Labour Party leadership election 2015

[Blair]

Labour's policies in the 1960s were actually to the right of Corbyn, certainly in terms of defence. In some areas, Corbyn is actually to the left of the 1983 manifesto, which was still committed to NATO membership.

This may be a daft question, but why is Britain becoming neutral seen as such an extreme position? You are on the edge of Europe and face no serious security threats, so you could "afford" it better than most. Is it clinging on to past glory via the special relationship with the US?

Also, why is there (seemingly) no right wing isolationist opposition to NATO? Are all of UKIP and the Europhobic part of the Tories pro-Atlantic?

Well part of it is that for about a year we were the only country in Europe facing down the Nazis, and took much of the brunt of the war. Combined with our post WW2 role in NATO, our fighting in Korea and the Falklands war we've always valued NATO as an important part of our defense.

Even post cold war it's still played a role for us-Gulf War, Kosovo and Afghanistan. The screw up after 2003 in Afghanistan disguised that in 2001 we actually did the right thing in attacking Al-Qaeda, it's often overlooked and I know I sound like an awful hawk but 9/11 and 7/7 show that terrorism is actually a major threat for us.

I actually agree with Miliband's foreign policy because it supported the good (Palestine vote, Libya intervention) and opposed the bad (Syria 2013) The problem was that he couldn't challenge the ghost of Iraq and didn't make a major foreign policy speech until well the election campaign. Corbyn's foreign policy is laughable, I mean he basically thinks that everything NATO has done since 1990 is evil, and the world would be a better place if he committed our self to being a party of peace.

[Silent Hunter]

He was opposed to the 1991 Gulf War I believe.

[Phony Moderate]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HaPvHJyNWs#action=share

[Blair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HaPvHJyNWs#action=share

The people's flag is a palest pink!

[Phony Moderate]

Oh dear, another intervention from the Saint: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34100741

Tip for him: If you don't Corbyn to win, endorse him.

[Gustaf]

Did anyone see the Newsnight focus groups last night? They were basically the full versions that were in the Buzzfeed article I mentioned earlier

Didn't one of them say that Corbyn's policies are right out of the 60s? Lol, as if that decade wasn't far better to live in than the current one (for the average Brit, anyway). Most of the policies were better too.

That's offensive nonsense.

[Gustaf]

Did anyone see the Newsnight focus groups last night? They were basically the full versions that were in the Buzzfeed article I mentioned earlier

Didn't one of them say that Corbyn's policies are right out of the 60s? Lol, as if that decade wasn't far better to live in than the current one (for the average Brit, anyway). Most of the policies were better too.

1. Abortion was illegal
2. Life expectancy was about a decade shorter
3. Homosexuality was illegal

Yeah, if only we could return to the good old days, eh?

[Phony Moderate]

Did anyone see the Newsnight focus groups last night? They were basically the full versions that were in the Buzzfeed article I mentioned earlier

Didn't one of them say that Corbyn's policies are right out of the 60s? Lol, as if that decade wasn't far better to live in than the current one (for the average Brit, anyway). Most of the policies were better too.

1. Abortion was illegal
2. Life expectancy was about a decade shorter
3. Homosexuality was illegal

Yeah, if only we could return to the good old days, eh?

England won the World Cup, which is obviously far more important than any of those facts. Anyway, I was of course speaking in the spur of the moment, though the tide did of course begin to turn on those issues (and quite a few others) during the decade.

[Silent Hunter]

1. Abortion was illegal
2. Life expectancy was about a decade shorter
3. Homosexuality was illegal

Yeah, if only we could return to the good old days, eh?

I would point out that 1 and 3 were both legalised under the Wilson government.

[Hnv1]

Any candidate talked about football already? safe standing and how to create a fairer EPL? I have quite a few mates who regard this policies as important (I swear!)

[jaichind]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/17d42d9c-4f00-11e5-8642-453585f2cfcd.html#axzz3kIrGrn00

"Tony Blair has stepped up his criticism of Jeremy Corbyn, warning Labour members that the left-wing leadership candidate represents “Alice in Wonderland” politics."

It seems that Blair must want Corbyn to win.  Everything he does something like this it only just adds momentum for Corbyn. 

[BundouYMB]

1. Abortion was illegal
2. Life expectancy was about a decade shorter
3. Homosexuality was illegal

Yeah, if only we could return to the good old days, eh?

I would point out that 1 and 3 were both legalised under the Wilson government.

I would point out that people who weren't straight white males still had a much worse time of it (and that blanket nostalgia for sixty, seventy, eighty years ago is the reason why certain segments of the lefty-left [which I'm not saying you're a member of mind] remain entirely male and white and are so totally unsuccessful.)

[Phony Moderate]

Denis Healey turns 98 today.

[Leftbehind]

1. Abortion was illegal
2. Life expectancy was about a decade shorter
3. Homosexuality was illegal

Yeah, if only we could return to the good old days, eh?

I would point out that 1 and 3 were both legalised under the Wilson government.

I would point out that people who weren't straight white males still had a much worse time of it (and that blanket nostalgia for sixty, seventy, eighty years ago is the reason why certain segments of the lefty-left [which I'm not saying you're a member of mind] remain entirely male and white and are so totally unsuccessful.)

I would point out that when people accuse Corbyn of returning to the sixties, they're not referring to his social policies or attitudes, they're referring to his economics and support for the welfare state, so when people say they would happily return to that, it's a bit of a non sequitur to then bring up gay and women's rights.

As for your latter statement, Jeremy's support easily disproves that.

[Gustaf]

I was responding to the statement that the 60s was a better decade than the current one (which seems to have now been retracted, in fairness).

That the Wilson government fixed some of those things towards the end of the 60s is irrelevant to that claim.

Anyway, social policy aside, look at any decent metric of welfare and obviously people are better off now. Leftist radical nostalgia for poverty is annoying. I guess if you like poverty supporting Corbyn makes sense though.

[politicus]

I was responding to the statement that the 60s was a better decade than the current one (which seems to have now been retracted, in fairness).

That the Wilson government fixed some of those things towards the end of the 60s is irrelevant to that claim.

Anyway, social policy aside, look at any decent metric of welfare and obviously people are better off now. Leftist radical nostalgia for poverty is annoying. I guess if you like poverty supporting Corbyn makes sense though.

There are some long term happiness studies showing that the 60s were the decade when most of Western Europe reached the level where higher material wealth stopped making us happier. Since then material progress has not made the average person feel better.

When you are poor increased material wealth makes you feel a lot better, but this effect decrease when you reach higher levels and at some point more stuff and better living conditions stop adding to most peoples feeling of satisfaction with life.

The nostalgia is also not completely unfounded: Society was a lot more safe and sustainable back then. Local communities functioned better, crime was lower, unemployment lower, outsourcing unheard of etc. Farming was closer to being organic, traffic congestion lower etc. At the same time it was a culturally much more vibrant and exciting era than today.

So as a decade it had an adequate level of material wealth for most people, was culturally interesting and a lot of social and economic changes since then have simply not benefitted ordinary people.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would caution against nostalgia (because there are sh!tty things about every period), but it is a fact that the increases in material wealth in recent decades in Britain have not exactly been evenly distributed across society: actually the benefit has accrued almost entirely to the managerial classes and to private sector professionals. Living standards for working class people (however defined) in Britain peaked at some point in the 1970s: what good times there have been subsequently have been fueled by credit and government spending, subsequently when there have been bad times guess who has tended to bear the brunt of it. There's also a new dimension, and that is age. With the exception of the inevitable gilded minority, things are terrible for the young at present: this has been a major factor in galvanising support for Corbyn.

[Zanas]

I was responding to the statement that the 60s was a better decade than the current one (which seems to have now been retracted, in fairness).

That the Wilson government fixed some of those things towards the end of the 60s is irrelevant to that claim.

Anyway, social policy aside, look at any decent metric of welfare and obviously people are better off now. Leftist radical nostalgia for poverty is annoying. I guess if you like poverty supporting Corbyn makes sense though.

There are some long term happiness studies showing that the 60s were the decade when most of Western Europe reached the level where higher material wealth stopped making us happier. Since then material progress has not made the average person feel better.

When you are poor increased material wealth makes you feel a lot better, but this effect decrease when you reach higher levels and at some point more stuff and better living conditions stop adding to most peoples feeling of satisfaction with life.

The nostalgia is also not completely unfounded: Society was a lot more safe and sustainable back then. Local communities functioned better, crime was lower, unemployment lower, outsourcing unheard of etc. Farming was closer to being organic, traffic congestion lower etc. At the same time it was a culturally much more vibrant and exciting era than today.

So as a decade it had an adequate level of material wealth for most people, was culturally interesting and a lot of social and economic changes since then have simply not benefitted ordinary people.

^ This, more or less exactly. Not to mention the fact that the people did actually have some kind of an influence and a choice at the moment, you know, democratically speaking. That's all over now, of course.

[Phony Moderate]

I wonder what the size of the selectorate would have been if Corbyn had failed to make the ballot.

[Dan the Roman]

I was responding to the statement that the 60s was a better decade than the current one (which seems to have now been retracted, in fairness).

That the Wilson government fixed some of those things towards the end of the 60s is irrelevant to that claim.

Anyway, social policy aside, look at any decent metric of welfare and obviously people are better off now. Leftist radical nostalgia for poverty is annoying. I guess if you like poverty supporting Corbyn makes sense though.

There are some long term happiness studies showing that the 60s were the decade when most of Western Europe reached the level where higher material wealth stopped making us happier. Since then material progress has not made the average person feel better.

When you are poor increased material wealth makes you feel a lot better, but this effect decrease when you reach higher levels and at some point more stuff and better living conditions stop adding to most peoples feeling of satisfaction with life.

The nostalgia is also not completely unfounded: Society was a lot more safe and sustainable back then. Local communities functioned better, crime was lower, unemployment lower, outsourcing unheard of etc. Farming was closer to being organic, traffic congestion lower etc. At the same time it was a culturally much more vibrant and exciting era than today.

So as a decade it had an adequate level of material wealth for most people, was culturally interesting and a lot of social and economic changes since then have simply not benefitted ordinary people.

^ This, more or less exactly. Not to mention the fact that the people did actually have some kind of an influence and a choice at the moment, you know, democratically speaking. That's all over now, of course.

There also no immigrants/non-whites. You really can't deal with English 1960s nostalgia without the racial aspect. It is buried beneath every single one of those points. Democracy was real before the foreigners corrupted it, there was less traffic before all the immigrants came, housing was nicer and now look at East London etc

[Cassius]

I was responding to the statement that the 60s was a better decade than the current one (which seems to have now been retracted, in fairness).

That the Wilson government fixed some of those things towards the end of the 60s is irrelevant to that claim.

Anyway, social policy aside, look at any decent metric of welfare and obviously people are better off now. Leftist radical nostalgia for poverty is annoying. I guess if you like poverty supporting Corbyn makes sense though.

There are some long term happiness studies showing that the 60s were the decade when most of Western Europe reached the level where higher material wealth stopped making us happier. Since then material progress has not made the average person feel better.

When you are poor increased material wealth makes you feel a lot better, but this effect decrease when you reach higher levels and at some point more stuff and better living conditions stop adding to most peoples feeling of satisfaction with life.

The nostalgia is also not completely unfounded: Society was a lot more safe and sustainable back then. Local communities functioned better, crime was lower, unemployment lower, outsourcing unheard of etc. Farming was closer to being organic, traffic congestion lower etc. At the same time it was a culturally much more vibrant and exciting era than today.

So as a decade it had an adequate level of material wealth for most people, was culturally interesting and a lot of social and economic changes since then have simply not benefitted ordinary people.

^ This, more or less exactly. Not to mention the fact that the people did actually have some kind of an influence and a choice at the moment, you know, democratically speaking. That's all over now, of course.

There also no immigrants/non-whites. You really can't deal with English 1960s nostalgia without the racial aspect. It is buried beneath every single one of those points. Democracy was real before the foreigners corrupted it, there was less traffic before all the immigrants came, housing was nicer and now look at East London etc

There had already been some quite significant immigration from former British colonies by the 1960's. For example, London already had a sizeable population of West Indian origin by that point.

[Zanas]

I was responding to the statement that the 60s was a better decade than the current one (which seems to have now been retracted, in fairness).

That the Wilson government fixed some of those things towards the end of the 60s is irrelevant to that claim.

Anyway, social policy aside, look at any decent metric of welfare and obviously people are better off now. Leftist radical nostalgia for poverty is annoying. I guess if you like poverty supporting Corbyn makes sense though.

There are some long term happiness studies showing that the 60s were the decade when most of Western Europe reached the level where higher material wealth stopped making us happier. Since then material progress has not made the average person feel better.

When you are poor increased material wealth makes you feel a lot better, but this effect decrease when you reach higher levels and at some point more stuff and better living conditions stop adding to most peoples feeling of satisfaction with life.

The nostalgia is also not completely unfounded: Society was a lot more safe and sustainable back then. Local communities functioned better, crime was lower, unemployment lower, outsourcing unheard of etc. Farming was closer to being organic, traffic congestion lower etc. At the same time it was a culturally much more vibrant and exciting era than today.

So as a decade it had an adequate level of material wealth for most people, was culturally interesting and a lot of social and economic changes since then have simply not benefitted ordinary people.

^ This, more or less exactly. Not to mention the fact that the people did actually have some kind of an influence and a choice at the moment, you know, democratically speaking. That's all over now, of course.

There also no immigrants/non-whites. You really can't deal with English 1960s nostalgia without the racial aspect. It is buried beneath every single one of those points. Democracy was real before the foreigners corrupted it, there was less traffic before all the immigrants came, housing was nicer and now look at East London etc

Maybe you can't. A vast majority can. Unless there is something very specific to Britain regarding nostalgia towards that era.

[Silent Hunter]

There had already been some quite significant immigration from former British colonies by the 1960's. For example, London already had a sizeable population of West Indian origin by that point.

True, but the Asian population hadn't really arrived yet.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Hmm? Mass immigration from the Subcontinent happened between a pretty narrowly defined window (late 50s through to mid 70s) with the last really big primary influxes happening after the Bangladesh Liberation War and the expulsion of the various Indian communities in East Africa.

[Silent Hunter]

Hmm? Mass immigration from the Subcontinent happened between a pretty narrowly defined window (late 50s through to mid 70s) with the last really big primary influxes happening after the Bangladesh Liberation War and the expulsion of the various Indian communities in East Africa.

I stand corrected.