[NetBehaviour] questions from a plausible Corbyn voter?

none aha at aharonic.net
Sun Aug 9 22:52:02 CEST 2015

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,

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

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!


Thanks for all who suggested stuff to do with this email!!


* 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. (
) 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:

*  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:
 - the policy and activity ideas seem to be focused on the training side
of learning, and perhaps education requires policies as well..?

More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list