it doesn't automatically make you a successful leader. 

[TrentVilla]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

Who would be your tip to replace him?

Honestly I'm past caring or thinking it really matters.

[tonyh29]

3 hours ago, darrenm said:

Standing by his principles? Does that not count any more? Or are we all ready to sell our souls for some power?

Standing by something like his principles on not wanting to be in the EU you mean ?

[darrenm]

16 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Standing by something like his principles on not wanting to be in the EU you mean ?

Nope, nothing at all like that. There's standing by your principles and there's knowing what's best for the country.

[Chindie]

22 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Standing by something like his principles on not wanting to be in the EU you mean ?

To take one right out of your playbook, can we hold that against Leadsom as well?

Edited July 5, 2016 by Chindie

[tonyh29]

2 minutes ago, Chindie said:

To take one right out of your playbook, can we hold that against Leadsom as well?

You could but that gets filed firmly under "Ahhh but "

 

[tonyh29]

5 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Nope, nothing at all like that. There's standing by your principles and there's knowing what's best for the country.

Priceless 

 

[Xann]

Just now, tonyh29 said:

You could but that gets filed firmly under "Ahhh but "

He probably still wants out, but not this way and not with a overall Tory majority.
 

 

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

You could but that gets filed firmly under "Ahhh but "

 

Hence the playbook

[LondonLax]

12 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

he did not lose the support of Labour voters

 

4% of UKIP voters voted to remain in the EU. 

Those guys must have trouble deciding what to have for breakfast in the morning.  

[TrentVilla]

33 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

4% of UKIP voters voted to remain in the EU. 

Those guys must have trouble deciding what to have for breakfast in the morning.  

Probably isn't continental. 

[blandy]

17 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

Sure standing by principles is great but it doesn't automatically make you a successful leader. 

Quite often it can make you a bad leader or lead to bad outcomes.

The "don't negotiate with terrorists - No peace in Ireland" principle, basically.

 

[chrisp65]

17 hours ago, blandy said:

I'm sure that's right, at least to a point. I would think that 80% of those things you list  are probably the sort of views/beliefs that many of the "left wing" (ish) people in the UK also believe.

The alternative to people with actual beliefs is the conveyor belt of empty vessels in sober suits who's job it is to retweet whatever this week's on trend bland message is.

I'm thinking here of a specific example, newly elected MP for Ogmore, Chris Elmore. Never has a more vacuous waste of an M&S suit got such a well paid position for basically being a good boy. But I'm sure up and down the land every one of us has an 'Elmore' in waiting. The local councillor with spectacularly conformist views and a good eye for a photo opportunity in the local paper.

Devoid of any personal opinions, he will delay and defer answering any direct question on any subject until he has had time to consult on what the correct answer is. But there's nothing about Elmore to scare the horses. He'll passionately believe in whatever he's told to. He'll eventually get a shadow cabinet post. He'll rise by default. One day, if he's a good boy, he'll be a contender for some sort of office. Who knows, if he can keep the safe seat he was gifted, he might eventually be Lord Elmore, a reward for all that top quality public service and a lifetime of compliance.

Your local version of Chris Elmore is not going to change the world. But I can also see that an idealist that doesn't get elected or can't carry 330 other MP's with them might also not change the world. Plus, just to do the full 360, as much as may rail against empty suits, I'm also very wary of 'charimatic' politicians. I've been conned in my yoof by the charismatic types that flirted with Militant and the SWP.

I think that's where a Corbyn like figure could have / should have really appealed. Actual real opinions, but no cigar and fedora combo.

 

 

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

The alternative to people with actual beliefs is the conveyor belt of empty vessels in sober suits who's job it is to retweet whatever this week's on trend bland message is.

I'm thinking here of a specific example...

I think that's where a Corbyn like figure could have / should have really appealed. Actual real opinions, but no cigar and fedora combo.

Yeah, pretty much agree with the whole post. Just on the "beliefs / principles thing" - sure a heck of a lot of career politicians either never had, or gave up any kind of core of belief, which in itself is a shame. It's just that in my comment to Darren I didn't agree that "having principles" was in itself a "success" (unless you set the bar really low).

In terms of succeeding and making things better for the people you represent, then beliefs/values/principles both give a clue as to how someone might behave or respond, and also can give them a drive to achieve a result for people. My other point is that unbending, inflexible principles by and large are a hindrance to making things better in the real world, rather than in party debates and hustings and the like.

So I want people who believe in something and will fight towards going in that direction, but not people who will not move unless every aspect of the situation tallies with their value system. That just leads towards "I'm going to site here and sound off, while the world happens". And that's my problem with Corbyn. His values appeal to a large chunk of people, as does his desire for a nicer, kinder politics, but unfortunately he doesn't seem able demonstrate he can turn those values into something that enough people can see as a tangible prospect for making their lives or the country better. Where the values conflict with each other, as well, there's no coherent, joined up credible, outcome visible.

 

[MakemineVanilla]

As the details of the Chilcot inquiry begin to emerge, I would have thought that it would give pause to those demanding someone with strong leadership qualities to replace Corbyn.

It seems that those known for their leadership qualities inevitably drift into being autocrats, which both Thatcher and Blair eventually did.

Surely Labour should be looking for a quiet man like Attlee, who believed in 'government by discussion', rather than another egoist like Blair who ruled from his sofa.

Whether Corbyn is that man remains to be seen.

 

 

[darrenm]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Yeah, pretty much agree with the whole post. Just on the "beliefs / principles thing" - sure a heck of a lot of career politicians either never had, or gave up any kind of core of belief, which in itself is a shame. It's just that in my comment to Darren I didn't agree that "having principles" was in itself a "success" (unless you set the bar really low).

In terms of succeeding and making things better for the people you represent, then beliefs/values/principles both give a clue as to how someone might behave or respond, and also can give them a drive to achieve a result for people. My other point is that unbending, inflexible principles by and large are a hindrance to making things better in the real world, rather than in party debates and hustings and the like.

So I want people who believe in something and will fight towards going in that direction, but not people who will not move unless every aspect of the situation tallies with their value system. That just leads towards "I'm going to site here and sound off, while the world happens". And that's my problem with Corbyn. His values appeal to a large chunk of people, as does his desire for a nicer, kinder politics, but unfortunately he doesn't seem able demonstrate he can turn those values into something that enough people can see as a tangible prospect for making their lives or the country better. Where the values conflict with each other, as well, there's no coherent, joined up credible, outcome visible.

 

I agree with all that. Perhaps principles is the wrong term then.

Integrity?

I think Corbyn has shown he has strong core beliefs but he is willing to compromise and adapt if need be.

[tonyh29]

in the other thread it's always known as a U-turn rather than compromise and adapt 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

I think Corbyn has shown he has strong core beliefs but he is willing to compromise and adapt if need be.

I rather think the opposite. For example, Trident. He's clearly now and always been against it. That's his belief, his principle. The (current) Labour party policy is however in favour of Trident renewal. Many/most Labour MPs and Unions are also in favour.

He's clearly now and always been against austerity. Labour's view is also against it, currently.

Put those 2 things together and we ended up with

1. Setting up a body to review the policy on Trident. "rigging" it with anti Trident chair(s), despite his party's overall wide/majority support for it.

2. Proposing going ahead with the subs, at great cost, but without the actual nukes - so spending a ton of money on something that is utterly useless.

3. Making a big deal of all that, whilst not accepting that whatever the official policy is, the voting maths in parliament means it'll get renewed anyway.

My point about all that isn't whether I agree with his view or not on Trident, it's the shambles that's resulted, offering a(nother) gift to the tories.

That's about the only example I can think of, of his "compromising" and it's an incoherent mess.

[TrentVilla]

5 hours ago, darrenm said:

I agree with all that. Perhaps principles is the wrong term then.

Integrity?

I think Corbyn has shown he has strong core beliefs but he is willing to compromise and adapt if need be.

Integrity doesn't automatically make him a good leader either. He hasn't been a good leader as the revolt has shown and I don't see much evidence of him being able to compromise.