Off Topic Political Debate

childish.

 

Always the same old party line ! I suppose that the main difference between him and what you call 'modern' politics is that he does actually have policies, ideas and commitments. It really was a major blunder of Blair to say to party members that they should vote for one of the other 3 candidates - thereby implying that it did not matter which one because they were all the same - all bland and faceless mark 2 Tories. In contrast to your claim that the majority of the party is against him Corbyn has more support at the grass roots level of the party than any other leader (including Blair in the early 90s) his vote share was 60% of every single group of members other than those in Parliament - what has happened is that we have a major scism between the party itself (400,000 members) and the parliamentary party (less than 300).

 

What seems very strange to me is that ideology takes preference to people sometimes. The French government announced that from next year companies would have taxation reduced if they employed more people from the out of work. The measure was hoped to reduce the stubborn 10% unemployment figure and stimulate the economy. The measure was generally welcomed by businesses and the unemployed. The left wing of the Socialist Party and the Greens both opposed the measure. They feel it is wrong to reduce government taxation on principle. The high level of company taxation has done nothing for the economy, yet when a measure is proposed that could actually help some people it is opposed.

 

It is a serious problem to have major differences with his own parliamentary party but the current leaders also have a major scism between the activists (plus some tory infiltrators he he!) and the general labour voters he will need to rely on.

You don't seem to ever learn that being a member of a political party in the UK is pretty meaningless.

 

Until they reduce the fear of employers taking on staff that is almost impossible to sack, unemployment will remain high. The French government's well meaning protection for workers is completely counterproductive and unfit for purpose.

 

I think that Corbyn will get over any of these differences - remember that none of his policies have, as yet, become official party policy. You see him as being on the left, I see him as a democrat who wants to run the Labour Party according to a bottom up principle - ie. run from the basis. It means that he does not have to 'impose his ideas' on the Party, because he can appeal to refendum to decide party policy. He is also someone who can make compromise and work in an inclusive way (which Blair was not). Not all of his ideas will become party policy - a great deal has been made of eg. his 'anti royalism' or that he has appeared on cordial terms with Gerry Adams - so what ! Margaret Thatcher was a personal friend of the Pinochets and believed in the death penalty but it did not become party policy.

 

None of the above will happen. He failed to compromise or work in an inclusive way for decades, how can he expect his backbenchers to support policies they don't believe in?

 

He exercised his democratic rights on voting against official party policy on many occasions - which was allowed - so, I am sure that he will also allow rebels in the future. I do not expect any back bencher to support ideas which they do not agree with, but, Corbyn's ideas are more in line with those of the rank and file membership and his mandate comes from them. Corbyn wants to transform the Party into one in which every member has the feeling that they can help change party direction - and that has not been the case for a long time.

 

His problem is the rank and file (or activists) will not produce policies that will attract moderate Labour voters, he's a bit like that gasbag Michael Foot, he managed to set the cause of the left back for many years.

I've afraid they have elected a duff.

 

In the past I have placed great importance on party membership figures as being an important indication of how politically'active' the population is. Simply voting once in 4-5 years between a limited range of ideas which originate from a tiny percentage of the population is not democracy. It really is difficult to really engage in politics without being a member of some party or other, to do so you would either run as an independent (which costs you a lot of money) or join some pressure group such as friends of the earth (there you can have ideals but no influence). So, being a member, is the only way to be politically active - Britain's membership of political parties runs at just above 1% of the population. All political ideas come from this tiny group of people - the rest are passive. This is what I mean by inertia ie. where people just want to be led, and otherwise cast off all responsibility for their surroundings. Since Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party total political membership in the UK. has been on the way to doubling itself.

 

Just what I said - totally meaningless. The Uk electorate have never seen the need to join a political party and they will continue not to.

You can place as much importance on political party membership as you like but that does not change the realities in the UK.

 

I quote here -'The UK. electorate have never seen the need to join a political party'. In the 50s and 60s membership ran at about 10% of the population (now 1%), the Tories had 4 million members (now around 100,000). Point made ?

 

If membership of political parties is down to 1% that tells me that the electorate are less keen than ever to join them!!

So I repeat a meaningless statistic as far as general policies are concerned. You are flogging a dead horse.

 

I'll say this in another way, so that you can understand it better. If we have a town with 20,000 inhabitants and it has the average number of party members found in the UK. then we will have around 200 party members there - spread over all of the parties maybe the Tories might have 50 members, other parties would have more or less, every ward has to be contested at local elections and council seats have to be filled - whether you have the necessary number of members or not, and regardless whether they have the talent for this. Some people get jetisoned into contesting seats or sitting on councils whether they are suitable for this or not - remember, the same political work is now being done by only a tenth of the number doing it in the 50s or 60s. The result is lack of competition for places and people in misplaced positions in local politics (and most politics is local).

 

Surely it also tells you that if it has gone down from 10% to 1% then something is going wrong.

 

Not at all. The information technological revolution has enlightened more of the electorate. They don't need brainwashing by the activists at both ends of the political spectrum.

 

Back in the 60's & 70's I was member of a print union in Watford which engaged in many 'industrial & political struggles'. I used to go to the odd branch meeting which was always dominated by a few guys with very strong opinions. In those days the best jobs involved finding work at Sun Printers or Odhams. This could only be achieved through the union branch. The 'militants' always seemed to end up these jobs!!

Is this a small example of how the soviets issue favours for the comrades?

 

I suppose I must have been a signed up member of the Labour Party through my union subscriptions for many years. It was frowned upon to request an opt out of this payment. It certainly would have damaged any chance of a plum job within the local branch.

 

As an OAP this scares me!


Tory Liam Fox called for savage and permanent cuts to pensioner benefits, such as Pension Credit, Winter Fuel Payments and ‘Bus Passes, yesterday, at a meeting of the Taxpayers' Alliance (TPA).
The former defence secretary said now was a "great opportunity" to make sweeping cuts in welfare spending while the Labour party is not such a "great threat".
At the same meeting at the Tories' party conference in Manchester, TPA research director Alex Wild said pensioners hit by cuts to winter fuel payments "may not be around" by the next election.
Wild, a key figure in the right-wing pressure group said others may not remember who put the policy in place.
He warned his comments "will sound a little bit morbid", going on to say: "Some of the people... won't be around to vote against you in the next election. So that's just a practical point, and the other point is they might have forgotten by then."
He added: "If you did it now, chances are that in 2020 someone who has had their winter fuel cut might be thinking, 'Oh I can't remember, was it this government or was it the last one? I'm not quite sure.'
Just in case we do forget, these cuts would be used to fund a Tax Cut bribe at the next General Election.

 

Sounds to me like a piss take - and a poor taste one at that. I would be stunned if the Tories hit the OAPs as that's one backlash they really don't want to deal with. Mayvbe others know better than me but I'm not aware of a Tory track record of penalising pensioners. It's simply not worth the risk.