Jeremy Corbyn

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.

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I agree the left v right thing is out of date and largely irrelevant.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?

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:

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 :

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/3187946/Financial-crisis-Banks-nationalised-by-Government.html ]Financial crisis: Banks nationalised by Government[/url]

[i]"The Government has begun nationalising the British banking industry, pumping £37 billion of taxpayers' money into HBOS, Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB."[/i]

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

[i]"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."[/i]

Should Krugman hand back his Nobel Prize too THM ?

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

[i] 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.”[/i]

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

Still just downloaded Jezza on newsnight to watch on the commute home. See what the man says for himself!!!

Of course like all Keynesians......

Woah woah woah ........... hang about ........ you are well 'off message' fella.

Corbyn a Keynesian ??? You're having a laugh. Corbyn is a hard-left unreconstructed Trotskyite Marxist. Don't you read the Daily Telegraph ffs ?

Or having hit the panic button and gone from [i]"Corbyn stands absolutely zero chance of becoming PM, Tory supporters vote for him"[/i] to [i]"Corbyn probably won't become PM, but let's vilify him just in case",[/i] have they now changed the script again ?

Even by your standards that is a mighty swerve. A gold medal example.....brilliant

At least Newsnight is informative if less amusing

Even by your standards that is a mighty swerve.

So you've decided to resort to talking gibberish 🙂

And just to help you get on message because Tories like you appear to be getting in a panic and very confused with how to deal with Corbyn, let me nudge you towards the script. This Daily Telegraph article should help :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11677715/Jeremy-Corbyn-is-not-a-serious-politician.-I-should-know.html

Quote :

[i]"Labour’s sentimental indulgence of the far left has enabled Jeremy Corbyn to crawl onto the ballot paper for the leadership contest"

"For Corbyn is not a serious politician. On the contrary, he is an unreconstructed Trotskyite"[/i]

So Corbyn according to the Daily Telegraph is a 'far left unreconstructed Trotskyite' then, presumably just like two Nobel Prize-winning economists, one a former chief economist to the World Bank, who strongly agree with his economic policies. These Trots get everywhere - it must be a conspiracy !

By the way did you notice that Corbyn [i]'crawled'[/i] onto the ballot paper ? I'm assuming that Liz Kendall didn't - even though she got less nominations than any other candidate while Corbyn received far more nominations than any other candidate.

And just to help you get on message

He swerves here

because Tories like you

He swerves there

appear to be getting in a panic and very confused with how to deal with Corby

He swerves everywhere.

All three comments made up for effect. Cmon Ernie, try a little harder.

Oh yeah I forgot........you're not a Tory supporter ! 😆

So remind us again........you're a LibDem supporter, right? No wait, is it UKIP? Surely not Labour? Definitely not SNP or Green Party? Perhaps English Democrat? Help me, I'm running out parties!

Ah, hang on.........I know..........you are "apolitical"! 😆

That's why you never post on political threads or have a political opinion! I'm sure that you don't even vote in elections!

BTW nice diversionary tactic. It surely beats having to explain the inconsistencies over what Corbyn allegedly represents. And you accused me of "swerving"?

😀 😀

ernie_lynch - Member
Oh yeah I forgot........you're not a Tory supporter !...

Ah, Ernie you're not in the know.

THM is actually Alex Salmond...

🙂

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/07/labour-leadership-election-260-former-candidates-and-members-rival-parties-apply-vote ]And so the process of overturning a Corbyn victory begins.[/url]

It would appear that the labour party are not interested in attracting new members from other parties, and instead only want people who support the status quo and who have never supported or voted for another party. And they wonder why Corbyn is doing so well! 🙂

Another Tory and Daily Telegraph contributor breaks ranks and acknowledges that Corbyn should be taken more seriously.

[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/07/jeremy-corbyn-not-wholly-wrong-says-boris-johnson_n_7955560.html ]Jeremy Corbyn 'Not Wholly Wrong,' Says Boris Johnson[/url]

[i]Asked about the surge in support for the leftwing Labour MP, Boris said today: “I think the Corbomania is a very interesting political phenomenon and, actually, one-nation Tories should pay attention to it. Some of the things he’s talking about, some of the analysis, is not wholly wrong. Yes there’s a problem with inequality, yes there’s a problem with low pay."

Boris told BuzzFeed that while he thought Corbyn's solutions were "completely wrong" it would "very complacent and wrong to ignore the truth of some of the observations he is making about ways in which society should be better".

He added: "We should be humble about that. Also I think he probably is getting points for saying what he thinks.”[/i]

They really need to get their act together and decide how to deal with Corbyn - dismiss him as an unreconstructed Trotskyite and guaranteed loser who can't be taken seriously, or someone who "is getting points for saying what he thinks" and making valid observations but ultimately wrong?

Perhaps his own party should decide to handle how his "popularity" first - at this stage it has nothing really to do with the Tories and they have their own issues to deal with - or is the focus on someone else merely another diversion?

Plenty of/most people take the issues rasied seriously - why wouldnt you? It's the solutions, that are in many cases highly questionable and frankly Jurassic, that are (often) the problem. We have done state planning, printing money, incomes policies and we have evidence of the results. Why go down failed routes again? What was it that Einstein said?

I would welcome a completely separate LW party (too much bllx and compromise within Labour) to investigate and challenge new ways of tackling problems that are both global and specific to the UK. At the moment, few politicians have the answers (it's difficult frankly given that there is no easy answer to too much debt) but it is time for innovative not backward thinking.

Bagehot nails it in the Economist this week. There are innovative thinkers in the world who could challenge the mainstream consensus but Corbyn is not one of them sadly. So there is one message, this looks more and more like an opportunity for new thinking missed. And that is a waste, except for the newspaper inches that the surrounding panto helps to fill.

So how are Labour going to deal with this - its their issue first and foremost?

I would welcome a completely separate LW party (too much bllx and compromise within Labour) to investigate and challenge new ways of tackling problems that are both global and specific to the UK. At the moment, few politicians have the answers (it's difficult frankly given that there is no easy answer to too much debt) but it is time for innovative not backward thinking.

^+1 But no hints at what kind of innovative forward thinking you would like to see?

Plenty - I would start with a focus on the supply-side of the economy first though rather than the endless and excess focus on the aggregate demand side. But this takes time and effort and politicians generally lack either...

From Bagehot..

This is radicalism, albeit of a myopic sort. [b]But the wistful prospectus to which it is yoked is anything other[/b]. Mr Corbyn proposes to remove private providers from the National Health Service, return autonomous schools to local authority control, renationalise the railways, reinflate the welfare state and “reindustrialise” the economy. Parts of his speech could have been given at any time in the past half-century. “I was there in 1984 standing alongside the miners,” he recalled, “and judging by the appearance of some of you, you were there with me. Welcome back!”[b] Corbynism, in short, is the choice not to create something new but to shore up an old status quo; of reinstatement over reinvention.[/b]

[b]All of which gives his whole circus the air of a wasted opportunity. [/b]The MP for Islington North has the attention of many, including young voters otherwise disengaged from politics. [b]These people, surely, deserve ideas responding to the convulsions—digitisation, automation, globalisation—through which they are living. [/b]Others on the left are thinking big about these. Roberto Unger, a Brazilian theorist, imagines a drastically less centralised and more experimental state. David Graeber, an anarchist, has interesting things to say about democracy and power in the age of the Occupy protests. Paul Mason, a British journalist, has just published a book on “postcapitalism”. Bagehot would not vote for the programme Mr Mason articulates, but admires him for grappling with trends like free information (think Wikipedia) and the “sharing economy” (think Airbnb), along with the explosion of data and networks that they symptomise.

[Mason does not deserve the same billing as Unger who IS interesting]

[b]Yet Labour’s supposedly radical man of the moment offers no such analysis. The defensive nostalgia of the grizzled blokes in the pub has consumed a movement that could have been forward-looking and original.[/b]

 

teamhurtmore - Member

Perhaps his own party should decide to handle how his "popularity" first - at this stage it has nothing really to do with the Tories and they have their own issues to deal with - or is the focus on someone else merely another diversion?

What on earth are you talking about THM?

"Nothing really to do with the Tories"? The Tory press have gone into overdrive over the possibility of Corbyn becoming Labour leader, the Telegraph has even encouraged its Tory voting readers to get involved and vote. The confusion stems from the fact that they don't know whether to treat him as a joke or as a serious threat, they seemed to be veering towards serious threat now.

As for "perhaps his own party should decide to handle how his "popularity" first", it is universally accepted that the Parliamentary Labour Party has been completely clueless with how to deal with the Corbyn phenomena. It's not "merely another diversion" as you bizarrely claim.

Just a few days ago on this very thread I said :

[i]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]

I am perfectly prepared to criticise the ineptitude of Labour's hard right. As a loyal Tory THM you appear to be more interested in scoring party political points.