The labour Leader thread...

I think they're just being cautious. Ideas need to become policy. Policy needs to then be tested before the public hears the specifics. It takes time. The surest way to end their 'movement' would be to say too much, too soon and with too little thought going in to the specifics.

It's worth baring in mind who the new Labour leadership are - a ragtag bunch of disparate but capable MPs who you wouldn't, under normal circumstances, see in a room together. That doesn't mean it won't work - there's some very capable people in the shadow cabinet - but it will take time for them to build a cohesive plan. Until then, expecting specifics is pointless - only an idiot would try and give them to you.
 
satchef1 said:
I think they're just being cautious. Ideas need to become policy. Policy needs to then be tested before the public hears the specifics. It takes time. The surest way to end their 'movement' would be to say too much, too soon and with too little thought going in to the specifics.

It's worth baring in mind who the new Labour leadership are - a ragtag bunch of disparate but capable MPs who you wouldn't, under normal circumstances, see in a room together. That doesn't mean it won't work - there's some very capable people in the shadow cabinet - but it will take time for them to build a cohesive plan. Until then, expecting specifics is pointless - only an idiot would try and give them to you.
Click to expand...

True enough but on the other hand they are very quick to call policies bad, call people out for not "straight talking", etc. which without presenting alternatives of their own is quickly going to lose them credibility and doesn't give the impression they've moved on from plain old Labour rhetoric.
 
Maybe. The alternative is certainly worse though. We saw a bit of that with Ed Miliband - the flip/flopping, the flexible policy that changed with the wind. Whether that was true or not, it's the picture that was painted. It's not a situation the Corbyn team need to find themselves in - they're having problems with infighting as it is.

I don't think they're playing this wrong at all. The general election is four years away. People will forget the current lack of specifics quite easily. What they won't forget is badly thought out policy that damages the Corbyn team's credibility. The Corbyn team can't afford to put a foot wrong. Too many inside and outside of the Labour Party are actively hoping they will fail, looking for any opportunity to undermine their credibility. The dangers associated with making a mistake cannot be understated.
 
Last edited:
satchef1 said:
Maybe. The alternative is certainly worse though. We saw a bit of that with Ed Miliband - the flip/flopping, the flexible policy that changed with the wind. Whether that was true or not, it's the picture that was painted. It's not a situation the Corbyn team need to find themselves in - they're having problems with infighting as it is.

I don't think they're playing this wrong at all. The general election is four years away. People will forget the current lack of specifics quite easily. What they won't forget is badly thought out policy that damages the Corbyn team's credibility. The Corbyn team can't afford to put a foot wrong. Too many inside and outside of the Labour Party are actively hoping they will fail, looking for any opportunity to undermine their credibility. The dangers associated with making a mistake cannot be understated.
Click to expand...

See that first bit is the impression I'm getting - they seem to be saying what they think people want to hear without necessarily having any intention of implementing it and while you have a point that it wouldn't be a smart thing for them to do to commit to something this early on its looks a lot like old Labour while they are talking about a "new" way of doing politics :S and I'm surprised so many people seem to be buying into it already.
 
Rroff said:
See that first bit is the impression I'm getting - they seem to be saying what they think people want to hear without necessarily having any intention of implementing it and while you have a point that it wouldn't be a smart thing for them to do to commit to something this early on its looks a lot like old Labour while they are talking about a "new" way of doing politics :S and I'm surprised so many people seem to be buying into it already.
Click to expand...

I've never been a labour supporter, being much more aligned to the Liberal Democrats on most policies. Saying that Corbyn and McDonnell have been interesting in their statements, but like you I think it massively lacks substance. In particular, claims such as getting back the £120bn on corporate tax "dodging" is in my view misguided or unworkable without some kind of detail. It's easy to use HMRC's tax gap to say this will fill the gaps, it's a completely different matter to give something tangible that would actually work.
 
OldCoals said:
Good speech so far.
Click to expand...

I thought it was pretty poor to be fair.. not particularly well structured and didn't really 'talk' to anyone outside of the labour party.. went down well in the room and I suspect with the activists.. but only really confirmed my thoughts to be honest that Labour are no longer a voting option which is a shame as I am loathed to vote Tory..

I actually thought Tim Farrons party speech was a lot better just hopeful libs can get some traction is a real opportunity for them at the moment.
 
elmarko said:
Personally, I think we should move to a much cheaper land & sea surface based deterrent as we maintain the theoretical benefits but not the ruinous costs or trident.
Click to expand...

/Facepalm

The reason we downsized to just the subs is because the cost of keeping nuclear bombers in the air 24/7 is ruinous, land based is pointless for a country this tiny because a first strike would wipe out any response, and sea surface is too easy to find/destroy.

With the subs an enemy could obliterate the entire UK and they would still be obliterated in response by subs they cannot locate.
 
Pudney said:
I've never been a labour supporter, being much more aligned to the Liberal Democrats on most policies. Saying that Corbyn and McDonnell have been interesting in their statements, but like you I think it massively lacks substance. In particular, claims such as getting back the £120bn on corporate tax "dodging" is in my view misguided or unworkable without some kind of detail. It's easy to use HMRC's tax gap to say this will fill the gaps, it's a completely different matter to give something tangible that would actually work.
Click to expand...

Yeah that was my thoughts on the tax thing, its one thing to see the money there another to obtain it, companies will just change how they operate, move business elsewhere, etc. and the actual amount obtained will be a fraction of that number.
 
Justice Secretary Michael Gove says,

The Labour leader’s policies to borrow more, print money and put up taxes on people’s jobs and incomes would wreck our economy. That would weaken our nation’s defences, damage our NHS and hurt our country’s working people – with the poorest hit the most."
Click to expand...

LOL, programmed robots much? :D I find the last bit ironic, Tories and their policies is what is hitting the poorest the most.
 
satchef1 said:
I don't really get the problem :confused:
Click to expand...

There is no problem, the very same MSM trying to get back at him after he had a go at them during his speech.

Speechwriter Richard Heller wrote the passages and they were offered to previous Labour leader Ed Miliband, but not used.

Mr Heller told the BBC he had written to Mr Corbyn shortly after he became leader, and was "surprised" and "very glad" it had been used.

Mr Corbyn's office informed him it would be used on Tuesday afternoon, he added.
Click to expand...
 
I like the way all debate on Trident has been stiffled. Canned. Gagged. in the party. So much for democracy.

Moses said:
If Corbyn wants rid of Trident, but promises to protect the jobs of people who'd be screwed by that happening... how much would they actually save? And how would he protect their jobs?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with saving money and everything to do with ideology.
 
Last edited:
satchef1 said:
....

I don't think they're playing this wrong at all. The general election is four years away. People will forget the current lack of specifics quite easily. What they won't forget is badly thought out policy that damages the Corbyn team's credibility. The Corbyn team can't afford to put a foot wrong. Too many inside and outside of the Labour Party are actively hoping they will fail, looking for any opportunity to undermine their credibility. The dangers associated with making a mistake cannot be understated.
Click to expand...
There's certainly some ttuth in that, and the election is indeed several years off, so a fully detailed policy platform would be a mistake.

But there's also a problem. Politics abhors a vacuum. Right now, other than Corbynites, most people know little about Corbyn, and nothing at all about McDonnell. They have to get out there with the broad thrust of policy direction, and right quick, because the first couple of months will define them. If they don't define themselves, the press will do it for them and judging by the coverage to date, it will not be kind.

First impressions matter. And stick. Once made, they're very tough to shift. And Corbyn etc do not have much longer to make them.

And here's another problem. JC is currently punting the idea that it's all about involving the grass roots, having a debate, reaching out, etc. Well, true, to a point. But the country needs a leader, not a polite, soft-spoken head of debating committee. He doesn't have to act like Stalin, but he does have to show he has what it takes to lead and, when necessary, take decisions and then deal with being responsible for them. Like, how to respond to an emergency, because he wants to park his butt at the desk with the "buck stops here" sign on it.

As for him needing time, well, he's been moaning and bitching about many issues, like Trident, for decades. I'd say he's had plenty of time to think of his alternative policy stance. No, he knows what he wants but doesn't know how to get it past his party, or at least, not past the parliamentary party, never mind the shadow cabinet, a number of whom would be likely to resign, including his defence minister.
 
Before someone inevitably suggests we scrap Trident in favour of nuclear armed cruise missiles...

Cruise missiles are nothing more than small unmanned aircraft that can and do get shot down by peasants with rifles, plus they are relatively slow. It would take well over an hour for one to get to, say, Tehran when launched from the Gulf. Not that we'd be able to do that. Plenty of time for our theoretical mad mullah to get out of harms way after doing whatever he did to incur our displeasure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom