UK: Labour Leadership election (back to SSSocialism)

[RandBlade]

Background
Following the shock Conservative majority election the Labour party is now looking for a new leader. Under the British Parliamentary model a Party always has a leader and unlike in America where primaries end potentially months before the main election, an Opposition Leader can lead their party upto nearly five years before the election. So this is the equivalent to a primary race but for 2020.

The Labour Party used to have an 'electoral college' of MPs&MEPs, Party Members and Union Members. Last time in a fratricidal comedy David Miliband won by a clear margin both the MPs and party member ballots but the union vote overwhelmingly went to his brother Ed who became leader as a result. Following controversies with the unions the leadership ballot rules were changed to what were mooted as being a 'one member one vote' but has instead become essentially an 'open primary' as anyone who wants to could register as a supporter from when the ballots opened until registration closed earlier today. Voting numbers are now said to be about 450k (compared to 194 actual members Lab had during the election campaign, meaning that actual members from before the election are now in a minority of the selectorate).

The future - or the past ...
It looks like far left extremist oddball Jeremy Corbyn is now going to win. His entry into the race was regarded as a bit of a joke at first, regarding as extreme left even for Labour he self-describes as a socialist and is to the left of even Greece's Syriza. Think a mirror-image of Trump. But the unions have backed him and have been getting their own extreme supporters to sign up to vote for him, while some trouble-making Conservatives have signed up to vote for him under the assumption he'd make Labour unelectable. The other contenders are an incredibly weak bunch of nobodies who've refused to say anything during the election so Corbyn could win by default.

Amongst Corbyn's policies are to basically nationalise everything, he's said he'd reinstate the Marxist Clause IV that pledged public ownership over production. Internationally he believes in unilateral nuclear disarmament and calling terrorist groups like Hamas and others his "friends", being a friend of Russia not America etc. There's already talk of a Labour Party split in two (like happened in the 80s under Foot) if Corbyn were to win.

It strikes me that Corbyn's nutty Marxist policies are surely such that he'd be unelectable and will make his party toxic but I worry what happens if an economic crash or something else unexpected happens and he ends up winning an election and becoming PM.

Seems utterly crazy to imagine in a few years we could have PM Corbyn siding up with Putin (who'll no doubt still be in power) against President Trump. What a nightmare.

[Steely Glint]

Going by what we've heard from the media about Jeremy Corbyn, one gets the impression that he is more or less the most left-wing person who has ever lived and, in fact, personally regards Karl Marx as "center right" and a "class traitor", but I think we're all old enough and wise enough by now to know that when there's this big fuss in the media with a suspicious absence of specifics then what you're being told has a high probability of being inaccurate or fictional.

So, what does he, Jeremy Corbyn, actually believe. Well, I for one can't be fucked trawling through gazillions of news articles looking for direct quotes about his policy positions so let's ask the font of all wisdom, Wikipedia:

Corbyn is a self-described socialist and anti-poverty campaigner.[clarification needed]

Yeah, clarification needed. The word "socialist" does not describe specific policies, it describes what team you see yourself as belonging too.

He has campaigned strongly against tuition fees in England, the creation of academies and private finance initiative schemes.

I don't really care about any of these issues. These are obviously left wing stances, but we're not talking moonbat territory here.

He supports the renationalisation of railways,

I do not have any idealogical preference for nationalisation or privatisation, but in the specific case of the railways it's hard to see how this would be a bad thing.

the introduction of a living wage,

This has literally already happened.

a higher rate of income tax for the wealthiest in society,

Sure.

and an increase in corporation tax to fund public services such as free higher education.

How big an increase? Critical information there.

Corbyn has stated his preference for Britain to become a republic, but that he recognises that is not a major political issue at the present time.[7]

Well spotted, Jeremy.

In 1991, Corbyn seconded the Commonwealth of Britain Bill brought forward by Tony Benn, which called for the transformation of the United Kingdom into a "democratic, federal and secular Commonwealth of Britain", with an elected President, devolution, abolition of the House of Lords and an equal representation of men and women in Parliament.[8]

Yeah, well, you know what I have to say about that is that it's a very important issue with a lot of... something... behind it. Whatever. No, I don't care.

Corbyn was a well-known campaigner against Apartheid in South Africa, serving on the National Executive of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, and was arrested in 1984 for protesting outside South Africa House.[7]

He's against apartheid. Controversial.

Fun fact: my parents took my on an anti-apartheid protest when I was very little. I have a clear memory of shouting something about apartheid being bad. However, I didn't know what the fuck an apartheid was. That's your left wing indoctrination right there.

He is a member of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, regularly campaigning against conflict in Gaza and what the organisation considers to be Apartheid in Israel.[9]

I have very limited patience for stances on the Israel-Palestine issue which arbitrarily assign all blame to one side. However, supporting Palestinians over Israel is basically the default left wing position, as supporting Israel over Palestine is a default right wing position. So, what do you expect. If he somehow got into power with this stance, would it change anything? Would it negatively affect the UK in some way? No, not really. The Israel-Palestine conflict will continue indefinitely no matter what anyone says or does, that's just the nature of the thing. It might annoy the Americans if he's too vocal about it, I suppose.

Corbyn has been a long-standing supporter of a United Ireland and controversially invited Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams to London in 1984.

The North is a pain the ass and contributes nothing to the wider United Kingdom, so the Irish are welcome to it.

A second meeting in 1996 was cancelled following pressure from the Labour Party.[10][11][12] He has been strongly criticised by Labour and Conservative MPs for holding meetings with members of the IRA in the Houses of Parliament to discuss topics such as conditions in Northern Irish prisons and the IRA ceasefire.[13][14] In an interview on Northern Irish radio in August 2015, Corbyn objected to "all bombing" and welcomed the ceasefire and peace process, but would not express a direct opinion about the actions of the IRA.[15][16]

Isn't talking to the IRA how we got that ceasefire thing?

He is a prominent member of Amnesty International, and campaigned for the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet to be put on trial.

Fuck Pinochet.

Corbyn and fellow MP Robert Kilroy-Silk were reported to have scuffled in the House of Commons Division Lobby over the issue in 1985, but Kilroy-Silk denied reports he punched Corbyn.[17][18]

So, he hates Pinochet and Robert Kilroy-Silk? That's... that's a point in his favour, surely?

He is also a Venezuelan solidarity[clarification needed] activist

This on the other hand is not good, if "Venezuelan solidarity" means supporting that Chavez guy. Unfortunately, clarification is needed so we don't know what this actually means.

and has advocated for the rights of the forcibly-removed Chagossians to return to the British Indian Ocean Territory.[19]

It's actually rather difficult to the disagree with on the morality of this. And the US did end up using this spot to move prisoners around for 'extraordinary rendition', which ended up reflecting badly on us.

When does the American lease on Diego Garcia run out, anyways?

*googles*

Huh. 2016, and no one seems to know what's happening about it.

Corbyn has been a long-time campaigner on animal rights issues. He was one of the first signatories to Tony Banks' "Pigeon Bombs" Early Day Motion and in 2015 signed a motion calling for a ban on the importation of foie gras into the United Kingdom and was a sponsor of a motion opposing the Yulin Dog Meat Festival.[20][21][22] He also sponsored two Early Day Motions relating to the McLibel case.[23]

Yeah, fine.

In 2013, Corbyn co-signed a letter which was published in The Guardian newspaper that indicated his support for the People's Assembly Against Austerity.[24]

"austerity" - another political buzzword which can mean different things to different people. Specifics on his position on the deficit would be more helpful; 'the deficit is no big d' is not a viable position but 'the deficit is an issue that must be addressed but the Tories are doing it all wrong' is.

He has also been a prominent sponsor of the March for Homes.[25]

OK

In 2013, Corbyn attended a conference calling for dialogue between the UK and Argentine Governments on the question of Falkland Island sovereignty.[citation needed]

My position the Falkland Islands is that there should be dialogue between the UK and the Argentine Governments, but the dialogue should run something like this:

ARGENTINA: Give us back the Melvinas right now you illegal colonial imperialist illegal pirates.
UK: No.

The citation needed tag, however, if you hover over it, says he was merely at the conference, in which a number of issues were discussed. Argentina, if you don't know, is prone to bringing up the Falklands any given moment apropos of nothing, so most a lot of the time summits in Latin America have to put out some boilerplate about it just to keep them quiet.

In April 2014, he wrote an article for the Morning Star attributing the crisis in Ukraine to NATO. He said that the "root of the crisis" lay in "the US drive to expand eastwards" and described Russia's actions as "not unprovoked".[26] Corbyn told The Guardian in August 2015: "I am not an admirer or supporter of Putin’s foreign policy, or of Russian or anybody’s else’s expansion". He has said it "probably was" a mistake to allow former Warsaw Pact countries to join NATO: "Nato expansion and Russian expansion – one leads to the other, and one reflects the other."[26][27]

Well, he's not entirely wrong. Of course, we can't know what Putin is actually thinking but certainly NATO's expansion eastwards is something that he's given in public has a justification for his actions in the Ukraine and Georgia, so if nothing else we've supplied him with a justification if not an actual provocation. However, if you stress this aspect overmuch you're letting Putin off the hook way too easily.

Asked in an interview on Channel 4 News in July 2015 why he had called Hamas and Hezbollah "friends" at a parliamentary meeting, Corbyn explained that he had used the word in a "collective" sense, and does not condone the actions of either organisation. "There is not going to be a peace process unless there is talks involving Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas and I think everyone knows that", he argued.[28]

Sounds like ass covering to me.

Corbyn has also called for the lifting of sanctions against Iran related to their nuclear programme,[29] however Corbyn opposes nuclear weapons in all circumstances.

Not a great plan, Jeremy.



So, there we go. Jeremy Corbyn. I find the idea of him as this ultra-left wing character ready to nationalize cricket or something to be entirely unfounded. Based on my reading of his Wikipedia page.

Is he electable? Almost certainly not, whatever the facts are the narrative is against him and since Tony Blair resigned Labour has proven itself entirely incapable of countering hostile-media narratives about their candidates, let alone constructing their own positive ones. Which leads us to the conclusion that none of the other Labour candidates are capable of winning elections, because the Labour party itself is not capable of winning elections at this point. The only relevant thing the winner of this election can do for their party is to set the stage for David Milliband, who actually probably could win an election.

[RandBlade]

I won't respond to everything but I think that you severely underestimate just how left-wing extreme Corbyn is.

Going by what we've heard from the media about Jeremy Corbyn, one gets the impression that he is more or less the most left-wing person who has ever lived and, in fact, personally regards Karl Marx as "center right" and a "class traitor", but I think we're all old enough and wise enough by now to know that when there's this big fuss in the media with a suspicious absence of specifics then what you're being told has a high probability of being inaccurate or fictional.

Actually this is one instance where the media are underplaying just how extreme he is. Partially I suspect on the expectation that a Corbyn leadership would both be entertaining/newsworthy (thus boosting sales) and for the rightwing media would make Labour unelectable (thus furthering the so called 'rightwing agenda'). I think the newspapers and much of the British media are by and large holding fire right now, they are giving Corbyn a free pass on how batshit crazy he is.

It is noteworthy that much of the criticism of Corbyn for being too left wing has come from traditionally left wing media like the Guardian and Channel 4 News - not right wing media like the Murdoch press, Telegraph or Mail. Of course once he's leader and especially as we head towards an election in a few years the gloves would come off but in the meantime as Napoleon Bonaparte said "never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake".

Yeah, clarification needed. The word "socialist" does not describe specific policies, it describes what team you see yourself as belonging too.

No it does mean something, especially when he wants to reintroduce Marxist policies.

He is one of the most extreme left-wing Labour MPs there is, with only George Galloway to his left. You missed amongst all the quotes the part about his voting record where he voted against the Labour whip 238 times in 2005-10 alone.

I do not have any idealogical preference for nationalisation or privatisation, but in the specific case of the railways it's hard to see how this would be a bad thing.

I'll let one graph from your preferred source of Wikipedia show why.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...rs_by_year.gif - for some reason I can't embed this image.

Isn't talking to the IRA how we got that ceasefire thing?

There is a major difference between negotiations with your enemy and inviting them in as friends a week after they tried to murder the PM and her entire government

This on the other hand is not good, if "Venezuelan solidarity" means supporting that Chavez guy. Unfortunately, clarification is needed so we don't know what this actually means.

How about in his own words how much he admires and supports Chavez: http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/articles/venezuela/

Chavez is an "example of what social justice can achieve" according to Jeremy.

Also here is an article a couple of years ago about Corbyn's sadness at Chavez's passing and his long-term support of Chavez: http://islingtonnow.co.uk/2013/03/07...o-hugo-chavez/

Or linked from that his article Thank you Hugo Chavez - in which he denies that Chavez was a dictator and insists he was democratic and legitimate.

"austerity" - another political buzzword which can mean different things to different people. Specifics on his position on the deficit would be more helpful; 'the deficit is no big d' is not a viable position but 'the deficit is an issue that must be addressed but the Tories are doing it all wrong' is.

Try checking Corbyn's voting record, he has spoken against and voted against every cut (except to the military). He is most definitely the "no big deal" variety.

Well, he's not entirely wrong. Of course, we can't know what Putin is actually thinking but certainly NATO's expansion eastwards is something that he's given in public has a justification for his actions in the Ukraine and Georgia, so if nothing else we've supplied him with a justification if not an actual provocation. However, if you stress this aspect overmuch you're letting Putin off the hook way too easily.

So Putin is allowed to do as he pleases and independent nations are not free to choose to join Nato if they wish? Nato used to go as far east as the Soviet border, the fact that the Soviet Empire collapsed is not a provocation if the new independent border states seek protection from Russia.

EDIT:

Is he electable? Almost certainly not, whatever the facts are the narrative is against him and since Tony Blair resigned Labour has proven itself entirely incapable of countering hostile-media narratives about their candidates, let alone constructing their own positive ones. Which leads us to the conclusion that none of the other Labour candidates are capable of winning elections, because the Labour party itself is not capable of winning elections at this point. The only relevant thing the winner of this election can do for their party is to set the stage for David Milliband, who actually probably could win an election.

It's funny how the narrative has changed so dramatically from April/May being Labour can't lose this election to Labour can't win an election in five years time anyway. Lets not forget the Tories only need to lose ~10 seats (depending upon boundary reform) to lose their majority.

[RandBlade]

Wow what a joke of an election this has become. In the past 24 hours the unions have found 156k extra voters. That means that actual Labour Party members from the election will be less than a third of the selectorate that seems inevitably is going to choose Chavez and Hamas's friend as leader.

Twitter Link

[Flixy]

To be honest, regarding both this election and US primaries, the candidates are the party's, I don't really see any reason why anyone other than party members themselves should get to say anything about who leads them. Parties submit their candidates, anyone can register as a candidate in the general election, and everyone can vote for one of those candidates. Explain to me why a non-party member should have a say in who their leader is (let alone just one group like union members).

[wiggin]

To be honest, regarding both this election and US primaries, the candidates are the party's, I don't really see any reason why anyone other than party members themselves should get to say anything about who leads them. Parties submit their candidates, anyone can register as a candidate in the general election, and everyone can vote for one of those candidates. Explain to me why a non-party member should have a say in who their leader is (let alone just one group like union members).

The US system is fundamentally different from a parliamentary system, Flixy. You may be able to argue your case for the UK, but in the US the party's candidate for the presidency is not the head of the party in any appreciable sense of the word, though they obviously exert a great deal of influence. That distinction would probably go to the RNC/DNC chairperson, and that vote is much more akin to the political horsetrading and shenanigans that happen in parliamentary party primaries.

The presidential and congressional primaries in each state are indeed run by that state's party committee (with some national coordination), but they go out to a very broad electorate. Precious few people are actually card-carrying members of a political party in the US - I don't even know how I'd go about becoming a party member. But at a primary, you declare a party affiliation, not membership, and vote for that party's representation on the general ballot - though said representation may have little actual power inside the party until after success in the general election (and sometimes not even then). There are state-by-state variants, essentially having to do with the stringency of the party affiliation declaration, but there's certainly nothing about 'dues' or 'membership'. That's not how the US electoral system works.

Obviously the farce of union members having some special treatment in the Labour primaries is absurd, but it's worth wondering whether a broader and more open primary (rather than a more strictly closed one) might attract at least a slightly less doctrinaire electorate, leading to more electable party leaders.

[RandBlade]

To be honest, regarding both this election and US primaries, the candidates are the party's, I don't really see any reason why anyone other than party members themselves should get to say anything about who leads them. Parties submit their candidates, anyone can register as a candidate in the general election, and everyone can vote for one of those candidates. Explain to me why a non-party member should have a say in who their leader is (let alone just one group like union members).

The Labour party was founded by the unions and is still funded by them. Since parties are independent organisations that are free to write their own rules (and aren't funded by the state in the UK except for opposition research "Short Money") the unions have written rules that gave them a large say in the party they founded.

Steely may have a point about Labour itself being "unelectable". The only modern Labour election winner is Tony Blair who rebranded Labour as New Labour but is now denounced as "evil" or a Tory by many Labour supporters. Jeremy Corbyn has said recently he'd like to see Blair be sent to the Hague to face charges for war crimes.

However if you exclude Tony Blair as an "evil Tory" the last "real Labour" leader to win a majority was in October 1974 when Harold Wilson won a majority of 3. The last time that a workable majority was won was in 1966. Not exactly a stellar record.

[Flixy]

The Labour party was founded by the unions and is still funded by them. Since parties are independent organisations that are free to write their own rules (and aren't funded by the state in the UK except for opposition research "Short Money") the unions have written rules that gave them a large say in the party they founded.

I suppose if you pay for it it's natural you have a say, though maybe the balance is a little lost.

[Steely Glint]

No it does mean something, especially when he wants to reintroduce Marxist policies.

"marxist policies" is as much of a weasel word as socialist. What, specifically, does he want to do?

He is one of the most extreme left-wing Labour MPs there is, with only George Galloway to his left. You missed amongst all the quotes the part about his voting record where he voted against the Labour whip 238 times in 2005-10 alone.

This is meaningless - most Tory MPs vote against the Labour whip as well, does that make them left wing?

I'll let one graph from your preferred source of Wikipedia show why.

Corrlation: does it equal causation?

Try checking Corbyn's voting record, he has spoken against and voted against every cut (except to the military). He is most definitely the "no big deal" variety.

Three basic positions on the deficit are possible:

1) Doesn't matter
2) Fix it mainly by cutting government spending
3) Fix it mainly by increasing taxes

Voting against 2) does not necessarily imply that your position is 1).

So Putin is allowed to do as he pleases and independent nations are not free to choose to join Nato if they wish? Nato used to go as far east as the Soviet border, the fact that the Soviet Empire collapsed is not a provocation if the new independent border states seek protection from Russia.

Being part of NATO isn't a right - it requires the consent of both NATO and the country in question.

EDIT: It's funny how the narrative has changed so dramatically from April/May being Labour can't lose this election to Labour can't win an election in five years time anyway. Lets not forget the Tories only need to lose ~10 seats (depending upon boundary reform) to lose their majority.

The narrative was never that Labour couldn't lose this election, it was that neither party could win the election. This turned out to be only half correct.

Steely may have a point about Labour itself being "unelectable". The only modern Labour election winner is Tony Blair who rebranded Labour as New Labour but is now denounced as "evil" or a Tory by many Labour supporters. Jeremy Corbyn has said recently he'd like to see Blair be sent to the Hague to face charges for war crimes.

However if you exclude Tony Blair as an "evil Tory" the last "real Labour" leader to win a majority was in October 1974 when Harold Wilson won a majority of 3. The last time that a workable majority was won was in 1966. Not exactly a stellar record.

I don't think you're wrong here, there's a definite tendency in the Labour party (in all parties, really, but particularly the Labour party) to become more interested in idealogical purity than being a party people actually want to vote for. The Tories suffered the same after '97, the Republicans in the US are undergoing exactly the same process - this seems to be an ailment only electoral success can cure, which can lead to parties becoming trapped in an self-defeating vicious cycle where the more they lose they more they become inward looking and extreme and thus make themselves even more unelectable, and it takes an individual with particular qualities to draw them out of their malaise (Blair, Cameron, Obama, etc). This is a point I've made a few times before.

However, I should clarify: the point I was actually making here was that the Labour party itself, as an institution, is, at the moment, incapable of winning elections no matter what policies they espouse. Their farcical performance at the last general should clue you in to that. The farce of this leadership contest should clue you in to that. The problems they've had in Scotland that go lead to them being wiped out by the SNP which probably go far beyond the bounce the SNP got from their lost independence referendum should clue you in to that. The fact that the SNP *got* a bounce from the lost referendum despite this defying all political logic should clue you in to that. The fact that they can't come up with any kind of coherent message on the economy/deficit should tell you that, at the moment they appear to have a somewhat Zen-like position of opposing cuts without opposing cuts. The fact that they can't put up a single candidate who is even remotely prime minister material.

[Flixy]

The US system is fundamentally different from a parliamentary system, Flixy. You may be able to argue your case for the UK, but in the US the party's candidate for the presidency is not the head of the party in any appreciable sense of the word, though they obviously exert a great deal of influence. That distinction would probably go to the RNC/DNC chairperson, and that vote is much more akin to the political horsetrading and shenanigans that happen in parliamentary party primaries.

Good point, I skipped over that part. But change my argument from leader to candidate and the point still stands. What you've got now is effectively not a party, but two (extremely broad) groups of roughly the same size who self identify with one party for some reason (which does not necessarily match the party's - see tea party) and each choose a candidate who is then 'adopted' by each party. If that's the case, why not simply hold a runoff election? Two general elections, one open for anyone and a runoff between the two winners? It would eliminate spoiler third party candidates at least.

The presidential and congressional primaries in each state are indeed run by that state's party committee (with some national coordination), but they go out to a very broad electorate. Precious few people are actually card-carrying members of a political party in the US - I don't even know how I'd go about becoming a party member. But at a primary, you declare a party affiliation, not membership, and vote for that party's representation on the general ballot - though said representation may have little actual power inside the party until after success in the general election (and sometimes not even then). There are state-by-state variants, essentially having to do with the stringency of the party affiliation declaration, but there's certainly nothing about 'dues' or 'membership'. That's not how the US electoral system works.

Saying that's not how it works (now) isn't necessarily a reason it's good Is the process actually mandated by law, or the constitution, or is it just how parties choose to do it?

And if the candidate may have little power in the party, might not agree with the party's points, and doesn't work (well) with the party leadership, how is he that party's candidate?

Taking the tea party as an example, if you have candidates that are not preferred by the party but are popular, they can found their own party (they even call it the tea PARTY ) and enter the election, or run as independent, if they prove to be more popular their party will get a better result. Parties splitting like that is not unheard of here. The only argument against that that I can think of is that you effectively have a two party system, so it would probably mean both candidates wouldn't be elected.

Obviously the farce of union members having some special treatment in the Labour primaries is absurd, but it's worth wondering whether a broader and more open primary (rather than a more strictly closed one) might attract at least a slightly less doctrinaire electorate, leading to more electable party leaders.

I would argue that electability is the party's problem. If their candidates and/or arguments are less popular, they will get fewer votes. But yes , given your two party system, it might not be the most pragmatic option. But then again, why not hold a runoff election?

Also, less doctrinaire electorate? Perhaps, but I thought it was obvious that during primaries candidates pander to the left and right, respectively, and a centrist candidate who might have a real chance in a general election by appealing to both party's electorate could easily lose a primary.

[RandBlade]

"marxist policies" is as much of a weasel word as socialist. What, specifically, does he want to do?

It isn't a weasel word it has a meaning and he actually believes in it. As for policies I've already told you, he wants to nationalise and put into state hand virtually everything. As Clause IV which he wants to reintroduce explicitly says.

This is meaningless - most Tory MPs vote against the Labour whip as well, does that make them left wing?

Be serious please for a second. Tell me the way he's voting against Labour because they're not right-wing enough which is what the Tories do.

Corrlation: does it equal causation?

Yes in this instance absolutely.

Being part of NATO isn't a right - it requires the consent of both NATO and the country in question.

So your point is ...?

The border nations used to be in NATO, if the border nations now want to be part of NATO you're saying they shouldn't be allowed to be?

The narrative was never that Labour couldn't lose this election, it was that neither party could win the election. This turned out to be only half correct.

The narrative was that as the Tories couldn't find allies Labour would win by default. With the annihilation of the Lib Dems there are even fewer potential allies the Tories could have.

[Steely Glint]

It isn't a weasel word it has a meaning and he actually believes in it. As for policies I've already told you, he wants to nationalise and put into state hand virtually everything. As Clause IV which he wants to reintroduce explicitly says.

Sources. With direct quotes.

Be serious please for a second. Tell me the way he's voting against Labour because they're not right-wing enough which is what the Tories do.

Rating policies on a sliding scale of right to left wing is super dumb. The point was that without knowing the reasoning he had for voting against something, the voting record can't actually tell you much.

Yes in this instance absolutely.

Justify that statement.

So your point is ...?

That whether or not a country wants to join NATO is not the only consideration for whether or not a country should join NATO. NATO itself needs to agree that a country should join. The purpose of NATO is to prevent wars and instability, if a country joining NATO is in fact going to lead to more wars and instability because Russia views this as threatening then that country probably shouldn't join NATO. Unless of course there's some other, even better reason why they should.

The border nations used to be in NATO, if the border nations now want to be part of NATO you're saying they shouldn't be allowed to be?

No, what I'm saying is that actions have consequences, and that allowing border nations into NATO has probably contributed towards Russia's actions towards Ukraine and Georgia. It's not at all wrong to point this out; what conclusions you draw from this are a whole 'nother matter but you don't get to ignore cause and effect because it doesn't fit with your sense of morality and fair play.

The narrative was that as the Tories couldn't find allies Labour would win by default. With the annihilation of the Lib Dems there are even fewer potential allies the Tories could have.

Yes, that was the narrative about who was going to win the election and end up in government. However, the narrative was also that neither part was capable of commanding enough support to create a majority; it turns out the Tories could, just, and the narrative was wrong about that. The part of the narrative that said Labour was also incapable of such was still correct.

[RandBlade]

Sources. With direct quotes.

The dictionary. Anything he's ever written. Anything in the media.

Try providing anything whatsoever to propose the opposite.

Rating policies on a sliding scale of right to left wing is super dumb. The point was that without knowing the reasoning he had for voting against something, the voting record can't actually tell you much.

Are you just trying to be a devils advocate here. Of course the voting record tells you a lot, unless you care not to look

Justify that statement.

Customer service, marketing etc was so shit during nationalisation nobody wanted to use it. Things have improved so much post-privatisation that usage has more than doubled.

Or maybe its just an almighty frigging coincidence that five decades of pants decline was reversed overnight at the exact same moment.

That whether or not a country wants to join NATO is not the only consideration for whether or not a country should join NATO. NATO itself needs to agree that a country should join. The purpose of NATO is to prevent wars and instability, if a country joining NATO is in fact going to lead to more wars and instability because Russia views this as threatening then that country probably shouldn't join NATO. Unless of course there's some other, even better reason why they should.

Because we want to keep nations that want to be free, free. That is the very purpose of NATO.

Or do you think we should have ceded Western Germany to the USSR. I can't take you seriously, you have to be trolling here.

Are you just trolling now?

[Steely Glint]

The dictionary. Anything he's ever written. Anything in the media.

Try providing anything whatsoever to propose the opposite.

So, you haven't got any.

Are you just trying to be a devils advocate here. Of course the voting record tells you a lot, unless you care not to look

It doesn't tell you *why* someone voted in a particular way.

Customer service, marketing etc was so shit during nationalisation nobody wanted to use it. Things have improved so much post-privatisation that usage has more than doubled.

This has coincided with the privatisation of British Rail, but the effect of this is disputed. The growth is partly attributed to a shift away from private motoring due to growing road congestion and increasing petrol prices, but also to the overall increase in travel due to affluence.[3] However passenger journeys have grown much more quickly than in comparable countries such as France and Germany.

Or maybe its just an almighty frigging coincidence that five decades of pants decline was reversed overnight at the exact same moment.

The fact that it was *reversed overnight* tells you it probably is coincidence - you don't just transform an entire industry overnight, and if you could it will still take time for people's perceptions to catch up with the new reality of a non-failing service.

Because we want to keep nations that want to be free, free. That is the very purpose of NATO.

It's a mutual defence alliance, designed to ensure the security of its members. It has nothing to do with freedom or exporting freedom, except perhaps in it's marketing materials - this is the alliance that had Greece as an integral member right through the Juntas of the 60s and 70s.

Or do you think we should have ceded Western Germany to the USSR. I can't take you seriously, you have to be trolling here.

No, but we shouldn't have invaded Poland either, no matter how badly the Poles wanted rid of their police state.

Are you just trolling now?

This from the guy who called it 'SSSocialism' in the thread title?

[Aimless]

What is the alternative explanation for his voting behavior? Like, where is he coming from?

[Loki]

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/14...ers-group-2013 Nice guy.

[RandBlade]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...oldiers.html?x Very nice guy.

And this is with the Tories and the right-wing press primarily holding fire on attacking him or his record until after he's elected.

[GGT]

Steely, where do you place your views on the (British) continuum?

Seems to me you have the same disdain for political partisanship that's playing out in the US.

Does that mean you're an ideologue or a populist?

[RandBlade]

What is the alternative explanation for his voting behavior? Like, where is he coming from?

He's coming from the extreme far socialist left, as he says he is and as his record demonstrates. I don't know why Steely doesn't want to take his self-described socialism (or 30 year record) at face value.

Interesting and surprising fact, Corbyn has actually voted against the Labour Leadership on more occasions than David Cameron has. Will make it completely bizzare to see Corbyn attempt to enforce the whip on his colleagues when he has never followed it himself.

[Dreadnaught]

*Reads posts in reverse chronological order for some reason*

*Reads about Clause IV*

**

There seems to be a lot of talk of the union vote in the Labour party. Are the unions resurgent, or have they simply shrank into the most significant power bloc within Labour as other major blocs have dispersed?

[RandBlade]

Mainly the latter. Across the country the unions are actually quite weak, they're now primarily in the public sector only. Under reforms the Tories are introducing the unions are getting weaker too - both direct reforms the Tories plan to introduce (eg introducing thresholds for strike ballots and requiring workers to opt-in to union membership and political donations) and the fact that under the Tories the economy is being rebalanced with the public sector shrinking and the private sector growing.

In Q1 2015 there are 5.372 million public sector employees vs 25.681 million private sector employees. A total of 17.3% of all employees.
In Q1 2010 there were 6.337 million public sector employees vs 22.711 million private sector employees. A total of 21.8% of all employees.

That's quite a dramatic change that has happened under the surface, a million public jobs gone but three million extra private ones. So the unions being far more popular in the public sector are fishing from a smaller pool. That change happened during a Tory-Lib Dem coalition (no figures yet since the election result) but is almost certainly going to continue during a Tory majority government.

However the Labour Party has retreated into its core vote and core support which is the unions.

[RandBlade]

Unlike the GOP's flirtation with the Donald which will probably come to naught it seems increasingly likely that Labour are going to elect Jezbollah. Unbelievable!

[Flixy]

If he's add you describe him, shouldn't you be happy they choose a pretty much unelectable leader?

[Steely Glint]

At the moment, they have nothing but unelectable leaders.

[Flixy]

At the moment, they have nothing but unelectable leaders.

Kind of sucks to live in a place with only one electable party I imagine...

[Steely Glint]

pfffffft

[aybabtu]

Why is everyone crying? Corbyn is being democratically elected. We all like democracy, right? Not just the type of democracy where nothing changes?

[Loki]

Just because something is democratic doesn't make it good. Do I have to list some other "democrats" who got elected to bring about change?

[aybabtu]

Just because something is democratic doesn't make it good. Do I have to list some other "democrats" who got elected to bring about change?

Says who? And who said anything about democracy meaning 'good'? It's just a way we select our leaders, no?

[RandBlade]

If he's add you describe him, shouldn't you be happy they choose a pretty much unelectable leader?

I think I said above many Tories are happy (laughing even) at the fact that Corbyn looks like being elected. But PM Corbyn would be so bad that even a miniscule chance of him becoming PM is a worrying prospect.