Does Tony Blair plan to step in after Corbyn resigns on 8th June 2017

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

I do not believe that such a collapse is likely, or that if it occurs, it will be ANYTHING to do with how the party in general see the referendum result.

If Labour fail to win out at the next election, it will be SOLELY as a result of media manipulation, and for no other reason. I put it to you that Labour under Corbyn are, at least, what they are supposed to be, a powerhouse of grass roots activism and proper socialist ideals, which means that for the first time in perhaps thirty years, there is a genuine Labour Party in our country, a motivated and dedicated mouthpiece for the working man, rather than the corporate whore of a party it was during the Blair era.

What it also means, is that there IS a genuine difference between Labour and Tory policy for the first time in a long time, a difference which marks out the difference between the two ideologies, but more importantly means that there is a better choice than more austerity, more poorly thought out cuts, more poorly thought out expenditures and the unrelenting march of privatisation in public services.

People will be all over that like a rash.

As for Blair... He would have to be voted into the leadership position by the wider membership. Given the sort of people who have signed up over the last two years, there is next to no way that he would ever find himself leading. I think if he attempted to muscle in, even a little bit, the membership would militate against him. That is the beautiful thing about the Labour Party, when it has members of the broader party actually working for its ideals, rather than following the power. No predatory figure can merely install themselves, or double deal their way to leadership. The wider membership are the law. There is no higher power in the Labour Party, than that wielded by the members. They choose the leaders, and if they dislike the options on the table, they vote with their feet and take power away from the core of the party in doing so.

a reply to: TrueBrit

If Labour fail to win out at the next election, it will be SOLELY as a result of media manipulation, and for no other reason.

No, that's your opinion, but listening to Corbyn, Abbot, McDonnell and others in the shadow cabinet speak - actually speak, not what the media says - has already put many off. That and the fact that apparently they have spent money they will claim off Corporation tax many times over in their proposed spending points to an economic naivety that people are wary of since the last Labour government.

But blame everyone else, I know the Islington frappucino elite like to say everyone but them is wrong.

a reply to: uncommitted

You deny that the media have been negative on nearly everything Corbyn has said or done since becoming Labour leader in September 2015? That their bias throughout this election campaign, towards Theresa May and her party, hasn't been prevelant?

Hmm, okay then.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: uncommitted

You deny that the media have been negative on nearly everything Corbyn has said or done since becoming Labour leader in September 2015? That their bias throughout this election campaign, towards Theresa May and her party, hasn't been prevelant?

Hmm, okay then.

Hmm, interesting question - you obviously think that if something is said that is negative, it's actually the media putting that spin on something that is positive?

Go on then, seeing as you raised it, could you give some examples of where Corbyn has come out with really strong proposals, costed, realistic and achievable where media on the whole has been overwhelmingly negative?

I say media on the whole as just as should Theresa May rescued kittens from a blazing building, the Guardian would question why she didn't also manage to rescue their food bowls, so the Telegraph and Express would do similar to Corbyn. Some media are pro Labour, some pro Tory - fact of life and probably actually reasonable as unless they do so in a real frothing at the mouth manner, both sides of the argument get heard, even if in both cases it tends to be extreme.

The right wing media at the moment are going to praise May for saying she would be a 'bloody difficult woman' in the Brexit talks - that makes me wince, but then I didn't vote to leave. If you did vote to leave then presumably you will be cheering her on. Has Corbyn agreed she should be bloody difficult? If not, and you voted to leave (if you didn't, many on this thread did) why not?

Anyway, more to the point of the OP, Blair isn't a sitting MP and has little chance of being voted as one and as others have pointed out he has expressly ruled it out, so the actual OP itself is pointless - again.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

When the Labour party get an unelectable leader to act as their leader, what's there to be positive about?

You can dress it in a suit and shine the shoes, but a turd's a turd whichever way you look at it.

a reply to: uncommitted

I do not care what the elite are saying.

My interest is rather more at the ground level, and the ground level would benefit a great deal more from having leadership which detests the exploitative elements at the top of the food chain, nurtures those who are in need, and crucially, is opposed to the sort of fascistic, corporatist nonsense that has taken control of our nation without any permission or consultation with the people.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: uncommitted

I do not care what the elite are saying.

My interest is rather more at the ground level, and the ground level would benefit a great deal more from having leadership which detests the exploitative elements at the top of the food chain, nurtures those who are in need, and crucially, is opposed to the sort of fascistic, corporatist nonsense that has taken control of our nation without any permission or consultation with the people.

And you think that Corbyn matches that because?

Rolling out a few soundbites without any substance doesn't impress me, it reeks of laziness.

a reply to: uncommitted

Yes, I think Mr Corbyn matches that. He certainly does a better job of it than any of the glorified finger puppets who have been resident in No. 10 since I was born. You ask why I believe that? Because I have examined his voting record, his history as a politician. I would have voted with that man on virtually every matter upon which he has voted, in his entire career, and that is not a small amount of time, but a large one.

For the man to have a voting record like his, shows starkly the difference between himself and every other potential choice for leader, available to us either now, or in the last thirty years. That difference is that where others will vote for their own convenience, he will vote for what is right, and that is what I want from a politician. I do not want one who will be lead around by their own wallet, I do not want a leader who is prone to being bought and paid for by corporations, I do not want a leader whose morals are for sale or easily removed from his decision making process, nor one who believes that politics is a game, as the current leadership and many previous governments have shown themselves to believe.

He is a practical man, and understands that practically speaking, the ground level needs to be strong, if the whole is to retain any structural integrity, something our current government do not understand and have done nothing at all to promote.

It is also worth pointing out that Labour have, statistically, been better economically, than the Tories, with a pretty big blip during the Blairite/Red Tory era admittedly, but still nothing that would assail the Conservative Party's ownership of the title of least viable option from the point of view of the national debt.

There is a great deal to recommend Corbyn, but one does have to do ones OWN research in order to ascertain that, which is absolutely as it should be. Of course, some people will be opposed to Corbyn, for precisely the reasons I am for him, and for these people, there will never be a good enough excuse to vote for Labour, leave alone Corbyn, a walking talking avatar of the concept of the Labour movement, a man who votes according to his beliefs and the needs of the people, rather than for any other thing or reason.

But people so opposed are only opposed to him, because they, in the fifteen to twenty percent at the top of our food chain as a country, stand to be less readily able to accrue massive incomes after putting in virtually no actual work, which will be unfortunate for them, but not for the rest of the country, who rely on their strength and wit for their hard earned, and currently scant rewards. For the vast majority, a Labour government now, would be a liftng of a great cloud, for others the lifting of a literal death sentence. Corbyn will not permit Atos and other companies of similar purpose, to have to do with assessing a persons fitness for work. Corbyn will not permit private interest from overwhelming the public need, and not only his policy but his history confirm these things in absolute terms.

This you cannot expect to know, unless you actually look into the man and his record as a politician.

they should never let that #in scumbag back in the UK , he #ed us over a barrell of oil

the greasy little prick !

he should be off to the Hague for war crimes trial along with some others over the pond

One thing I never got about labour is their antipathy towards the military.
When you consider that the vast majority of our armed forces personnel come from working class backgrounds it's crazy how out of touch labour have always been with them.
This has gotten worse since Blair because he loved wars, but it was always there in the background with people like JC et al.

a reply to: TrueBrit

He certainly does a better job of it than any of the glorified finger puppets who have been resident in No. 10 since I was born.

That kind of shows the value of your post in one sentence. How can you say he does a better job of something he's never actually done? The fact you support his policies means you support his policies - that's very nice for you, but doesn't mean everyone else does. All of the rest of your post is basically pointless, it's your assumptions of what his party would do in government should they win the election. History doesn't confirm f# all until/if he has the challenge of delivering.

Oh, and I've just had a look. Since roughly 1970 and excluding the Blair/Brown years, there isn't actually that much in it from an economic perspective between Labour and Conservative parties.

a reply to: uncommitted

Uh, you have misread what I have said.

I know that, because the chances of me having written it incorrectly are precisely nil.

Mr Corbyn is a better fit for what I want from a leader. I did not and never have said that he has been one before. What I will say to you now, is that Corbyn's record as a Member of Parliament, indicates to me that he would be a much better match to my particular needs, and indeed the needs of the country, than would any other individual or group thereof, who have any horse in the race what so ever.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: uncommitted

Uh, you have misread what I have said.

I know that, because the chances of me having written it incorrectly are precisely nil.

Mr Corbyn is a better fit for what I want from a leader. I did not and never have said that he has been one before. What I will say to you now, is that Corbyn's record as a Member of Parliament, indicates to me that he would be a much better match to my particular needs, and indeed the needs of the country, than would any other individual or group thereof, who have any horse in the race what so ever.

I quoted directly from you - sorry if I misunderstood what I read in black and white in your post that implied a present tense to how good he is. Or maybe it's how you wrote it - yeah, probably the case.

Corbyns record has been to oppose the government at almost every vote but then forces his members to vote for article 50 whether they want to or not - excellent record of hypocrisy.

a reply to: uncommitted


Wow... You ARE determined to find fault with the man. I will give you fair play on that one, because that is dedication. It takes a great amount of determination to totally ignore the fact that he has voted the "correct" way on matters as broad as internal policy to do with pensions and public services, all the way to foreign policy and whether or not to go to war.

But never mind all that, never mind that he has consistently voted with the will of the people his ENTIRE career, never mind all that. Never mind that he understands that the people know what they need, far better than any aloof set of toffs in outlandishly expensive suits, never mind all that. Hes clearly bad, just because!

I despair at this I really do. If you have actually read his voting record, you would be getting more out of it than "Oh its another bloody contrarian".

a reply to: TrueBrit

You ARE determined to worship the man, to the point of focussing totally on your view of him. Ask his former cabinet members why they resigned, ask those he dismissed because they disagreed with him. Tell me again how he allowed himself to constantly vote against his party's direction throughout his career but doesn't allow his MPs to do the same without fear of reprisal.

Anyway, pointless discussion, I'll talk to you when your political ideology reaches at least this century.