The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[ghost rider]

I voted for Corbyn because I think he is a decent person that will advocate for a fairer way of life in Britain. Although I might be considered one of the winners in Tory Britain, I would dearly like to see a great deal more equality. Petty people and the right wing press (non doms everyone) will try to discredit him in the months to come - but he has a very warm and loyal following.

Serious question,i have asked family and friends who are socialists many times but have never being given a reply.How is equality defined and how do we achieve it.Life by its very nature is usually unfair and unequal.It just seems unattainable for everybody to have an equal life so that somebody is not enjoying life better than another person.

[I1L2T3]

Good old alexi style. I heard him on the now show practically call every lorry driver a criminal scumball, I'll try to find the episode. He didn't do it in a funny way he did it in really crappy way - I felt bad for hgv drivers everywhere - clarkson wouldn't have got away with saying it.

 

Up the workers eh alexi.

 

Well the truth is New Labour suited a lot on the hard left who took the opportunity to enrich themselves financially (e.g. through the London property market) and they had no qualms about doing it.

 

Corbyn needs to distance himself from them.

[Hots on]

I would dearly like to see a great deal more equality. .

 

Hmmm, depends what you mean by equality. Equality of opportunity certainly, but not just simply taking from the haves and giving to the have not's.

No one should be hungry and homeless in Britain, everyone should have food, clothing and a roof over their head, but if you want more than that, the "good life", then you should have to strive and work hard for it, not have it handed to you on a plate.

[I1L2T3]

Serious question,i have asked family and friends who are socialists many times but have never being given a reply.How is equality defined and how do we achieve it.Life by its very nature is usually unfair and unequal.It just seems unattainable for everybody to have an equal life so that somebody is not enjoying life better than another person.

 

The idea that all people could be equal died very quickly nearly 100 years ago, about 10 years into the Soviet experiment. They tried to keep the facade going and a few other countries tried it was never going to work basically because of human nature.

 

I'm a lefty but that doesn't mean I have to be against capitalism. In fact I don't have an issue with it as a concept at all. Some people will work and try harder than others and they deserve to expect rewards. At the same time we know that if we allow unbridled capitalism then bad things will almost certainly happen. That's where the socialist bit comes in for me - it's about having true democracy, fairness in society, getting a balance between social responsibility with the state stepping in when appropriate while not inhibiting capitalism unduly. It allows for winners and losers, for people to become wealthy through their own efforts, but makes sure those who lose out in the process (or maybe can't participate fully) don't get their faces ground into the dirt.

 

That's the page Corbyn is on. We'll see this soon enough.

[blake]

Labour MP's have been quoted as saying he probably won't last more than 12 months.

 

but I can't see how he can be gone as soon as that, unless he resigns, and 12 months isn't long enough for him to mess things up so totally, that he'll have to resign. If anybody stands against him under the rules a year from now, after the size of his margin of victory, he'll beat whoever it is easily. But maybe not two or three years from now, as the disaster unfolds and he makes the complete mess of it like he undountedly will.

 

he won't last the whole 4.5 years - that is for sure. It will be either 2 or 3 years. But more than 12 months.

 

the bookies took a lot of money today on Corbyn not being there as leader next election. At 2pm this afternoon, the odds were 5/2 against, but I think the odds should be lower than that, like evens at least.

[I1L2T3]

Labour MP's have been quoted as saying he probably won't last more than 12 months.

 

but I can't see how he can be gone as soon as that, unless he resigns, and 12 months isn't long enough for him to mess things up so totally, that he'll have to resign. If anybody stands against him under the rules a year from now, after the size of his margin of victory, he'll beat whoever it is easily. But maybe not two or three years from now, as the disaster unfolds and he makes the complete mess of it like he undountedly will.

 

he won't last the whole 4.5 years - that is for sure. It will be either 2 or 3 years. But more than 12 months.

 

the bookies took a lot of money today on Corbyn not being there as leader next election. At 2pm this afternoon, the odds were 5/2 against, but I think the odds should be lower than that, like evens at least.

 

3 years maximum

[mossdog]

The idea that all people could be equal died very quickly nearly 100 years ago, about 10 years into the Soviet experiment. They tried to keep the facade going and a few other countries tried it was never going to work basically because of human nature.

 

I'm a lefty but that doesn't mean I have to be against capitalism. In fact I don't have an issue with it as a concept at all. Some people will work and try harder than others and they deserve to expect rewards. At the same time we know that if we allow unbridled capitalism then bad things will almost certainly happen. That's where the socialist bit comes in for me - it's about having true democracy, fairness in society, getting a balance between social responsibility with the state stepping in when appropriate while not inhibiting capitalism unduly. It allows for winners and losers, for people to become wealthy through their own efforts, but makes sure those who lose out in the process (or maybe can't participate fully) don't get their faces ground into the dirt.

 

That's the page Corbyn is on. We'll see this soon enough.

..........excellent post!

[ghost rider]

The idea that all people could be equal died very quickly nearly 100 years ago, about 10 years into the Soviet experiment. They tried to keep the facade going and a few other countries tried it was never going to work basically because of human nature.

 

I'm a lefty but that doesn't mean I have to be against capitalism. In fact I don't have an issue with it as a concept at all. Some people will work and try harder than others and they deserve to expect rewards. At the same time we know that if we allow unbridled capitalism then bad things will almost certainly happen. That's where the socialist bit comes in for me - it's about having true democracy, fairness in society, getting a balance between social responsibility with the state stepping in when appropriate while not inhibiting capitalism unduly. It allows for winners and losers, for people to become wealthy through their own efforts, but makes sure those who lose out in the process (or maybe can't participate fully) don't get their faces ground into the dirt.

 

That's the page Corbyn is on. We'll see this soon enough.

Cheers for the explanation,i hear what you are saying and the idea that the poor are looked after while leaving the ones who want to better themselves to be able too.It was at one time I believe a conservative philosophy which I think has got lost with time.I know Harold Macmillan believed it and my dad admired him for what he did even though my dad is a died in the wool labour man.I need to know what Jeremy Corbyn would do if he was prime minister before I could pass judgement as to whether he would make the country a fairer place for everybody without making the ordinary working class/middle class individual financially worse off and without lowering their quality of life to which most of us have worked hard and long hours to achieve.At the moment I am not convinced and I am very wary of his intentions at the moment.The sums do not add up for me.

[I1L2T3]

What do people think about senior Labour figures resigning from front bench politics?

 

IMO it is pretty disgusting and self-serving. They have been elected as MPs for a party that they knew would form the official opposition. They knew before the election they were regarded as senior figures in the party and integral to providing opposition from the front benches.

 

By playing a role in providing a strong opposition they do the rest of the country a service in holding the government to account but some of the people best able to do so have walked away. they have effectively gone on a work to rule.

 

IMO they should be considered for deselection by their constituency parties.

[ghost rider]

What do people think about senior Labour figures resigning from front bench politics?

 

IMO it is pretty disgusting and self-serving. They have been elected as MPs for a party that they knew would form the official opposition. They knew before the election they were regarded as senior figures in the party and integral to providing opposition from the front benches.

 

By playing a role in providing a strong opposition they do the rest of the country a service in holding the government to account but some of the people best able to do so have walked away. they have effectively gone on a work to rule.

 

IMO they should be considered for deselection by their constituency parties.

It looks to me as though they are setting out their plans to destroy him from the outset and probably do not want to be on the frontline if it starts to get tough.It is a bit like a football team trying to undermine their manager to get him sacked because they do not like the way he runs the team.