The Left's way forward

Not at all Ana and POGS. It is perfectly reasonable for anyone to add their thoughts as we all know. However, if someone openly declares, as rosearered has done, that they are happy that the Conservatives got into power and then their criticism of one of the Labour Party contenders for leader and their comment on Alex Salmond are to do with their posture I am not sure what those following a thread called "The Left's way forward" could say that would be acceptable to the three of you. Perhaps we should just be coming in with "Goodness me, yes . We must teach him to sit up straight never mind what he was actually saying"

It is also quite reasonable for someone who has the extreme views of Jackthelad to express them i.e., "The Left do not have the answer". He then goes on to explain why the left, in his view, have not had "the answer" since the war. Again I would ask how you answer this post positively in the context of "The Left's way forward". He seemed - and I may have got this wrong in which case please do explain it to me - to be saying he would not want the "left" to "go forward" in any particular way. Please tell me what that adds to this particular discussion.

I am bemused.....of course I am not going to vote Labour, any more than say GracesGran is going to vote Conservative, so what?Open thread on an open forum you know.As for ' democracy being so frightening' re the £3 comment I made, it allows all sorts to vote ,even Conservatives as they would love Corbyn to win, and hard line Communists as well.There must be a lot of Labour voters on this forum who are not far left voters, and view all this with dismay, but perhaps don't want to be attacked?it would be interesting to hear from them, who would they favour to win?
I have thought that Andy Burnham may make a good leader ( surely he is left enough for you?) Or Harriet Harman.

Well said, POGS. Perhaps this is another thread which should have had 'only those of a left-wing persuasion need read' added to its title...

If threads only belong to those who feel they are the only ones 'entitled' to post then what would be the point of an open Forum? All that would lead to is love in by a bunch of narcasists who don't feel 'their' words/thoughts should be challenged.

This happens so often on threads I swear a lot of posters just don't bother to join in as they know what will happen as soon as they open their mouth. Hence the need for a 'hard hat emoticon'.

As for the comment re physical features I thought rosesareed made an 'observation', nothing more.

I think there are many posts that could be found that 'would' indeed show some GN posters who use physical appearance in a way that shows hatred/dislike ' indeed words that accompany their descriptions , yet they rarely get taken to task.

Funny too how some threads are deemed by a few to have to stick with the OP remit by some and yet others are allowed to be challenged/wander aimlessly . I have very often seen a poster play both hands on the subject and have wanted to challenge their slight hypocrisy to be honest.

Do people really vote for politicians based on them crossing their legs in a tv interview? I was so interested in listening to what Jeremy had to say I think he would have had to have worn a frock before my attention was drawn away.

How can there be a fear of the left wing infiltrating the Labour Party , I have been a member for fifty years and yes I am on the left .

That was a very moving link you posted last night trisher, thank you. I know the area quite well.

So a comprehensive and incisive comment on Corbyn and his policies from rosesarered. I hoped we had moved on from looking at physical features but evidently not. The problem is that what you get when you judge people by these standards are coached rehearsed leaders who have been instructed by spin doctors about how to present themselves (Blair and Cameron). Try listening to what he says. Oh and it isn't 5 minutes since Alex Salmond was being castigated, as for his "position" he's an MP for Scotland and heads the Scottish MPs, nothing else.

There is a real problem with this ' pay £3 and you can vote for whoever you like to be leader'.

Democracy is so frightening, isn't it.

But you are talking about a party you do not want to be in power in any case rosesarered. This party is not, in any way, going to please you or stand for what you believe so why is your opinion in any way relevant? I do not believe that even if the leader of the LP was the second coming you would vote for them from what you have said, so your opinion, interesting though it is, is really not very relevant to party members or likely to change or modify their views. It's really like reading the Daily Mail to find out who should run any left of centre party. They would be more likely to harm than to help and so, I imagine would you - again going on what you have said your opinion is. Of course, I may be wrong and you may be rising above your natural instincts and trying to help the Labour Party. That would be a lovely thought.

There is a real problem with this ' pay £3 and you can vote for whoever you like to be leader' .

Yes, just watched Andrew Marr, thought it a poor performance from Corbyn if I am honest. expected more.He sat in a defensive body posture, one shoulder raised and hunched and legs crossed. could not see him as a leader of any party.The people who put his name forward must be kicking themselves.
Alex Salmond, by contrast , speaks well and effectively, and you can see exactly why he attained his position.

Jackthelad is never going to want an effective Labour party and neither, I think, will rosesarered so I don't think the sort of post that starts The Left do not have the answer is ever going to be terribly helpful on a thread entitled The Left's Way Forward.

Did any of you see Jeremy Corbyn on Marr this morning. I did not find him so "far left" but more practical. He seemed to be saying that the utilities and trains should be run in much the same way that some of us were concluding we might look at running the NHS (http://www.gransnet.com/forums/health/1217515-Non-political-Save-our-NHS) i.e., run by not-for-profit companies and overseen by government.

I have to say that I liked what he was saying and I liked the way he was saying it. You do, in the end, have to decided if "profit" is shared more by those who work in the company or handed over to company bosses. I'm afraid I really cannot see why it is better to hand our hard-earned cash over to profiteers - I have no problem with reasonable profit going to people who have laid their own money on the line to set up a company - rather than it going to raise wages.

We have so much to thank the Labour party for, including the nhs, maternity leave, equality of pay in the workplace, comprehensive education, sure start and children's centres and many many other benefits.
I attended the hustings in Warrington yesterday and came away feeling more positive about the party than I have recently. The audience was a mixed group covering all ages, disappointingly few black or asian faces given it took places in the north west. The candidates were respectful towards each other and the audience and all spoke from the heart whilst using their heads to support their arguments. I was unimpressed by Liz Kendal, she seemed shallow, inexperienced and anxious. Yvette Cooper is my favoured Leader based on her performance in the lead up to the last election and during this campaign. Andy Burnham presented himself as the party saviour, a bit too macho and certain of his charm/abilities for my liking. Jeremy Corbyn was extremely likeable, warm and spoke from the heart. He was a favourite with the audience.

Turning to the socialists in the party? It is a socialist party .

It was revenge , no other reason,

And, once a mine has been closed it's well nigh impossible to open it again. Not to mention the knock on effect on the area where the mine is [which is still being felt today ]. Wasn't it someone on this forum that sadly commented a few years ago on the sad sight of ships full of coal coming up the Tyne from other countries?

Sorry Jackthelad is totally wrong about our use of coal. "Deeply unfashionable because of carbon emissions, coal is nevertheless still the single fuel most commonly used (41 per cent) to generate electricity in Britain. It’s hard for ex-miners to accept that today 90 per cent of our power-station coal is imported, the largest single source being Russia (38 per cent). David Cameron, for geopolitical reasons flowing from the Ukraine crisis, is now arguing that Britain should be less dependent on Russia, and should therefore pursue the unproven domestic alternative of shale gas extracted through fracking."
Arguably if Thatcher hadn't taken on the miners we would not be importing coal, be much more self sufficient and wouldn't need to be looking at untried methods such as fracking.
Read the whole thing here
www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/how-miners-strike-1984-85-changed-britain-ever
But people like JTL fell for Thatcher's anti miners propaganda

If Labour party members have principles they want to stick to, what is wrong with that?
If the majority of the electorate doesn't agree, then Labour won't get elected but why would they want to get elected in order to follow policies that they don't believe in?
The "right" of Labour doesn't seem to be coming up with much to differentiate it from the Tories so surely voters who have right leanings will just vote tory., not Labour.

There is a time for everything, but by choosing the far left, they are showing they are out of tune with the electorate.

Jacks the lad has a point.... Even though Churchill got the country through the war, Labour was voted in afterwards, but booted out again, and Churchill back in power in 1951! all the other points he mentions are true as well, he is not saying that Labour never accomplished anything ( they did) but that they often chose to bury their heads in the sand, which is what they are doing now by turning to the socialists in the party .

Oh Jackthelad 60 years of life dismissed in one paragraph. OK let's tackle it point by point. When WW2 ended Britain had the worst level of debt it had ever experienced-simply because it had just paid for a war. There was austerity but it was tempered by socialist policies which ensured that the poorest were supported and everyone was subjected to the same regulations (Hence rationing until 1950s) At the same time the NHS was started, a huge amount of social housing was built and the Welfare State was introduced. Out of these policies came the 60s with social mobility, and increasing affluence. The unions simply wanted the working people to be given a share of the country's wealth they were creating. It takes 2 sides to cause a strike. As for the Miners the coal was wanted (we now import coal) and the reason for the strike was the hidden agenda of the Conservatives about the closure of pits (which they constantly denied).
If the present austerity was being managed as it was in 1945 with everyone being affected I am sure most of us would be content. None of us object to Capitalism, but it must be caring capitalism where the poorest don't suffer the most whilst the richest line their pockets at the general public's expense

No system is perfect.

Capitalism MAY not be perfect ! Depends on one's views on the anthem of the thatcher years - greed is good

The Left do not have the answer.
In 1945 a Labour landslide victory was followed by an austerity worse than the privations suffered during the second world war. Later we had the Unions seeking the new Jerusalem that culminated in the winter of discontent and the loss of our industrial base and the wealth it created. The Miners went on strike because they could not understand they were digging up coal nobody wanted following North Sea Gas, the railways giving up steam locomotion and the wide spread use of oil for energy.
Capitalism my not be perfect, but think hard before you take to the alternative. WE maybe the next Greece, but we will be without the sun.

I think you judge a person or a party by their actions. I see George Osborne's smirking face when he announces measures that will hit the most vulnerable people in our society and damage some of our most treasured and valuable institutions. I watch the braying mob behind him - many of whom have never experienced a day's financial worry in their lives - applauding such measures. It is difficult for me to find anything likeable whatsoever about him or many of his colleagues.

For my part, that distaste extends to the likes of Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham who appear to be unsure as to which party they represent.