jambalaya – Member
The parliamentary party know Corbyn cannot win a general election, even if he wins the vote he’s likely to face a rebellion….

Wouldn’t it be simpler for the Red Tories in the Labour Party to join a party that reflects their real beliefs.

Like UKIP or the Conservative Party?

FTFY

jambalaya – Member

The parliamentary party know Corbyn cannot win a general election

They thought Miliband would do that, and backed the mighty Jim Murphy to the hilt, so they should probably be giving some thought to the quality of their judgement.

The parliamentary party know Corbyn cannot win a general election

Which is why Blair and his stooges are supporting Liz Kendall, the least talented candidate and the one with the least public support. It’s hard to imagine a more obvious and guaranteed loser than Liz Kendall.

Blair, Mandelson, and all the other self-serving New Labour politicians, would be more than happy to see the Tories win in 2020 than Labour led by Corbyn. And why wouldn’t they be ffs ? Give me one convincing reason.

And btw the EU gave money to Hamas. The UK considers the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades to be a terrorist organisation but not Hamas. I have no idea why you think Corbyn might lose his seat due to his long standing support for talks with Hamas. Nick Clegg didn’t lose his seat despite calling for precisely that :

Israel must open talks with Hamas

Talking is a vital instrument in securing peace.

Not everyone shares your unwavering pro-Zionist opinions jambalaya, you might not vote for those who don’t but it doesn’t mean that others won’t.

seosamh77 – Member

You say that as if a split in the labour party would be a bad thing?

I actually think jambalaya is right on that. A rebellion by the hard right is pretty much guaranteed, their contempt for democracy and the wishes of Labour Party members is indisputable imo.

In fact this leadership contest has exposed just how utterly out of touch the Labour political elite is with their own party, never mind the British people.

Jeremy Corbyn’s huge support within the Labour Party comes as a complete shock to them, they had absolutely no idea. Why ffs ? How could they be so out of touch with a party which they are fully paid up members of ?

The fact that they are so surprised and shocked exposes the complete lack of inner-party democracy in the Labour Party. And how unconnected and divorced they are from the party they belong to. Is it any wonder that they are disconnected and divorced from traditional Labour voters, and for that matter much of the rest of the British electorate ?

I went to the Jeremy Corbyn meeting in Croydon tonight and he was asked the question of rebellion by the Parliamentary Labour Party should he become leader. I’m not sure he really answered the question but he had earlier talked extensively about reintroducing democracy into the party and taking collective decisions. Which for me was the most important thing I wanted to hear.

But far from having a negative effect like seosamh I would actually welcome a right-wing rebellion.

For literally decades I have heard the tired old mantra about “winning the party back”, nothing has been even remotely done over many years to win the party back. This leadership contest however is the first serious attempt since the Blairites seized power to do precisely that.

I believe that it will ultimately fail, even if Corbyn wins the leadership contest, the hard right will make certain of that.

It will however make the case for a new party of the left even more compelling, to the point that demand will guarantee it.

Burnham had stated hed renationalise the railways
The Corbyn effect !

And jamby, we’ll be allied with Hamas soon enough in the fight against IS (It ll piss off the Israelis and particularly the baby burning settlers )

good points ernie –indeed , exposing the labour party machine for what it is , is probbly the thing that freaks the ‘right’ out–voters wont be too bothered at the moment , but a Corbyn leadership would bring things to the boil– hopefully a load of deadwood will just drift away-after all they have no roots, no support, just self serving apparachniks that have riden the gravy train –all those career politicians can do one –the very idea of a career -it shouild be an honour to represent people-but you are right to be wary of the ‘right’ -but on the other hand , they are a smoke and mirror brigade with no real support, that JC is building/re awakening –a new party of the left would be good in my opinion –untainted by the husk of blairism…no doubt you’ll here the ‘it will never happen in this country ‘ nonsense……..

It will however make the case for a new party of the left even more compelling, to the point that demand will guarantee it.

That case has always been there, but we all know it won’t happen, for a whole load of reasons. The best, and perhaps only chance of the left re-asserting itself is the Corbyn leadership bid. This is one of the reasons he’s so popular, people who had previously given up on any hope of a left-leaning party ever having a chance of power (I count myself one of them), have suddenly realised it might be possible. It’s funny to think that changing the leadership voting system could be Ed Miliband’s greatest legacy. Still haven’t signed up yet though, might get round to it later today.

The parliamentary party know Corbyn cannot win a general election, even if he wins the vote he’s likely to face a rebellion. If it’s proven he took money from Hamas, an internationally recognised terrorist organisation, to vist Gaza he won’t survive even as an MP.

It may well be the case that Corbyn can’t win the next election, but looking at the other candidates, I fail to see why their prospects are any better, so we might as well go with someone who actually has something to say.

You’ll have to explain the problem with accepting an invitation from a democratically elected government…

It’s very amusing when political parties lose the plot. Remember the Toties thinking that IDS and even Howard were capable of winning. Do people really believe that Corbyn is seen a future PM? Really? Pretty much everything is stacked against him and at the end of the day voters see through spin (ok Scotland aside for the time being).

Perhaps this whole muddle is caused by the clinging to Jurassic notions of LW v RW or even class when the results of the last election indicate that neither wer causal factors (Lab won 41% of the DE group and we’re equal to the Tories in C2>. Still if you ask the wrong question, you will get the wrong solution. And this are Labour left enough etc is completely the wrong question.

Still it keeps the hacks happy and is amusing to watch if a little depressing when there are real issues to address.

As for the comments on people not voting – the 2015 election was the highest turnabout since ’97 – perhaps the real point is what happened to voters share in different segments and why Labour are not perceived as being relevant to some of the big groups. That’s the trouble with representative democracy you have to represent the interests of the majority not those clinging to old fashioned notions of the 20th Century. Still all good fun to watch.

And the SNP must be loving it – more reasons why they escape proper scrutiny. Handed on a plate…….

It may well be the case that Corbyn can’t win the next election, but looking at the other candidates, I fail to see why their prospects are any better, so we might as well go with someone who actually has something to say.

This. Don’t know if I’ve ever voted Labour but they’ve had three quid off me in the hope someone with a notion what they want to do leads the party, rather than yet another no-one too afraid of bad opinion to hold any genuine opinion of their own.

They thought Miliband would do that, and backed the mighty Jim Murphy to the hilt, so they should probably be giving some thought to the quality of their judgement.

To be fair the PLP (as well as the membership) voted for the other Miliband.

Do people really believe that Corbyn is seen a future PM? Really?

Not really, no. But what it will do is change the landscape and drag the labour party back to representing it’s members and supporters interests and beliefs rather than playing to the tune of tiny cabal of career politicians who just want to use it as a vehicle to gain power by any means. The Corbyn bid is already changing things. Burnham has already abandoned/toned down his anti-immigrant and anti-benefits rhetoric he used after the election and is now talking about massive investment in the NHS and even re-nationalising the railways, and Kendall looks as marginalised as ever.

I agree the left v right thing is out of date and largely irrelevant. But IMO the Corbyn leadership bid more about the people v the establishment than left v right which is why it’s so popular. The media and his opponents seem to be the only ones talking in left v right terms, everyone I know who is interested talks instead about the return of some semblance of democracy, accountability and fairness.

teamhurtmore – Member
Do people really believe that Corbyn is seen a future PM? Really?

Do you believe any of the other candidates are electable? Really?

Just 2 months ago, Corbyn was a rank outsider incapable of winning the leadership contest…I’d suggest he’s far more electable than the other 3.

Tbh I agree with Ernies surmation, that his appointment will lead to a split. I don’t see that as a bad thing at all.

I don’t think this leadership is about electing a PM yet at all, it’s about changing the direction of a party. Long time till the next election GE.

Not really, no. But what it will do is change the landscape and drag the labour party back to representing it’s members and supporters interests and beliefs rather than playing to the tune of tiny cabal of career politicians who just want to use it as a vehicle to gain power by any means. The Corbyn bid is already changing things. Burnham has already abandoned/toned down his anti-immigrant and anti-benefits rhetoric he used after the election and is now talking about massive investment in the NHS and even re-nationalising the railways, and Kendall looks as marginalised as ever.

But doesn’t that just turn Corbyn into a placeholder, in which case you either need to go through this whole rigmarole again in two years time to give a new leader a chance at the 2020 election, or you’re committing to going into the next election already expecting to lose (again!) by which timescale we will have had fifteen years of Tory government before Labour even intend to fight and win? 😯

Not really, it makes Corbyn a catalyst for either change in the direction of the Labour party or for the break up of the labour party and the formation of an alternative.

Whether or not he is electable as a leader is unknown at this point. It’ll depend entirely how he conducts himself over the next 5 years now that he has stuck his head above the parapet.

The people now telling us that Corbyn can’t win an election are the very same people who only a couple of months ago were confidently asserting that Dave couldn’t possibly win a parliamentary majority, and we’d presently be living under a Labour/SNP coalition, with Ed at the helm.

Thats the problem with democracy. It tends to throw up results you’re not expecting. Bloody people eh?

I think a lot of Corbyn’s popularity is coming in the form of vengeance from Labours constituency associations for years of imposed centralised control from the Westminster party. For years the Blairites basically imposed its own candidates/yes men on them, rather than allow them to select their own, so that those in the provinces wouldn’t get uppity, and would do what they were told. Ie: Tristran Hunt – MP for Stoke? Do you reckon he could find it on a map?

Well the simmering resentment this bred is now coming back to bite them on the arse, big time. Those associations are now gleefully waving two fingers at central office, and telling them where they can stick their London-centric command and control (- with the MP for Islington – a priceless irony.

Its worth noting that Andy Burnham’s constituency association (2nd safest labour seat in the country) – who never wanted him as their MP in the first place, but had him imposed on them buy Blair – have come out in support of Corbyn. I think that in itself says whats happening within the party at grass roots level.

but if Corbyn doesn’t win, Labour will still need another leader before 2020. Kendall is useless, Burnham couldn’t lead his way out of a paper bag, and I still don’t really know what Cooper’s politics are.

Corbyn may be unlikely to be elected as PM, but with any of the other 3 Labour would be dead and buried. They’re truly hopeless.

or you’re committing to going into the next election already expecting to lose (again!)

And that’s not what they’d be doing under any of the others? I think the ‘realists’ are those who recognise that going into another election with a tory-lite, 35%, don’t rock the boat agenda is the road to another defeat. Look how successful it was last time! I reckon the vast majority of Corbyn supporters are not rabid lefties, but are people who have decided that the current political setup no longer serves the people at large, and is largely corrupt, unaccountable and morally bankrupt. Corbyn offers a route to an alternative, if not the end-point. And you never know, he may just win the next election. Did anyone suggest 5 or 10 years ago that the SNP would have nearly all the seats in Scotland and a 60% share of the vote?

The people now telling us that Corbyn can’t win an election are the very same people who only a couple of months ago were confidently asserting that Dave couldn’t possibly win a parliamentary majority, and we’d presently be living under a Labour/SNP coalition, with Ed at the helm.

As a counter argument, the people saying you can’t win with Jeremy are also the same people who five years ago were saying that you could never win with Ed, and should choose his brother, While the people saying Jeremy is the saviour of his party, are the ones who lumbered you with Ed…

Kendall is useless, Burnham couldn’t lead his way out of a paper bag, and I still don’t really know what Cooper’s politics are.

I’m afraid that’s how I see it too. And I suspect that others do too.

It’s very amusing when political parties …..

…..is amusing to watch

Still all good fun……

And that’s just one post. FFS THM have you considered changing the record?

.

“It will however make the case for a new party of the left even more compelling, to the point that demand will guarantee it”.

That case has always been there, but we all know it won’t happen, for a whole load of reasons.

How do we all know it won’t happen ? Like we all knew that if Jeremy Corbyn stood in the Labour Party leadership contest he was a 100/1 outsider with zero chance ?

He was 100/1 a few weeks ago now he’s 5/4, William Hill have call that “the biggest price fall in political betting history”.

Scotland has shown that a political party which positions itself to the left of New Labour can grow, thrive, and ultimately achieve electoral success.

Right-wingers showed in the 1980s how relatively easy it can be to split away from the Labour Party and form a new party, their lack of long term electoral success had more to do with policies indistinguishable from the Tories than logistics.

A new party of the left is perfectly feasible. And all the more so if the hard right minority within the Labour Party thwart the wishes of the majority. It won’t be particularly easy of course but all the ingredients are starting to come together.

The first hurdle is a broad unity, Corbyn has already helped to achieve that. Last night I attended by far the largest political meeting I have ever seen in Croydon, there were more people in the grounds outside than could fit inside the hall. They represented a whole kaleidoscope of political views to the left of the Tory Party, some had clearly never engaged in politics before. There were black, white, young, old, men, women, all united in one thing – a desire to see a party which represents them.

I’m late on this, but Ken Clarke’s comment that Corbyn could win an election is very similar to the (US) Democratic Party’s recent statement that it was devoting more resources to monitoring Donald Trump because he might win.

It’s not a statement about how realistic either win would be – it’s a statement to sympathetic floating voters to say “you can’t vote for the other lot, they’re nuts, they’re just about to appoint that loony X”. The Tories/Dems would be ecstatic if Corbyn/Trump led their opposition.

How do we all know it won’t happen ?

We don’t obviously, but the odds are very low considering that the electoral system, party funding mechanisms, the media etc are all stacked against the prospect of a brand new party being set up. And why bother? It seems pretty obvious that the labour party is the vehicle for a left leaning party as it’s members are clearly showing right now. Like I said a while back, they tolerated the party being taken over by people who offered them an end to 18 years of tory government, now that those same people cannot offer them that, they want their party back.

And that’s just one post. FFS THM have you considered changing the record?

Of course not, as soon as you take this stuff seriously you have a problem. This is media fueled panto time in much the same way as Clegg mania was. Nothing more.

One only has too look at France and Greece (and Scotland) to see what happens to populism when faced with hard reality. The latter wins every time. There will be no paradigm shift being driven by JC or anyone else. Why because the root of our current difficulties is very simple:

DEBT (or leverage). Our generations have been bought up during the mirage of growth feuled by debt. We have bought forward consumption and delayed payment. Plus we have become obsessed with the demand side of the economy and forgotten the supply side. Rather than focusing on improving the supply side we use the band-aid of the minimum/living wage to support the low paid and pretend that these are solutions. It’s BS but easily swallowed BS.

Debt is not a LW v RW issue. We have lived through 30 years of bringing forward consumption and delaying payment. We now face the prospect of one or two generations of doing the opposite, The surrounding politics is merely a pleasant (and amusing) sideshow that has little if any real impact on what is happening. Losing sight of this is as bad a mirage as believing that the growth of the past 30 years was built on strong foundations. It wasn’t.

At least the socialists in France are talking a good story on supply-side reforms.

Governments have failed to de-leverage, ditto households. Fortunately there has been good examples at the corporate level, so no surprises where sustainable future growth will come from – and politicians are fortunately sufficiently dtetached from that segment which is a relief.

So Jurassic talk of nationalisation and central planning can be left (unintended joke there) on that pleasantly melting iceberg – for amusement purposes only.

Scotland has shown that a political party which positions itself to the left of New Labour can grow, thrive, and ultimately achieve electoral success.

It’s real positioning is hardly to left though is it? It’s all smoke and mirrors. Remember the corporation tax policy???

it’s a statement to sympathetic floating voters to say “you can’t vote for the other lot, they’re nuts, they’re just about to appoint that loony X”. The Tories/Dems would be ecstatic if Corbyn/Trump led their opposition.

Except that unlike Trump Corbyn isn’t a loony. Something which people become more aware of the more they hear him speak.

We can all laugh at Trump because of the things he says, just like many UKIP candidates over here. Corbyn doesn’t seem to have the same effect.

The Tory press might desperately want to claim that Corbyn is a loony but opposition to tuition fees, Trident replacement, and austerity, doesn’t strike people as being loony, whatever their own views might be. In fact it helped to wipe out the Tories, LibDems, and Labour in Scotland.

One only has too look at France and Greece (and Scotland) to see what happens to populism when faced with hard reality. The latter wins every time

“Hard reality” being what? In the case of Greece the “hard reality” is a political force rather than any inherent law of nature. Syriza lost because they lacked power with respect to Schauble. It is increasingly acknowledged that it was Varoufakis who had a better grasp of economic reality.

DEBT (or leverage). Our generations have been bought up during the mirage of growth feuled by debt. We have bought forward consumption and delayed payment. Plus we have become obsessed with the demand side of the economy and forgotten the supply side. Rather than focusing on improving the supply side we use the band-aid of the minimum/living wage to support the low paid and pretend that these are solutions. It’s BS but easily swallowed BS.

“Public debt was not implicated in the collapse of 2008, nor is it retarding the recovery today. Enlarged government deficits were the consequence of the financial crash, not the cause.1 Indeed, there’s a strong case that government deficits are keeping a weak economy out of deeper recession”

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/may/09/debt-we-shouldnt-pay/

One only has too look at France and Greece (and Scotland) to see what happens to populism when faced with hard reality. The latter wins every time. There will be no paradigm shift being driven by JC or anyone else. Why because the root of our current difficulties is very simple:

The situation in Greece is about politics, not economics. Even the hard-headed economists from the IMF think it won’t work.

Sorry ransos, you last point proves my point not yours. Economics has driven what is happening in Greece not politics – oh and the absurdity of a fixed exchange rate system. Remember the political process – and election and a referendum, and then compare that with the outcome. What happened to the political process and/or democracy in the meantime? Crushed under hard realities.

DrJ – just look at what Varoufakis was doing outside his own pantomime, quite different from the media story.

P.s. Please don’t confuse debt and deficit.

government deficits are keeping a weak economy out of deeper recession

Indeed they are, we have an expansionary fiscal policy evidenced by the deficit and an extraordinary and unorthodox monetary policy which is designed to deliberately mis-price risk. And this is labelled “austerity” and “free-market/neoliberal/anything else you can think of economics!!! Being amused by all this is the only real option even if Ernie’s doesn’t like it!!!

Sorry ransos, you last point proves my point not yours. Economics has driven what is happening in Greece not politics – oh and the absurdity of a fixed exchange rate system. Remember the political process – and election and a referendum, and then compare that with the outcome. What happened to the political process and/or democracy in the meantime? Crushed under hard realities.

DrJ – just look at what Varoufakis was doing outside his own pantomime, quite different from the media story.

P.s. Please don’t confuse debt and deficit.

No, the Greek situation is political, because the Euro (and its survival) is a political project, driven by its most powerful actors. If it was an economic process then the Troika would be pursuing a very different course of action.

p.s. please stop conflating public and private debt.

So Jurassic talk of nationalisation and central planning can be left (unintended joke there) on that pleasantly melting iceberg – for amusement purposes only.

So 2008 was in the Jurassic era ? 😆

Wakey wakey Rip Van Winkle ……… smell the coffee :

Financial crisis: Banks nationalised by Government

“The Government has begun nationalising the British banking industry, pumping £37 billion of taxpayers’ money into HBOS, Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB.”

And presumably you think the East Coast Line was operating and making a profit during the Jurassic era, as was Railtrack – another bankrupt failure.

Next you’ll be telling us that EDF isn’t state owned 🙂

I’m not, pls note the separation between three types of debt above – government, household and corporate. It’s important…..

I have a chart of household debt in the screen in front of me. True I was exaggerating a bit, there has been a slight reduction but still at scary levels. And just wait for normalised interest rates if the price of money is ever allowed to be determined by a free market!!!

Smells very good Ernie thanks…

Imagine nationalising failing banks and using tax players money to support the casinos. Shocking isn’t it!!! And in the name of neoliberalism. 😉

On a serious note, Ed Balls piece in the FT was interesting. Amazing how these people can be quire sensibile when they leave the panto that is the Westminster village.

Now shake your sleepy head and stop spouting nonsense from the 1980s 🙂

EDIT : You edited your post – thought of something clever to say after the moment ? 🙂

I’m not, pls note the separation between three types of debt above – government, household and corporate. It’s important…..

You said

Governments have failed to de-leverage, ditto households. Fortunately there has been good examples at the corporate level, so no surprises where sustainable future growth will come from – and politicians are fortunately sufficiently dtetached from that segment which is a relief.

Highly misleading to lump them together – public debt is not necessarily a bad thing, indeed many argue that it’s essential. Arguments about repayment are essentially moral, not economic.

1980s pah…

…rereading the ’44 classic The Road to Serfdom instead 😉 – need to be able to quote it accurately in some research!! I had forgetting that Nozick and co had merely re-hashed ideas written well before then!!!

Highly misleading to lump them together

Which is why I didn’t. Merely commented that both are at high levels.

public debt is not necessarily a bad thing, indeed many argue that it’s essential.

Agreed.

Arguments about repayment are essentially moral, not economic.

If you say so

The left and right in Labour won’t split up to form a new party. It’d be political suicide for whoever does this as they won’t be able to trade on the “my grandfather voted Labour and my father voted Labour so I vote Labour” vote, and they know it.

More likely, as we’re seeing now, they’ll be a lot of in fighting to “save” the Labour party “that we all know and ‘love'” and lots of weasel words (mostly from the Bliarists I’d imagine). Hopefully sense will prevail after the outcome of this leadership campaign becuase I think a rebellion for either side would doom them all completely for a very long time.

Another Nobel Prize-winning economist is backing Jeremy Corbyn :

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/corbyn-and-the-cringe-caucus/?_r=0

“Nonetheless, all the contenders for Labour leadership other than Mr. Corbyn have chosen to accept the austerian ideology in full, including accepting false claims that Labour was fiscally irresponsible and that this irresponsibility caused the crisis. As Simon Wren-Lewis says, when Labour supporters reject this move, they aren’t “moving left”, they’re refusing to follow a party elite that has decided to move sharply to the right.”

Should Krugman hand back his Nobel Prize too THM ?

Loved this bit, so true of conservative-lite careerists :

There was a Stamaty cartoon during the Reagan years that, as I remember it, showed Democrats laying out their platform: big military spending, tax cuts for the rich, benefit cuts for the poor. “But how does that make you different from Republicans?” “Compassion — we care about the victims of our policies.”

Knock me over with feather Ernie – really? one of the two most prominent Keynesian economists support the idea that the bottom of the cycle is the wrong time to run austerity measures. Fetch me a glass of water.

That’s incredible, whatever next…..

Why do you think Stiglitz and Krugman were pulled out as supporters by the SNP pretend anti austerity narrative????

Oh and funny that at the bottom of the cycle we are running budget deficits combined with extraordinary loose monetary policy. Another amazing fact – are they complementing non-austerity George too???? (Rhetorical question – obviously not because it’s easier to label him as austerity george. Odd that the economy has recovered if that is the correct label isn’t it!!!)

Of course like all Keynesians, they are focused on aggregate demand and its management. Krugman often forgets Keynes real message (for convenience!) but shares the overall flaw that is the focus on AD and not aggregate supply. The UK needs attention on both the demand and supply side but this is not part of the Krugman agenda, which is why he is generally only half right (apologies to economists for the massive simplification there).

You are hardly going to find Krugman or Stiglitz supporting anyone who suggests fiscal tightening at the bottom of the cycle. It’s counter to their underlying philosophy