Hilary Benn Sacked From The Shadow Cabinet - wider political debate

[Whistlin' Dixie]

That's what I meant ('apolitical' = five years doing work that was not a political job).

Ah, my mistake mate.

I did originally read it as 'apolitical' and then my brain decided it was 'a political' for some reason...D'oh! lol

 

[tsubaki]

What would you Labour members think of a rule for shortlists that a candidate has to have a) lived in the constituency for a minimum of 5 years and b) worked in an apolitical job for 5 years?

The massive problem with the PLP seems to be a) its disconnect with Labour supporters and b) its disconnect with real people who are not necessarily Labour supporters. Part of that seems, at least to me, to come from the parachuting in of favoured luvvies who have all been to Oxbridge and then worked their way as assistants to MPs.

It is a good idea, but the problem is the centre. Until the centre is stripped of almost all its power (only retaining a final say if a CLP goes rogue, or gets taken over and starts acting against the party) they will always find ways to parachute people in, and the sort of people who aim to be parachuted in will still flock to it. Given that the central party organization is also where a lot of the financial scandals take place (because donors find it easier to, and get more impact from, "influencing" people there), it is something that needs to be sorted out.

I can understand why Corbyn paused before doing anything about it until now (for fear of further antagonising the PLP), but there really isn't any excuse not to do something about it over the next few months.

 

[Tubey]

Reading this thread it seems people think we need another Tony Blair.

Sucking up to the likes of murdoch to get elected and continuing the charade of socialism and democracy.

You know what mate? I do. Because Blair won elections.

What I want is a Blair type candidate who can gain power and not subsequently sell his soul.

Yes, Blair was a disaster in power, but everything he stood for in winning those elections were completely spot on. Just because one man ended up being a tosser doesn't mean you give up a winning strategy totally - that's basically throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Isn't it possible that a person with socialist principles but pragmatic politics can unite the party and lead them to success without being automatically labelled a 'Blairite' because he's not Ken Livingstone-esque mad with his politics?

 

[Clint Planet]

Haven't read this thread at all but I'm popping in to say that I am appalled at the disgraceful antics of the PLP - no doubt coordinated by the Blairites with half an eye on the impending Chilcott Report.

Corbyn represents the only hope we have of forcing a paradigm shift in how this country conducts its politics. In the standards of honesty and accountability we expect of our political class and of wider public bodies.

In the 9 months that Corbyn has been leader he has been anything but ineffective. Austerity (a policy of making the poor- not the wealthy - pay for the crimes of the banks and multimillionaires ) was, shamefully, an accepted political credo within the Labour Party before Jezzer put it centre-stage again, rejecting its inevitability. He forced the Tories into an ignominious backtrack on benefit cuts, he has seen increased majorities in the two by-elections and gains in local elections (against every prediction of every so-called expert) and has held the PM rigorously to account in PMQs with dignity and humour every two weeks.

This is not about Corbyn's supposed lukewarm attitude to the EU; this is about the established political class closing ranks against democracy and grassroots activism itself.

They don't like Corbyn because he makes them look bad. He doesn't fill his boots with the expenses system, he didn't vote for the war in Iraq and he is, by all accounts, incorruptible.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

What I want is a Blair type candidate who can gain power and not subsequently sell his soul.

A 'bliar type candidate' would agree with the abolition of clause four; and therefore by definition, would've already 'sold his soul'

 

[Tubey]

A 'bliar type candidate' would agree with the abolition of clause four; and therefore by definition, would've already 'sold his soul'

No they wouldn't, because I'm not saying a Blair clone who would do the exact same things - what I'm saying is that you learn the lessons from Blair but build on them instead of throwing everything away for some lunatic extreme left wing protest party with absolutely no chance of being elected instead.

 

[Tubey]

Haven't read this thread at all but I'm popping in to say that I am appalled at the disgraceful antics of the PLP - no doubt coordinated by the Blairites with half an eye on the impending Chilcott Report.

Corbyn represents the only hope we have of forcing a paradigm shift in how this country conducts its politics. In the standards of honesty and accountability we expect of our political class and of wider public bodies.

In the 9 months that Corbyn has been leader he has been anything but ineffective. Austerity (a policy of making the poor- not the wealthy - pay for the crimes of the banks and multimillionaires ) was, shamefully, an accepted political credo within the Labour Party before Jezzer put it centre-stage again, rejecting its inevitability. He forced the Tories into an ignominious backtrack on benefit cuts, he has seen increased majorities in the two by-elections and gains in local elections (against every prediction of every so-called expert) and has held the PM rigorously to account in PMQs with dignity and humour every two weeks.

This is not about Corbyn's supposed lukewarm attitude to the EU; this is about the established political class closing ranks against democracy and grassroots activism itself.

They don't like Corbyn because he makes them look bad. He doesn't fill his boots with the expenses system, he didn't vote for the war in Iraq and he is, by all accounts, incorruptible.

Sorry, but this is nonsense.

I'm getting tired of reading people basically saying that if you don't support Corbyn, you don't give a toss about the poor and the working class. That's ridiculous.

There's more than one way to tackle inequality in society, and opting to be pragmatic and give yourself the best chance of gaining power to do actual things to help them isn't self-serving; it's just common sense.

And what 'Blairites', exactly? It's been 10 years since he left FFS! What will they be bothered about Chilcott for? Do you think they have any loyalty whatsoever left to a guy who is a complete irrelevance now? It's a lazy argument. Most of the MPs in the PLP involved in this 'revolt' weren't even around when Blair was here, so it really is a stupid tag to use.

 

[tsubaki]

You know what mate? I do. Because Blair won elections.

What I want is a Blair type candidate who can gain power and not subsequently sell his soul.

Yes, Blair was a disaster in power, but everything he stood for in winning those elections were completely spot on. Just because one man ended up being a tosser doesn't mean you give up a winning strategy totally - that's basically throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Isn't it possible that a person with socialist principles but pragmatic politics can unite the party and lead them to success without being automatically labelled a 'Blairite' because he's not Ken Livingstone-esque mad with his politics?

er - Blair's biggest victory came about because he promised a national minimum wage, a windfall tax on privatized utilities, reforming PFI (!), increased spending on the NHS, increasing the stock of social housing, to continue talking to the IRA, and to work towards multilateral nuclear disarmament.

 

[Tubey]

er - Blair's biggest victory came about because he promised a national minimum wage, a windfall tax on privatized utilities, reforming PFI (!), increased spending on the NHS, increasing the stock of social housing, to continue talking to the IRA, and to work towards multilateral nuclear disarmament.

Yes, and obviously you don't replicate it - you learn from it, get rid of the bad, keep the good, as it's no longer 1997.

Again, I'm not asking for a clone. I'm saying that Blair recognised the political landscape and played it perfectly. It was pragmatic politics that appealed to almost everyone in society. Corbyn appeals to about 5%. That's the difference.

One thing I consistently see about Corbyn fans is that they think you've got to be 100% extreme about every view to be "principled". You don't.

 

[tsubaki]

Yes, and obviously you don't replicate it - you learn from it, get rid of the bad, keep the good, as it's no longer 1997.

Again, I'm not asking for a clone. I'm saying that Blair recognised the political landscape and played it perfectly. It was pragmatic politics that appealed to almost everyone in society. Corbyn appeals to about 5%. That's the difference.

One thing I consistently see about Corbyn fans is that they think you've got to be 100% extreme about every view to be "principled". You don't.

No, he appeals to 30-35%. That is what the polls suggest, and as I said above that is with a constant barrage of criticism and with the PLP in open revolt against him.

It is also a bit mad that you make a statement like that in your last sentence, which is fairly obviously (at least based on here) untrue.

 

[Joey66]

I telephoned the unite Union today to relay my message to the Regional officer that if Corbyn stays ! I will leave the Labour PLP is being dictated to by the£3.00 looney left other it's £25 to join the Tories with a 3 month wait to vote - she told me she would pass the message on and asked me to wait before I cancelled my membership I told her I would vote UKIP before a Corbyn led by Labour!

 

[Clint Planet]

Sorry, but this is nonsense.

No, it really isn't. There is a political class who do not like bottom-up democratic activity. They don't like Corbyn because he listens to the people and openly rejects neoliberal austerity.

I'm getting tired of reading people basically saying that if you don't support Corbyn, you don't give a toss about the poor and the working class. That's ridiculous.

When did I say that?

There's more than one way to tackle inequality in society, and opting to be pragmatic and give yourself the best chance of gaining power to do actual things to help them isn't self-serving; it's just common sense.

Nothing we've tried so far seems to have worked. As much as a Blairite government was, in so many ways, hugely preferable to a Tory one, inequality was not effectively tackled. The poverty gap, to Labour's great shame, continued to grow, if not at the alarming rate of the Tory era.

And what 'Blairites', exactly? It's been 10 years since he left FFS! What will they be bothered about Chilcott for? Do you think they have any loyalty whatsoever left to a guy who is a complete irrelevance now? It's a lazy argument. Most of the MPs in the PLP involved in this 'revolt' weren't even around when Blair was here, so it really is a stupid tag to use.

If you can't see that there is still a a strong Blairite (i.e. anti-clause 4, pro-corporations/the city, anti-union, pro-American War Policy) faction in the PLP then I'm not sure I can ever hope to communicate properly with you. The simple fact is, many hundreds of thousands - millions, probably, when you think about it- of people have been alienated from the political process by a great senses that "They're all as bad as each other" and that "It makes no difference who you vote for." The effect of that has been catastrophically anti-democratic and has allowed corporations and moguls like Murdoch (Godfather the Blair's youngest, lest we forget - the poor sod) to effectively do as they wish. Who was challenging austerity? Who fights against zero hours contracts? Who speaks positively about unionisation - workers having a voice?

Corbyn has brought many thousands of those disenfranchised people back to the political debate. He has invigorated our democracy.

There is a crisis in the Labour Party right now but let's be clear - it is not of Jeremy Corbyn's making.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

It was pragmatic politics that appealed to almost everyone in society.

No mate. 1997 was the end of 18 years of tory rule. The people were fed up of it. John Smith would NEVER have dispensed with clause iv, and be in no doubt, he'd have won in 1997. The world might've been a whole different place, had he lived to fight that election.

The country's been governed by bliaristic consensus since 1997, it's time for a change. Even Peter Hitchens thinks they've become the same bleedin' thing in different guises.

People are fed up with it, as much as they were with the 18 years of thatcherism.

 

[hullefc]

Blair used a lie to go to war. Blair started the austerity programme against the poor, vulnerable and the disabled by the bedroom tax, cuts to welfare payments that allowed the DWP to start harassing the vulnerable and disabled to find work by hook or by crook, was instrumental in expanding the vastly expensive PFI that enabled the NHS to be further privatised. Increased the expansion of the academisation of the schools that put them in private hands for profit. He laid the groundwork for further Tory assaults against the poor, vulnerable and disabled.

Great achievement was Mr Blair.

 

[tsubaki]

Meanwhile, Polly Toynbee alleges some people in the anti-Corbyn camp are racist:

These could be the end days of Labour. Expect a challenge to Corbyn shortly, but there are wrangles as to who should do it: splitting the anti-Corbyn vote would be suicidal. Eagle has most support – soft-left, close to the unions, level headed, an experienced safe pair of hands. Owen Smith takes a slightly further left stance, but some say it can’t be someone Welsh, and he’s unknown. Watson is the key player, a wise bargainer and as deputy leader the one with a direct mandate elected by the party membership: he still hopes that Corbyn can be talked down off his miserable throne of thorns before Monday.