Hi dave, Many thanks for the considered response.
The questions you voiced reminded me that on the contact page: www.jeremyforlabour.com/contact There's an option to invite him and/or a team member to speak in an event.. I suppose its speaking rather than feeling the beard quality.. Perhaps indeed it could be cool to organise on the list, in furtherfield(??) - seems near or on his constituency - or live online, an open public discussion with him involved? After being in a few hustings, my personal pref would be for him to come, listen to a discussion, and then respond - hence revealing stuff he really is interested in, while getting a better clue about voters' actual concerns.. (well.. my view anyhow..) Yes, the electability question is very curious in my mind. It seems like an aesthetic crisis, a social taboo. The crisis of telling ourselves there is a democracy we live in, however, a bit like in Iran, the "electable" is determined by what seems to be a general consensus. Here in the "west", I think that "consensus" is controlled by a few powers that jostle each other not always in a visible way. Where-as in Iran the consensus is down to the head honcho ayatollah who decides very visibly who can or can not stand for elections. Maybe there is an inherent irony there? Perhaps the analogy isn't entirely spot on, however it seems ridiculous speaking with people who say that they Would have liked to vote for certain policies, but will not because "they can not be done". No? Cheers for the thoughts, dave - Helpful indeed! Have fun! aharon xx On Mon, August 10, 2015 12:50 pm, dave miller wrote: > hi aharon > > Thanks for sharing this - it's a good email and lots of good questions. I > hope he gets in, as he seems to talk about things I find important. Many > people say he'll make Labour into a laughing stock and Labour will never > get elected again, as he presents the wrong image and Labour need a > carefully crafted marketed approach to reach the middle ground voters. I > feel Labour needs to be true to it's original values and be on the side > of people not business/ profit. > > I agree with what you say about voting for Labour as find them more > palatable than the tories. > > I would like to know what he plans to do about austerity - will he fight > it- try to stop it? > > What will he do about the banks? Will he push for them to pay back the > bailout money? > > What about houses? House prices and rents? > > > dave > > On 10 August 2015 at 08:52, none <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> Dear Jeremy Corbyn, >> >> >> Hope this finds you, and/or a trusted assistant very well indeed. >> >> >> Am considering to register as a labour party supporter with the >> intention of voting for you in the leadership elections. However, some >> questions prickle my mind, for which am hoping to get some relevant >> replies. >> >> Since i suspect these prickling questions might be shared with other >> people - this email is open and shared via personal contacts and mailing >> lists. >> >> More regarding context - in Notes bellow signature. >> Am kind of rushing into questions while assuming, hopefully not too >> incorrectly, it might assist readability. >> >> Question #1 >> Will a labour party with your leadership, be open and willing for >> dialogues with both like minded and interested people?* (Debate note) >> >> Question #2 >> Have read somewhere that you rather people Not vote for you if they do >> not feel represented by your views and policies - a very commendable >> stance, imho. >> >> The following might be an over interpretation and misunderstanding what >> was actually meant - hence please excuse a certain bluntness: Would you >> welcome a vote from a person like me who sees potential similarities in >> directions of ideas you support, rather than being represented by these >> ideas*?(Policies note) >> >> Question #2.1 >> Another, related feeling of unease is to do with being a labour >> supporter. >> >> I didn't - and wouldn't - support neo-liberal, blairite labour. >> >> >> However, I have always considered the labour party more palatable than >> the tories. eg, think that if in one's constituency the "choice" is >> between labour and tory - vote labour precisely because then it gives >> more weight for people with links and dependencies to social oriented >> considerations in political views. Does it qualify a person like me to >> sign up as a supporter? >> >> Question #3 >> Suppose it turns out that perhaps there is a positive argument to be >> made in favour of someone like me voting for you. I'd like to have a clue >> whether or not, if you were to be the labour party leader, you'd >> prioritise aspects of public policies. e.g. education over foreign aid >> and defence, etc.. >> >> If there will be such prioritising, where about in the scale of >> importance culture - including art, science and technology developments >> - might find >> itself?* (Culture note) >> >> Considering this might be slightly late in terms of the 12th august >> deadline for getting involved, am considering a payment of £3 as a >> possible way to ensure there is enough time to mull over whether or not >> to vote. >> >> There's a whole bunch of other, more specific questions, however they >> are, in my view, more specific and perhaps less appropriate here. >> >> Cheers, best regards and many advanced thanks for any ideas and >> suggestions! >> >> aharon xx >> >> Thanks for all who suggested stuff to do with this email!! >> >> >> >> Notes: >> >> >> * A general note >> >> >> Following May 2015 elections, there was a time when it seemed only >> new-labour linked people might run for the party's leadership. >> >> At that time, I thought this might be strange because in the past >> there were at least Token candidates from the more socialist wings of >> labour. When your candidacy was announced, I thought this would be such >> a token leadership run - hence am pleasantly surprised there is an >> actual chance someone of your views being elected as the labour leader. >> >> >> * Policies note >> In my opinion, if Blair and Co took labour - and the UK - firmly >> towards 19th century socio-economic practices and debate references that >> inspired some of Dickens' best novels; the kind of socialism you seem >> to represent is firmly in the 20th century. Eg policies like: >> nationalisation, and national education services*. (national education >> services note) >> >> Personally, for example, am more interested, in commonisation*(common >> note) than nationalisation, and a wide scope for experimenting with >> solutions for public services and education. >> >> >> * Debate note >> It seems that with your kind of views leading the Labour party, perhaps >> the debate can turn in the direction people with my kind of views >> think it should. E.g. services that are - or become - a public >> requirement, should be commonised if private and remain of the common if >> already as such. >> >> This "debate reference" argument to vote for you is linked to Owen >> Jones' >> point about preference for debating with a Labour government, rather than >> fight a Tory one. ( >> >> http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/owen-jones-right-are-mocki >> ng-jeremy-corbyn-because-secretly-they-fear-him ) These kind of views >> perhaps have a realpolitik feel - assuming there might indeed be a >> willingness for dialogical rather than theatrical debates. >> >> * Culture note >> The reference is regarding developments that are culturally oriented. >> Art, >> science and technology are general examples, and hopefully do not >> preclude relevant developments in other interests, be it, for example, >> education, driving, swimming, hacking, plumbing, etc.. >> >> * Common orientation note >> In reference to what seems a yet to be well established notion of making >> public services in and of the common. eg: >> http://dougald.nu/fullcommonism/ >> http://is.gd/AfbrTH >> http://is.gd/come2common >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indu_Prakash_Singh >> http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/17806/ >> >> >> http://www.networkedlabour.net/2015/02/the-internet-and-social-media-at >> -a-crossroads-capitalism-or-commonism/ >> >> >> * National education service note >> The idea of a national education service seems, to me, be actually a >> Training - work skills provision - focused proposal. In my mind >> education is to do with questioning that which is considered known, and >> the skills involved with that, rather than specific work/job related >> skill. While this distinction might sound on the scale of pompousness >> and semantic for some, fair enough. Yes, on some levels it is indeed >> meaningless, however, I think that, as illustrated in: >> >> http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/jeremy-corbyn-proposing-na >> tional-education-service-would-it-work - the policy and activity ideas >> seem to be focused on the training side of learning, and perhaps >> education requires policies as well..? >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
