Labour Party/government Watch

Tarrel · Post by **Tarrel** » 22 Jul 2015, 21:27

biffvernon wrote:Dunno why anyone should listen to Blair. He ought to be in jail.

The thrust of the article is that his intervention was a reminder of how Labour ended up in this mess in the first place.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 22 Jul 2015, 22:33

But he got the diagnosis 180° wrong. It was his invasion of Iraq that started the slide.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 22 Jul 2015, 22:37

Much that I agree with Corbyn about Iraq, there are many other issues and I don't agree with Corbyn about the general issue of the economy - which is an important issue to many people.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 22 Jul 2015, 22:49

Tarrel wrote:James McEnaney: Why we should welcome Tony Blair's intervention in Labour leader race:

https://commonspace.scot/articles/1951/ ... eader-race

Article suggesting that the dropping of Clause 4 was the start of Labour's demise and how "weather-vane" politics needs to be replaced by principles once again.

The Labour party had not just the right, but also the duty, to join SNP, Plaid Cymru, Liberal Democrat, Green, SDLP and DUP MPs in opposing these cuts - in failing to do so it has all but relinquished the right to call itself the opposition.

We are facing a government which pays for cuts to corporation tax by plunging ever-more vulnerable human beings into despair, and the Labour party has not the courage or the conviction to unequivocally condemn it.

People up and down the country - many of them card-carrying party members - will now be asking the same question posed by Nicola Sturgeon: "If Labour is not about standing up for the vulnerable, trying to lift people out of poverty and help those who are working hard to make ends meet, then what on earth is Labour for?"

Jeremy Corbyn is right - and so is our old friend, the war criminal, Blair.

Corbyn, because he cherishes the old values of 'standing up for the vulnerable, trying to lift people out of poverty and helping those who are working hard to make ends meet'. An old style socialist who hasn't lost sight of his humanitarian principles.

Blair, because he realises that the Tories (see banks and corporations) have done such an effective job in convincing the sheeple that these same socialist values are 'so yesterday'.

The poor, the young, the unemployed and the sick are responsible for all of society's ills.

Why would any sane member of the electorate want to vote for a party that represents the 'losers' when 'hard working people' would be made to pay the price under any future Labour government?

Today's aspirational voters are drinking Prosecco not brown ale. They emulate celebrities. Materialism is the new religion, regardless of the price they have to pay.

The people will only see sense when the shit well and truly hits the fan, economically, geologically, environmentally and militarily.

Post by **clv101** » 22 Jul 2015, 22:58

Surely it's up to the four candidates to make their cases, personally, themselves. Then for the electorate, one member one vote, to choose.

I hate to hear the string of talking heads on the radio 'warning' not to elect Corbyn.

It almost sounds like there are those in the Labour party or whom winning the next general election is the most important thing and their roll is the morph the party into whatever it will take to win. This is a bonkers strategy - there would be no point at all in a Labour party that simply recast itself as the Conservative party based on the evidence of the last two elections.

The point about weathervanes and signposts is particularly relevant to the Labour party just now.

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 22 Jul 2015, 23:14

I like Paul Lewis's tweet here

https://twitter.com/paullewismoney/stat ... 9085488128

"Tony Blair warns that Jeremy Corbyn is a destructive force that can be launched at the Labour Party within 45 minutes"

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 23 Jul 2015, 07:41

clv101 wrote: The point about weathervanes and signposts is particularly relevant to the Labour party just now.

Yes, Mhairi Black was spot on to quote Tony Benn. We need leaders, not followers.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 23 Jul 2015, 08:18

cubes wrote:I like Paul Lewis's tweet here

https://twitter.com/paullewismoney/stat ... 9085488128

"Tony Blair warns that Jeremy Corbyn is a destructive force that can be launched at the Labour Party within 45 minutes"

Corbyn - a Weapon of Mass Despondency.

Joking aside, he appears to be one of the only politicians within the Labour Party with a backbone.

The other spineless contenders will, undoubtedly, prostitute all of their ideals for a chance to obtain one of the glittering prizes.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 23 Jul 2015, 10:27

I don't put it beyond possibility that a Corbyn win and an unconstrained Tory party inflicting massive austerity on the poor, implosion of the NHS, etc., combined with a sharp rebound in the price of oil in a year or two, leading to a Labour landslide in 5 years time, when the current Tory voting pensioners have either died or realised that they desperately need a bit more humanity from society.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 23 Jul 2015, 10:37

It's a good point about oil, Ralph.

The consequences of the cost of oil rising are going to require a lot of popcorn.

It's eye-opening how prices have stayed so low for so long.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 23 Jul 2015, 11:14

There's a very informative (i.e. short) list of Labour MPs here who opposed the latest of the Tories' attacks on the poorest in Britain.

Is your MP on the list? Yes or no, it's worth bearing in mind.

In fairness, many other parties opposed the cuts.

Harriet Harman's stance that Labour should avoid opposing the Tories' ideologically driven and economically illiterate austerity agenda because they need to appeal to Tory voters is absolutely crackers. Only 24% of the electorate voted for the Tories, while 34% were too apathetic or too disillusioned to vote at all. Surely it would make more sense for Labour to try to strongly differentiate themselves from the Tories in order to appeal to the huge numbers of people out there who have lost faith in politics because "they're all the same aren't they?" rather than making themselves ever more indistinguishable from the Tories?

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 23 Jul 2015, 11:19

emordnilap wrote:There's a very informative (i.e. short) list of Labour MPs here who opposed the latest of the Tories' attacks on the poorest in Britain.

Is your MP on the list? Yes or no, it's worth bearing in mind.

In fairness, many other parties opposed the cuts.

Harriet Harman's stance that Labour should avoid opposing the Tories' ideologically driven and economically illiterate austerity agenda because they need to appeal to Tory voters is absolutely crackers. Only 24% of the electorate voted for the Tories, while 34% were too apathetic or too disillusioned to vote at all. Surely it would make more sense for Labour to try to strongly differentiate themselves from the Tories in order to appeal to the huge numbers of people out there who have lost faith in politics because "they're all the same aren't they?" rather than making themselves ever more indistinguishable from the Tories?

Thanks for that EM. A list worth retaining for future use.

It'll be good to know whose 'on-side' when this current bunch of ***** are thrown to the lions. I live in hope.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 23 Jul 2015, 11:22

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... emy-corbyn

Labour leadership: Prescott attacks Blair's 'totally unacceptable abuse'

Former deputy PM says his former boss’s remarks aimed at supporters of Jeremy Corbyn were ‘absolutely staggering’.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 23 Jul 2015, 11:32

emordnilap wrote:It's a good point about oil, Ralph.

The consequences of the cost of oil rising are going to require a lot of popcorn. It's eye-opening how prices have stayed so low for so long.

I think we're learning that it's not simply the price. It's the ability of economies to pay the price. The world can afford to pay $50 today for all the oil that can be produced. If more is demanded it won't automatically be produced. Increasing supply means going off-shore Brazil into the $100 territory hard-to-get oil and the economy can't stand that so maybe we never will see high prices, never will extract much of the unconventionals. Peak oil applies, but subtly.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 23 Jul 2015, 11:37

Never say never.

Maybe never say maybe never as well.

That said, it's an interesting concept, that oil may not rise in price dramatically again. Hmmm. I'm simply working on the assumption that - usually - nothing stays the same.