Corbyn has already won so this is a good election for UK Labour to lose

Written By: - Date published: 7:31 am, June 8th, 2017 - 114 comments
Categories: uk politics - Tags: ,

Jeremy Corbyn has already won, exposing and demolishing May’s Conservatives in a stunning electoral turnaround.

If the campaign was a month longer I have no doubt that Labour would win outright. As it is I think they will probably lose, and this will be a good thing for UK Labour long term. The winner of this election gets the poisoned Brexit cup. A term of office that can only be so disastrous that it will destroy the party in power for a generation. Labour should stay well clear and let the tories own their own mess.

Corbyn has already won, and for the long term health of UK Labour, and therefore the UK itself, I think the best thing he can do is lose the election.

114 comments on “Corbyn has already won so this is a good election for UK Labour to lose”

  1. Sanctuary 1

    JEREMY CORBYN HAS AN ALLOTMENT@!!!!

    Clearly, his marrows and snowpeas spring from a socialist plot.

    • mac1 1.2

      Something else I share with Corbyn, then. An old friend and I have a plot from which we use one third each and one third we give away to the local food kitchen. There is something totally human and satisfying in growing food in a garden, and even better to be able to share this bounty grown with one’s own toil and skill, and therefore a very personal gift, with others, even strangers.

      That Corbyn works an allotment is just so revealing of a man of balance and humble worth. For the answer does “lie in the soil”. The social levelling that comes from being in a shared allotment situation is to be treasured- from helping dig your neighbour’s plot when he is unable, shovelling horse shit, sharing produce and advice, and of course the opportunity for ordinary human interaction.

      Much more than veges alone springs from a socialist plot, Sanctuary. It feeds oneself, family and others on a diet of humanity.

    • hectorjones electrical 1.3

      Goh, Corbyn’s likeable. I’ve never eaten a snowpea in my life.

  2. Incognito 2

    I disagree and it sounds like Schadenfreude. What the UK now needs the most, and that includes misguided people who vote for May, is honest straight up politics and leadership that puts the interests of all before that of the privileged elite and blowhards.

    • Blade 2.1

      ”Misguided people who vote for May.”

      You mean like misguided people surveyed in the latest One News political poll?

      What Britain needs now is a Donald Trump. Corbyn wants to get rid of M15 and disarm the police. The man is a nut. But a good socialist.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1

        Britain needs a racist illiterate serial rapist? Of course you worship him: he’s everything you aspire to.

        • Blade 2.1.1.1

          I’m talking about a man who is prepared to do something. Thing is, those soppy liberals in the senate wont let him.
          Perhaps if he became anti semitic like the British Labour Party, things would change. Corbyn offers nothing more than May.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1.1

            prepared to do something

            And yet everything this guru of yours flails at turns into an unmitigated clusterfuck with a side-order of obstruction of justice. Hardly surprising, given his character.

            • Blade 2.1.1.1.1.1

              Oh, to be sure, he’s a blunt instrument. But isn’t it incredible, a politician trying his best to keep his promises. Such a rare commodity. Do you think Corbyn would do the same, or would he be too busy pinning medals on the chests of terrorists?

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                How many people does the promise keeper intend will lose Medicaid? Twenty-five million isn’t it?

                It’s amusing watching you lie to yourself about politics. You reveal so much about yourself.

                • Blade

                  How many Americans find it cheaper to pay the fines for not joining Obamacare? Millions too. Depends on your point of view. Your snide remarks also says much about you.

              • Marcus Morris

                You are writing this with your tongue firmly in your cheek aren’t you. Otherwise your comments are quite alarming.

          • Adrian Thornton 2.1.1.1.2

            @Blade…Are you actually serious or are just taking the piss?
            If the west wanted to stop Islamic extremist terrorism then you might assume that they would start with cutting ties and STOP ARMING the regime that is the single biggest supporter of and breeding ground of those same extremists…Saudi Arabia.
            You know the Saudi Arabia that Trump just did the biggest arms deal the middle East has seen, the Saudi Arabia that May sell arms to and openly supports.
            It doesn’t take to much critical thinking to find and understand these simple facts. but then the right aren’t really known for their original thinking, so I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised at the stupidity of your comments.

            • greywarshark 2.1.1.1.2.1

              Adrian
              Blade is just a cork in the flow of the stream of TS comments. Just to experience what it is like to be on a political blog and put this comments up with others and stir the waters. In the book Brave New World the people are encouraged to go out and experience the world, but don’t have to take anything deeply to heart as they have a regular allocation of mood alleviating medication. We get closer to the themes of Brave New World as the months and years go by.

              • Blade

                I much prefer your comments on Whale Oil. You should stay there.

              • Marcus Morris

                Frighteningly so. It should be read or reread by everyone concerned with the way the world is heading.

            • Blade 2.1.1.1.2.2

              Fair comment, AT. However, Trump promised much and has to deliver. Leaving the Saudi Arabia contradiction to one side, a Muslim ban would go along way towards turning off the tap of Islamic immigration, leaving American Intelligence to concentrate on the domestic scene.

              What Lefties like you don’t understand is military strategy. Do you honestly think America likes kissing Saudi butt?

              America is using SA as a power pawn and power source in the East.
              Qatar is an example of Trump applying pressure to the Saudis.

              Incidently, I don’t vote National or Act.

              http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-21/what-do-we-know-about-saudi-arabias-arms-deal-with-america/8544892

      • garibaldi 2.1.2

        Yes Blade, like the misguided idiots in the One News poll. The very sheeple that sit watching their crap day in day out. Same with all the dupes listening to commercial radio.

        • Blade 2.1.2.1

          If only the fools would read this blog, then they would understand what they don’t need to understand.

  3. One Anonymous Bloke 3

    Don’t really agree with this. The misery May intends to inflict on the most vulnerable isn’t some poker chip in a long political game.

    • gristle 3.1

      Exactly. It pisses me off hearing people get wrapped up in the game of politics and not the reality of the impact on peoples’ life.

      I have seen the toying and manipulation some engage in: I am disgusted by it.

    • r0b 3.2

      A game would be to focus on the short term win now, which I think leads to long term disaster. What I’m suggesting is a focus on the greater good over the longest period.

      • weka 3.2.1

        Would you suggest that people don’t vote then?

        • r0b 3.2.1.1

          No not at all! Labour needs to do as well as possible! Put the tories right on the edge!

          I’m just suggesting that if they actually win it, they will unfairly cop the blame for the disaster of Brexit.

          You can just imagine it, as things fall apart in the UK. “Well of course Teresa May would have made Brexit work. Labour are to blame for all this mess…”

          • weka 3.2.1.1.1

            Ok, I’m confused. Do you want them to win or to lose? It sounds like you want them to lose.

            • r0b 3.2.1.1.1.1

              I want them to lose short-term so as to win long-term (rather than the other way round).

              • Enough is Enough

                That is absurd

                It is a five year term. They will not lose short term. They will be out of government for 5 years (at least).

                • r0b

                  They will be out of government for 5 years (at least).

                  I don’t think that the next government, whatever it is, will last 5 years. Not even close.

                  Vote Labour – they MUST do as well as possible! But I think winning would be bad news…

                  Sorry – must away for 3 hours.

              • weka

                Ok, so you want them to lose this election 🙁

              • Enough is Enough

                It is similar to 2008 when we all knew the GFC was going to be a disaster for New Zealand. (not that Brexit will be a disaster, other than for the Banksters)

                Was it better that we let the Nats win in 2008 just so we could blame the recession on them.

                No it would have been preferable for Clark and Cullen to win and make the situation better for the most vulnerable

      • Andre 3.2.2

        Y’know, I’ve heard many times that “winning this election would be a poison chalice”. But I’ve never seen it turn out that way.

        A while ago one of the few business leaders I really respect overheard me whinging about short-termism in decision making. He told me to ponder this idea: the long term is just the sum of a lot of short terms. If you make a long string of good short terms, the long term works out great. The only long term planning you need is avoiding short term disasters.

        While I’m not sure I entirely agree with that, it probably applies even more to politics than business.

        • r0b 3.2.2.1

          Y’know, I’ve heard many times that “winning this election would be a poison chalice”. But I’ve never seen it turn out that way.

          I think Brexit is a truly unique circumstance.

          • dukeofurl 3.2.2.1.1

            Was staying out of the Euro a mistake ?
            Afterwards they thought , dodged a bullet there. Often its not till after that it obvious that the right decision was made.

          • Andre 3.2.2.1.2

            “a truly unique circumstance”

            Heard that before many times too. Usually from someone talking excitedly about how much money his investments are going to make, just before a crash.

          • Enough is Enough 3.2.2.1.3

            yes r0b Brexit is unique, and it needs a compassionate government to steer the nation through it.

            Not pick it up in 5 to 10 years just so the Tories can be blamed.

            This isn’t a game

            • r0b 3.2.2.1.3.1

              it needs a compassionate government to steer the nation through it

              I don’t think it can be done (from where they are now).

              This isn’t a game

              Of course not. It’s about what is best for the majority over the long term. And I don’t think destroying the Labour party serves that goal.

              • Enough is Enough

                The Labour Party will not be destroyed. If New Zealand Labour survived Rogernomics, then UK Labour can survive a Brexit that hypothetically damages the nation.

                In my view Brexit will be bumpy but long term will not be the apocalypse you are predicting. The only industry I see as being in danger is banking as many of the International Bank’s European head offices will move out of London to Frankfurt, (boo hoo bankers).

                The majority of the British people (who voted) no longer want to be subject to a faceless European legislature that they have limited control over. The fundamental reason for this is analogous to New Zealander’s opposition to the TPPA. When you review it in that light Brexit isn’t an altogether bad thing.

                • greywarshark

                  Youre making grand, bold statements there Enough is Enough.
                  One I don’t agree with is that NZ Labour survived Rogernomics, some sort of a hybrid did but it wasn’t Labour. They dropped their heart out back there and they have started excavations to see if they can find where it went. Hopefully they will be able to reinstate a simulacrum.

                  The previous link I had been watching.
                  https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/jun/08/general-election-2017-uk-polling-day-live

                  • Enough is Enough

                    I agree they are not the same Labour Party but under Helen Clark they managed to run the country for 9 years.

                    Its a bit of a stretch to suggest that the party did not survive Rogernomics.

  4. Ad 4

    We just needed four more weeks!
    (drink)

    • r0b 4.1

      Do you disagree on this occasion?

      • Ad 4.1.1

        Hell no.
        Rob I try and agree with you most of the time.

        But on this occasion you are flat wrong.

        Labour is not only there for the standard moist leftie stuff of education, health, and children. Consigning them to that is consigning them to only sailing when the wind is less than 5 knots.

        Brexit, Trident, Triple Lock, Banking, Tax, Terrorism: Labour is built for the big stuff.
        They will harden of course. They will alter of course. Nature of being in power.
        But fuck I would trust them with those kinds of task than the Conservatives.

        Labour’s track record is to do its utmost to change stuff for good.
        I don’t always agree with it.
        And honestly Corbyn always struck me as weak and scruffy.

        But Corbyn really, really believes in the power of the state and of the public realm generally to do good for and with society. I’m with him on that.
        He is giving well-overdue steel to Labour.

        And that is what is needed for doing good government, no matter what the issue facing the UK.

        • r0b 4.1.1.1

          I try and agree with you most of the time.

          Likewise I’m sure! Let’s see what we do agree about.

          (1) The next government has to implement Brexit (or be destroyed for a generation).

          (2) Brexit will be a massive disaster.

          (3) The government that implements Brexit will be destroyed for a generation.

          That’s the corner that the UK has painted itself into.

          Agreed or not?

          I think that the best path for Labour long term and therefore the UK long term is not to take on the poisoned cup. Let the tories destroy themselves. The short term pain to the UK will be huge (either way), the long term outcome will be better.

          • weka 4.1.1.1.1

            Ah, but Brexit doesn’t have to be a massive disaster, and there are differences between how the Tories would do that and how Corbyn’s Labour would.

            Why would Labour be destroyed for doing something it’s obligated to by democracy?

            • r0b 4.1.1.1.1.1

              but Brexit doesn’t have to be a massive disaster

              Sadly I disagree. Maybe maybe maybe they could have got it right if they had given themselves enough time to plan. But they’re now committed to a timetable that they can’t meet.

              https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/03/britain-being-led-to-epic-act-self-harm-brexit

              • weka

                Seeing your other comment above, I take it that you think the UK is f*cked now either way because of Brexit, so may as well let the Tories make it worse because then Labour can be seen as the good guys and in the long term this will mean the UK has a good leftish party who can pick up the pieces.

                The ‘UK is irredeemably damaged by Brexit’ view makes sense if one is committed to neoliberalism and sees the only alternative as chaos. But that’s not all there is. Climate change dictates that all of us in first world countries are going to have to take a drop in standard of living and major readjustments to society. Neoliberalism will never tolerate that as a planned thing, so those countries will be forced into a hard Clexit. Brexit will of course cause a big upheaval in the UK, and will cause damage, but there is also an opportunity here to do the right things and if I were there I’d much rather have Labour in charge than the Tories (ditto when our time comes in NZ).

                • r0b

                  I take it that you think the UK is f*cked now either way because of Brexit,

                  Exactly.

                  but there is also an opportunity here to do the right things

                  In an ideal world perhaps. In this world I fear that even a winning Labour party will be so consumed by trying to managethe Brexit disaster that they won’t have time or energy for other issues.

              • dukeofurl

                “but Brexit doesn’t have to be a massive disaster

                Sadly I disagree.”

                Well the disaster was supposed to start immediately the result was announced.
                Didnt happen! Reading only the Guardian and Independent is doing your head in.

                Ask Greece about the disaster of staying in Europe !

                • The disaster will unfold over years. And anyone saying it would start immediately following the referendum was foolish:

                  Just because the world didn’t change on 24 June 2016 doesn’t mean that it was never going to change. The time-lag between cause and effect is a cornerstone of economic behaviour. This basic dynamic takes into consideration the notion, observable over decades of analysis, that shocks rarely impact economies – particularly sophisticated ones – overnight. The Brexit time-lag has just ended.

                  Nesrine Malik

                  • dukeofurl

                    Yes they said the disaster would be ‘immediate fall in living standards’

                    The reverse has happened, it wasnt a fall or even nuetral, the economy improved.

                    Its the same economic models, just because they have over a longer time period doesnt make them wrong now but right later .
                    ( hint neo liberal economic models in the 80s and nineties predicted much better results than what we are getting now- even Jim Bolger admits they got it wrong)

            • red-blooded 4.1.1.1.1.2

              “Why would Labour be destroyed for doing something it’s obligated to by democracy?”
              a) Because people aren’t logical and tend to have short term memories when it comes to politics. It’s easy to blame “the government” without making a distinction about WHICH government you should be blaming.
              b) Because a narrative could be woven that Brexit would have been OK if only the right people had been in charge and had dealt with those damn foreigners firmly.
              c) Because plenty of the likely corollaries of Brexit (unemployment; the need for new labour laws, environmental protections, consumer laws etc; a probable rise in racial intolerance and conflict…) could just look like the outcomes of bad government.
              d) Because the issues arising from Brexit may well prove almost all-consuming and could be a real impediment to implementing the Labour election pledges.
              e) Because a lot of people who vote Labour were against Brexit and probably won’t be changing their minds on that.
              f) Because a lot of people who voted for Brexit (or didn’t vote) will probably realise it was a bad decision and will want to reverse it.

              Yes, Britain’s in a bad way and yes, it’s going to get worse, but TBH, I’m with Anthony on this one. Let May deal with the clusterfuck that is Brexit and let it rebound on the Tories. Labour can come in with a new broom (not necessarily a new leader, but a new approach and a more united team) and be seen as the good guys and gals.

              • weka

                those are all good points and there is no doubt that there is risk here. Also that the UK will get knocked back. But I think that’s a useful thing, because of climate change. A big part of the Remain rationale is based on neoliberalism being a good thing. That’s not even true if we didn’t have CC here now (which is why the economically marginalised voted leave), but with CC in the picture, there is an opportunity to turn this into doing the more right thing.

                I also think the Brits are pretty resilient as a people. WW2 and the bombings are within living memory and I reckon that’s a big part of why Londoners reacted the way they did last week to the terrorist attack. Hard times are coming with or without Brexit, and Brexit actually offers something that Remain wouldn’t have. BAU first world countries are going to have a hard time under CC because they put off adapting until it was too late.

          • Ad 4.1.1.1.2

            You don’t seek power because it’s easy.

            To your point, no, BREXIT does not have to be a disaster.
            Depends on the terms of the separation and the ease of doing business afterwards.

            And I would trust the competence of a Corbyn-led Labour Party to do it better.

            So it is better for a Corbyn-led Labour Party to win this election.

          • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.3

            Brexit could also be a massive opportunity.

            To be honest I think that the Common Market and then the Euro were always a bad idea.

            Each nation should be independent with trade a nice to have on top of that. Trade should not be an essential and it is that making it essential that is causing problems especially as productivity increases.

            • greywarshark 4.1.1.1.3.1

              DTB
              Do you think that uniting the Europeans after the destructive world wars was a useful aim that has been achieved and that the EU is now proving unwieldy and not serving the same purpose so should be rethought. ey Should they operate with trade agreements that enable them all to buy and sell with each other and not over produce, but each also have a good internal domestic economy, setting exchange rates in agreement with the other Europeans?

              • Draco T Bastard

                Do you think that uniting the Europeans after the destructive world wars…

                Were they united?

                Should they operate with trade agreements that enable them all to buy and sell with each other and not over produce, but each also have a good internal domestic economy, setting exchange rates in agreement with the other Europeans?

                Don’t need trade agreements to trade with one another – just need each nation to set standards that other nations need to meet to be able to trade freely. Exchange rates should be a function of trade.

          • Incognito 4.1.1.1.4

            Well, somebody wanted this election to be only about Brexit but there’s so much more at stake and the contrast between Corbyn and May couldn’t be greater if they tried.

            In his well-written words Monbiot mentioned Brexit only twice!

            http://www.monbiot.com/2017/06/08/vote-in-hope/

        • greywarshark 4.1.1.2

          Somehow after listening to Ad on Corbyn I get this image of Robin Hood and his men dropping out of an oak tree on bad Sir John. Show them some steel Corbyn, fight like a man against all those panty waists sitting and tapping their dream-making keyboards. Let’s have some reality of touching something physical before Britain collapses and tears like a wet tissue.

          Go for it Jeremy the Chartist.

          Demonstration in London
          The petition was delivered to Westminster in three cabs © The government decided to ban the proposed procession with the petition to the House of Commons. The Chartist leader, O’Connor, complied with this ban. This was not – as his many enemies were keen to observe after the event – because he was a frightened blusterer, but because he knew that in any confrontation with soldiers it would be the demonstrators who would be killed or wounded. The petition was eventually conveyed from Kennington Common to the House of Commons by three cabs, with O’Connor and the other Chartist leaders walking alongside.

          The propertied classes now sought to present the Chartist petition and demonstration of 1848 as a ‘fiasco’.

          No part of the Chartist petition of 1848 survives – though a fragment of an earlier one does – but within two days of its presentation O’Connor was informed that the number of genuine signatures on it was far fewer than the six million the Chartists claimed. In 17 hours, 13 clerks had apparently counted 1.9 million signatures; O’Connor expressed scepticism that such a task could have been completed by such a small number of people in such a short time.

          If pseudonyms such as ‘Victoria Rex’ and ‘No Cheese’ were used, this did not necessarily mean these signatures were forgeries; for some Chartists it was necessary to keep their identities secret from employers.
          http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/chartist_01.shtml

          • greywarshark 4.1.1.2.1

            People being able to read and write would be a necessity for adequately signing the Chartist petition, but many were not literate. And of course they would be in fear of losing job, house etc. for expressing a dissenting opinion from that of the better class.
            In census year 1851 the estimate of literacy in Britain was : Male 69.3% Female 54.8%
            http://richardjohnbr.blogspot.co.nz/2011/01/literacy-revised-version.html

            Today
            Britain has up to eight million adults who are functionally illiterate, a report out today revealed.
            The World Literacy Foundation said one in five of the UK population are so poor at reading and writing they struggle to read a medicine label or use a chequebook.
            According to research, this rate of illiteracy is costing the UK economy £81billion a year in lost earnings and increased welfare spending.

            (But that is old fashioned talk, it isn’t necessary to make things and sell them, fortunes can be made in the ‘casino’ economy on speculation.)

            Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2122007/Illiterate-Britain-One-adults-struggling-read-write-t-use-chequebook.html#ixzz4jMqZWE7C
            Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  5. Glenn 5

    “Theresa May looks on course for a definitive victory over Jeremy Corbyn in the general election, as the final poll for The Independent shows her party enjoying a 10-point lead over Labour.

    If the figures in the ComRes poll are replicated on Thursday, projections indicate a concrete 74-seat majority – the largest the Conservatives have secured since the days of Margaret Thatcher……

    …..According to Electoral Calculus, the numbers would deliver Ms May 362 seats in the Commons, 31 more than her party currently enjoys, while Labour would be left with 212, 20 fewer than they have now. The projection also suggests the Lib Dems and Scottish National Party would lose seats.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-poll-latest-tory-win-results-corbyn-theresa-may-a7777781.html

    Now that would be bloody disastrous. I hope it’s flawed.

  6. Wayne 6

    I am looking forward to see how my prediction in my post of April 26 turns out. At that stage I was predicting May with a majority of around 50 or so, Corbyn at 200, a few gains for the Lib Dems and a few losses for SNP.

    I always thought Labour’s vote was a bit more resilient than the early polls indicated. Anyway I will soon find out of my predictions are better than the pollsters, which have the biggest spreads I have ever seen.

    An extra month would not help Corbyn. Election campaigns influence relaitvely few voters. Obviously campaigns cause fence sitters to decide, but how many of these are there? 10 to 15%? And they never break entirely for one side. A good campaign can get two thirds.

    May has not run a good campaign, but voters will primarily be looking at how she has been as PM over the last year to decide, not just four weeks of campaigning.

    • Bill 6.1

      Last time you made this claim about something you’d said in April, it was different to what you are now saying you said in April (there was something about substantial Tory gains in Scotland) and I never could find the comment from April where you say you said whatever you might have said – or not said.

      You gotta link?

      • dukeofurl 6.1.1

        Good point

        He spent too much time around Key.
        he knew what you said at the time wasnt as important as what you said ‘you said’ later.

        • Anne 6.1.1.1

          If he says he said it and Bill says he didn’t, then what he says he said can only be accepted if he says what he said in April again and if Bill still says he didn’t say it then Bill will have to prove that what he said in April is different to what he says now.

          Sols Bill. 😛

      • You_Fool 6.1.2

        I was interested, so went looking… I assume it is this one

        Open Mike 20/04/2017

        • Bill 6.1.2.1

          Ha!
          May would have to loose around 10% from her current poll position. That is unheard of.

          Unheards of he says? What’s that?

    • DoublePlusGood 6.2

      Grace us with your exalted wisdom, oh Nostradamus!
      Delve through the entrails and entreat the gods!
      Bless us mere mortals with your dazzling insights into New Zealand politics too!

  7. weka 7

    Predictions for this election seem unwise. Because the polls are all over the place, and because the rate of change suggests we have no idea what the turnout will be.

    What’s the weather forecast for tomorrow?

  8. AB 8

    Well, I think it’s important that he wins. It’s a unique opportunity at a single point in time and we cannot be certain it will recur in quite the same, let alone a ‘better’, way.
    When NZ Labour lost in 1981, some people might have said, “Well it’s a good one to lose, another 3 years of Muldoon and it will be a landslide”. And it was a landslide in ’84, but look what we got – David Lange as PM in ’84 and Roger Douglas off the leash, instead of Bill Rowling as PM in ‘81 and Douglas quite probably out of the Labour Party.
    History is a b*tch – very hard to predict what will happen.
    And if I was a disabled person contemplating suicide because I had been subjected to a bogus assessment that declared me fit for work and was cutting my allowances, 5 years would seem like eternity.

    • dukeofurl 8.1

      Our problem is we dont have an upper house to slow things down. Douglas and his type were in national at the time as well- Bolger , Richardson etc not to mention the leading public servants of the day
      “”God save us from zealots in the public service,” as the distinguished and long-serving Treasury secretary Henry Lang once said.”

      • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1

        Dual houses don’t fix the bloody problems. If they did then the US and the UK would be nirvanas.

        What we actually need is more democracy. Where the policies are what the people decide rather than some unaccountable people in office. On top of that we then need the people to take responsibility for those policies.

        • greywarshark 8.1.1.1

          So that would mean participational democracy not representational as we have now?

          • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.1.1

            Yes. It is, as far as I can make out, the only way to prevent a clique of rulers ascending to the top of society and then only making rules that suit themselves while increasing poverty for everyone else.

            • greywarshark 8.1.1.1.1.1

              Trouble is I see a clique of rulers arising from the people and having similar results as being descended upon.

              • Draco T Bastard

                If all the people are ruling then how do you get a clique of rulers?

                • greywarshark

                  Golly I don’t know how to explain human nature to you DTB. But I think there was some problem getting the union leaders to do something when Roger Deadhead was introducing his cunning plan.
                  Women had a bit of trouble getting somewhere in the hierarchy of union people for a while etc etc. I won’t go into this further as I would be cruel to break rosy ideas of human togetherness.

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    All of that is the problem of hierarchies.

                    The whole point of democracy is to remove them.

        • dukeofurl 8.1.1.2

          It worked for Australia- they still have a centrally arbitration system/Fairwork Commission. Yes its been eroded but ‘award’ wages set a floor for major employers

          • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.2.1

            Are you sure about that?
            From where I sit they still seem to have the same problems we do.

  9. Now’s the time. The stars are aligned. 5 years from now, we’ll be old men. 🙂

  10. saveNZ 10

    I think for the sake of Britain and the EU stability, it’s important Corbyn wins. Britain needs someone who has integrity and a brain. Not a robot who has only two words strong and stable and has the Tory gene of being completely out of touch with most people PLUS the entitlement of thinking the EU will just give her what ever she wants because that’s been her whole life experience and she lacks the brain power and imagination to negotiate outside of a Tory Advisor sound byte.

    Corbyn is patriotic and Human, the opposite of May who’s just an international opportunist of globalist Robot for the Bankers, Wankers, Arms Dealers and anybody like her.

    That mentality is falling out of fashion with the public after 25 years of neoliberalism.

    If it’s about negotiation for Brexit, they need a decent human being, plus a negotiator who can think on his feet and put Britain first while empathising with Europe while doing what the Referendum has said.

    That’s Corbyn.

  11. Stuart Munro 11

    A crushing defeat of May and the Tories and the jailing of those who corruptly made off with state assets under false pretenses is long overdue.

    Brexit can be pretty soft if the social pressures that required it, looting of state services by neoliberal apparatchiks, are reversed.

    Give Corbyn a go – he’ll struggle to be as bad as May.

    • Wayne 11.1

      Stuart,

      You always have this ridiculous notion of jailing your political opponents. It makes you the left equivalent of the “lock her up crowd.” I guess that is what you want to be.

      • Stuart Munro 11.1.1

        Wayne, you always have this ridiculous presumption of exceptionalism.

        If I steal public property I will go to jail. So should you.

        The dark spectre of accountability is on your trail and that of your fellow barratrous betrayers of the public interest you swore to protect.

        • mordecai 11.1.1.1

          What evidence do you have that anyone stole public property? And why aren’t these alleged culprits in jail?
          It seems to me you want to define the terms, pass judgement and carry out the sentence. Typical socialist.

          • Stuart Munro 11.1.1.1.1

            It is well known Mordecai. Like the CERA frauds were well known for years before they were investigated. NZ is much too small a country to keep secrets.

            Why aren’t the culprits in jail? Because they are misusing our political processes to evade it. The political investment in protecting those responsible for Pike River, and Mike Sabin, and too many other shamefully corrupt villains to name, is considerable.

            Public administration demands a scrupulous and candid approach; secrecy only serves to temporarily conceal failure. So that when Michael Woodhouse, for example, seeks to improperly subvert the official information process we may be confident that his guilt justifies forensic inquiry.

            As for judgement and sentencing, there is quite a backlog developing, one would not want the tigers to suffer from indigestion.

            • Ed 11.1.1.1.1.1

              Moredecai is a troll…..

            • timeforacupoftea 11.1.1.1.1.2

              Is that the same CERA ? which seems like years back now, that brute Rodger Mutton Sutton CEO who called the women staff sweetie and honey and ran G-string Fridays and suggesting to young female staff that they participate in “visible G-string Fridays” and unwanted, body-press hugs.

              Sutton must have thought he was living in the 1960’s 1970’s, but hang on Sutton was not born till 1965, what goes. CERA ?

            • mordecai 11.1.1.1.1.3

              Your comment was about the UK, not NZ. Even if it had been about NZ, it was still bullshit.

              • Stuart Munro

                You’re entitled to your opinions, though like the gaseous products of your lower intestine, not everyone wants to hear them. But you’re not entitled to your own facts.

                P testing state houses is a scam. Charter schools are a scam. 1080 is a scam. The China investment bank and the 103 million dollar Dubai tent are scams. Things that no honest MP would contemplate for a moment. Things that any honest incoming government would refer for forensic audit. Things for which the guilty parties must be punished and public monies recovered.

  12. Bill 12

    I agree that what Corbyn is standing for has won regardless of the election result.

    But breaking it down on a win/lose scenario based on the narrow political premise of the post (and just off the top of my head)

    wins

    1. the beginning of a decline for the SNP
    2. Dugdale and other Blairites finally taken care of over the 5 year cycle

    loses

    1. no decline of the SNP
    2. May scraps the Fixed Term Parliament’s Act (as she’s said she intends) and also plays the SNP fear card ‘for ever’.

    Then factor in likely Scottish independence being sooner rather than later under a Tory UK government against UK Labour’s reasonable chances of reducing the pressure for independence.

    I should edit in something about BREXIT. Getting out of Europe but maintaining market access is the goal of Labour, and in the context of operating within the confines of liberal capitalism, a far better path than Theresa “getting fucked over is better than a bad deal” May’s idea of an increasingly undemocratic UK…

    • dukeofurl 12.1

      If the Tories wanted to stay in office ‘forever’, they would be pushing Scottish independence. Those 55 or so seats in Scotland arent favourable territory for them.

      • Bill 12.1.1

        The Tories more or less guarantee independence.

        Corbyn could placate that demand, but would have to deal to Scottish Labour – ironically the last refuge of Balirite or “New” Labour. Apart from Wales 😉

  13. McFlock 13

    Brexit might well be a poisoned chalice, but the other thing is that if he gets only a narrow victory in a 600-odd seat parliament, then dissenters within his party could knobble his legislative programme. A bit like how May’s hard brexit might have problems if she only has say a ten seat majority (including the ukip seats she’ll probably pick up).

    With the fixed term, a lack of progress in two years could give a decent 2020 majority to June 10’s opposition…

  14. r0b 14

    Thanks all for some really interesting points in discussion!

  15. I hope Corbyn wins because there are huge implications for human rights law and the free world if he loses.

    https://willnewzealandberight.com/2017/06/08/british-election-has-huge-implications/

    Theresa May’s idea that human rights law can be negated should scare any reasonable human being to death.

  16. greywarshark 16

    On SNP from last night
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/07/snp-anti-independence-nicola-sturgeon-angus-robertson

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/07/hartlepool-general-election-i-was-taking-home-more-money-each-week-25-years-ago
    In the run-up to the general election, six Guardian reporters are writing from constituencies across the country to find out what matters in your area. In the final dispatch from Hartlepool, Josh Halliday and photographer Gary Calton find living standards and the NHS jostling with Brexit at the front of voters’ minds

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/07/tim-farron-labour-votes-seats-lib-dems-tories
    Tim Farron has launched a last-ditch plea for Labour voters to back the Lib Dems in seats where the party could beat the Conservatives, touring remain cities including London, Bath and Oxford.
    National polls have painted a gloomy picture for the Lib Dems in much of the country, but the party believes it could still pull off a breakthrough in certain seats where the political climate plays in its favour.

  17. Karen 17

    I fear he will lose but I hope that Corbyn manages to pull off a victory. I disagree with this idea short term pain for long term gain. It is usually said by those who do not have to suffer the pain. Nor do I accept the argument that May will be so bad there will be a massive swing leftwards. I remember when left wing friends in Britain said that about Thatcher – we all know how that worked out.

    As Robert Glennie has pointed out a May win has huge implications for human rights.
    The poor, the sick, minority groups, those on the margins of society – their lives are going to get even more desperate.

    On that not there a couple of videos – one from Owen Jones and the final official election ad. Both made me tearful.

  18. Ovid 18

    For once global politics has pleasantly surprised me with how Corbyn has performed in this election. I think the best thing that can happen for Labour (apart from the slim chance of putting a coalition together) is if they retain Corbyn as leader for the next couple of years to cement the shift. He’ll be 73 in 2022, so I don’t think he’ll stand for PM again, but he can continue to put his mark on the party’s direction.

  19. peterlepaysan 19

    If (probably) uklab loses, the internal feuding should settle down. Just as (hopefully ) the entitled nzlab caucus has. Party membership counts, not status or “fish and chip brigades. It is called democracy.

    Corbyn established that mass support can be achieved despite media and establishment bias.

    NZlab needs to do the same.

  20. mosa 20

    Jeremy Corbyn has done something far more important than winning an election that was always going to be unwinnable.

    He has had the opportunity with this unscheduled early election to campaign and to connect with some of the many communities who are doing it hard and spread the real Labour parties programme for change and that there is an alternative , another direction for the U.K.

    https://www.thecanary.co/2017/06/08/two-minutes-corbyns-campaign-thats-brought-nation-tears-video/

    The ravages of neo liberal policies will continue unabated after June 8

    Jeremy Corbyn has provided hope and a vision for something better.

    Those with the least always give the most.

  21. Louis 21

    nah I dont agree with this line of thinking. Too many people are suffering.

  22. swordfish 22

    Call me old-fashioned, but I’m so taken with my own comments from the Mike Smith Post that I’m a-gonna re-post them here

    Now don’t you be calling me a narcissist, y’hear !

    __________________________________________________________________________________________

    Latest polls and some anecdotal evidence from the doorstep are showing a move back to the Tories in Britain

    __________________________________________________________________________________________

    Well, kind of ….. but slightly more complex than that, Mike

    Final Polls (with % point change from previous)

    6–7 Jun BMG/The Herald
    Tory 46% ….. Lab 33% ….. Tory Lead 13%
    (No previous Poll to compare)

    6–7 Jun Survation
    Tory 41% (+ 1) ….. Lab 40% (+ 1) ….. Tory Lead 1% ( = )

    6–7 Jun ICM/The Guardian
    Tory 46% (+ 1) ….. Lab 34% ( = ) ….. Tory Lead 12% (+ 1)

    5–7 Jun YouGov/The Times
    Tory 42% ( = ) ….. Lab 35% (- 3) ….. Tory Lead 7% (+ 3)

    5–7 Jun ComRes/Independent
    Tory 44% (- 3) ….. Lab 34% (- 1) ….. Tory Lead 10% (- 2)

    4–7 Jun Qriously
    Tory 38.5% ….. Lab 41.3% ….. Lab Lead 2.8% (Whoo Hoo !!!)
    (No previous Poll to compare)

    2–7 Jun Panelbase
    Tory 44% ( = ) ….. Lab 36% ( = ) ….. Tory Lead 8% ( = )

    1–7 Jun Kantar Public
    Tory 43% ( = ) ….. Lab 38% (+ 5) ….. Tory Lead 5% (- 5)

    4–6 Jun SurveyMonkey/The Sun
    Tory 42% (- 2) ….. Lab 38% ( = ) ….. Tory Lead 4% (- 2)

    4–6 Jun Opinium
    Tory 43% ( = ) ….. Lab 36% (- 1) ….. Tory Lead 7% (+ 1)

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

    swordfish 7.1

    8 June 2017 at 9:32 pm

    Probably a Tory win …..

    But one tiny glimmer of hope …..

    Putting aside the barely known and untested Qriously Poll (with its Lab Lead) ….. the 2 Polls with the flimsiest Tory Leads …..

    Survation …………. Tory Lead 1%
    SurveyMonkey ….. Tory Lead 4%

    ….. were the only Polls to get the 2015 Tory-Lab gap more or less right (they said 6 points – actual gap 6.6)

    All other Pollsters waaay out

    Survation pretty much spot-on with Tory-Lab %s too –

    Survation Final Poll ……… 37% Tory ….. 31% Lab
    2015 Election Result ….. 37.8% Tory ….. 31.2% Lab

  23. Enough is Enough 23

    r0b

    It looks like you are going to get your wish….

Recent Comments

Recent Posts