Clive Lewis Is He The Answer

[Wales-Bales]

This is a good civil debate with interesting arguments on both sides, but I would like to see a bit more pushing of the boundaries and thinking outside of the box. This is 2017 and all the rules are about to be rewritten, and the past is about to become irrelevant. It won't be long before the storm clouds from across the Atlantic reach our shores. We are living in momentous times, so it's time for everybody to open their minds and broaden their outlooks. Whatever you think is impossible or unbelievable today, may not be so impossible or unbelievable tomorrow.

[jon1959]

I voted for Corbyn as a Registered Supporter first time around, and would have done again in the second election if I hadn't been disenfranchised by Labour Party administrative cock-ups. That was after carrying a membership card from 1985-2013 (and a period earlier in the late 70s). I hoped to see a different type of politics emerge, based on mass active party membership, informed and wide-ranging debate and campaigning, digital inclusive communication and all located in an international context where globalised people-power and resistance could stand up to globalised capital. I was also attracted to the idea that the Labour Party could have a purpose beyond that of an electoral machine where (in the last 25 years at least) the poor bloody infantry - whether ordinary members or the wider pool of supporters - were taken for granted, excluded from policy making, and used as nothing but a source of funding and door-knocking. Corbyn seemed to offer that prospect, and the supporter/member growth backed that early optimism.

However, I never gave up on the idea that any party to be effective had to go beyond campaigning to taking hold of governmental power, in order to make the changes needed. Corbyn could have been a left wing populist of the sort that has emerged in Spain, Greece and Portugal (and to some extent with Bernie Sanders in the USA) and used that to mount an effective push for electoral success. However, he hasn't been able to do that, and is going backwards rather than forward in public support. It isn't all his fault - he has been under siege from enemies inside and outside the Labour Party. The deck is stacked against him. But he could and should have played his hand much better. I have become disillusioned with him as a leader (or even the figurehead of a larger leadership group), and many people I know who shared my early hope now think the same.

There is still time for the left of the Labour Party to find a more effective leader, but as every month passes the window for that sort of progressive and populist reboot closes more. The PLP and party machine are working quietly and (I think) effectively to stop any new candidate of the left winning the leadership (they have learned after the failed coup last year), and time is running out to reposition and reinvent Labour to be able to challenge at the next election.

[Wales-Bales]

I hoped to see a different type of politics emerge, based on mass active party membership, informed and wide-ranging debate and campaigning, digital inclusive communication and all located in an international context where globalised people-power and resistance could stand up to globalised capital.

It could possibly still happen, but it won't be under Corbyn. He was beaten by the establishment machinery, because he engaged them on their own terms. Trump, Farage and Let Pen simply dismiss the current hierarchy, which seems to be the better strategy. But events may just overtake everybody, as a tsunami is building that once unleashed will be impossible to stop.

[life on mars]

The truth of it all really is we have an electorate that doesn't want a return to far left or right , they want fairness and justice , but not to the point where we borrow and fund for the sake of it , rather than hold to account the mechanisms of how they are managed and deployed. That might be delivering unpopular decisions that dont naturally sit within the socialist agenda ,on matters such as , way too much immigration stop , NHS funding it cant be sustained ,local government must be accountable and efficient .

Its easy to moan and grown about the rich , inheritance tax , etc, etc , that wont fund the expectations of the billions of pounds needed to fund social care , NHS , Education , Policing , Prisons, no cap on household benefits ,disability , building houses /roads its almost and endless wish list , easy to say difficult to fund , which I personally cant figure out how we could fund it, in its present state ??.

You cant just endlessly borrow, you have to look at clever taxation, how /who has the right to benefits , hey, why not charge for certain GP visits , charge drunks filling up A and E on weekends , at the expense of real treatment, or say sorry we dont agree with these unnecessary strikes its effecting normal people lives and your paid enough , nope we need pension reform it cant be sustained , yes we agree Trident is needed or we may need armed combat , we never hear that language , its always about establishment , taxation , blah ,blah, blah .

All I do know the top end rich are not the majority ,taxing them wont fix this, we need their wealth to provide private sector jobs.

Instead of appearing to be looking at the problem with envy ,moans and protests , we need Labour to be visionary /different thinking ,brave of view , and stick that in the faces of the opposition , to stimulate debate the electorate , not turn them off at every utterance .

[Pearcey3]

If the Labour vote is "tribal" then any leader will do and there is no reason to remove Corbyn.

Corbyn has a problem with his presentation and the mainstream media are using this against him. They did the same thing with Michael Foot. But if we just rely on presentation to judge people then we up with con artists like Blair. It boils down to whether you want a leader with principles or do you want someone who is only in politics for the money. I suppose there are more charismatic MPs who would increase the chances of Labour being elected but what is the point of putting someone in power who acts according to self-interest rather than principles. Nearly all MPs are just there for the money. I haven't noticed many Labour MPs other than Corbyn who stand out as principled and decent.

Good post. Ideally Labour need a leader with charisma and principles who won't be a softer version of any given Tory leader.
They need to be able to keep the press at arms length too and be able to deflect the barrage of press hostility that will come their way. That isn't easy

[Pearcey3]

It could possibly still happen, but it won't be under Corbyn. He was beaten by the establishment machinery, because he engaged them on their own terms. Trump, Farage and Let Pen simply dismiss the current hierarchy, which seems to be the better strategy. But events may just overtake everybody, as a tsunami is building that once unleashed will be impossible to stop.

Yep interesting post BUT crucially Corbyn doesn't get the airtime that Trump receives so its harder to get any message across but agreed he needs to attack the establishment in a similar vein to Trump.

[Pearcey3]

In Corbyn's defence it was one of rhe dullesf budgets in living history. The footballing equivalent would be a 0/0 draw between Reading and Cardiff on a damp Tuesday night

[Vimana.]

I have to say I agree with both of the last two posts by and large, though I felt that Corbyn made some fair points in response to a rather wishy-washy, almost Brexit agnostic budget and in the waft of a gallery of nodding donkeys and an undignified, grotesque guffawing PM (seeing as we are talking about style/delivery as well as content) ;)

[life on mars]

Increasingly, and outside the personality judgement ,what are the answers and ideas to deal with deficit, funding NHS which is the 5th biggest organisation in the world , education, policing,and the great unknown, the ultimate effects of Brexit.

Perhaps caution was called for in budgeting on this occasion, and I'm no fan of the Tory machine.

[the other bob wilson]

Good post. Ideally Labour need a leader with charisma and principles who won't be a softer version of any given Tory leader.
They need to be able to keep the press at arms length too and be able to deflect the barrage of press hostility that will come their way. That isn't easy

The "tribal" Labour vote still exists, but there is clear evidence that it is in decline (it's all but disappeared in Scotland) - if things keep on going as they are, elections like the one in Stoke Central are going to become fewer and fewer.

I have sympathy for Labour because it seems vast swaths of the electorate blame them for the 2008 crash in this country, when the truth as I see it is that their only crime was to try to out tory the tories by being more laissez faire than the Conservatives when it came to regulating the crooks and spivs in the banking sector. This is one of the main reasons why this would be a very testing time for Labour no matter who was in charge of them, but, with someone as ineffectual and limited as Corbyn is proving to be, they've got no chance.

As I said before, once you strip away all of the political stuff with Corbyn, you are left with someone who is just not a natural leader (he's spent nearly all of his working life rebelling against them!). The more I see of him, the more convinced I become that he just doesn't have it in him to get the naturally left inclined electorate and/or those in the centre who have been inclined to "give Labour a chance" in the past to unite against a Government that, for all of the fact that they look unbeatable currently, should be very vulnerable given the mood of the country.

My reservations with Corbyn are more to do with the type of man he is, rather than his policies, but I must say that he has been wholly unimpressive when it comes to the issue of the EU referendum. The debate before the vote largely took place without him or his party because it was so obvious that he was torn between two stools as to which side he should support and so he ended up watching the whole thing from the wings. Since the vote, he has tried to act the hard man with his party and ended up looking foolish - surely even the 600,000 who keep on electing him as the man they think best suited to win the support of the 40 million or so eligible to vote are beginning to realise that Corbyn just isn't up to the job?

[Pearcey3]

Fair comment Paul. However Corbyn is unfairly criticised over the EU Referendum compared with May. She hid during that campaign purely for political gain.
You are right about Labour still suffering from the 2008 çrash. The Tories have exploited it ruthlessly. They tend to be more ruthless than Labour. Time for Labour politicians to fight back.

[jon1959]

I find some of the points made above about a defence of Labour incredulous. lol - Labours only fault was trying to out do the Tories, the crash happened to everyone - but it was the positioning of the economy by G Brown, the PFI debt, the un regulated banks (the light hand on the tilla of banks) etc etc etc - anyway - weve had that argument countless times.

Corbyn is a Brexiteer, he voted for LEAVE in 1975, he has voted against Maastricht - and his reasons for doing so - I support. I also (believe it or not) support his stance that the EU needs reform badly. He voted against the Lisbon treaty to. He is not a leader of a party in any way shape or form - but I do listen to what he has to say - some of it makes sense and I agree with.

THE problem though - we all want to live in an Utopian world - no one can deliver that.
Ask anyone - we have 1.7 trillion DEBT, each year we spend 50 BILLION more than we raise in taxes - what would you do then as a politician , how would you get the yearly deficit down ?

AND please dont say tax large corporations etc - we cant do that as they can domicile themselves wherever they want in Europe (EU law) - which is why Google et al are based in Ireland. Maybe post Brexit if they want to trade in the UK they will have to pay the right amount of tax on goods / services sold here.

Waffle over - ps if Chris Lewis is the answer - it is one hell of a silly question.

Chris Lewis isn't the answer. Not even the suggested answer.

[David Vincent]

I voted for Corbyn as a Registered Supporter first time around, and would have done again in the second election if I hadn't been disenfranchised by Labour Party administrative cock-ups. That was after carrying a membership card from 1985-2013 (and a period earlier in the late 70s). I hoped to see a different type of politics emerge, based on mass active party membership, informed and wide-ranging debate and campaigning, digital inclusive communication and all located in an international context where globalised people-power and resistance could stand up to globalised capital. I was also attracted to the idea that the Labour Party could have a purpose beyond that of an electoral machine where (in the last 25 years at least) the poor bloody infantry - whether ordinary members or the wider pool of supporters - were taken for granted, excluded from policy making, and used as nothing but a source of funding and door-knocking. Corbyn seemed to offer that prospect, and the supporter/member growth backed that early optimism.

However, I never gave up on the idea that any party to be effective had to go beyond campaigning to taking hold of governmental power, in order to make the changes needed. Corbyn could have been a left wing populist of the sort that has emerged in Spain, Greece and Portugal (and to some extent with Bernie Sanders in the USA) and used that to mount an effective push for electoral success. However, he hasn't been able to do that, and is going backwards rather than forward in public support. It isn't all his fault - he has been under siege from enemies inside and outside the Labour Party. The deck is stacked against him. But he could and should have played his hand much better. I have become disillusioned with him as a leader (or even the figurehead of a larger leadership group), and many people I know who shared my early hope now think the same.

There is still time for the left of the Labour Party to find a more effective leader, but as every month passes the window for that sort of progressive and populist reboot closes more. The PLP and party machine are working quietly and (I think) effectively to stop any new candidate of the left winning the leadership (they have learned after the failed coup last year), and time is running out to reposition and reinvent Labour to be able to challenge at the next election.

I can see that you haven't got it yet. You sound like some International Socialist from the 1970s. All this talk about left and right is meaningless now. As Wales-Bales has pointed out, it now elites verses the populists. Although the mainstream media like to portray populists like Le Pen as far right she is in fact not classifiable as left or right. Corbyn is the nearest you have got to a populist leader in the Labour Party - i.e. someone opposed to the elites.

[jon1959]

I can see that you haven't got it yet. You sound like some International Socialist from the 1970s. All this talk about left and right is meaningless now. As Wales-Bales has pointed out, it now elites verses the populists. Although the mainstream media like to portray populists like Le Pen as far right she is in fact not classifiable as left or right. Corbyn is the nearest you have got to a populist leader in the Labour Party - i.e. someone opposed to the elites.

Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll stick with my own language and analysis. If I ever get to the sad stage of agreeing with either you or Wales-Bales I will certainly have 'got it', and I don't want 'it'.

[the other bob wilson]

Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll stick with my own language and analysis. If I ever get to the sad stage of agreeing with either you or Wales-Bales I will certainly have 'got it', and I don't want 'it'.

David Vincent's last message reads suspiciously like someone who has come up with a way of explaining away why he now thinks politically in a way that would have made him feel uncomfortable a few decades ago. It's that old journey from socialist firebrand in your teens and twenties to "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" in your "dotage - I was thinking of it as a journey from left to right, but, apparently such terms don't exist any more.

I think it's not much of an exaggeration to say that I have been anti elite for fifty years or more, but I'll have to rethink that if being anti elite now means you must support racists like Le Pen, Wilders and Farage.

[David Vincent]

David Vincent's last message reads suspiciously like someone who has come up with a way of explaining away why he now thinks politically in a way that would have made him feel uncomfortable a few decades ago. It's that old journey from socialist firebrand in your teens and twenties to "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" in your "dotage - I was thinking of it as a journey from left to right, but, apparently such terms don't exist any more.

I think it's not much of an exaggeration to say that I have been anti elite for fifty years or more, but I'll have to rethink that if being anti elite now means you must support racists like Le Pen, Wilders and Farage.

See, now you've got Bob talking about left and right. That false dichotomy is holding you both back. If you continue to think like that you're thinking will be controlled by the elites because they are defining what is left and right.

To understand what is happening today you need to go back a bit in time. Lets go back to the end of the Roman Republic. The Romans had a very clear idea of what it meant to be a Roman and this was called Romanitas. A Roman was a citizen, a soldier and a farmer. There was no standing army and soldiers would leave their farms to fight when the need arose. For a long time they had a stable society. But then they created a standing army and got involved in a lot of wars which resulted in an increase of slaves. These slaves were used by the elites on their farms and this meant that the citizen/soldier/farmers could not compete economically with the elite farmers. The elites took over their farms and they ended up on the Roman equivalent of the dole. All this led to civil wars and slave revolts.

Here's a relevant quote :

Cheap slave labor replaced work for the average citizen and the rolls of the unemployed masses grew to epidemic proportions. These issues had a great destabilizing effect on the social system which had a direct role in the demise of the Republic. As the rift between Senatorial elite (optimates) and social reformers (populares) grew, the use of the unemployed, landless, yet citizen mobs were an overwhelming ploy grinding away at the ability of the Senate to govern. Though there are many factors involved in the Fall of the Republic, slavery and its effects rippled throughout every aspect of that turbulent time period.

http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-slavery.php

If a citizen/soldier/farmer had said to the local patrician that he didn't like all these slaves coming into the country I imagine he would have been dismissed as a right wing racist. The same argument is used by globalists today against workers who see their wages and jobs undermined by free trade and immigration which only benefit the elites.

Globalism will end in civil wars and slave revolts.

[life on mars]

See, now you've got Bob talking about left and right. That false dichotomy is holding you both back. If you continue to think like that you're thinking will be controlled by the elites because they are defining what is left and right.

To understand what is happening today you need to go back a bit in time. Lets go back to the end of the Roman Republic. The Romans had a very clear idea of what it meant to be a Roman and this was called Romanitas. A Roman was a citizen, a soldier and a farmer. There was no standing army and soldiers would leave their farms to fight when the need arose. For a long time they had a stable society. But then they created a standing army and got involved in a lot of wars which resulted in an increase of slaves. These slaves were used by the elites on their farms and this meant that the citizen/soldier/farmers could not compete economically with the elite farmers. The elites took over their farms and they ended up on the Roman equivalent of the dole. All this led to civil wars and slave revolts.

Here's a relevant quote :

Cheap slave labor replaced work for the average citizen and the rolls of the unemployed masses grew to epidemic proportions. These issues had a great destabilizing effect on the social system which had a direct role in the demise of the Republic. As the rift between Senatorial elite (optimates) and social reformers (populares) grew, the use of the unemployed, landless, yet citizen mobs were an overwhelming ploy grinding away at the ability of the Senate to govern. Though there are many factors involved in the Fall of the Republic, slavery and its effects rippled throughout every aspect of that turbulent time period.

http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-slavery.php

If a citizen/soldier/farmer had said to the local patrician that he didn't like all these slaves coming into the country I imagine he would have been dismissed as a right wing racist. The same argument is used by globalists today against workers who see their wages and jobs undermined by free trade and immigration which only benefit the elites.

Globalism will end in civil wars and slave revolts.

lets get back to the original post

[Wales-Bales]

Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll stick with my own language and analysis. If I ever get to the sad stage of agreeing with either you or Wales-Bales I will certainly have 'got it', and I don't want 'it'.

Bookmarked

[Wales-Bales]

Oh dear - Bobsie - Farage isnt racist though is he? , if he is - he is about as racist as you or me.

That's the thing you see, he is according to the MSM, who are owned by the globalists.

[the other bob wilson]

See, now you've got Bob talking about left and right. That false dichotomy is holding you both back. If you continue to think like that you're thinking will be controlled by the elites because they are defining what is left and right.

To understand what is happening today you need to go back a bit in time. Lets go back to the end of the Roman Republic. The Romans had a very clear idea of what it meant to be a Roman and this was called Romanitas. A Roman was a citizen, a soldier and a farmer. There was no standing army and soldiers would leave their farms to fight when the need arose. For a long time they had a stable society. But then they created a standing army and got involved in a lot of wars which resulted in an increase of slaves. These slaves were used by the elites on their farms and this meant that the citizen/soldier/farmers could not compete economically with the elite farmers. The elites took over their farms and they ended up on the Roman equivalent of the dole. All this led to civil wars and slave revolts.

Here's a relevant quote :

Cheap slave labor replaced work for the average citizen and the rolls of the unemployed masses grew to epidemic proportions. These issues had a great destabilizing effect on the social system which had a direct role in the demise of the Republic. As the rift between Senatorial elite (optimates) and social reformers (populares) grew, the use of the unemployed, landless, yet citizen mobs were an overwhelming ploy grinding away at the ability of the Senate to govern. Though there are many factors involved in the Fall of the Republic, slavery and its effects rippled throughout every aspect of that turbulent time period.

http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-slavery.php

If a citizen/soldier/farmer had said to the local patrician that he didn't like all these slaves coming into the country I imagine he would have been dismissed as a right wing racist. The same argument is used by globalists today against workers who see their wages and jobs undermined by free trade and immigration which only benefit the elites.

Globalism will end in civil wars and slave revolts.

Fascinating. Tell me, when do you think Jeremy Corbyn will endorse Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders in the soon to be held elections in France and the Netherlands?

[David Vincent]

Fascinating. Tell me, when do you think Jeremy Corbyn will endorse Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders in the soon to be held elections in France and the Netherlands?

Corbyn is in denial about you know what. There's not much that can be done about it anyway. This other factor has been used by the globalists to break down nation states but they have got a tiger by its tail and it will destroy them just as it will destroy us. That will sound a bit gnomic to you because you are also in denial.

[Wales-Bales]

Corbyn is in denial about you know what. There's not much that can be done about it anyway. This other factor has been used by the globalists to break down nation states but they have got a tiger by its tail and it will destroy them just as it will destroy us. That will sound a bit gnomic to you because you are also in denial.

Corbyn like Trump is surrounded by traiters and a rogue press, the difference being he's lacking the right tools to deal with them. About that tiger, the poo is almost certainly going to hit the fan. The interesting thing is that the US establishment is a mirror of our own system, so what happens over the pond will have a knock on effect over here. It's very difficult to predict exactly how it's all going to turn out, as they may choose to keep some of it from the public, but as some banjo player once said, the times they are a changin

[David Vincent]

What is the 'what' in "you know what"

I'm not even sure if we are allowed to name it. You read about it every day and wherever you live you see more signs of it every day. One day it will become the most important thing in your life because you will hate it or love it so much. Even now hating it can get you arrested but as time goes on you will only be able to hate it in private otherwise your life will be in danger.

[Vimana.]

Wooop ..wooop .. woooop...