markodaly wrote: » I was alive in the 70's and there is no way that the 70's were better than any of those years you mention. None.what.so.ever. Need I remind you that the IMF had to give the UK a loan to tie them over.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_IMF_Crisis That decade had its own term called 'The British Disease'.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_British_disease The thing about the 1970s was the malaise that set in. There was unprecedented government spending since the war and with that huge government inefficiencies and waste had built up that were never tackled or reformed. People knew that the party had come to an end but didn't know how to fix a broken system. Coal mines that had run dry still had to keep staff is one example of this waste. If the government of the day wanted to close a dry mine, there would be strikes in an attempt to bring down the government of the day. Unions ran the country, make no bones about that. Cabinet papers were sent to the powerful TUC for approval by the late 1970's and James Callaghan is on record saying.https://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/0809/kyungmook/kkmlog.html People have very very selective memories or indeed revise history to such an extent they leave out who chunk of it to suit a political narrative.
Real wages have been falling consistently since 2010, the longest period for 50 years, according to the Office for National Statistics, adding that low productivity growth seems to be pushing wages down. Real wage growth averaged 2.9% in the 1970s and 1980s, 1.5% in the 1990s, 1.2% in 2000s, but has fallen to minus 2.2% since the first quarter of 2010, the ONS figures showed.
Cryptopagan wrote: » Well, that's a bit of a non sequitur, but you are wrong about this too. Two Conservative leadership candidates are nominated by the parliamentary party, and put before the party membership, who then vote for the leader. May was elected without the poll of party members, however, as the only other challenger, Andrea Leadsom, withdrew.
Aegir wrote: » the conservative leader is elected by sitting MPs.
quokula wrote: » You seem to have missed the second half of that sentence which pointed out that in their only true electoral test they gained a swing in vote share that's unprecedented in the modern era. And that was in an election they were projected to lose 100+ seats in. They're currently projected to come out pretty much neck and neck with the Tories in another election and there's no reason to think they won't outperform those projections either, Labour make huge gains once election coverage laws kick in and the media are forced to cover their policies and not just endless unsubstantiated smears.
Harry Palmr wrote: » None of which counts for anything in practical politics. A lot of uni students signed up thanks to Momentum (Corbyns own cheerleading wing) but does anyone imagine they they are doing much to boost Labours chances at the next election as he goes directly against what they want - namely a second referendum and to remain.
Cryptopagan wrote: » You said it was only voters who were not full members (those that registered as supporters for a one off £3 payment) who gave Corbyn his win, which, as evidenced at the link provided, is nonsense. Perhaps you think members of a different party should elect the Labour leader, some party where membership costs more? Well not the Tories anyhow, they only pay £25 a year. The SNP? DUP maybe?
Joe_ Public wrote: » There’s a real sh!tty discussion taking place on politics live on bbc right now, concerning Angela Smith and her use of the phrase “a funny tinge” in a topic about race on yesterday’s show. It’s depressing that having missed the significance of it during the live screening, the bbc somehow manages to get it grievously wrong on their second go at it today. While what Smith said was clumsy and unfortunate, those watching clearly understood she wasn’t referring to any people of colour but to someone - actually white - another guest had referred to as “pink faced”. To discuss it without this crucial context is shockingly lax from the bbc. I’ve no cause with Smith or her colleagues but have sympathy with her in this instance. If this is best bbc can do, no wonder political discourse is in such a shocking state on these islands.
Cryptopagan wrote: » She said "black or a funny tinge", stumbled over her words, next tried "a different", before settling on "from the BME community" She was talking about people from the BME community who are not "black", and she was trying to find a term for them, and her first attempt was "a funny tinge".
quokula wrote: » Since Corbyn became leader, their membership has grown to become the largest party in Europe and at the only general election they fought they achieved their biggest swing in vote share since World War 2. That's a pretty strange definition of shrinking their base.
Aegir wrote: » full members that have to pay a massive £4.30 per month?
Cryptopagan wrote: » That's nonsense. His win was overwhelming among full members also.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-won-a-landslide-with-full-labour-party-members-not-just-3-supporters-10498221.html
Joe_ Public wrote: » Even Ash Sarkar, whom Smith was addressing, acknowledged the context I referred to in a Guardian article but continued to attack Smith anyway. It is clear that Smith realises instantly she has walked into a minefield and she’s stumbling there. If you watch the broadcast, it’s 99% clear she is trying to make a reference to Sarkar’s white relative and it immediately goes wrong. To think she would look at an Asian person on a panel and refer to her as “funny tinged” is absurd and I’m certain didn’t happen.
Aegir wrote: » Not that he was a prank, but the fact he only just managed to scrape a nomination and pretty much did so to make up the numbers and then went on to win by a landslide is down to a social media campaign where for £3 students could join the labour party and stick it to the man.
Cryptopagan wrote: » No, she said "it's not just about being black or a funny tinge [stumbles over her words] different, you know...from the BME community" How can that be interpreted as anything other than a reference to people of colour?
markodaly wrote: » Blaming is an easy game. One can blame Thatcher or Blair or whoever all you want, but it won't get Corbyn into power.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » The 70’s were better than the 2010’s and probably the 2000’s. I wasn’t alive then except for the last part but it was the tail end of 30-40 years of prosperity. The oil crisis was an external shock. Were unions too powerful? Maybe in some cases. There’s a lot of class hatred in Britain. Thatchers response eventually killed British industry and replaced it with a financial driven economy and fairly cheap services.
MrMusician18 wrote: » That's not quite accurate. Corbyn won for a couple of reasons: 1. Local associations and grass roots membership tend to be more extreme these days than the parliamentary party. This can be due to entryism and/or genuine shift of the party from the centre to the fringes. 2. The daft method in which Labour elect their leader, leaving them wide open to entryism. The massive expansion of Labour would point to the party being taken over rather than being invigorated. Corbyn wasn't a prank that got out of hand.
Aegir wrote: » Corbyn became party leader for pretty much the same reason the British Antartic Survey nearly had a ship called Boaty McBoatface, except no one had the option to veto this particular student prank. .
Havockk wrote: » How long is it going to take for you to accept that a dead horse can't be forced to do more work? .
"We are prostrate before you but don't ask us to put it in writing" - James Callaghan, the Labour Prime minister (1976-1979), to the TUC General Council.
Harry Palmr wrote: » Corbyn was the unexpected party leader, he was a professional back bencher with the luxury that gave him to rail against the establishment within his own party - now he is the establishment and has singularly failed to expand the base of Labour. Indeed it's clearly shrinking in the Brexit era. That the clusterfeck of Tory government is not being punished in the polls is down to him and him alone.
markodaly wrote: » Yes and No. Globalisation is a fact of life and would have been if Thatcher decided to ditch politics and stay in Grantham back in the 70's. The issue for the old school Marxists and Trotskyites that form the basis of Corbyn's support is how do you make sensible policy in a world of globalisation, free markets, and open trade? They seem to think its the 1970s again. Even the Chinese know what side their bread is buttered! Blaming is an easy game. One can blame Thatcher or Blair or whoever all you want, but it won't get Corbyn into power.
listermint wrote: » Who strangely enough..... want a second referendum. Thats mad isnt it
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » I can’t believe you call fairly minor socialist ideologies communist, but you did.
Havockk wrote: » The roots of the absolute mess we are all in right now go back to 1979. This is Thatcher's legacy, and I accept your point about Blair, all parties have to move with the times. However, Blair doubled down on the neo-liberalism which was to prove fatal. Then to have a Labour government bail out the capitalists at the expense of the workers? Now the prescription is what? More of the same? What was it Einstein said about insanity?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/284f2526e18ff7e4c08066f9ed850ed0.svg)
