Vocal Voices

So, what do we think of his chances as Labour leader, assuming he gets the (poisoned chalice) job?

My first thoughts were good, that'll make Labour unelectable for a another term, like Michael Foot's ill-fated term in office. But then, let's face it, perhaps the Tories need a credible and distinct opposition, which the grey Blair-clones like Kendall and Burnham simply wouldn't provide. It would certainly make UK politics a bit more "interesting" ....

He has had quite a bit of mud slung at him, but not much has stuck. In fact his popularity has risen.

One of the most repeated sentiments I keep reading is that the country needs a strong opposition and that he is the man to provide it. He might not be good for the Labour party, only time will tell, but with Dave only having a small majority who knows what he could do for the way parliament works.

He gives the appearance of a man of principles, whether we like them or not, and that makes him stand out from the other 649 and the dinosaurs in the "other place".

Exactly. Corbyn is not to everyone's taste, to put it mildly.

But he has principles which he has always stuck to, unlike the other three candidates, who are a right shower. They are the type I dislike intensely; they are like the creation of focus groups, polls and advertising men. Not one genuine principle or belief amongst them apart from the belief that they are wonderful and should be allowed to tell everyone else what to do. They would run over their granny for power.

Interestingly Corbyn wants to re-nationalise the railways and the energy suppliers. Now this puts the cat among the pigeons, because imo it is a vote winner.
But Kate Hoey said a couple of weekends since that the current EU rules will not allow us to re-nationalise the railways. Assuming that she is right, expect heaven and earth to be moved to stop Corbyn and shut him up. Because that is the sort of story the pro-EU camp will not want raising in front of a referendum.

cromwell wrote:But Kate Hoey said a couple of weekends since that the current EU rules will not allow us to re-nationalise the railways..

Slightly off-topic, but I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that Deutsche Bahn, i.e. the national German railway, owns Arriva Trains Wales, Cross Country, Chiltern Railways, Tyne & Wear Metro, Grand Central, 50% of London Overground ... oh, and let's not forget the main network freight operator, DB Schenker ......

I believe we simply don't realise just how much of this country is owned by furriners. And I do blame Maggie for that.

Interestingly Corbyn wants to re-nationalise the railways and the energy suppliers. Now this puts the cat among the pigeons, because imo it is a vote winner.

I have always said that I'd wholeheartedly support any politician who is prepared to re-nationalise any of our core industries and services without compensation, and b*gg*r their current multi-conglomerate owners .....

He's the only palatable candidate IMO.

He gives the appearance of a man of principles, whether we like them or not, and that makes him stand out from the other 649 and the dinosaurs in the "other place".

This.

Yes. Many who claim to be just right of centre, the old centre, or Tory Lite, are persuaded by some form of nationalisation of some industries.

Kate Hoey might like to read this article re railways.

I like this:

The train companies have time-limited franchises. Once these have expired the government could get them back at no cost to the taxpayer

.

Interestingly there is already a public owned company, Directly Operated Railways, which was set up to take over the East Coast main line when National Express failed. It could step in at any time.

Workingman wrote:Yes. Many who claim to be just right of centre, the old centre, or Tory Lite, are persuaded by some form of nationalisation of some industries.

Kate Hoey might like to read this article re railways.

I like this:

The train companies have time-limited franchises. Once these have expired the government could get them back at no cost to the taxpayer

.

Thanks WM, that is interesting. Corbyn could make hay with this, I think.

I just wish we had a reasonable, sensible and electable Labour Party, so that the country could
be run for the benefit of everyone, instead of just for a collection of 'Fat Cats' and perverts..

Hmmm, but Labour never stood for reason. Labour stood for making those with money share it with those who worked for them.

That was it's sole purpose and it has achieved that purpose beyond the wildest dreams of those who first set up the party. With a change from 11% of the GDP of the country being in the hands of the workers to >50% of the GDP of the country being in the hands of the workers, I'd say that Labour has massively exceeded their mandate.

With a welfare state which supports the most vulnerable, they have massively exceeded their initial expectations
With a health service, free at the point of use, they have massively exceeded their initial expectations
With 90% of personal taxes being paid by the top 50% of the population and 50% of GDP being in the hands of those who pay 10% of the tax, they have massively exceeded their initial expectations.

Having got to where they are, given their original mandate, it is unsurprising that they are now an unpalatable force. They moved more than 50% of the people into an income class which is, in the first statement above, "those with money". Oddly enough, those "with money" seem to continue to believe that only those with "more money" should pay for the social services.

It is hardly a surprise that Labour has to veer further and further to the right in order to find legitimacy and votes. They, quite literally, created Tory and Lib Dem voters from their Labour heartland.

I always have a really good amused smile at that. I'm sure they feel betrayed.

As for principled men?

Pope Lucius III. Very principled man. Created the first "Inquisition".
Ghengis Khan. Very principled man. If you defied his Yassa he razed the city to the ground and killed all inhabitants and salted the ground so you could nor farm it.
Maximilien Robespierre. Who opposed the death penalty and slavery. Then presided of the Reign of Terror in which up to 40,000 French were executed.


Personally I have issues with "strongly principled" people. They believe that only their principles count and they have no respect for your principles at all.

Having said that I think Corbyn would be excellent for another reason. With a Labour party crippled by a hard left leader, it would give the voters scope to usher in the UKIP as a 4th party rather than giving the Tories a huge majority. I'm much more for that.

It is not about what Labour stood for or what it achieved, it is what it now stands for and might be able to achieve in the future.

Blair pushed the political centre to the right and then with New Labour stepped in to the space created. The effect was twofold: The Conservatives moved to the right and what was once mildly left-wing became the far left - for Labour. The so called far-left of today is a lot different from the Militant Tendency of the '70s.

Corbyn cannot currently take the Blairites with him. He will have to move towards them on some things in order to get them to move towards him on others. I have Corbyn down as a pragmatist, and that is a lot different from the sell-outs the other three contenders are.

I won't be writing him off any time soon.