For British Members: What Do You Think of Jeremy Corbyn?

[oldbadger]

Plus, I've got an old calendar with a photo of him with his cat.

He's got a cat?
Well that's it then!

I'll bet that Sunak ain't got a cat!

 

[ratiocinator]

I'll bet that Sunak ain't got a cat!

One comes with the job, though.

Larry (cat) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[RestlessSoul]

He's got a cat?
Well that's it then!

I'll bet that Sunak ain't got a cat!

And if he does, I bet he kicks it

 

[Secret Chief]

He's got a cat?
Well that's it then!

I'll bet that Sunak ain't got a cat!

El Gato.
(His wife is Spanish).

 

[Secret Chief]

And if he does, I bet he kicks it

Or gets his butler to.

 

[exchemist]

I don't know much about the guy other than that he's a socialist and that he was involved in problems related to antisemitism within the Labour Party. Was he unpopular mainly due to his socialism, or was it a secondary issue compared to other problems he had? Would it have been conceivable for him to be PM if he had managed the other issues more competently?

Corbyn was an aberration. He became Labour's leader by accident, due to a tradition in the party of putting up a far left candidate who never wins. However Miliband had idiotically sought mass membership of Labour by enabling anyone to join for a couple of pounds - and then they got a vote in the party leadership election of course. So this was exploited by some far left groups and they managed to get lots of lefties to join and get Corbyn chosen, to everyone's shock and surprise, including his.

Corbyn is a fantasist and poseur, left over the from 1970s, whose animating principles seemed to be old-fashioned, quasi-Marxist socialism at home and knee-jerk anti-Americanism abroad. He was quite unsuitable as party leader and something of a national joke, unable to bring himself even to sing the national anthem. So inevitably a catastrophe at the polls. Starmer got him thrown out of the party, along with many of his faction.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Corbyn was an aberration. He became Labour's leader by accident, due a tradition in the party of putting up a far left candidate who never wins. However Miliband had idiotically sought mass membership of Labour by enabling anyone to join for a couple of pounds - and then they got a vote in the party leadership election of course. So this was exploited by some far left groups and they managed to get lots of lefties to join ad get Corbyn chosen, to everyone's shock and surprise, including his.

Corbyn is a fantasist and poseur, left over the from 1970s, whose animating principles seemed to be old-fashioned, quasi-Marxist socialism at home and knee-jerk anti-Americanism abroad. He was quite unsuitable as party leader and something of a national joke, unable to bring himself even to sing the national anthem. So inevitably a catastrophe at the polls. Starmer got him thrown out of the party, along with many of his faction.

Thanks. Pretty interesting details.

In your view, could he have done anything differently to fare well at the polls, perhaps enough to become PM, while also being a socialist? I'm curious whether an openly socialist party leader would have any realistic chance of becoming PM of the UK, depending on how he presented and handled (or optimized, as needed) his platform. I know the "S-word" is a huge electoral turn-off in the US, but I'm not sure whether it also is in the UK at large.

I also haven't yet read about the Tories' 2019 electoral campaign, but Boris Johnson's later scandals and failure to effectively govern make me wonder how the Tories managed to make their platform more appealing to voters than that of the Labour Party, as unappealing as the latter might have been to many.

 

[exchemist]

Thanks. Pretty interesting details.

In your view, could he have done anything differently to fare well at the polls, perhaps enough to become PM, while also being a socialist? I'm curious whether an openly socialist party leader would have any realistic chance of becoming PM of the UK, depending on how he presented and handled (or optimized, as needed) his platform. I know the "S-word" is a huge electoral turn-off in the US, but I'm not sure whether it also is in the UK at large.

I also haven't yet read about the Tories' 2019 electoral campaign, but Boris Johnson's later scandals and failure to effectively govern make me wonder how the Tories managed to make their platform more appealing to voters than that of the Labour Party, as unappealing as the latter might have been to many.

Clement Attlee, the Labour Prime Minister in the postwar government who founded the welfare state, had a saying: “The People’s flag is palest pink.” No British electorate will vote for full socialism. Attlee got far closer than anyone since, capitalising (haha) on the degree of state control everyone had got used to during the war. Even the road haulage industry was nationalised! The next Conservative government undid some of that but the welfare state was kept. Unlike most European democracies in the post war period, Britain has never had more than 2 ( I think?) Communist members of parliament. The British do not like grand ideologies or extremism.

Bozo lied in 2019, as he did about Brexit and as he does about just about everything. If he told you it was Tuesday you would need to check your calendar. The 2 most appealing lies were:

(1) that he would “get Brexit done”, which he didn’t, leaving behind a huge unresolved mess over Northern Ireland, which he tried to settle by lying to both parties affected, and

(2) that he would implement a policy of “levelling up” the country, to help the less prosperous North catch up with the South. He did nothing, of course.

But at the time he seemed to have a breezy confidence and directness that attracted people who did not know what he was really like. They have now found out.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Clement Attlee, the Labour Prime Minister in the postwar government who founded the welfare state, had a saying: “The People’s flag is palest pink.” No British electorate will vote for full socialism. Attlee got far closer than anyone since, capitalising (haha) on the degree of state control everyone had got used to during the war. Even the road haulage industry was nationalised! The next Conservative government undid some of that but the welfare state was kept. Unlike most European democracies in the post war period, Britain has never had more than 2 ( I think?) Communist members of parliament. The British do not like grand ideologies or extremism.

Yeah, the UK seems to me to have a mixture of capitalistic and socialistic elements in its economy rather than fully going in either direction—although even what it currently has would probably called "communism" or "socialism" by some Republican politicians nowadays.

I'm a bit surprised regarding Brits' stance on grand ideologies, since I had the impression that Thatcher had a grand ideology (which some would probably see as extreme) with a lot of promised and, later, implemented changes, for better or worse. I should probably read more on how she got to become PM and what her main appeal was.

Bozo lied in 2019, as he did about Brexit and as he does about just about everything. If he told you it was Tuesday you would need to check your calendar. The 2 most appealing lies were:

(1) that he would “get Brexit done”, which he didn’t, leaving behind a huge unresolved mess over Northern Ireland, which he tried to settle by lying to both parties affected, and

(2) that he would implement a policy of “levelling up” the country, to help the less prosperous North catch up with the South. He did nothing, of course.

But at the time he seemed to have a breezy confidence and directness that attracted people who did not know what he was really like. They have now found out.

Ah, the things politicians can make look attractive when they have strong communication skills.

Thanks a lot for these detailed answers. It's always nice to learn more.

 

[Rival]

I'm a bit surprised regarding Brits' stance on grand ideologies, since I had the impression that Thatcher had a grand ideology (which some would probably see as extreme) with a lot of promised and, later, implemented changes, for better or worse. I should probably read more on how she got to become PM and what her main appeal was.

I believe we, England, are the only country to reverse a revolution. We're very suspicious of Big Ideas

 

[exchemist]

Yeah, the UK seems to me to have a mixture of capitalistic and socialistic elements in its economy rather than fully going in either direction—although even what it currently has would probably called "communism" or "socialism" by some Republican politicians nowadays.

I'm a bit surprised regarding Brits' stance on grand ideologies, since I had the impression that Thatcher had a grand ideology (which some would probably see as extreme) with a lot of promised and, later, implemented changes, for better or worse. I should probably read more on how she got to become PM and what her main appeal was.



Ah, the things politicians can make look attractive when they have strong communication skills.

Thanks a lot for these detailed answers. It's always nice to learn more.

Thatcher, who I voted for, got the country out of a mess caused by troublemaking far left trade unions and terminally loss-making state owned industries. So yes she pulled the economy back from a more socialist position in the spectrum.

 

[exchemist]

I believe we, England, are the only country to reverse a revolution. We're very suspicious of Big Ideas

Spain?

 

[Rival]

Spain?

Did they? I didn't know that.

 

[exchemist]

Did they? I didn't know that.

They brought the monarchy back after Franco.

 

[Yerda]

Corbyn was an aberration. He became Labour's leader by accident, due to a tradition in the party of putting up a far left candidate who never wins. However Miliband had idiotically sought mass membership of Labour by enabling anyone to join for a couple of pounds - and then they got a vote in the party leadership election of course. So this was exploited by some far left groups and they managed to get lots of lefties to join and get Corbyn chosen, to everyone's shock and surprise, including his.

Corbyn is a fantasist and poseur, left over the from 1970s, whose animating principles seemed to be old-fashioned, quasi-Marxist socialism at home and knee-jerk anti-Americanism abroad. He was quite unsuitable as party leader and something of a national joke, unable to bring himself even to sing the national anthem. So inevitably a catastrophe at the polls. Starmer got him thrown out of the party, along with many of his faction.

The fact that a lukewarm socialist winning the leadership of the Labour Party was a massive shock shows how messed up UK politics is. He won by promising run-of-the-mill social democrat policy positions that have been common across Europe for decades.

The idea that a few dozen Trotskyist infiltrators managed to wrest control of the party is just silly. Corbyn also won a second leadership contest, where they party machine had blocked tens of thousands of people from voting, by an increased margin.

The reason was not that sneaky trots had stolen the party but that neoliberals had stolen it decades before and the membership were being offered the platform they wanted for a change.

And despite an all-channel screaming hysterical propaganda machine and the undermining from withing the Labour party, Corbyn very nearly won a general election. Not a catastrophe at all - and won more votes than any Labour leader since Blair's 2nd election. The party committments in the manifesto were a genuine attempt to set in motion a platform that would have changed the UK for the better and almost everyone everywhere agreed they were good plans.

Starmer, if you recall, sat in his shadow cabinet and supported him throughout his entire leadership. He also ran for the leadership on a platform of "I will do what Corbyn set out to do". Corbynism, but with a haircut and expensive suit.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Thatcher, who I voted for, got the country out of a mess caused by troublemaking far left trade unions and terminally loss-making state owned industries. So yes she pulled the economy back from a more socialist position in the spectrum.

I’m not sure that’s quite true. She presided over the change from a manufacturing to a service economy, at enormous social cost to those former industrial communities. Some years later, admittedly not on her watch, the service (banking) industry had to be bailed out by the taxpayer leaving us all substantially poorer.

 

[exchemist]

I’m not sure that’s quite true. She presided over the change from a manufacturing to a service economy, at enormous social cost to those former industrial communities. Some years later, admittedly not on her watch, the service (banking) industry had to be bailed out by the taxpayer leaving us all substantially poorer.

While what you say is undoubtedly true, it does not negate what I said about what she achieved. Those achievements were substantial.

She had a couple of really valuable ideas, and the character to implement them. But she missed the other half of the equation, the social half, though there were people in her government like Heseltine who understood that part (e.g. the Liverpool and London Docklands regeneration projects).

That's why we need to change governments periodically: one sorts out something that needs attention, but then you need to change to another team for the next problem. The Thatcherites had a good spanner, but no screwdriver, and they went on trying to fix everything with the same spanner. That's how we ended up with crap railways and water companies, and post-industrial dereliction in large areas of the country.

 

[exchemist]

The fact that a lukewarm socialist winning the leadership of the Labour Party was a massive shock shows how messed up UK politics is. He won by promising run-of-the-mill social democrat policy positions that have been common across Europe for decades.

The idea that a few dozen Trotskyist infiltrators managed to wrest control of the party is just silly. Corbyn also won a second leadership contest, where they party machine had blocked tens of thousands of people from voting, by an increased margin.

The reason was not that sneaky trots had stolen the party but that neoliberals had stolen it decades before and the membership were being offered the platform they wanted for a change.

And despite an all-channel screaming hysterical propaganda machine and the undermining from withing the Labour party, Corbyn very nearly won a general election. Not a catastrophe at all - and won more votes than any Labour leader since Blair's 2nd election. The party committments in the manifesto were a genuine attempt to set in motion a platform that would have changed the UK for the better and almost everyone everywhere agreed they were good plans.

Starmer, if you recall, sat in his shadow cabinet and supported him throughout his entire leadership. He also ran for the leadership on a platform of "I will do what Corbyn set out to do". Corbynism, but with a haircut and expensive suit.

Starmer is going to win by a landslide. Corbyn failed miserably. No further questions, m'lud.

 

[Lyndon]

Starmer is a right wing embarrassment to labour's tradition

 

[exchemist]

Starmer is a right wing embarrassment to labour's tradition

But he can win an election. At some point, people on the left have to decide between ideological purity, combined with permanent impotence as they will never be elected, or a messy and uncomfortable compromise with what the electrorate will vote for.

Sadly for the ideologues, we live in a democracy, you see.