Jeremy Corbyn to be elected Labour Leader?

[james19]

We knew of course that his opponents would play dirty….

I remember this story. omg he did what it says, nothing.

Re child abuse in Islington/Council

[Anonymous]

james19 wrote:

We knew of course that his opponents would play dirty….

But will they be believed? Or will it make Corbyn even more popular?

[ALB]

I see the man bringing this up is "Blue Labour", i.e anti-immigrant, British Nationalist,  MP John Mann, a really nasty piece of work:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3093140/Slash-welfare-stop-mass-migration-win-power-Labour-MP-releases-Blue-manifesto-leader.html

[james19]

Jeremy Corbyn,the hard-left Labour MP who is tipped to lead the party, has been accused of "doing nothing" over child abuse in his constituency during the 1970s and 1980s.Dozens of vulnerable children were raped and sexually abused in care homes run by the London borough of Islington.However most of the abusers escaped justice because allegations made at the time by victims were ignored and many files, which contained corroborating evidence, have been lost or shredded.http://tinyurl.com/puretjyhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11758612/Jeremy-Corbyn-accused-of-inaction-over-paedophile-scandal.html 

[Anonymous]

There is a statistic going around that two out of three people think corbyn will not win in 2020. Well three out of four voted against the Tories and they were elected. 

[jondwhite]

Peter Hitchens writes favourably about Jeremy Corbyn at a Corbyn rally herehttp://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/09/my-evening-with-jeremy-corbyn.html

Peter Hitchens wrote:

I warmed to Mr Corbyn personally for two things . One was the unaffected, barely conscious way he bent down to scratch the head of a dog belonging to someone in the crowd. The other was when he acknowledged the majesty of the setting, the beautiful heart of one of the loveliest places in England, at sunset. I suspect that most readers of this blog, if they heard the speech without knowing who was delivering it, would have thought it workmanlike and commonsensical, though obviously of the left. It was not high-flown, it contained a reasonable amount of self-mocking humour, it was proudly free of personal abuse or political invective. It was also (this made it easier for me) free of anything about the wild enthusiasm for comprehensive schools and multiculturalism which Mr Corbyn shares with David Cameron. It was completely coherent,  delivered fluently without notes by a man who obviously still writes his own speeches and understands what he is saying. Every statement in it obviously resulted from a  long and considered examination of the subject, and he could have defended every assertion if he had had to. This was itself a  refreshing change from most modern political speeches, crafted by professional experts in blandness, rehearsed and spoken by the ‘leader’ (what a horrible term this is)  more for effect than for edification.  I simply don’t think any of his rivals could have done this, not because they’re stupid or bad speakers, but because they don’t actually have coherent political positions. They have to supercharge their words with emotive claptrap, slogans and  clichés to get them off the ground at all, and ,while they might briefly soar they quickly sink to earth again. Mr Corbyn’s speech, by contrast, took off in an orderly, well-piloted fashion, flew at a sensible height for the correct amount of time, droning gently, and then landed smoothly at the intended destination. I think this is the sort of thing people used to do in the 1940s, and perhaps the 1950s, when we still had real-live contentious politics in this country. But they have forgotten how since the PR men took over in the 1960s.

[alanjjohnstone]

The right thread now…>>The pro-Corbyn nuevo-nationalisation movement's thoughts on state-ownership and nationalisation expressed herehttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/joe-guinan-thomas-m-hanna/dont-…Nothing much about capitalist relations or the continued extraction of surplus value, simply the question of organisational structure and the various advantages. I think the article shoots itself in the foot with this comparison Quote:“Korea, Taiwan and Singapore all used state-owned enterprises to fuel spectacular economic growth.” All three examples were dictatorships suppressing the unions to promote the power of the state rather than empower what liberals call the civil society.Also, yes as part of the alternative solution  …sewer socialism as the Americans call it…municipal socialism…We will have to dust of the cobwebs of our literature to offer a rebuttalBut if we wish to simply concentrate on the positive…the installation of individual roof solar panels and feeding the national grid with the surplus power, must be something socialism will consider in its energy choicies but in capitalism, we have the likes of Koch Brothers demanding taxes be imposed on such decentralised producers of energy to preserve the returns of investors and owners of larger power stations and i am sure a similar reactionary movement will arise in the UK…Imagine…people receiving free energy…can't have that, can we, what-ho? Think what else the great unwashed will demand and expect for free…Health-care, was an exception …kept the bounders fit for our factories…and that was one step too far…and we will fix that, impose doctor visit charges on top of all the others…OK humour is not my strong point, but what i am suggesting is a few things with Corbynomics could be used by ourselves as i said previously, if we wish to take a less antagonistic approach…ask his supporters, why stop there?.."lets go further, Jeremy…lets use your own arguments fully and see where it leads logically towards…"Not lead the discourse but push it …."I have no country to fight for; my country is the Earth, and I am a citizen of the World." – Eugene V. Debs

[ALB]

Jeremy Corbyn's chief economic adviser is Richard Murphy of the Tax Justice Network who thought up the idea and name of "people's quantitative easing" as a way to end austerity. Just discovered that we clashed with him in 2008:http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/02/04/living-in-a-sandwich/I wonder whether this is still his view:

Quote:

I really do think they’re wrong. But I’ll give them full marks for one thing. They have spotted that I am content with a market system as long as it is as close to a level playing field as possible and is properly regulated to achieve that result.

I expect it is.In the meantime the dye is cast. Voting for the new Labour Leader closed 5 minutes ago.

[Dave B]

Anti Corbynite Old Liberal, New Labour, Gordon Brown on his “hero” the Corbynite Keir Hardie. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b068xnly

[lanz the joiner]

I see those who have responded to this thread as belonging to either one of two groups: firstly, those who unequivocally oppose Corbyn and everything he stands for as being inherently malevolent and detrimental to socialism, and secondly, those who have some degree of sympathy for him personally, or his policies, or his appeal to working class people.Those in the first group seem to be of the opinion that one of the ways Corbyn and other reformists harm the working class is by luring them towards supporting policy decisions that look like they will benefit the workers, but are destined to fail, which will inevitably lead to more austerity and dissillusionment.Obviously, if you could convince people how to think, you would convince them to abandon the idea of capitalism, and to join the fight for socialism instead. But, let's just say you could only persuade them to vote for another of the Labour candidates instead of Corbyn. How do you think that would play out, compared to the story I described above?Would a vocally pro-austerity Labour leader such as Cooper or Kendall show workers that reformism cannot succeed, more clearly than Corbyn's failures would? Would it prevent workers from experiencing the dissillusionment that Corbyn's nonsense-economics would create, or would it accelerate the process, more quickly leading workers to conclude that revolutionary socialism is the only real alternative?

[ALB]

That sounds like the old (in the sense of moth-eaten) Trotskyist argument for voting Labour. Vote in a Labour government, see it inevitably fail and that'll get workers to turn against capitalism or, rather, to turn to he Trotskyist vanguard to lead them against capitalism (in fact to state capitalism). It has never worked. More often than not they turn back to the Tories.Better not to go down that cul-de-sac (or any of the many others on the road to socialism) in the first place.

[alanjjohnstone]

Brown's radical roots been discussed by alb before herehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2008/no-1241-january-2008/thoughts-premier-brown-thirty-years-ago

[jondwhite]

Good news for the party perhaps, but bad news for the twitter account and Standard?

Quote:

  Most voters say they want Labour to provide a radical, socialist alternative to the Conservatives, according to a new poll.  The survey found that of all voters, 52 per cent believed a radical socialist alternative would be a force for good and change Britain for the better were it in power.  The voters were however split on whether such a party could win a general election, with only 43 per cent saying it could.  Counter-intuitively, voters who deserted Labour in 2015 for right-wing parties did not necessarily view a shift to the radical left by Labour as a bad thing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/most-voters-would-welcome-a-more-radical-socialist-labour-party-new-poll-finds-10494366.htmlSo now we have Corbynwho is popular among Labour memberswho is popular among Labour supporters who are not memberswho has purportedly engaged non-political people with high turnout meeting rallieswho is averse to personality politics, more keen on movements than leadership and not seemingly a product of focus groupswhose policies are popular among the general publicSo do we continue to attack the man or play the ball?

[DJP]

jondwhite wrote:

So now we have Corbynwho is popular among Labour memberswho is popular among Labour supporters who are not memberswho has purportedly engaged non-political people with high turnout meeting rallieswho is averse to personality politics, more keen on movements than leadership and not seemingly a product of focus groupswhose policies are popular among the general publicSo do we continue to attack the man or play the ball?

You've missed something from your list.."who is pushing the same old illusions that continually lock the working class into the reformist dead end"And this is "playing the ball" it's a comment on ideas, not the personality.

[imposs1904]

DJP wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

So now we have Corbynwho is popular among Labour memberswho is popular among Labour supporters who are not memberswho has purportedly engaged non-political people with high turnout meeting rallieswho is averse to personality politics, more keen on movements than leadership and not seemingly a product of focus groupswhose policies are popular among the general publicSo do we continue to attack the man or play the ball?

You've missed something from your list.."who is pushing the same old illusions that continually lock the working class into the reformist dead end"And this is "playing the ball" it's a comment on ideas, not the personality.

Hurry up with the like button function, 'cos I like this post. What DJP said.

[Author]

Posts