Welp

I can only see it getting worse, tbh

...

...

I think you guys are underestimating how well Blair sold the middle class dream. I'd suspect that the vast majority of 'traditional' labour voters who've gone tory is huge and all of them were the acolytes of Blair. I was pretty young when Blair was elected, so don't really understand the mindset of those who voted nu labour over tory, but they appear to make up a solid half of the labour party. The best thing for the left in the UK would be another labour split with the center right Blairites fucking off somewhere (pls not lib dem) and Corbyn rebuilding the labour party on an open and upfront leftist platform, none of this 'gradualism'/socialism by the back door that Blair and the Fabians (current intellectual leadership of the labour party) endorse.

Full disclosure, Imma Holla Forums and I support some Corbyn's plan's of nationalising some key strategic industries. Maybe an oldfag here can explain how this is meant to work though as Holla Forums always tells me that trains and power were shit when nationalised in the 70s.

Labour were never going to win under Corbyn or Smith. The party hasn't recovered from the mauling it had under Ed Miliband.

I like Corbyn, he represents the old politics, but I won't miss New Labour. The Tories are the safe liberal choice from now on. Any potential opposition won't get anywhere until they come out with an anti-immigration stance to appeal to the Brexit North.

If only.

YOU COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS

god I want to fucking cry

Have a smoke, instead

This.
The "he's unelectable" propaganda has been pushed incredibly hard on every kind of media.

In fact, how do we even know that poll is trustworthy?

Why is the country with the most entrenched class system so fucking classcucked
WHY

Labour and the Tories were pretty much neck and neck back in April, in fact a few polls put Labour above the Tories. It was as soon as the attempted coup happened, the EU referendum fiasco, all of the Blairite attacks on Corbyn going to maximum overdrive, that Labour started to tank in the polls. They were attacking him before but never as intensively as recently.

It's entirely the fault of the Blairites (and their bourgeois backers behind the scenes) that Labour are going to shit. I truly and vehemently despise them. A ditch is too good for them.

how is this a loss

Greens are set to make massive gains

Whoa there. Don't get carried away and set yourself up for disappointment.

The truth is that labour were doing better on a nominally left of tory platform that stuck to the neo-liberal consensus and didn't speak in terms that can be construed as spooky socialism. That said, the youth (Gen Y and younger) seem open to trying socialism. BUt Corbyn isn't a great messenger. It's not that he's not on message or consistant. He's just not very good. I quite like the guy and wouldn't be dissuaded by his dour, uninterested attitude. But many evidently are. I think there is a place for a socialist re-emergence in the UK./ But that place isn't the Labour party as it stands. I hope Corbyn can hold out long enough to be the totem around which the new socialsts of the UK form. But you guys really need someone who has a bit of charisma without coming across as a somewhat arrogant thug (John McDonald), a bully (MccLuskey) or an uninteresting, dull old trot (Corbyn). You essentially need someone who will play the game to a degree, but will also be open and honest with his/her socialist beliefs and argue in their defense well. This person also has to listen to the issues that these excellent northerners bring up and not dismiss them as bigots or anything similar. Placing socially liberal policies near the bottom of the agenda would also do well in bringing back a core of workers instead of the liberal elite that seem to be the target for both parties recently. The right person is the only thing I see as holding the left back in the UK. Sure, you're not going to win in 2020. Probably not even 2025. But a charismatic leader can move the overton window back leftwards and build on the obvious desire for meaningful change that made Corbyn leader of the party.

And one final protip, this one for free. The next labour leader should downplay or drop the anti-Tridant thing as this instantly puts of the militarists/nationalists/patriots/paranoid. Maybe not a great target audience, but large enough to swing the thing.

How could this have happened? I remember only a couple months ago Labour got slightly more support in the polls than they did in the general elections, but now their support is collapsing? Is it brexit? Why is Labour the one suffering from Brexit? Have all the Blairites gone Tory? How reliable is this forecast anyway?

It's Corbyn. If half Labour's current base are Blairites they'll vote tory before Corbs.

It's like they've already forgot that the CON are literally pig fuckers.

I know very little about UK politics because I'm an amerifat, but I find it interesting that a good number of people from Holla Forums don't like nationalization, considering how Hitler nationalized a few industries in Nazi Germany.

Then again he also privatized a lot.

There are still quite a lot of free-marketeers. Not sure how sincere they all are. The irony being in this case that our next generation of nuclear power is going to be state owned, but by the Chinese and French states. This pisses me off to no end.

And a big thanks to everyone who supported neo-liberal mass immigration policies.

I find that peculiar. Nazi thought has always extended into intertwining government and market, so wouldn't it be completely counter-intuitive to be a fascist while also supporting a free market?

reuters.com/article/us-austria-election-farright-idUSKCN1140QQ

This guy was even affiliated with groups that want to make Austria part of Germany again, bwahaha.

I'm talking about 4/pol/. A hearty blend of nazis, fascists, libertarians, muzzies, jews, the odd leftist and everything in-between.

Welp, looks like full revolution is the answer because reactionaries can't stop being reactionaries

Bourgeois governments have a tendency to run nationalised services into the ground, only to cut them up and sell them off for the benefit of … The bourgeoisie.

Can't talk about power and transport in the UK, but in Australia you get cycles where the nationalised services slowly get less and less funding, and services get worse and worse. This leads to them being sold off privately, then services being good but more expensive, but generally better for a few years, until the company has milked it and then they get even worse. Then the government will buy them back for an inflated price and sink millions into fixing it.

Once it's fixed they sell it for a pittance and allow corporations to milk them again.

Yes. Full revolution with your minority of hard left. What could possibly go wrong…

Here's the thing with nationalised services over here. Their budgets tend to increase year on year til the money is gone. Just look at the NHS. It's budget has been increased in real terms every year for as long as I can remember but still not enough. Though I think healthcare is different to other national services and the problems in the UK with the NHS are a result of the demographic. I'd like to see any future nationalisations fully planned out for say the next ten years minimum before going ahead and actually doing it. I don't know how to fix. This is why we need an articulate, passionate and smart guy to replace Corbyn once he has set the base for a left wing revival.

That budget has mainly gone to providing private sector contracts; other government departments are no different.

The Exchequer announces spending reductions.
Civil servants are laid off.
The budget originally set is doubled.
The office hands this as a contract to a private investor.
Said investor performs the same amount of work at double the price.

This can range from providing equipment to paying staff.

Also, the NHS budget does not increase proportionally with requirement of use. Nor is its budget being raised, but reduced.

In fear of going off topic, I'd say that it is important to lower the debt. We currently pay 50bn a year in debt interest. This is 50bn that could go to the NHS. More borrowing = more debt interest. I don't see anything inherently right wing in running a balanced budget regardless of little Nikki and co have tried to paint it. I also disagree that the NHS budget has been cut. Spending on it has gone up both in real terms and as a % of GDP.

Now I'm sure the PFIs and related shite has sucked billions of £ from the NHS budget into the hands of greedy cunts. If I was Corbyn I'd hammer this home and promise to get rid of the PFIs. Unfortunately this isn't easy when there is no money.

The one final thing I will say is they bring in private companies for reasons beyond just self enrichment. Some services that had a bit of private brought in have improved. The real issue is why private workers/companies seem to perform better and how to fix. I am not saying this is always the case, that private is better. But there are cases where it is.

bbc.co.uk/news/health-37186455

NHS spending is not equivalent to total health spending, which is set to be cut. Spending increases are not spread proportionally, again, but thrown against outstanding debts and pensions. Increases in budget don't align properly, as spending reviews only target the provision of NHS healthcare for England - the total rise in GDP does also not equal a real rise in the provision of services - and public spending is set to fall.

Everything else you've written is reasoning by analogy and contradictory to fact. In a period of "austerity policies", privitsation has gone hand in hand with financing government debt. The rationalisation of this being the same the former Chancellor propounded. The "need to reduce the deficit" is abstract rhetoric with a real material reality behind it.

It suggests that the Blairites are trying to sabotage their own party.

The graph I posted is also BBC and shows a clear increase in spending by whatever metric you choose to use. But I'm not here defending the tories. Wheter the extra spending goes on wards or pensions matters not IMO as pensions are a part of the service and thus MUST be honoured. My point is that the costs of the NHS are increasing and indeed only ever seem to increase. This is an issue but one fortunately unique to the health service. Other nationalised industries don't necessarily follow the same path.

You may not like austerity but you cannot deny that debt at the levels we have, and at our state of development, are not sustainable. I'll say again, and this isn't analogy. We spend 50bn a year on debt interest. This is before even paying down the debt. This is undeniable, and a terrifying amount of money. It is more than our total military spending. Every year.

Is this to say that you don't think we do or that the approach is wrong?

So was trump, but not only did he win the nomination in a landslide but also is up in a few polls. The media (in the US anyway) has a 2% trust rate. If they push hard, a lot of the times it will have the opposite reaction, people will look into what it is they're fighting. As the saying goes, Negative media is still media.

"I" think that argument by the reduction of actual statistics of trade for the rationalization of public policy has been a common theme in a Conservative government set on disguising its political measures as economic necessity. This also works both ways, as government initiatives extend only in so far as they serve for the provision of finances, as was under New Labour.

Such that, recognising the disjunction between the continuous rise in NHS spending and its effective implementation judged only in terms of economic utility, and then using that form of contradictory comparison between say the price tag of a nation's debt involved in the circulation of capital and its military spending, is based precisely on the sort of paradoxical thinking inscribed in austerity politics; arguments for budgetary increases revolve around a prior and unquestioned assumption even if the argument is for an increase in X public institution or Y department.

Here's a document from the King's Fund with a spending assessment for 2015/2016:

nuffieldtrust.org.uk/sites/files/nuffield/publication/spending-review-nuffield-health-kings-fund-december-2015_kf0372_1_0.pdf

I think you completely dodged the question. I'm not here to defend the tories but this 'the debt doesn't matter' attitude so prevalent among the left is just odd. It doesn't stand up to the most basic scrutiny and you always change the topic.

Simple question again. Does government debt matter?

You've misunderstood what I've written. I'm saying that debt matters in so far as it is useful.

Don't you worry guize.
Rightists don't exist. Whenever you see someone spouting rightist stuff it's actually just a kid being edgy and contrarian and not real.
Everybody is a leftist just like me and my friends.
I bet hitler didn't even existed.

You're saying it is a tool used as justification for policy? I'm saying that 50bn a year in DEBT INTEREST is very real and takes money away from shit we really need. Do you accept this or is it just a cunning ruse by call-me-dave and his chums?

Lol you're deluded mate. Miliband was ahead in most polls but he got slaughtered in the election. Do you know why that is? Because polls only look at overall/popular vote which always fucks over Labour due to places like Scotland. The ONLY positive polling for Labour is one that puts them 10 points ahead. Them being 'neck and neck' in the polls with the Tories = a Tory victory. At no point, either before or after the coup, was Corbyn ahead of the Tories in a consistent comfortable manner. Shifting the blame elsewhere is the sign of someone desperate to mask Corbyn's failures.

Face it people, Corbyn is garbage. The Blairites don't help but even if you discount them he is useless on an almost astronomical level. Smith is unelectable too. The Labour party is dead (at least for the foreseeable future).

care to name these failures, faggot"?

No.

I'm saying that trade operates as part of a political economy, and that the naturalization of economic fact as an independent measure of social wealth has blind sided an electorate into communicating about politics as you are now. Abstractly referencing a certain real amount of debt and placing it - by some supposedly shared significance which remains out of question - next to whichever political measure is the policy of the day (Military Expenditure, Juridical Enforcement, Social Care) does nothing other than exclude they who cannot argue in the last instance by absolute reference. Facts matter absolutely. But so too does the entire material dimension which remains unoccupied by these facts. The absolute transformation of this process of argument by reduction to economic necessity made itself a spectacle in the EU debates for example. When the Government exhausted its tried and tested ideological policy of conjuring up economic statistics, it had to resort to the same entrenched fear mongering both sides of the Leave campaign were on (which ironically Leave were later caught out on).

To bring this back, "I" don't think argument by comparison solely to funding is a proper way to assess the provision of healthcare nor the NHS. Such a form of argument lays the foundation for the completely tautological manner in which American healthcare is better served as a private good, whether you argue for or against budgetary increases in the NHS.

A cunning ruse by Cameron to serve the interests of Capital.

Everyone in the 'liberal' media should be fucking ashamed.

Tell them to come here and they will be.

There's a veritable fuckload but I'll name one.

Corbyn's ONLY flagship policy was renationalisation. It's the only concrete thing he called for. On January 2nd every year rail prices go up. This is the perfect time to attack the Tories on the state of our railways. He and his transport secretary had a whole thing set up for that day and what does go and do? An impromptu cabinet reshuffle which eclipsed ALL talk of rail fares. (Not to mention is was drawn out as fuck which made Corbyn look even worse.)

His retarded decision to promote Chakrabati following her anti-Semitism report. Even if there was no underhanded deal it looks suspicious as fuck given she was the *only* person he'd given the peerage to. What does that mean? He couldn't attack Cameron for his nonsense peerage stuff.

If this recent train gate stuff is true then that's another notch. Hell, yougov did a poll and found most the population believe virgin over Corbyn. Again, I dunno if this is true but if it is then that's Corbyn's reputation for honesty gone down the toilet.

Bring on fucking Clive Lewis or someone with half a brain when it comes to politics.

Corbyn is not a socialist, he is a social democrat with a bit of 70s trade unionism thrown in. All he wants is to nationalise a couple of industries. Even if he is the most left-wing leader that actually has a chance of getting elected (let's be honest with ourselves, he really doesn't), he does have a dodgy past. He has shot himself in the foot with the Chakrabarti lords appointment and some of the other massive PR blunders. He has appeared on the state TV networks of the highly oppressive authoritarian regimes of Iran and Russia. I'm confused as the why I keep hearing so called 'revolutionary socialists' talking about throwing all their support behind this man, and even I am a reformist! I appreciate that he's brought leftism back somewhat but seriously, we could do so much better than this and have a much better chance of being elected with a younger, more modernised socialist leader imo.

Has anybody in power ever been socialist user?

...

So Lenin was the one true socialist who actually did socialism? Or did he not get the chance to do it?

There have been plenty of true socialists; Lenin is the one who got the chance to get to power (not alone). He didn't get the chance to get to socialism indeed.

If you disagree then you just can't accept that anyone is a socialist

Is Corbyn a socialist?

Well, he says he is, but does that make him one? His policies of renationaising a couple thungs make him a social democrat in my opinion. I don't really see very much about his policy that would make it socialist.

but there were tangible, concrete events which took place _other than corbyn_ which precisely resulted in labour tanking in the polls _lower than their equilibrium level_, which had been maintained under corbyn and prior to the introduction of these other factors.
This is not "a sign of someone desperate to mask Corbyn's failures", it's an identification of the factors that have moved Labour from a position where they had a feasible chance of gaining ground (i.e. their previous position of polling similarly with the tories, even if that corresponded to an electoral defeat) to a much weaker position (i.e. OP's pic), other than Corbyn.

As an apparent leftist, why would you want Labour in their Blairite form in power?

...

I personally don't. However in order to win control of the mass organisations of the working class it's necessary to to defeat the rhetoric of the bourgeois elements, ie. that socialism will never have any potential to be popular.

This isn't idealism; while (being a party with a working class basis unlike eg. the US democrat party) there is a potential (based in the material conditions) for the labour party to transform into a vehicle for a mass revolutionary organisation of the working class, that potential may be damped by a bourgeois subjective factor, and as a result a revolutionary subjective factor is needed to combat the bourgeois subjective factor (through political means) and allow the labour party to realise its potential.

If you think a revolution can be carried out without a thought for the actually existing mass organisations of the working class take a look at the SPGB, SWP, etc.

Champagne socialism is not socialism. Mass privatisation is definitely not socialism. So he introduced a minimum wage, so fucking what.

He was imperialist scum and he murdered David Kelly so we would go to war based on a dossier of lies.

That really is the hardest point to get across to some people. Not just the personal more "up and close" murders, but even just the wars in general.

These people are murderers.

They're not "respectable politicians", they're not anything. They are straight up, all of them - all these pro-imperialist war politicans - murderers.

They're fucking monsters. It's infuriating how endless war has become as normalized as it has.
That anyone could look at the president of the US, or the PM of the UK, or even most of the EU states as they're engaged in full on murder via nato's "interventionist (capitalist market expansion)" wars with anything but complete repulsion is… well, repulsive.

These people, and they are people, persons, actual individuals, are SCUM.

...