Labour "ruling elite" "worried sick" about Jeremy Corbyn says Len McCluskey

[claig]

"Unite's Len McCluskey said "an enormous surge" of people wanted to take part after Mr Corbyn was confirmed as running "because people are inspired".

Mr McCluskey accused the "ruling elite" of "trying to rubbish" Mr Corbyn.
...
He said that those who thought Mr Corbyn was "marginalised" should "watch this space".

"I know the people who will be uncomfortable, despite the fact that they are saying the opposite - and that's the ruling elite," he said.

"They try and rubbish it, they try to turn it into a joke, but secretly they will be worried sick that ordinary people are suddenly given something to inspire them and something to link onto," Mr McCluskey said."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33504201

Good luck Jeremy Corbyn. Real democracy that ruins the plans of Labour's "ruling elite".

Corbyn really is different to the rest of them. It's not for show, he is real. They must be "worred sick".

"Expenses

From 7 May until 31 August 2010, Corbyn was the lowest expenses-claimer in the House of Commons. He has always been one of the lowest-claiming MPs. He told the Islington Gazette 'I am a parsimonious MP. I think we should claim what we need to run our offices and pay our staff but be careful because it’s obviously public money."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn

Hahahahahahhaha..... idjut, didn't they say that once about Labour's Michael Foot?

Two 1970's dinosaurs, voters have just rejected.

Corbyn's key supporter, Unite's Len McClusky's illegal strikes will REALLY get 'the people' on Corbyn's side. lol

Claig ... Do I sense that in your attempt to sow political dissatisfaction within the UK that you have jumped from the sinking Good Ship UKIP, when back in the day, elected representative's expenses weren't such an issue with you?????

www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/24/mps-expenses-ukip-nigel-farage
“The leader of the UK Independence party (Ukip), which wants to lead Britain out of the EU, has taken £2m of taxpayers' money in expenses and allowances as a member of the European Parliament, on top of his £64,000 a year salary.”

“Nigel Farage, who is calling on voters to punish "greedy Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem MPs" at the European elections on 4 June, boasted of his personal expenses haul at a meeting with foreign journalists in London last week.”

When you earn ho to spell McCluskey, learn how to express your "thoughts" coherently, learn to respect those who know more than you, and learn to avoid insults and smears in a vain attempt to male a "point", then I shall engage with you and put your right. Until then, I prefer to ignore your raving ramblings.

In other words, you've been busted. ho ho or 'how' spellingbee?

BTW you have no idea how I WANT to spell McCluskey.

Corbyn goes from strength to strength as Blairites, Tory lites and modernisers go into meltdown. It just goes to show that all the spin and best plans of the great and the good can be defeated by the people.

"Labour in meltdown over 'horrific' surge in support for hard-left leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn"
...
There is growing dismay among self-styled 'sensible people' in the party who fear Mr Corbyn's popularity is making them a laughing stock.

It comes after leaked polling suggested Mr Corbyn was ahead in the race to be the new Labour leader, despite being made the 100/1 rank outsider after entering the race at the last minute."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3164016/Labour-meltdown-horrific-surge-support-hard-left-leadership-candidate-Jeremy-Corbyn.html

"Tory lites and modernisers go into meltdown."

You need to learn the difference between a British "meltdown" and doubling over with laughter.

But I'll admit claig, you got this one right early on, so you clearly have a better 'handle' on the Labour Party than on the Conservative Party, having written post after post on here from 2010, arguing with me that the blue team were finished.

The Tories had several leaders over several years so in some ways I sympathise with Labour leader turmoil, but they rubbed Tory faces in it for several years at every opportunity e.g. PMQT, so in other ways I just want to sit back and be entertained.

So according to a YouGov Poll Jeremy Corbyn, or 'chuckles' to his friends, has a 43% Labour vote, with Andy Burnham next at around 26%.

With the poll health warning that this was only a sample poll of 1,000 and left of centre/socialist intentions in recent polls tend to be exaggerated, this clearly is setting off the alarm bells within those in the Labour Party, who believe they have to change.

As I see it, the problem for Labour is that they had run out of policy ideas in 2010 (certainly the money to fund them) and spent 5-years criticising the Coalitions efforts while pretending that they had credible alternatives i.e. increase earnings and less cuts/debt reduction, which did not materialise in 2015 - pathetically saying 'we don't want to offer too much' or what they couldn't deliver.

Corbyn's lead IMO is because of the LACK of new policies/vision over the past 6-years and Labour are reaping what was sown, as their voters actually believe, as in other countries when voting far left or right, that there were near painless ways to get out of the worst financial crisis/recession in over 80-years.

And that taxes on everyone should keep going up, with State Controls on more and more industries, a credible set of policies UNTIL their fat, inefficient, expensive State they created earlier during a financial bubble economy, could be funded in the now - forgetting that the UK has a £1,500,000,000,000 (£1.5 tril) of National Debt and an additional £1.2 tril of unfunded Government State & Private Sector Pension Liabilities.

When a left wing party states time and time again that 'doing the right thing' of correcting their past policy mistakes, helping the private sector to grow/hire and getting the UK's books in order was 'nasty Tory ideology', is it any wonder when the Labour Party in a leadership election/debate decides to 'get real' - many of their own supporters see it as a sell out?

On the Sunday Politics last week Liz Kendall said something like 'we (the Labour Party) have to adapt to the world, not expect the world to adapt to US' - and that was the most profound comment I heard through that tortuous going around in circles debate. IMO

''we (the Labour Party) have to adapt to the world, not expect the world to adapt to US'

This is sell-out philosophy and kowtowing to the Establishment. The whole point of the Labour Party was to change the existing order, to change the world and give rights to working people. If they had adapted to the world, there would be no votes for women, no trade unions and no NHS. They changed the world and made it adapt to them.

Labour and Blair and all the rest of the Oxbridge team are Establishment types and now they are being challenged by an outsider, a real socialist. The Tory lites have no policies because they can't differentiate themselves from the Tory heavies. They are all the same, they all have the same PPE degree.

What appears to be happening is that Labour members have had enough of the Blairs and the coached hand gestures and pregnant pauses and now want something real Corbyn.

The Establishment are laughing at Corbyn now, but if he can come up with something different, something that appeals to millions of working people, then their laughter will cease, because the genie will be out of the bottle and no amount of PPEs will be able to put it back in again.

And left wing Tom Watson is streaks ahead of Stella Creasy in the Deputy Leadership contest. Labour's ruling elite are in meltdown. The Establishment has been on the phone to them and has asked them what on earth is going on, don't they realise that their job was to stop this people's revolt?

All of the Labour elite's platitudes, all of their politically correct spinning, all of their kowtowing has hit the kerb. The fat cats have got a flat and they've called Blair back to try and pump it up and save the shambles for one more defeat.

And here is our second greatest political commentator, after Peter Hitchens, on Len McCluskey

"By the end of our conversation, I feel sure of one thing: McCluskey is one of the most interesting and important public figures in Britain. He stands right outside the political class that has captured the main parties. He sounds different, he looks different and he is different. McCluskey is about loyalty, candour and belief.

In the age of focus groups, he doesn’t care what the public thinks. In the age of inauthenticity, he’s as genuine as they come. He talks a new political language and asks a different set of questions. He represents a full-frontal challenge to the system.

He is not simply a dinosaur, as the Tories believe. Political opposition is about to change shape. Burnham, Kendall and Cooper have bought into the bankrupt Blairite model – namely that opposition parties should model themselves on the government of the day. McCluskey and his ally Jeremy Corbyn are straining to take British politics in an entirely new direction. Who knows, they might succeed. And it might not be such a bad thing if they do."

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/18/len-mccluskey-government-is-like-a-bully-in-the-schoolyard

Everything is changing. You've got Corbyn and Watson on the left, Farage on the right and the PPEs in the middle. That is why the Labour "ruling elite" is "worried sick", they have no place anymore, their game is up.

Second greatest political commentator is Peter Oborne, forget to mention his name.

Re the following … ”McCluskey and his ally Jeremy Corbyn are straining to take British politics in an entirely new direction. Who knows, they might succeed. And it might not be such a bad thing if they do."

Hmmmm….I have a lot of time for Peter Oborne, but I’d suggest that his writing style is ‘adapting’ to The Guardian, as for anyone who lived through the 1970’s as a young adult, will see nothing “new” in the McCluskey/Corbyn direction, re-writing history whilst on their merry way.

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the left usually mumble ‘growth’ to pay for their policies/ideology, but I saw Corbyn supporter Ken Livingstone being interviewed on the BBC virtually SHOUT that ‘investment’ will be a key plank of the Corbyn platform, as if a light bulb flashed and he has found a way to re-invent the commercial uses for the wheel.

One has to assume that Mr Corbyn fully understands that it is the growth and taxes of the Private Sector that entirely PAYS the State/Public Sectors bills and mostly pay off the £153 bill annual overspend his party left under a left wing Brown’s (not Blairs) running of the economy - so Corbyn-esk growth will come from the Private Sector, right?

But then I hear a Corbyn policy is to cancel Student Fees, and to find the several £billion to fund it, he will PUT UP Corporation Tax and National Insurance, which would need to go up a shed load, to raise nearly £10 billion – thereby taxing private sector growth, increasing the tax on jobs, and impacting government/local authority budgets as they as an employer and their EMPLOYEES, pay National Insurance.

So whether this Corbyn-esk ‘investment’ is expected to come via the printing of MORE government National Debt, or by the encouraging the private sector to invest in one hand, while HITTING companies hard just as they are coming out of a huge recession ON TOP of higher minimum wages - it will mean that the Private Sector meant to fund both types of ‘investment’ CONTRACTS, before we even START to pay off our current £1.5 tril national debt.

Re the McClusky/Corbyn "new direction", it was noticeable in the Miliband 2015 Labour Manifesto that the most of Labour's policies could have come straight out of the McCluskey view on how the country should be run.

Now I’ve just seen Corbyn mobbed by the media and asking him questions like ‘didn’t you lose the last election as moved to the left’, Mr Corbyn said something like ‘MAYBE we lost the election as offered Conservative-lite austerity’.

Lets forget for the moment that to the left, correcting a £153 billion 2010 UK annual government overspend is called ‘austerity’ not good country housekeeping, I was reminded of a 2014 quote;

2014; ”Unite’s Len McCluskey Pledges to back Labour”
www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-47a7-Unites-Len-McCluskey-pledges-to-back-Labour#.VSz9TtuF-jE

”UNITE general secretary Len McCluskey pledged yesterday to rally behind Labour to evict the Con-Dems from Downing Street.”

”The combative general secretary has talked openly about the prospect of Unite quitting Labour should it lose the election by offering a pale shade of austerity.”

”But Mr McCluskey called on members to postpone the fight over Labour’s future, offering union cash to aid the party’s campaign as he insisted that “there is no third option.”

As Jeremy Corbyn interviews sound more like Len McCluskey’s interviews, I really don’t think we have to go back too far to work out that there is NOTHING new about the Corbyn direction, as the old puppet master is still pulling the Labour leadership strings.

I heard this morning that some in Labour think that a Corbyn leadership could split the Labour Party; and the more I hear from Corbyn, I think that they are right, left, whatever.

"Lets forget for the moment that to the left, correcting a £153 billion 2010 UK annual government overspend is called ‘austerity’ not good country housekeeping"

I don't think Corbyn is intending to do the following:

"Osborne increases debt more than Labour did over 13 years"

"The national debt figures are out – £1.2 trillion and rising – and although I hate to say it, the Labour Party has a valid point to make. If you don’t adjust for inflation, Osborne has borrowed more in under four years than the Labour Party borrowed over 13 years."

blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/the-tories-have-piled-on-more-debt-than-labour/

I wouldn't put too much faith into these opinion polls that say Corbyn's in the lead. After all, they told us the Tories wouldn't get a majority and look how that turned out.

Claig …. I have a firm view that before a politician is let loose on a parliament, be it the UK, Greece, wherever, before they pass a single LAW, politicians should learn at the very least, the basics of how an economy works – and how a country’s annual Budget Deficit (or Surplus)AFFECTS the national debt, which is no more difficult to working out how a credit card works.

In 1996/7 the UK National Debt was around £400 bil, by 2009/10 it was around £1 trillion.

So if in April 2010 a country already has a £1 trillion National Debt bill, and has a £153 billion Budget deficit for that year, it should not be beyond the intellect of someone running the ‘kin country to understands that if you START in April 2010 with £1 trillion on national debt, then ADD the £153 billion overspend for the new tax year – tah dah come April 2011, the National Debt GOES UP for that year (plus interest) - and every other year whilst running a government annual overspend, until our taxes/spending at least BALANCE.

So there is only ONE thing worse than an economically illiterate politician, it is a dumb hypocritical politician that has OPPOSED every attempt to get that Labour £153 billion overspend down – yet STILL erroneously looks to score political points blaming the Conservatives for NOT bringing the deficit down fast enough while pathetically at the same time, saying the Conservatives having inherited a £153 bil Labour overspend that will ACCUMULATE until our annual budgets BALANCE - has increased the National Debt more than them.

Name me one leftie politician/party that wanted the Conservatives to CUT £153 billion from government spending from May 2010 on Day One, rather than promise via their 2015 manifestos, that by 2020, we are still ADDING to the UK’s National Debt, rather than beginning to pay it off as Osborne is budgeting for?

Isn't McLuskey one of labours ruling elite?

If Corbyn wins we Tories will be partying like it was 1980

Careful cdt, our claig doesn't like certain comrade elites having their name misspelt.

Whatever the Tories in der House think about having such an obvious muppet leading the Labour Party, it is not good for democracy.

When the Conservatives were struggling trying to find a new leader to unite behind and even basic economic competence (by Corbyn standards) didn't appear to be within the criteria to be judged by, Labour got away with too much, although quite what an opposition party can do sitting opposite a government with a honking majority between 130 odd and 160 odd seats is a moot point.

I do remember the last Father of the House (now retired) Sir Peter Tapsell valiantly tried to get to the bottom of Brown's UK gold reserves sales for years, until The Times uncovered the full dets - so unless the government was transparent up to the government controlled Treasury, its tough to challenge a lot of things e.g. PFI deals, many of which for years I believe were 'off balance sheet', as if we were a dodgy Hedge Fund in the Cayman Isles.

'Isn't McLuskey one of labours ruling elite?'

No, he hasn't got a PPE. The ruling elite are in meltdown. McCluskey's candidate, Corbyn, has got all the great and the good in a spin. They even had to call on Blair to help.

Blair made a speech on "the challenge" "in the modern world", "change defines the modern world" and "this change requires new thinking" etc

Is it any wonder Labour party members are crying out for something real - for Corbyn and Watson instead of the spin machine?

The Labour party will not shake things up with Corbyn, we will implode.

The Conservatives will be able to walk a 30+ seat majority (if not more) in the next election.

It would be a disaster.

Len McCluskey is arrogant and self serving - and wrong.

Blair said

'Labour can win again when our values are a guide not a distraction.'

This might go down well in a PPE essay, but Labour Party members are crying out for something real - for Corbyn and Watson. They know they have got Farage on their tails up North, and they need something real to counter it. Blair is history, his pregnanat pauses and thumb pointing gestures are old hat and old spin.

isitmebut, seriously, do no.10 pay you well?

Unfortunately you can't win on Northern seats alone, claig.

Otherwise we would have won the last election.

We need to win in places like Morley & Outwood and Basildon.

Corbyn is toxic for those seats.

Blair is the most successful leader Labour has ever had. We should listen to him.

'Blair is the most successful leader Labour has ever had. We should listen to him.'

The majority of Labour Party members disagree with you.

'Corbyn is toxic for those seats.'

Not necessarily. It depends what his vision is and what answers he comes up for today's problems. Even Peter Oborne, writing about Len McCluskey, says "political opposition s about to change shape".

UKIP and Tory voters won't agree with everything Corbyn says, but if he comes up with enough innovative, real, principled solutions then he will attract enough to win. The days of "they are all the same" are over - Farage has shown that, and now it is Labour's turn.