Jump to content

UK Politics: The Johnson Decades


BlufPurdi
 Share

Recommended Posts

Has there really been that much fawning though?  I've seen quite a few articles that have questioned TIG and what they will stand for.  Which, in my opinion, seems a bit odd anyway - are the 11 of them meant to have published a detailed list of policies in a week?  They probably have a framework of ideas, but I don't see a reason why they need to produce a detailed manifesto.  Yes - there's been some positive coverage because some people, myself included, don't want to vote for a Corbyn Labour or ERG driven Conservatives and the coverage understandably reflects this.

 

Exactly this. The idea that the media have been fawning over them is not correct. The fact that likes of Marr etc dedicated most of  their shows to the biggest split in both political parties for 40 years (and more) is hardly unsurprising. I agree its hilarious to see likes of Owen Jones and Bastani whinging every day but its the likes of them who have brought about this.

 

I think TIG will be successful either way now but If TIG are to be successful as a political party in its own right it cannot be seen as a Chuka vanity project, if he is made leader that would be a serious mistake. For them to be successful they need Labour to implode and push more of the big hitters away and that is the reason why TIG will be successful either way, because it gives those with a more sensible voice in the Labour party a bigger voice that will be ignored at the cost of a Labour government. Same to the Tories, you would hope they will roll back on the extremes and unfairness that austerity has caused and push it back into the centre. If the ERG take control of them in a post May world and Labour continue to push left they could become huge - but for both parties to do that is a big IF.

 

Successful in what way? What are their aims? What would constitute success? Reaching a decision on whether they want to be an independent group, or a group of independents might be their biggest achievement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest firetotheworks

Has there really been that much fawning though?  I've seen quite a few articles that have questioned TIG and what they will stand for.  Which, in my opinion, seems a bit odd anyway - are the 11 of them meant to have published a detailed list of policies in a week?  They probably have a framework of ideas, but I don't see a reason why they need to produce a detailed manifesto.  Yes - there's been some positive coverage because some people, myself included, don't want to vote for a Corbyn Labour or ERG driven Conservatives and the coverage understandably reflects this.

 

Exactly this. The idea that the media have been fawning over them is not correct. The fact that likes of Marr etc dedicated most of  their shows to the biggest split in both political parties for 40 years (and more) is hardly unsurprising. I agree its hilarious to see likes of Owen Jones and Bastani whinging every day but its the likes of them who have brought about this.

 

I think TIG will be successful either way now but If TIG are to be successful as a political party in its own right it cannot be seen as a Chuka vanity project, if he is made leader that would be a serious mistake. For them to be successful they need Labour to implode and push more of the big hitters away and that is the reason why TIG will be successful either way, because it gives those with a more sensible voice in the Labour party a bigger voice that will be ignored at the cost of a Labour government. Same to the Tories, you would hope they will roll back on the extremes and unfairness that austerity has caused and push it back into the centre. If the ERG take control of them in a post May world and Labour continue to push left they could become huge - but for both parties to do that is a big IF.

 

I'm not a fan of either, but that's a load of nonsense. I'm not sure what part of those in TIG ignoring, undermining, and patronising the record numbers of people that democratically elected Labour's new direction -in itself a rejection of centrism, neoliberalism and austerity-light - is so difficult to grasp. This idea that they've been forced out when they had every opportunity to unite with the direction the party's members wanted is laughable. Corbyn was talking about unity and bringing them in behind popular policies for ages and they spent their time telling us how he'd fail, how tragic it was all going to be, how he'd ensured a Tory majority etc, then once again still didn't unite with the party once the GE had proven that there was definitely potential to get in and their warning signs were total bollocks.

 

Sorry, I'm just tired of reading this boo hoo bollocks about them being bullied into leaving or it not being their fault, when for me their contempt for Corbyn, Labour, and it's members should be a warning sign for anyone thinking of voting for them from any part of the political spectrum. For me they've proven time and time again that whatever your message, no matter how popular it is, or how it was voted for, they'll stick to what they believe is best and fuck everyone else, they'd rather be right than wrong and in power. Even on Brexit many will obviously agree with them, but it's still another example of their we-know-best outlook, another disregard for the democratic process and the potential pitfalls of ignoring a democratic result.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say there's been fawning but there been a complete lack of scrutiny or decent questioning of the group; but then again these are areas which the general media has been lacking for a long, long time. Owen Jones does raise some good points but Bastani just looks for a reaction from what he trots out.

 

I can't see TIG becoming a success, unless the rumours of them being back by Blair etc are true, and in which case they'll get the funding and the support from media and other groups through his contacts and influence

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bang on KI

 

someone posted on Twitter about the TIG members (paraphrased below as can't remember the full text):

 

Leave Labour/ Tory

Lose by-election

Leave politics with nice pension/ pay off

Join private company with list of contacts and way into Parliament as lobbyist

Watch as money rolls in

 

the whole thing about it being about principles is a load of monkey poop

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Successful in what way? What are their aims? What would constitute success? Reaching a decision on whether they want to be an independent group, or a group of independents might be their biggest achievement.

 

Let me qualify that. Obviously in their ideal world they will sweep to victory at the next election. But the reality is they will simply pull both the Tories and Labour back towards the centre ground for the many of the electorate who feel disenfranchised from both parties.

 

I'm not a fan of either, but that's a load of nonsense. I'm not sure what part of those in TIG ignoring, undermining, and patronising the record numbers of people that democratically elected Labour's new direction -in itself a rejection of centrism, neoliberalism and austerity-light - is so difficult to grasp. This idea that they've been forced out when they had every opportunity to unite with the direction the party's members wanted is laughable. Corbyn was talking about unity and bringing them in behind popular policies for ages and they spent their time telling us how he'd fail, how tragic it was all going to be, how he'd ensured a Tory majority etc, then once again still didn't unite with the party once the GE had proven that there was definitely potential to get in and their warning signs were total bollocks.

 

Sorry, I'm just tired of reading this boo hoo bollocks about them being bullied into leaving or it not being their fault, when for me their contempt for Corbyn, Labour, and it's members should be a warning sign for anyone thinking of voting for them from any part of the political spectrum. For me they've proven time and time again that whatever your message, no matter how popular it is, or how it was voted for, they'll stick to what they believe is best and fuck everyone else, they'd rather be right than wrong and in power. Even on Brexit many will obviously agree with them, but it's still another example of their we-know-best outlook, another disregard for the democratic process and the potential pitfalls of ignoring a democratic result.

 

Tom Watson clearly disagrees with you as he is actively trying to persuade the magic grandpa to reshuffle the shadow cabinet or he will act as a sounding board to those who disagree with the direction of the current Labour Party. The idea that people like me, who do not subscribe to the idea of socialist unicorns who has repeatedly called Tory (despite never voting as such) and called neoliberal (whatever the **** that is) and that centrism has been rejected when it was never tested at the last election which was still lost by Labour.

 

Your premise in my view is contradictory in that they will stick to what they believe is best and **** everyone else. Is that not what Corbyn has done throughout his parliamentary career? So the centrist politicians you dismiss as having a we know best outlook any different to Corbyn and his allies in the 80s?  These politicians who dared to democratically challenge him are clearly different to those heroes who challenged Kinnock in 1988. It is complete and utter hypocrisy to chastise those who have openly questioned Corbyn when Corbyn himself was involved in doing the exact same thing 30 years ago. It is just another example from the cult of Corbyn that dissenters will be banished to the gulag.

 

I also struggle with the idea that Centrism and so called Neoliberalism (which is seemingly lets not allow any private enterprise) is and has been rejected as you suggest with the juxtaposition that these splitters will keep the Tories in power. If the radical left are so convinced by their chosen path then it shouldn't make a difference and the will sweep to power regardless? Because lets face it the best they can hope for is a narrow victory against a totally incompetent Tory party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Corbyn himself was involved in doing the exact same thing 30 years ago. It is just another example from the cult of Corbyn that dissenters will be banished to the gulag.

 

i must have missed this but are you saying corbyn was involved in anything that came close to what's happened to him from the "centre" of the party since 2015?  wouldn't mind a link if so, as i was genuinely unaware of that

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest firetotheworks

Successful in what way? What are their aims? What would constitute success? Reaching a decision on whether they want to be an independent group, or a group of independents might be their biggest achievement.

 

Let me qualify that. Obviously in their ideal world they will sweep to victory at the next election. But the reality is they will simply pull both the Tories and Labour back towards the centre ground for the many of the electorate who feel disenfranchised from both parties.

 

I'm not a fan of either, but that's a load of nonsense. I'm not sure what part of those in TIG ignoring, undermining, and patronising the record numbers of people that democratically elected Labour's new direction -in itself a rejection of centrism, neoliberalism and austerity-light - is so difficult to grasp. This idea that they've been forced out when they had every opportunity to unite with the direction the party's members wanted is laughable. Corbyn was talking about unity and bringing them in behind popular policies for ages and they spent their time telling us how he'd fail, how tragic it was all going to be, how he'd ensured a Tory majority etc, then once again still didn't unite with the party once the GE had proven that there was definitely potential to get in and their warning signs were total bollocks.

 

Sorry, I'm just tired of reading this boo hoo bollocks about them being bullied into leaving or it not being their fault, when for me their contempt for Corbyn, Labour, and it's members should be a warning sign for anyone thinking of voting for them from any part of the political spectrum. For me they've proven time and time again that whatever your message, no matter how popular it is, or how it was voted for, they'll stick to what they believe is best and fuck everyone else, they'd rather be right than wrong and in power. Even on Brexit many will obviously agree with them, but it's still another example of their we-know-best outlook, another disregard for the democratic process and the potential pitfalls of ignoring a democratic result.

 

Tom Watson clearly disagrees with you as he is actively trying to persuade the magic grandpa to reshuffle the shadow cabinet or he will act as a sounding board to those who disagree with the direction of the current Labour Party. The idea that people like me, who do not subscribe to the idea of socialist unicorns who has repeatedly called Tory (despite never voting as such) and called neoliberal (whatever the **** that is) and that centrism has been rejected when it was never tested at the last election which was still lost by Labour.

 

Your premise in my view is contradictory in that they will stick to what they believe is best and **** everyone else. Is that not what Corbyn has done throughout his parliamentary career? So the centrist politicians you dismiss as having a we know best outlook any different to Corbyn and his allies in the 80s?  These politicians who dared to democratically challenge him are clearly different to those heroes who challenged Kinnock in 1988. It is complete and utter hypocrisy to chastise those who have openly questioned Corbyn when Corbyn himself was involved in doing the exact same thing 30 years ago. It is just another example from the cult of Corbyn that dissenters will be banished to the gulag.

 

I also struggle with the idea that Centrism and so called Neoliberalism (which is seemingly lets not allow any private enterprise) is and has been rejected as you suggest with the juxtaposition that these splitters will keep the Tories in power. If the radical left are so convinced by their chosen path then it shouldn't make a difference and the will sweep to power regardless? Because lets face it the best they can hope for is a narrow victory against a totally incompetent Tory party.

 

Tom Watson can disagree all he wants, why should that change anything about my opinion? :lol:

 

Never tested at the last election? :dowie: It wasn't tested at the last election because it was a complete failure at the 2015 election, you know very well that that's how Corbyn came to be the leader in the first place. You'll have to explain how centrism would have fared any better than it did in 2015, let alone fared better than Corbyn and Labour's manifesto did - which to reiterate brought in the most amount of votes for Labour since Clement Atlee. But yes, I'm sure Ed Milliband's centrist replacement would have somehow worked out better.

 

It's not contradictory or hypocritical at all - this is the problem with this stupid presumptive notion that Corbyn's a cult and his supporters just agree with everything he does. His detractors and his supporters detractors can't even comprehend the idea that someone might actually disagree with Corbyn in a number of areas, but also still think that he's still by far and away the best option and/or think that the media's treatment of him is disgraceful for example. If Corbyn ever didn't get in line with the party policy when it had strong public backing, get this, I disagree with him in that situation too just as I disagree with TIG. Profound, I know. Sorry if that doesn't give you the material this weird socialist patter was looking for, comrade, but I'm not a socialist or radically left either.

 

The last paragraph just doesn't make any sense. Something can be rejected by the majority and still hold minority support, that minority is being taken away, in however small a part, from other existing parties including Labour, that's obvious. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i must have missed this but are you saying corbyn was involved in anything that came close to what's happened to him from the "centre" of the party since 2015?  wouldn't mind a link if so, as i was genuinely unaware of that

 

Jeremy Corbyn as quoted in the Guardian 14th Jan 1988 "The Campaign Group of Labour MPs is considering putting up a candidate against Mr Neil Kinnock for the party leadership. It is taking sounding among constituency parties and trade unions and will announce its findings next month".

 

Jon Lansman who helped Corbyn come to power via Momentum quoted in the Guardian on 4th April 1988 "By having an election we will force a debate about the direction of the party in which it will be much more difficult for Kinnock to make everything an issue of loyalty to him. By the end of the campaign we will have legitimised dissent"

 

Pree Association 21 September 1992 "Labour leader John Smith faces a new challenge from within his party... Mr Corbyn accused the leadership of offering "no real opposition".

 

Funny how all that sounds familiar.

 

Tom Watson can disagree all he wants, why should that change anything about my opinion? :lol:

 

Never tested at the last election? :dowie: It wasn't tested at the last election because it was a complete failure at the 2015 election, you know very well that that's how Corbyn came to be the leader in the first place. You'll have to explain how centrism would have fared any better than it did in 2015, let alone fared better than Corbyn and Labour's manifesto did - which to reiterate brought in the most amount of votes for Labour since Clement Atlee. But yes, I'm sure Ed Milliband's centrist replacement would have somehow worked out better.

 

It's not contradictory or hypocritical at all - this is the problem with this stupid presumptive notion that Corbyn's a cult and his supporters just agree with everything he does. His detractors and his supporters detractors can't even comprehend the idea that someone might actually disagree with Corbyn in a number of areas, but also still think that he's still by far and away the best option and/or think that the media's treatment of him is disgraceful for example. If Corbyn ever didn't get in line with the party policy when it had strong public backing, get this, I disagree with him in that situation too just as I disagree with TIG. Profound, I know. Sorry if that doesn't give you the material this weird socialist patter was looking for, comrade, but I'm not a socialist or radically left either.

 

The last paragraph just doesn't make any sense. Something can be rejected by the majority and still hold minority support, that minority is being taken away, in however small a part, from other existing parties including Labour, that's obvious. 

 

 

 

 

We have very different interpretations of the same events. Corbyn came to power, no doubt due to a swing in attitudes to far left ideas as a rejection of Tory austerity through increased membership and Ed Milliband changing the rules against the parliamentary college system. Members of political parties are generally always more extreme in their ideas. Labour lost the 2015 election when the wrong brother took over in 2010, Ed was hardly an inspiring choice. I still don't see it as a rejection of centrist policies given Cameron spent considerable effort to appear to the centre ground to make the Tories electable in the first place.

 

Also you state that Corbyn got more votes than any Labour leader since Attlee? Can you source that? As far as I can see it was over 600,000 short of Blair in 1997. Also not accounting for population growth.

 

The fact is this idea that the Corbyn wing of Labour has tried to accommodate or hear out the centre of the party is not correct. After they challenged his power (and as I have mentioned above no different to Corbyn in the 80s) both sides have doubled down on their positions and ultimately both sides are to blame. Sure the centrists have used opportunities to have a go at Corbyn and vice versa through threats of deselection. Thankfully the events of the last week appear to have had an effect, not only Tom Watson but John McDonnell did a good piece in the London Evening Standard stating the party had been poor on Antisemitism (described a a red herring above.....) and McDonnell has stated he wants "a great listening exercise" and "to talk to as many people as possible". He further stated "I've been saying to Jeremy with the Parliamentary Labour Party now we've really got to talk to everybody. Just sit down, think through" and he confirmed that includes the dreaded 'Blairites'. This is why I say the events of the last week have already been successful because for people like me who are wondering where to put our votes come the next election we will have a choice between a Labour party that shifts a bit more toward the centre and is a bit more inclusive or this new group. We await to see which best suits our values.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there really been that much fawning though?  I've seen quite a few articles that have questioned TIG and what they will stand for.  Which, in my opinion, seems a bit odd anyway - are the 11 of them meant to have published a detailed list of policies in a week?  They probably have a framework of ideas, but I don't see a reason why they need to produce a detailed manifesto.  Yes - there's been some positive coverage because some people, myself included, don't want to vote for a Corbyn Labour or ERG driven Conservatives and the coverage understandably reflects this.

 

Exactly this. The idea that the media have been fawning over them is not correct. The fact that likes of Marr etc dedicated most of  their shows to the biggest split in both political parties for 40 years (and more) is hardly unsurprising. I agree its hilarious to see likes of Owen Jones and Bastani whinging every day but its the likes of them who have brought about this.

 

I think TIG will be successful either way now but If TIG are to be successful as a political party in its own right it cannot be seen as a Chuka vanity project, if he is made leader that would be a serious mistake. For them to be successful they need Labour to implode and push more of the big hitters away and that is the reason why TIG will be successful either way, because it gives those with a more sensible voice in the Labour party a bigger voice that will be ignored at the cost of a Labour government. Same to the Tories, you would hope they will roll back on the extremes and unfairness that austerity has caused and push it back into the centre. If the ERG take control of them in a post May world and Labour continue to push left they could become huge - but for both parties to do that is a big IF.

 

Oh, come on. You can't be taken seriously with that statement.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i must have missed this but are you saying corbyn was involved in anything that came close to what's happened to him from the "centre" of the party since 2015?  wouldn't mind a link if so, as i was genuinely unaware of that

 

Jeremy Corbyn as quoted in the Guardian 14th Jan 1988 "The Campaign Group of Labour MPs is considering putting up a candidate against Mr Neil Kinnock for the party leadership. It is taking sounding among constituency parties and trade unions and will announce its findings next month".

 

Jon Lansman who helped Corbyn come to power via Momentum quoted in the Guardian on 4th April 1988 "By having an election we will force a debate about the direction of the party in which it will be much more difficult for Kinnock to make everything an issue of loyalty to him. By the end of the campaign we will have legitimised dissent"

 

Pree Association 21 September 1992 "Labour leader John Smith faces a new challenge from within his party... Mr Corbyn accused the leadership of offering "no real opposition".

 

Funny how all that sounds familiar.

 

hang about, unless i'm mistaken kinnock had been leader for 5 years by that time :lol:

 

corbyn was facing attacks from these people with days/hours of him taking over and there was a lot of stuff done cynically behind the scenes to undermine him from the off involving friendly press and whoever else...all the front bench resignations etc. was part of a coordinated attack from the moment he took over

 

this is why i asked if the actions were comparable, you seem well up on things so maybe corbyn was there pulling the strings in the background to undermine the party he was a member of in order to get rid of kinnock but i would be very surprised to find out that actually happened

Link to post
Share on other sites

hang about, unless i'm mistaken kinnock had been leader for 5 years by that time :lol:

 

corbyn was facing attacks from these people with days/hours of him taking over and there was a lot of stuff done cynically behind the scenes to undermine him from the off involving friendly press and whoever else...all the front bench resignations etc. was part of a coordinated attack from the moment he took over

 

this is why i asked if the actions were comparable, you seem well up on things so maybe corbyn was there pulling the strings in the background to undermine the party he was a member of in order to get rid of kinnock but i would be very surprised to find out that actually happened

 

Corbyn was involved in Tony Benn's leadership challenge, surely that isn't in dispute?

 

And on the timing, you have contradicted yourself. The last quote from September 1992 Corbyn openly criticises John Smith as offering no real opposition with the possibility of a leader challenge. Of course John Smith had only become leader 2 months earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hang about, unless i'm mistaken kinnock had been leader for 5 years by that time :lol:

 

corbyn was facing attacks from these people with days/hours of him taking over and there was a lot of stuff done cynically behind the scenes to undermine him from the off involving friendly press and whoever else...all the front bench resignations etc. was part of a coordinated attack from the moment he took over

 

this is why i asked if the actions were comparable, you seem well up on things so maybe corbyn was there pulling the strings in the background to undermine the party he was a member of in order to get rid of kinnock but i would be very surprised to find out that actually happened

 

Corbyn was involved in Tony Benn's leadership challenge, surely that isn't in dispute?

 

And on the timing, you have contradicted yourself. The last quote from September 1992 Corbyn openly criticises John Smith as offering no real opposition with the possibility of a leader challenge. Of course John Smith had only become leader 2 months earlier.

 

i'm at a loss to work out why you can't understand the difference between the things your comparing, was corbyn part of a clearly coordinated party attack on john smith that involved front bench resignations, leaks to the press and a leadership challenge?  or did he offer an opinion...if he did the first one i'll hold my hands up mate

 

fwiw i think corbyn is a bit of an arsehole, i like the policies the party are pursuing these days but wouldn't bat an eyelid if he left this afternoon but this is nonsense

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's fair like.  A lot of Wilky is saying is fair too, but I don't think the situations stand up to comparison. 

 

I mean they are different but they are never going to be exactly the same. The Tony Benn challenge was never in a position to have any effective resignations and even those on the left of the party started distancing themselves from it because it was so poor. Interestingly, Benn once defeated in the 88 challenge stated "I do not want anyone to think that tomorrow is the end. It is the beginning." Benn had threatened that the challenge would be on a yearly basis and would not go away. Ultimately it did but the idea that the challenge back then to the Labour leadership was somehow more chivalrous is just wrong. If the tables were turned Corbyn would act no differently as he would have been fighting for what he believed in. Which is fair enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's fair like.  A lot of Wilky is saying is fair too, but I don't think the situations stand up to comparison. 

 

I mean they are different but they are never going to be exactly the same. The Tony Benn challenge was never in a position to have any effective resignations and even those on the left of the party started distancing themselves from it because it was so poor. Interestingly, Benn once defeated in the 88 challenge stated "I do not want anyone to think that tomorrow is the end. It is the beginning." Benn had threatened that the challenge would be on a yearly basis and would not go away. Ultimately it did but the idea that the challenge back then to the Labour leadership was somehow more chivalrous is just wrong. If the tables were turned Corbyn would act no differently as he would have been fighting for what he believed in. Which is fair enough.

 

Yeah, Benn went a little haywire back then, but in saying that I can see where he was coming from.  He had had his personal base all but obliterated out of the party.  Admittedly, that was Militant, but still, despite the rhetoric, there were plenty of decent and normal people that within them who were ostracised as part of an agenda to make the left in the UK politically homeless, as Kinnock sneered some years later, I paraphrase, "they have nowhere else to go but Labour".

 

I mean, I think there's a grand hypocrisy from both sides in Labour.  They preach broad church unity, but whenever either of the others has supremacy in the party, they clearly are not practicing as they preach.  That is both sides.  The Left are not innocent of that, but certainly neither are the more establishment members of the PLP and wider party. 

 

The problem with what happened post Corbyn is sadly simple.  They created the heat for themselves by pre-emptively telling all they would not work in an Corbyn cabinet.  Say what you like about his history of rebellion and skullduggery, that was an absolutely catastrophic move.  Both for the Left, as it made enemies within the party easy to pin point and thus pressure campaigns were launched on them making us look unhinged, but it was also catastrophic for them too. 

 

Emily Thornberry is the best example of someone who was very much part of the austerity-lite agenda, very much a preacher of Tony Blair-style foreign policy.  She saw the wind change in Labour, and worked with it.  Every single other MP didn't.  We can't just pretend that never happened.  They fired the first guns, before he was even elected leader.  A bit of humility from them in this grand 'listening exercise', admitting their side of the mistakes made in the last few years, could go a long way to not just uniting Labour but actually giving them a chance in the party again.  As I've said before, some of us are fucking dying for the likes of Cooper, even Umunna when he was in, to actually work with us, instead of quite blatantly working against us. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...