I know it would have been extremely complicated to revise the industries they wanted into public ownership and the number of contracts with the people in those industries that would needed to have been changed.

I feel like if they’d really thought about that task as a task that needed to be undertaken while balancing these things: maintaining status quo at least of service; brexit (potentially); the money required to keep all things outside of those areas functioning and all the other new things they promised (regional banks etc). Then they wouldn’t have really proposed it.

What was clear (to me) though was the message was more emphasised on nationalisation rather than, say, a specific idea that meant you can see a doctor at night if you need one or reducing waiting times - as if the former would definitely lead to the latter.
.
Take free broadband: as was pointed out the model was taken from South Korea but the idea doesn’t need a nationalised service provider as is the case there - which has private companies regulated by the government. But still to provide free broadband Labour ostensibly needed to renationalise a chunk of BT (open reach). In fact the idea of free broadband was first mooted by the brexit party which clearly wouldn’t have had interest in nationalising anything.

So: my take home was that nationalisation was more important than actually delivering something better

Haha whatever.

mistercrayon wrote:

I know it would have been extremely complicated to revise the industries they wanted into public ownership and the number of contracts with the people in those industries that would needed to have been changed.

I feel like if they’d really thought about that task as a task that needed to be undertaken while balancing these things: maintaining status quo at least of service; brexit (potentially); the money required to keep all things outside of those areas functioning and all the other new things they promised (regional banks etc). Then they wouldn’t have really proposed it.

What was clear (to me) though was the message was more emphasised on nationalisation rather than, say, a specific idea that meant you can see a doctor at night if you need one or reducing waiting times - as if the former would definitely lead to the latter.
.
Take free broadband: as was pointed out the model was taken from South Korea but the idea doesn’t need a nationalised service provider as is the case there - which has private companies regulated by the government. But still to provide free broadband Labour ostensibly needed to renationalise a chunk of BT (open reach). In fact the idea of free broadband was first mooted by the brexit party which clearly wouldn’t have had interest in nationalising anything.

So: my take home was that nationalisation was more important than actually delivering something better

You seem horribly confused and misinformed; that being the case, you attribute that confusion and misinformation to others.

Conflating contracts, nationalisation of infrastructure like openreach, and free broadband.

I don't even know where to begin with you.

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?

Apologies I was a bit blunt. You've always been open and reasonable and, frankly, not a dumbass that's likely to fall for that stuff. 

Class is a funny thing though. I doubt either of my parents earned more than either of Phillips. She's definitely better educated and more successful in a more prestigious job. But I still think I'm probably more middle-class than her and most people would agree if we were side by side. I don't know why. Outlook, lifestyle, family connections, yes probably accent and other superficial things too. Clearly Phillips plays up to it as well. I remember seeing somewhere she said something like "If you cut me, I bleed Birmingham." which is as pretentious a bit of hogwash as I've ever heard any politician come out with. 

So it's not irrelevant. But it's also completely irrelevant. We only get worked up about this stuff because there's so few actual working class people in the top positions and when they are there, everyone makes a big deal about it. I don't know where I'm going with this. I think it should be kept in mind that there's a difference between someone earning 150k because they've had all the advantages in life to put them in that position and someone earning that amount because they've worked their way up to it. 

Working class, lower middle, middle middle, upper middle etc. I don't know how useful these labels are really. I class myself as ordinary. Nearly everyone is ordinary. They have ordinary backgrounds that are pretty similar. They grew up in houses that have 2,3 or 4 bedrooms (probably everyone here). Not 10 or 20 (Griff). When you get to that level then you can start calling fraud when they're putting themselves forward as a man (or woman) of the people.  

As for Phillips herself, I know nothing about her apart from she's blunt. That is not to be underestimated against the current Tory party for three reasons 
1) they thrive on creating confusion
2) they're all schooled in management-speak bullshit that can be taken apart by bluntness
3) their leader's only actual skill is that he's a genius at getting his message across in very pithy ways. His babbling is for confusion. The thing he wants to get across always gets out. Same as Trump. 

I'm trying to be open-minded about all of them. The job is so big I doubt any of them can tick all of the boxes. Vision is great. Winning is everything though. Better a shit Labour government that can slows the decay than a visionary opposition that can only watch the Tories fuck it all into the Sun. Hopefully that's not the choice though.

But! REAL PEOPLE! SAID WITH AN ACCENT LIKE

Jacobin doing some work on Phillips so I don't have to.

Cheers monkey. My point was that so far, that’s about all I can find from her: that’s she plain speaking, and a better representer of less fortunate people than alternatives in the Labour Party leadership. The key word is “from”: this is how she herself puts forward her thinking and credentials for government. I’ll wait and see what she presents in a leadership manifesto though - maybe she just hasn’t had the chance to say “this is what I’d do if in charge, and how, and why”.

As for class, its still a useful way of grouping demographics, although the “old classes” of working, various stabs at middle, and upper, are mostly redundant i believe. Thereve been many attempts at revising, one I like is here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22000973

Jess Phillips is a novelty-themed empty vessel howling as the wind passes through her; Andy Burnham with boobs and enough of a proper Northern lilt to charm sections of the media into calling her a champion. A perfect fit really.

As if Birmingham's the north, smh.

nick_md wrote:

As if Birmingham's the north, smh.

I was just thinking that, but couldn't remember if anyone had claimed she was Northern, or if I had just imagined it.

Never understand why people are so down on Birmingham, it is a stunning city

They’re in that Jacobin article

Tempy wrote:

They’re in that Jacobin article

No they're not.

This link should work. Scroll up a page to the first mention of Grenfell
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=i1igDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT53&lpg=PT53&dq=jess+phillips+grenfell&source=bl&ots=effkfooPrK&sig=ACfU3U11i5zJALLo2QyXwp4HUwBw918FYQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwivhbCo0uzmAhWwQUEAHZSdCbc4ChDoATAHegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=jess%20phillips%20grenfell&f=false

Her argument is that having a narrow focus on their key objectives was a better route to getting what they wanted than allowing the media and politicians to define what their demands were for them. Grenfell United was set up to make sure everyone had a roof over their head, then mental health support, then long-term, make changes so that residents of other places had ways of getting stuff changed. The implication in Jacobin was that she thinks any discussion about cladding was besides the point or unneccesary. She doesn't say that. She just recognises that it wasn't their objective, and if it had been, would have been less achievable, and would have detracted from their main goal of getting everyone rehoused. That's my reading anyway. See for yourself. 

Again, I don't want to be the apologist for her and I'm not convinced she's the answer. But I'm not entirely comfortable with the left-wing hatchet job that seems to be underway on the internet either.

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

Not achievable.

I said less achievable. 

I don't know what you want. A group of ordinary people were made homeless and wanted homes. They kept sticking to that demand and got new homes. They didn't get drawn into some wider policy discussion about something else because it's not their job and wouldn't have helped them get new homes. Playing that game would have let the powerful keep them from their objectives. 

I have no idea if that's right, or a fair reflection of what happened, or Phillips is twisting it to fit her own narrative or what. But that's the argument she's putting forward. How ordinary people can make changes. What it definitely isn't is her argument for how Labour should operate, because as that article says, Labour is barely mentioned. But you've all made you're mind up. She's a shill. They're all shills. Only [insert Corbyn candidate] is pure enough.

I just think it was written about something else. You've probably put more thought into it than she did. I doubt she thought "I'd better cover my arse here because one day people will be reading this and picking it apart and any ambiguity or poor wording is going to be jumped upon as evidence of some lack of concern over an easily fixable problem that would save lives." She's talking about what that group did. Not what she thinks the right policies are to fix the thing in government. Maybe you're right and as PM she would think that a straightforward recladding of a couple of hundred tower blocks is way too much work. Why bother eh? Let em burn.