To me it refers to Corbyn's political ideals, how it is loaded relates to how accurate they are being portrayed.

It isn't a word that is going to go away so it is far better to approach it from that point of view as it allows inaccuracies in his political stance to be corrected.

Ok, but you said Corbynist isn't the way to go. So, what do you mean by that? What isn't the way to go?

Funkstain wrote:

I'm not sure - I think that challenging the word at the outset could be an effective way to challenge those inaccuracies and demonstrate the power of words. It is in the lexicon but it shouldn't be, and it was put in the lexicon by powerful people with nefarious interests. One way of showing that it shouldn't exist is precisely to ask people what it means to them, and show that it means different things to different people. True political / social movements can be more uniformly defined. - Leftist policies - Antisemitism - Communism by another name - Terrorist sympathies / IRA support - Youthful Labour positivism - Entryism - etc How can all that be defined by one word which actually means something? it's a weapon used by progressivism's enemies and needs to be called out

Decent counter argument.

At the very least it needs to be explained in that way.

Simply claiming it doesn't exist in one sentence isn't.

Diluted Dante wrote:

So, do less basically, when it comes to the public sector?

As an example.
I don't see a revolution happening at the polling booth but change could happen gradually, probably over a couple of decades.
It isn't ideal but neither is a massive Tory majority.

Jess Phillips has now officially entered the race to be the next Labour leader. Good. She's got the common touch, she's a superb orator and exactly the sort of plain speaking no nonsense character that will absolutely maul Boris in the Chamber. She's got my vote.

She seems functionally useless other than an accent

alright I’ll do the research on her voting record and public statements and background and answer myself JEEZE

@Funkstain. She is more of a centralist, preferring to tackle homelessness first, rather than introducing a sweeping programme of nationalisation. She's a Brummie. And her background is working in a women's refuge, social worker then MP.  So she's grounded and is seen and done things that members of Labour's intelligentsia haven't.  Plus she makes speeches like this:

Oddly I was just listening to her on the Off Menu podcast.
She chose "Breakfast for tea" as her dream main course.

Funkstain wrote:

Thanks Blocks. My initial impression is that there’s a lot of image management - a lot of “I’m true working class representation compared to these London elites” when her parent was a chief exec of an NHS trust (salary: well over £150k). Of course, only important if she trades on that image, will continue to look at speeches and books. Very strong on women representation in parliament and committees so that’s good.

And this is the tabloid attack against Phillips. Her Mum did alright for herself so her daughter must be a giant fraud.

Anyone who can't bridge the here and now with some sort of long term vision is someone who may as well not bother as far as I'm concerned. I don't really care who they appeal to if they don't have bigger plans to respond to current and coming crises - they aren't going to make enough of a difference.

Jess Phillips has nothing, no vision, at all. She'd be a disaster.

monkey wrote:

Funkstain wrote:

Thanks Blocks. My initial impression is that there’s a lot of image management - a lot of “I’m true working class representation compared to these London elites” when her parent was a chief exec of an NHS trust (salary: well over £150k). Of course, only important if she trades on that image, will continue to look at speeches and books. Very strong on women representation in parliament and committees so that’s good.

And this is the tabloid attack against Phillips. Her Mum did alright for herself so her daughter must be a giant fraud.

that you think I’m awful enough to succumb to basic tabloid smears makes me worry about how badly I come across itt!

These are her own words, her own team placing her as a “working class people's champion” directly in opposition not just to the tories but specifically and precisely the Corbyn-supporting wing of the party. To be fair, having Corbyn’s oxbridge lot va Philips debating who’s more working class is a bit like as if you had a debate on racism and only invited white people but it’s not a helpful argument in any case.

I’ve found more, so far my main concerns now echo the others here: the coherent vision for the country. Nationalisation was hardly the only pillar in Corbyn’s plans, the manifesto was transformative (however much we debate its merits and realism). You have to have SOMETHING beyond “better representation and protection for women (v good) and more plain speaking”. Can anyone point me to something longer term planning she’s been involved with / discussed / written down?

Please tell me how nationalisation = better.

mistercrayon wrote:

Please tell me how nationalisation = better.

In theory? When services are there for the benefit of all (and in the case of utilities, are effectively owned by everyone collectively) then public ownership should help ensure that the service is delivered and maintained in a manner that benefits everyone. When they are privately owned, they are delivered and maintained in a way that maximises profit, not the benefit of the users.

Yes, there are difficulties with nationalisation. Balancing general efficiency with the need to maintain those aspects that are less efficient but are there to provide a better quality service to all. But the answer is not privatisation.