Billy_Pilgrim
Member
The party machine is on manoeuvres, and it's not for Corbyn.
We're organising to get rid of him. Sorry members, has to be done.
We're organising to get rid of him. Sorry members, has to be done.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Corbyn sacks Hilary Benn, Half Shadow cabinet expected to resign today (Labour)
- Thread starter Tak3n
- Start date
- Status
30yearsofhurt
Member
If we need more evidence that his former supporters are deserting him, Labour Youth London have called for Corbyn's resignation.
travisbickle
Member
Strong statement but I prefer their one and only other post, which gets to the heart of what the Labour Youth London are about.
Do you want me to setup 5 sites for non existent organizations where everyone declares their unwavering devotion to Corbyn
The "party machine" couldn't stop Corbyn the first time around, so best of luck, but you're nothing without your members.
I disagree with their assertion that Corbyn and Cameron making pro-EU appearances together would have been anything other than a disaster for Labour, but I can't find fault with anything else.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think Corbyn will win again. Depends on who stands against him, obviously, but this isn't some Blairite coup. Smith, Nandy and Malhotra are all very much on the left of the party and not even particularly the soft left. If they're bailing ship, there's going to be a lot of members in a similar position.
lol, that's great.
If you think that LYL are a non existent organisation then I don't really know what to say to you ¯\_(ツ
_/¯.travisbickle
Member
The poster had a problem with you saying "socialism doesn't help the working class."
Maybe she should have examined her conscience and not resigned in order to stage a coup at the worst possible time imaginable. Getting him to resign is their only move, they know they can't oust him in an actual leadership election.
Oh dear, did you even check the link before posting.
Royal_Phalanx
Member
If the members ignore the fact that Corbyn is making Labour unelectable then I'm ripping up my Labour membership. I will vote against him in any leadership challenge.
Why? Every single piece of evidence we have suggests this.
Who do you have in mind who can replace Corbyn (who wants to replace Corbyn) and make Labour more electable?
JonathanEx
Member
Luciana Berger (Shadow for Mental Health) steps down too. That's what, 8 left of the 30 we started with?
That's how it works. It's the rules for Christs sake, do you think they *care* right now - look at the public list of people who have left and who are sharing why they left?
Yo also understand that these MPs did this with the backing of their constituency parties? The same parties that backed Corbyn the first time around?
And this isn't the labour right for gods sake. Do you pay ANY attention to politics at all? This is the left, the centre and the right all throwing him out. Seems Malhotra and the Eagle sisters are on the right now? Seriously, not everyone against Corbyn is a blairite. This is the entire elected party moving against him, from all wings, because he has been the least effective labour leader in living memory and because he deliberately sabotaged the Remain campaign against the wishes of the party and the people who voted in the leadership election.
uncleniccius
Member
Maybe, just maybe they would much rather actually win the next election. Support within labour member isn't really all that helpful considering there aren't that many of them. Politics has shifted to the centre in order to maximise votes, and if you're power seeking that's what you need to do. Corbyn taking part in the next election would mean they'd be walked over.
These ministers are being blamed for being power hungry, when in reality they want the labour party to win an election which will NEVER otherwise happen.
30yearsofhurt
Member
Luciana Berger gone.
Can we get an updated graphic?
Can we get an updated graphic?
It keeps it in the news.
Because it keeps it in the news cycle and creates more pressure for him to go. It's a classic tactic.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
To keep it in the news and to keep the pressure up.
Separate news stories. More attention. Seems like more and more hits against Corbyn instead of one.
PJV3
Member
It's best to do it now. He takes the heat for the referendum and it is a fresh start hopefully under a unifying leader.
30yearsofhurt
Member
Again it's all about one mans ego.
Jezbollah
Member
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Watson has asked Corbyn to step down; he can't really resign because he's the Deputy and if Labour simultaneously has no deputy and no leader things are really terrible. Similarly, Winteron is the whip. Only Ashworth is a true unknown quantity.
Giant Panda
Member
How has socialism worked out in Venezuela? Or Zimbabwe? Or when Britain was further left after WW2? Or in China?
Classical liberal economics with a good but not too large welfare system is much better than socialism for the working class, and you have no rational arguments to back up your claim.
freeofgreed
Member
Isn't Labour just unelectable regardless of who is in charge? Without Scotland I don't see how they can get the numbers, and I doubt they'll ever beat the SNP again, especially not with an even more centrist government.
Or even a Blair Labour economy. Nobody in their right mind would accuse Blair Labour of hurting the working class. And yet we can't do that because they're not ideologically pure enough. It's so obvious that the people backing Corbyn aren't actually interested in outcomes.
Labour won in 1997, 2001 and 2005 without Scotland. It's only 56 MPs in the end - quite a few less than London.
uncleniccius
Member
I'm a liberal but I would LOVE a Blairite. It is IMO a wonderful middle ground.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
'05 would have been hung parliament with Labour majority, iirc.
30yearsofhurt
Member
You mean that awful, awful time when some dirty Welsh socialist scumbag started the NHS? Did that improve things for anybody?
freeofgreed
Member
Ah ok, guess I overestimate their importance.
Nope - they had a 66 seat majority, and only 41 seats in Scotland. Would have been tight but still a proper majority even without those 41.
(More than Cameron got this time around still!)
You mean the Atlee government?
The one that setup the NHS? The one that introduced Child Benefit? Brought in National Insurance and ended the Poor Laws? Pushed for greater provision of public housing for the disabled, the elderly and the poor? Extended workers rights and introduced free secondary education?
I could go on, but if you honestly think the post WW2 settlement was a bad thing for the working class then why bother.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I just checked. Labour didn't have 66-seat majority - 2005 Labour won 355 seats, which is a majority of 30 (as 325 is half of 650, and 355 is 30 more than that); but if Scotland hadn't existed but things had been otherwise the same, they'd have won 314 seats (41 less) of 591, which is a majority of 19 (as 295 is half of 591, and 314 is 19 more than that). So you're right; they'd still have done it.
Spuck-uk
Banned
Thank you, a thousand fucking times this.
travisbickle
Member
Tony Blair's government hurt the working class. It continued the privatisation of utilities, it continued the right to buy and didn't expand the building of social housing. It continued the deregulation of the markets, it introduced student fees, it increased the working classes dependence on debt to support increasing rents, utility prices, stagnant wages and "aspiration"*. It reduced the power of the unions, and started a war in Iraq where I have to assume a higher proportion of working class were affected.
*Tony Blair had a simplistic view of people and believed if you provided them money to purchase "opportunity" everyone would succeed through greedy self-interest.
He controlled people with money, he "set them free" as long as they were willing to go into debt for it. A lot of people who believed his bullshit voted out a few days ago.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
Bollocks. Tony Blair put two cars on every drive and sent a generation to university. Some of you have no idea what life was like for a northern, working class person before Blair. They're raging because all that Blair handed them has subsequently been taken away.
Yeah, even in my hometown, those of us that finished school in 2000 or around that time were so much better in terms of options than a lot of friends older siblings. There was hope for us when there wasn't for them.
Ownership of utilities is irrelevant provided legislation is intact to prevent rent-seeking.
Social housing is bad policy. It doesn't solve the issues facing the users and it heavily drives down the housing prices of those nearby.
Generally good policy. Less regulated markets increase investment, which increases productivity, which increases wages. Obviously some regulation should exist, but most currently existing regulation is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Good policy. The UK and Australia have the two best tuition systems in the world by rate of return publicly and privately. Both of them have small income-based repayment plans.
Free tuition is regressive, a large transferal of wealth from the poor to the middle class:
http://www.docs.hss.ed.ac.uk/educati..._ESRCF_WP3.pdf
and doesn't solve the issue facing underprivileged households looking to enter university, which isn't credit constraints but improper K-12 preparation (yes I'm aware this is from the US. It's still usable for the UK):
https://research.collegeboard.org/si...erformance.pdf
Not really.
Wages in the UK aren't stagnant.
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1246.pdf
The government introduced more flexible workplace negotiations to increase worker productivity. These aren't bad, and they didn't attack the unions like Thatcher did. The single driver of aggregate wealth in a country is the productivity of its workers, not what its unions can barter for.
Yea this was dumb.
That's kind of why capitalism works.
Blair Labour helped the working class, and the aspirational class, and the middle class. He built a broad coalition driving everybody upwards. The hard left wont ever build a coalition capable of providing a credible opposition, let alone winning governance in its own right. It needs to compromise its ideological wants for the realities of the electoral system and governance, and if it wont do that then it will be irrelevant, and incapable of putting any of its wishes into action.
Blairs' focus on education and health was monumental, he doubled spending in both of these areas. These are the most important areas for anybody seeking to better themselves and for the long-term wealth of a country, and his dedication to education funding enabled many working class members of society to drive upwards.
uncleniccius
Member
I do question whether the obsession with university was helpful though. (I'm with you on Blair more generally though)
The attitude that seems to continue that people should go to university is awful. I'm at Cardiff and whilst job prospects wise I'm going to be fine as it is a good university the actual value is poor - 6 hours of contact per week. I guess this is a separate debate, but whilst I'm pro education A LOT of people are at universities doing courses that will never get them a graduate job.
Plus, University is DEFINITELY not for everyone. If people ask me about it I recommend not to go unless you're interested in the course.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked