This is a serious post...

[Redundant]

...so you may not want to read any further, and I know there are some folks who don't like to read anything that hints of argument, so they should definitely stop reading at this point, don't worry, I'll keep reading it until it gets a respectful number of reads.

You may have noticed that the British Labour Party is having a leadership contest, although I am not sure contest is the right word given the ridiculous antics we are currently witnessing, in particular the silliest idea they may have ever come up with, pay a couple of quid, promise that you love the Labour Party and you can vote in the leadership election.

Then, just to make it a more "balanced" election, Jeremy Corbyn gets nominated, Mr Corbyn hails from the leftish part of the Labour Party, some might say the very leftish part of the party.

On the face if it you might be a tad confused about the idea of electing to the Labour leadership someone who has so badly disagreed with his own party he has voted against them over 500 times since 1997.

But that's not the point of this diatribe.   The opponents of Mr Corbyn are crawling out of the woodwork in ever increasing numbers, and their central argument seems to be the same and that is that rather than risk the Labour Party becoming "the perpetual protest" political party, Labour needs policies and leadership that will make the Labour Party a "credible alternative" to the Conservatives.

Now, for the record, although it may not be a true fact, I do occasionally imagine I am one of the last Socialists that exist in the Isle of Man, so now you can assume any political bias you wish in regards to why I wrote this.

Finally the point, I think.  How did being a two-faced lying toe-rag become a credible alternative?   Is this simply a sliding scale of morality versus potential votes?

"I think we should nationalise everything"   Oh, they won't like that one, too unelectable.

"I think we should nationalise essential services"   Better, but still, loony left and all that.

"I don't think we should nationalise anything"   Now you're talking, at last, a credible alternative to the Tories.   Really?

I'm not saying we should nationalise everything or anything, nor do I agree that much with a lot of what Mr Corbyn plans if he wins the leadership election.   What I am asking is why has it become so simple to abandon your principles and beliefs, no matter how wrong or right others may perceive them to be, simply to win.

If you happen to believe in nationalisation, large or small, if you happen to believe nuclear weapons should not play a part in national defence, and if those ideals of yours are likely to prove too unpopular to get you elected, why is it now apparently perfectly acceptable, instead of morally repugnant, for other politicians to suggest you abandon your ideals or principles and adopt theirs which are more "realistic" or more of a "credible alternative"?.

Is it naive to prefer people to stick to what they believe in, unless reasoned argument should change those beliefs, fighting for what they believe in, rather than fighting for what might just win.

In reality of course becoming a credible alternative just means your policies are essentially the same as the other lot, that way the great unwashed can choose who to vote for based on egos, personalities and nice legs without being bothered by confusing policies too much.

Feel free to kick the soapbox out from under me at any point.

[Diane CBPFC]

The more you stick to your guns, the smaller your audience will be.  Yes, you have yer self-respect but can hold meetings in a telephone booth.

[Redundant]

The more you stick to your guns, the smaller your audience will be.  Yes, you have yer self-respect but can hold meetings in a telephone booth.

That's sort of my point, or my question.   I get that someone's ideals and principles may not have a large audience, mine don't, I long ago accepted that Socialism is great until you involve more than one human being, then it all goes out the window, but that's not the fault of the principles underlying Socialism, the fault lies with human nature.

But, back to the actual question, when is the moment and how is the moment arrived at, that you throw out those principles in favour of someone else's principles that will simply bring you a wider audience?   More to the point, when did it become okay to be so blatant about telling someone to do so, these politicians are essentially declaring publicly that is they will doing, just to get elected, and that's okay?

I'm an atheist but isn't that a bit like changing "Thou shalt not covert thy neighbours wife" [clearly unpopular based on the amount of coveting going on around the world] to "Thou should not covert thy neighbours wife, mostly" in the hopes of getting more potential Christians through your door?   And why would that be any less acceptable to adopting a principle you don't actually believe in just to appear to be more credible?

[Redundant]

Oops, I brought in two taboo subjects, politics and religion, and compounded the error by doing it in the same thread.   I can only apologise, over the years I have learnt that thinking isn't all it's cracked up to be, and I usually I try not to do it, but sometimes I forget [see Deep Doo Doo thread], the thinking is usually followed by a bit of this:



Fortunately, and if I get lucky, that's usually followed by a bit of the other.

[Mince]

The problem with politics is that quite frankly I don't give a damn who gets in. I never vote, never fill out those stupid "You will get fined ?1000 if you don't fill in this" voting cards, and don't know any of the party leaders. As for your question about whether a party should change what they believe in to get into power, I think inevitably they have to so that they can do some of what they want to do - whatever works: but they never stick to what they promise anyway.

[Redundant]

As for your question about whether a party should change what they believe in to get into power, I think inevitably they have to so that they can do some of what they want to do - whatever works: but they never stick to what they promise anyway.

Technically I vote every time, but usually I go along and spoil my ballot paper by simply writing "none of the above", occasionally if I spot a complete moron trying to get elected I'll vote for one of the other candidates, just in case.

You see my question isn't so much should they change what they believe to get into power, my question is more about when did it become so okay to do so that they seem to shout it from the rooftops; "We know you don't agree with policy on Europe...so we've changed it to be a more credible alternative!   Now it's so similar to the other party you can vote for us!"

And on the other side of the coin, how do you expect to ever convince people that your allegedly radical ideas might be a better alternative, if you not only cast them aside but you declare to the world that you're doing so not because logic and reason have changed your ideals, you just want a better shot at getting some power.

Now, I am off to take some [legal] drugs, hopefully sufficient to dull my senses so I can go back to not thinking too much, or at all with any luck.

[Roger Kettle]

A very nicely written piece, Red. It seems strange to me that Burnham etc. have decided that Corbyn's policies would leave the Labour party "unelectable"---something it has proved to be under their own policies. The unmitigated disaster of the Labour party in Scotland this year---a stronghold for a century---was beyond belief. You really have to bugger things up spectacularly to lose that kind of entrenched support. Corbyn has many views that are worth listening to, particularly regarding nationalisation. Anyone who has witnessed the obscene profiteering and price-rigging by the power companies over the past decades must surely have questions.

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

And now... a cartoon......

[Roger Kettle]

Superb, Steve!

[Diane CBPFC]

I don't know who the players are, but still think it is a great cartoon.

[Redundant]

It seems strange to me that Burnham etc. have decided that Corbyn's policies would leave the Labour party "unelectable"---something it has proved to be under their own policies.

The oft mentioned Oscar Wilde moment, "I wish I had said that" definitely came to mind when I read this, it is truly ironic to see dire warnings of the political wilderness, coming from the political wilderness.

The unmitigated disaster of the Labour party in Scotland this year---a stronghold for a century---was beyond belief. You really have to bugger things up spectacularly to lose that kind of entrenched support.

Who knew Scotland could serve up an even more significant political ass-kicking than the wipe out of the Conservatives in 1997, you could almost hear "Nearer, my God, to me" playing in the background.

Corbyn has many views that are worth listening to, particularly regarding nationalisation. Anyone who has witnessed the obscene profiteering and price-rigging by the power companies over the past decades must surely have questions.

Sadly I think nationalisation has had its day, not because it isn't a good idea but unless you can make it happen in such a way that it cannot be undone, then we'd just be playing into the hands of the current owners, huge amounts of money to pay for it followed by even larger amounts to restore declining infrastructure, only to have it "sold off" at bargain basement prices by the other lot when they get back into power with their version of "credible alternatives" - And who would be the new owners?

[Redundant]

And now... a cartoon......

There's nothing clever about using a picture to paint a thousand words...well there is obviously something very clever about using a picture to paint a thousand words...but did you really, really need to make it a brilliant picture too?   Pretty awesome.

[Mince]

Sadly I think nationalisation has had its day, not because it isn't a good idea but unless you can make it happen in such a way that it cannot be undone, then we'd just be playing into the hands of the current owners, huge amounts of money to pay for it followed by even larger amounts to restore declining infrastructure, only to have it "sold off" at bargain basement prices by the other lot when they get back into power with their version of "credible alternatives" - And who would be the new owners?

They should keep them privatised but make the profits transparent and put strict rules in place about what we want from each 'industry'. The main problem, as always, with big profitable companies, is that morons in Britain make them that way. Amazon does not pay much in taxes but we all enjoy the savings we make when shopping there. McDonalds is partly responsible for the obesity crisis but everyone enjoys eating there. As long as there are morons willing to spend there, why shouldn't those who can fleece morons do so? People's spending habits are the true government. I only order from Amazon when I can use their Prime delivery for free, and then cancel after a month. I only eat at McDonalds when my brain is swapped for a haddock. As for banks, for the last ten years they have had nothing from me, but I have had several ?100 moving bonuses. The system can be beaten if you pay attention.

Signed, Tom Good.

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

I like this thread. I'll get round to adding some words soon, but meantime, here's another cartoon (and thankyou for the kind words about the last one). Corbyn and his 'buddies' have been keeping the likes of me busy of late. I'll miss them when they return to oblivion...

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

In case anyone is wondering, the car is a Morris Marina - a fitting relic of the era Corbyn would like us to return to.