ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (Updated 2021)... HERE

ANNOUNCEMENT : PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE NOT ON FACEBOOK AT ALL!

Corbyn

Got a question for a CWU Rep? And all CWU related matters.
Tman
Posts: 4144
Joined: 21 Oct 2007, 09:57

Corbyn

Post by Tman »

baldrick wrote:
Tman wrote:You keep posting these photo's like they're supposed to prove something.
Reminds me of the story of when Stalin took overall control, and had himself "added" beside Lenin in all the pics taken at rallies etc in the early years, then had to go over it again later and have Trotsky, Beria etc taken out.
Propaganda via pictures, and as everyone knows, the camera never ever lies..... :whistle
And if you think the Nottingham Post is like Pravda you need a reality check.
I never said it was; I was attempting (in vain, it seems) to make the point that photo's don't prove "support",show the "truth" or anything else, so why post them?
A pic of Old Trafford celebrating a win when Van Gaal was in charge doesn't show that the crowd were satisfied with his leadership, any more than a load of people listening to the Old Fraud Corbyn are happy that the future is oblivion with him in charge.
Actually I agree with your statement re Owen Smith being worse than useless too, but then the Labour Party should be better than to use the similar RM policy of picking the "least worst" candidate for the job.
I'm just amazed that posters like you and dear old Jet can't see that Corbyn has "loser" written though him like a stick of rock; everything from his slouching "I'm not really that interested" demeanour and monotone voice, to his sad choice of 1970s "student activist" hats, and from his ridiculous utterances on just about anything he's ever been asked about to his shambolic non-handling of the Keith Vazeline affair...he's just incompetent.
Of course when May and the rest of her bunch really get in their inevitable Tory stride (totally disregarding the tossers across the floor in the Commons) and start making in-roads in to everything from worker's rights to the Welfare State all the good old "I'm a socialist and I like JC I do" will start squealing like stuck pigs but it'll be too late by far. F*cked by their own navel-gazing adherence to long-dead and unpopular policies from way back when flares and Jimmy Osmond were still all the rage..
dvbuk55
EX ROYAL MAIL
Posts: 16650
Joined: 02 Jun 2007, 19:17
Gender: Male

Corbyn

Post by dvbuk55 »

Tman wrote:non-handling of the Keith Vazeline affair...he's just incompetent...
:chuckle :chuckle :chuckle Liking the Vazeline remark and of course the non-handling - especially after what he's been up to :cuppa

Looking to the future is he ever going to take on Theresa and her gang on Brexit, grammar schools, immigration policy he doesn't have a clue.
Danelectro
Posts: 1058
Joined: 13 Apr 2008, 01:02

Corbyn

Post by Danelectro »

Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable. We know this because the ideas he espouses were emphatically rejected in the 1983 general election. His youthful supporters are ignorant of history. Labour will be obliterated if it moves left, just like 1983. It will be an act of political suicide, just like 1983. It will be an apocalypse, there will be fire and brimstone, humans will be wiped out and the world itself will explode – just like 1983.

That’s a précis of every anti-Corbyn op-ed and every has-been politician’s warning, repeated over and over again from the moment opinion polls signalled that something was going on in the Labour leadership contest.

MYTH: Labour lost the 1983 election because it was too left wing

But Labour didn’t lose in 1983 because it was too left wing; rather, Thatcher won because of the Falklands War. The ‘Falklands factor’ could not be clearer from opinion polls. Prior to the war of April-June 1982, the Conservative Party was slumped at a consistent 27 per cent throughout late 1981, with a slight recovery in early 1982. But the Tories’ popularity shot up spectacularly with the war, hitting 51 per cent in May and remaining above 40 per cent right through to the general election. Labour under Michael Foot supported the government’s Falklands action; the Tory boost was not because Labour was anti-war.

These days, Tony Blair insists that ‘Those of us who lived through the turmoil of the ‘80s know every line of [Corbyn’s] script. These are policies from the past that were rejected not because they were too principled, but because a majority of the British people thought they didn’t work.’ But at the time, according to the journalist Michael Cockerell, Blair drew a different lesson, as he reportedly told Robin Cook: ‘The thing I learned… is that wars make prime ministers popular.’

It’s easy to see how he came to that tragic conclusion. Before the Falklands, Thatcher was the most unpopular prime minister since records began. But immediately after it, in June 1982, she scored the highest satisfaction rating she would ever achieve with 59 per cent approval. Thatcher wrote in her memoirs: ‘It is no exaggeration to say that the outcome of the Falklands War transformed the British political scene… The so-called “Falklands factor”… was real enough. I could feel the impact of the victory wherever I went.’

A fawning media began to build a ‘Maggie’ personality cult. She dominated the 1983 election campaign – ‘The issue is Thatcher,’ declared the Economist; ‘Now is the hour. Maggie is the man,’ said the Express.

The Falklands War took place against the background of an economy that had begun to recover from a sharp, self-inflicted recession. Although the effects of Thatcher’s disastrous early economic policy were still being felt, the Conservatives were clever in linking the statistical upturn and the war as part of a grand narrative claiming that Thatcher had reversed Britain’s national and imperial decline. ‘The years of retreat are over,’ said Nigel Lawson, commenting on the Falklands. ‘And exactly the same is true in the economic and industrial sphere.’

MYTH: The split in the Labour Party was the left’s fault

Although the ‘Falklands factor’ was probably enough to win the election for the Conservatives, their victory was assured by the split anti-Tory vote. In 1981 Labour right-wingers broke off to form the Social Democratic Party (SDP). Under first-past-the-post the SDP won a negligible six seats in 1983, despite a strong showing in the popular vote. But the effect of the new party was to hand marginal constituencies to the Tories, who won 65 more seats despite receiving 700,000 fewer votes than they had secured in the previous election.

Conventional political unwisdom blames this on the left. The Labour right broke away ‘because the left wing of the party, people like Tony Benn, had taken over the party, dragged it to the left and made it completely unelectable,’ said the Huffington Post’s political reporter Owen Bennett in a recent debate with Owen Jones on Sky News. ‘You’ve only got to look at history, I don’t understand why you’re blaming the right of the party,’ he exclaimed.

Aside from the obvious point that the Labour left has endured many years of right dominance without splitting, Bennett’s interpretation would be considered superficial even by Roy Jenkins, the driving force behind the SDP, who wrote in his memoirs that the new party was a reaction to the Wilson-Callaghan government, and a move he had been considering since 1974. ‘While the subsequent and already foreseeable excesses of Bennery both justified and made easier our breakaway action,’ he wrote, ‘they were not the basic cause of the social democratic revolt, which came earlier and went deeper.’

If we really ‘look at history’ we see that the post-war consensus had broken down as the economic terrain on which it was built had shifted. The SDP, Labour’s move to the left and the Tories’ move to the right were the political consequences.

MYTH: The left made Labour unpopular

Labour faces the wrath of the media and the establishment whenever it moves an inch leftwards. Inevitably that scares some voters away. So here’s a surprising result: the high water mark for the Labour left – the point by which it had apparently rendered the party ‘completely unelectable’ – was the October 1980 party conference. At that time, amid a press onslaught against Benn, Labour’s poll lead was a massive 50 per cent to the Tories’ 36.

Labour still enjoyed an advantage of 42 per cent to 28 a year later when Benn narrowly lost a deputy leadership contest to Denis Healey. But from then on the left was in decline – along with Labour’s poll ratings. In September 1982 Benn said in his diaries: ‘Compared to last year, when the left was riding high with successes everywhere, this year the left is very much tail-between-legs.’ By February 1983 he was ‘very, very depressed’.

Of course a correlation between the wane of the left and the party’s fall in the polls doesn’t mean the two were linked. The public was not avidly following the twists and turns of Labour’s internal democracy. But if left supremacy alone is supposed to make Labour less popular, this chronology provides no evidence for it.

It might be objected that Labour’s 1983 manifesto contained many left policies, and that Labour lost support between its publication and the ballot. But it’s unlikely that the manifesto – which, as always, few people actually read – had more impact in those final weeks than hostile press coverage, a shambolically run election campaign, and the fact that Michael Foot had a popularity rating of just 24 per cent, apparently due to his choice of jacket.

MYTH: Labour could have won if it had moved to the right

For those who assert that Labour’s left programme cost it the 1983 election, it must follow that the party could have won had it moved right. We have test cases for this. Labour moved significantly rightwards for the 1987 election – and lost. It fought the 1992 election from a position still further to the right – and lost again. It took until 1997 for the ‘modernisers’ to be ‘proved’ correct, and only once the Tories had been stripped of all credibility by the ERM debacle, endless scandals, infighting and John Major.

The insistence that Labour lost the 1983 election because it was too left wing ignores the facts and the context. The lazy parallels between 1983 and today vanish on inspection.

A.NUNN
Tman
Posts: 4144
Joined: 21 Oct 2007, 09:57

Corbyn

Post by Tman »

That old A Nunn eh?
Who??
Look hard enough on the 'Net and you can find an article which goes along with want you want to hear, but that doesn't make it accurate or some sort of "Proof" that you're right.
If anyone believes that Foot/Kinnock lost elections due to military action by some bullying South American snot-ball country handing the incumbent PM a feel-good bounce then good luck to them.
I suppose blaming the electoral defeat on external and uncontrollable events saves too much blame being apportioned where it was due.
What will the Old Fraud's excuse be?
"They clearly didn't vote for me because the Brexit events made them feel good..."etc etc?
fishtank
Posts: 19732
Joined: 28 Sep 2007, 17:22
Gender: Male

Corbyn

Post by fishtank »

What happened in 1983 is largely immaterial.
What matters is what is happening now.

Nobody who supports Corbyn can answer the basic questions.

How does a leader lead when no one wants to follow, he's the leader of the PLP after all, that's his primary role, not the messiah of the membership.

How does he engage the millions of voters who don't particularly want radical change, who don't particularly buy into the anti-austerity message, who have jobs and mortgages and don't want to risk all that on some grand vision of a socialist alternative?

There are some facts out there, Corbyn's personal approval rating is atrocious, the Labour party's potential share of the vote is dropping off the scale, these are not part of a right wing conspiracy, this is cold hard reality.

If as expected Corbyn wins what plan is there to turn that around and talk of building a "mass movement" is laughable, what is a mass movement, is that something like a political party?
good times, bad times you know I've had my share
Danelectro
Posts: 1058
Joined: 13 Apr 2008, 01:02

Corbyn

Post by Danelectro »

fishtank wrote:
Nobody who supports Corbyn can answer the basic questions.
1)Its not about Corbyn
2)the basic questuons are easily answered
Danelectro
Posts: 1058
Joined: 13 Apr 2008, 01:02

Corbyn

Post by Danelectro »

Tman wrote:That old A Nunn eh?
Who??
Look hard enough on the 'Net and you can find an article which goes along with want you want to hear, but that doesn't make it accurate or some sort of "Proof" that you're right.
If anyone believes that Foot/Kinnock lost elections due to military action by some bullying South American snot-ball country handing the incumbent PM a feel-good bounce then good luck to them.
I suppose blaming the electoral defeat on external and uncontrollable events saves too much blame being apportioned where it was due.
What will the Old Fraud's excuse be?
"They clearly didn't vote for me because the Brexit events made them feel good..."etc etc?
Are you on some sort of medication because thats like something scrawled on a bathroom mirror.
dvbuk55
EX ROYAL MAIL
Posts: 16650
Joined: 02 Jun 2007, 19:17
Gender: Male

Corbyn

Post by dvbuk55 »

The fact of the matter is no left wing labour party has been elected in my living memory. Corbynistas may decry the Tony Blair years but labour held power for 13 consecutive years, put into power by labour supporters who aligned themselves to the policies of the day.

In 1983, Labour go into the election on its most left wing manifesto. 27.6% of the vote was won. History is there to teach us, to prevent us from making the same mistakes. Yes, Labour is a left wing party, but it is also the only party who has a chance at removing the Tories from government. So I suggest its time to climb out of the bubble many Corbyn supporters seem to be in and accept that the UK is a conservative country thus moving to the left in opposition is not how you win an election.

As a matter of interest labour lost over 50 seats and the Tories had a majority of almost 100 seats in 1983. Now if that scenario was to be revisited in the next election just imagine how rampant the Tories would be on changes to working practices, benefits, zero hour contracts and any other whim that took their fancy to the detriment of the people. So even if labour lose they would need a strong opposition to prevent those things from happening.
Tman
Posts: 4144
Joined: 21 Oct 2007, 09:57

Corbyn

Post by Tman »

Danelectro wrote:
Tman wrote:That old A Nunn eh?
Who??
Look hard enough on the 'Net and you can find an article which goes along with want you want to hear, but that doesn't make it accurate or some sort of "Proof" that you're right.
If anyone believes that Foot/Kinnock lost elections due to military action by some bullying South American snot-ball country handing the incumbent PM a feel-good bounce then good luck to them.
I suppose blaming the electoral defeat on external and uncontrollable events saves too much blame being apportioned where it was due.
What will the Old Fraud's excuse be?
"They clearly didn't vote for me because the Brexit events made them feel good..."etc etc?
Are you on some sort of medication because thats like something scrawled on a bathroom mirror.
As ripostes go, that's pretty weak.
I'd have expected something more substantial. Maybe you'll have to research what A Nunn wrote when anyone questioned his little treatise on "who to blame when the Left gets it's usual kicking in the polls"?
Could come in handy.... :hmmmm
fishtank
Posts: 19732
Joined: 28 Sep 2007, 17:22
Gender: Male

Corbyn

Post by fishtank »

Danelectro wrote:
fishtank wrote:
Nobody who supports Corbyn can answer the basic questions.
1)Its not about Corbyn
2)the basic questuons are easily answered
It is about Corbyn, it's a leadership contest and he's contesting it.

If the basic questions are easily answered why is Corbyn making such a poor job of a) leading the PLP and b) engaging with the vast majority of the voting public.

Is he f***ing it up deliberately?
Is this just a big laugh for him?

If I was into tin foil hats and conspiracy theories I would wonder if he was some kind of Tory sleeper agent planted to dismantle the socialist movement from the inside because that's exactly what he's doing. Instead of convincing moderates that socialism can be a sensible,, intelligent, coherent and viable alternative to the status quo we've been transported back to the 1970s where anyone not wearing a donkey jacket and spouting on about neol-iberal conspiracies is labelled a right-wing sell out.

It's f***ing embarrassing and I'm still waiting for those easily answered questions...being answered.
good times, bad times you know I've had my share
jetblack
Posts: 974
Joined: 15 Apr 2011, 12:54
Gender: Male

Corbyn

Post by jetblack »

fishtank wrote:
How does he engage the millions of voters who don't particularly want radical change, who don't particularly buy into the anti-austerity message, who have jobs and mortgages and don't want to risk all that on some grand vision of a socialist alternative?
No FT - you don't particularly want radical change. But I'd say that the general "zeitgeist" is one of wanting change. This is not only occurring in this country but also in other parts of Europe and in the US. I'm thinking of Scotland, of Syriza, of Bernie Sanders (and, yes, even Donald Trump), of a society where the already huge gulf between the haves and have nots has become obscenely large - even under Labour Governments

That is the whole point - that you lot seem to be missing completely.


Your argument is 10 or 15 years old - it might have held some water then. But it doesn't today. The soft left establishment cohorts have failed. We've been there, done that and got the tee shirt. It hasn't worked. It has failed us. They have had their day. Your solutions have been tried - and they've failed.

And all you lot seem to want is more of the same :arrrghhh

Things have moved on. The internet has happened - the credit crunch has happened. The Brexit has happened. The blockchain has happened. China has happened.

Lets give social justice a try for once. Lets build a society where we are all encouraged to participate - and so share responsibility. Because thus far in my life these things have not been tried yet. They are banging on at the minute about schooling again and wanting to build a meritocracy. LOL. How in Christs name are you going to manage that when the number of people that own this country could all be seated in a single double decker bus. Lets start addressing that. For once.
Whoops - there I go again - sounding like a Trot pinko corbynista commie :roll:
Danelectro wrote: Are you on some sort of medication because thats like something scrawled on a bathroom mirror.
Danelectro - don't feed the trolls mate.
Image
Good security means trying to limit the damage a Trusted role can do
fishtank
Posts: 19732
Joined: 28 Sep 2007, 17:22
Gender: Male

Corbyn

Post by fishtank »

If the overall "zeitgeist" is for change why do we have a Tory government that against all odds secured a majority?
Why do they have such a commanding lead in the polls?
Why is Corbyn so unpopular with the general public?

There is no evidence that people want radical change, if you ask them they'll always want something a little bit fairer but not if it risks their own personal status quo. It's human nature jet, look out your window and seriously ask yourself how many of your neighbours would man the barricades, go into work and think about how many of your colleagues would risk their own security to vote for radical change.
good times, bad times you know I've had my share
jetblack
Posts: 974
Joined: 15 Apr 2011, 12:54
Gender: Male

Corbyn

Post by jetblack »

fishtank wrote:If the overall "zeitgeist" is for change why do we have a Tory government that against all odds secured a majority?
I think it was Danelectro mentioned the fact that the tories got in on 1/4 of the electorate voting for them.
Meanwhile the other 75% don't know where the f**k to turn. The disillusionment with the political process and the political class is unprecedented. Jeremy Corbyn has to be understood in this context.
fishtank wrote:.... if you ask them they'll always want something a little bit fairer but not if it risks their own personal status quo. It's human nature jet, look out your window and seriously ask yourself how many of your neighbours would man the barricades, go into work and think about how many of your colleagues would risk their own security to vote for radical change.
I agree to an extent. But thats how people behave when they are bereft of any credible alternative - which I will state, again, we haven't thus far had.
People are capable of great things - but we need to foster an environment of participation, of empowering people, of giving them work, of treating them like they are actually worth something.
Then I think you'd be surprised at what people can achieve.
They need to be able to believe in something bigger, in something great. Thats what religion has been for. But even thats gone now. Capitalism isn't able to fill the void. But TPTB don't care too much about moral vacuums - they are hedging their bets on this world being all there is :wink:
Good security means trying to limit the damage a Trusted role can do
Danelectro
Posts: 1058
Joined: 13 Apr 2008, 01:02

Corbyn

Post by Danelectro »

dvbuk55 wrote:The fact of the matter is no left wing labour party has been elected in my living memory. Corbynistas may decry the Tony Blair years but labour held power for 13 consecutive years, put into power by labour supporters who aligned themselves to the policies of the day.

In 1983, Labour go into the election on its most left wing manifesto. 27.6% of the vote was won. History is there to teach us, to prevent us from making the same mistakes. Yes, Labour is a left wing party, but it is also the only party who has a chance at removing the Tories from government. So I suggest its time to climb out of the bubble many Corbyn supporters seem to be in and accept that the UK is a conservative country thus moving to the left in opposition is not how you win an election.

As a matter of interest labour lost over 50 seats and the Tories had a majority of almost 100 seats in 1983. Now if that scenario was to be revisited in the next election just imagine how rampant the Tories would be on changes to working practices, benefits, zero hour contracts and any other whim that took their fancy to the detriment of the people. So even if labour lose they would need a strong opposition to prevent those things from happening.
Good job you got a decent pension from Royal Mail then which after 30 years of privatisation and Tory /Labour economic consensus has not been available to new starts in Royal Mail for over 6 years now

The zero hour/working practices Tory Armageddon you envisage above has already happened pal and beleive it or not your great leader Tony Blair campaigned in the general election of 1997 promising to end zero hour contracts but I guess he must have got distracted by something in Office.

I'm sure Atlee and Wilson would be scratching there heads at the 13 years of Tony Blair New Labour policies as much as the millions of voters who left Labour after the 1997 landslide and since then wiped themselves out in Scotland.
k979aaa
Posts: 12578
Joined: 03 Sep 2007, 19:14
Gender: Male
Location: THE NORTH

Corbyn

Post by k979aaa »

Well Corbyn has always been an anti establishment politician but the big factor is how far is the electorate of the UK changed and given the whole 2008 failure of the capitalist system that was saved by our government intervention at the time! Now the core vote of labour was split by the green party and other socialist groups and the Lib Dem's also known as the CONDEM'S now the factor of these so called party's have been dissolved only TWO can win. Most people who voted for the conservatives in the early 80's were the new so called middle class of their time much like Mondeo Man of the 90's voted for the NEW LABOUR party which was as right wing as thatcher. Most now want change for a better world for all not just the few this feeling is not just in the UK but a general dissatisfaction of the whole Capitalist system and all it's beneficiary cohorts and a system of which 99% of the wealth of the world is owned by 1% of the very few who look to subjugate the rest for their own gain! Time for a change is long overdue we need too rid this whole capitalist system and now.