Jeremy Corbyn

Mr Woppit - Member

Looks like you've got all your ducks in a row there, THM

Not really,if the best he can do is racially motivated insults.And there are over 30 to pages to suggest that is the case.

Crikey, get a grip man. Thirty pages of racially motivated insults - really!? And I thought AS was the master of hyperbole. Blimey...

Not really,if the best he can do is ra

Clearly, that joke went over your head. Bit like an aeroplane.

I didn't intend to trip a focus on the "foreign policy" aspect of the article. My point was that this is the first reference I've seen in the "meeja" that attaches the word "dangerous" to Corbyn, in this case from a libertarian/free marketeer with attachments to right wing consultancies and governments/political parties...

As I said, the first indication of a disguised and silky threat.

grum - Member
" I've just deleted a big chunk of this - if we want to get into the specifics of Scottish history, let's start another thread for it. "
ie 'I've made myself look quite foolish and my attempts to justify/backtrack didn't go very well'.

How about - all this stuff is going to totally derail this thread about Corbyn. If you really want to see it, start a thread on Scotland/Independence.

Meanwhile the news that Lord Mandelson tried to negate the leadership election demonstrates what is wrong with Labour.

Why are the Blairite faction so terrified of democracy? Could it be because some of them fear an appointment with the Hague?

If you really want to see it, start a thread on Scotland/Independence.

If only someone had already thought to do that... 😉

Why are the Blairite faction so terrified of democracy?

Because they can see the party they worked hard to build to success (at least as they see it) being destroyed. You may not agree with them(!) but it's not exactly a difficult concept to understand is it and hardly needs a war crimes threat to be a credible way to act upon.

Or failing that, because they'd like comfortable peerages, etc in later life.

Thirty pages of racially motivated insults

With ref to Dragon's post so still on Scotland.

I'm starting to wonder if Corbyn as a temporary leader (2-3 years) might be just the ticket for a longer term rebuild of the Labour party. He will take back votes from the SNP and to some extent Plaid, the Greens and maybe UKIP. So win back the 'core' support, while planning for a new younger more centerist person to take over for 2020

Corbyn might be wanting to do something different to our recent disasters, but that doesn't mean what he is proposing isn't even worse.

Yes of course, no one could have predicted beforehand the mess that Blair took us into, or the consequences of bombing Libya to help the "rebels" after they were flying the Al Qaeda flag from government buildings in Benghazi, ffs.

As I said, imo Corbyn's opponents are at their most weakest when they attack him on foreign policy. The electorate might still need to be convinced that austerity is a choice rather than a necessity but not many still remain to be convinced that recent UK foreign policy has been a self-inflected disaster.

Besides, I have no idea why the right-wing are even attacking Corbyn on foreign policy when they claim with total certainty that Corbyn has absolutely zero chance of winning a general election.

It's almost as if they are doubting their own rhetoric. Surely that can't be right?

"Why are the Blairite faction so terrified of democracy?"

Because they can see the party they worked hard to build to success (at least as they see it) being destroyed.

Labour Party membership which more than halved under Tony Blair's premiership has doubled in the last few weeks. The Labour Party leadership election has re-energized British politics. That doesn't sound like a party being destroyed but a party coming back to life.

And if the Blairite faction were really concerned about the success of the Labour Party they wouldn't be backing the candidate least likely to ever becoming the next Labour Prime Minister, Liz Kendall. They are not in the least bit bothered about the Labour Party losing the next general election, that's why they are backing a completely talentless woman who's been an MP for just over 5 years and will never become prime minister.

Besides, Tony Blair said last month that he wouldn't back a left-wing candidate [i]"Even if I thought it was the route to victory"[/i] so just that in itself nails the lie that his major concern is Labour winning the next general election. Blair couldn't care less, and why would he? As long as he can continue to make millions out of giving advise to murdering despots.

Not convinced as I reckon that they have a skewed perspective on things and what they say is demonstrably not what they always mean but you could be right of course.

Labour Party membership which more than halved under Tony Blair's premiership has doubled in the last few weeks. The Labour Party leadership election has re-energized British politics. That doesn't sound like a party being destroyed but a party coming back to life.

Conservative party membership halved under Cameron, from 253,000 in 2005 to just 134,000 in 2013 - did that sound like a party being destroyed too?

Not really ninfan. What's your point?

In case you weren't paying attention, and I suspect you weren't, I didn't claim that any party was being destroyed. Apparently the blairite faction think their party is being destroyed.

The Labour Party are the ones doing that vast majority of attacking with figures throughout the senior echelons of the party queuing up to warn of the obvious dangers of a Corbyn victory. The right and centre will bide their time until he's leader then let him have it full blast, a Corbyn victory will be a gift to them dragging the Labour Party left. Even if he doesn't win the contest is casting the Labour Party as one deeply divided and if you can't organise your own leadership election how could you possibly run the country. The centre and right are correct to highlight that now as it damages the Labour Party no matter who wins.

@duckman just to reply to your earlier question about why I care about the SNP / Scotland. Independence would be bad for the UK (and much worse for Scotland), the deeply dishonest and untrustworthy SNP are now sitting in Westminster voting on issues including those of no relevance to them (example of dishonesty as they said they would not) whilst complaining bitterly despite having greater devolved powers and the significant financial support of the UK.

Ok duckman - last comment on this because don't want to fall out or bore others. But be careful who you are accusing of being racist or racially motivated. Given that the term sweaty has only been applied to the other candidates in the Labour election (p24) or other members of the Union (p29), you are way off the mark. Even then Scottish is not a race. Why even use the term? Deliberate, to show how propesterous your racist allegations are. Final comment from me on that. But you don't have a monopoly on the word "sweaty" - we use it all the time at work, and no reason to stop now.

And get a SOH....

Ernie, you've repeatedly used the example of how party membership fell since Blair, generally to back up your position of how dissatisfaction with the policies of the leadership excommunicated the party from its own voters.

I'm pointing out that the Tories clear and unequivocal win at the election after halving their membership proves that it indicates or means the grand sum of **** all.

Though we could always look at it another way - from Bliairs initial election winning manifesto, the party crept gradually to the left, with classic Labour behaviour and 'big state' spending gradually replacing the footing that he came to power on, every time loosing support - Brown went further to the Left, Miliband even further - each time bleeding votes, each time loosing worse - now Corbyn looks set to throw the party back to the days of the longest suicide note in history. No wonder the election winning Blairites are pissed off.

[quote=ernie_lynch ]Yes of course, no one could have predicted beforehand the mess that Blair took us into, or the consequences of bombing Libya to help the "rebels" after they were flying the Al Qaeda flag from government buildings in Benghazi, ffs.

It's not really anything to do with Blair's mess though, or even whether that was predictable. The question is whether Corbyn's policies make sense. It doesn't follow that because recent foreign policy was rubbish that because he is proposing something different it is even preferable to that, let alone the right way forwards.

Besides, I have no idea why the right-wing are even attacking Corbyn on foreign policy when they claim with total certainty that Corbyn has absolutely zero chance of winning a general election.
It's almost as if they are doubting their own rhetoric. Surely that can't be right?

You're suggesting they don't need to bother to criticise any of his policies? If he gets elected as Labour leader they don't need to bother to campaign at the next GE? Maybe they just reckon he has no chance provided they point out the flaws they see in his policies.

Though as has been pointed out a few times, it's not even the right-wing who are mainly criticising him (I'm assuming given the context you're not having a dig at the rest of the Labour party being right wing). I thought most of them were rubbing their hands with glee or paying their £5 in order to vote for him.

if you have got a vote dont put a photo of your ballot paper on social media - [url= http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/vote-early-vote-often-vote-using-someones-instagram#.ftXzBwNav ]here's why[/url]

EL - [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11808048/Andy-Burnham-the-radical-who-never-rebels.html ]You may prefer this Michael Deacon article[/url]

THM - you use the term "sweaty" to deliberately offend. And you obviously think that finding "clever ways" to use it is hilariously funny.

Ninfan - CBA

Says a man who constantly misrepresents others to annoy/offend or create anargument on the Internet. But good choice of phrase - CBA. That is the final comment.

Hahaha - CBA, but only after I slayed your 'party membership dropped under Blair' dragon, (one that you had been using since page one of the thread weeks ago) diddums 😆

THM there is arguably no such thing as a "race" so anti-Scottishness is as racist as any similar prejudice

If you say so, but who is anti-Scottish?

Does that make someone who is anti Tory or anti Lib Dem, anti - English?

What an odd idea.

ninfan - Member

Hahaha - CBA, but only after I slayed your 'party membership dropped under Blair' dragon, (one that you had been using since page one of the thread weeks ago) diddums

Yes you won ninfan. Lucky you.

i stand by what I said thm, others would seem to agree, just as they did on the rugby thread when you did it there as well. And why be careful? Feel free to report the above post.Maybe report the sense of humour failure as well.

So; can Corbyn possibly lose? And what is the fallout. New Labour Party for the Blairites?

That's very noble of you Jambalaya,thanks for looking out for us.

...don't want to fall out or bore others.

Ship.
Sailed.

Top bantz though.

Fine - your choice, you live with how honest you want to be

THM - you use the term "sweaty" to deliberately offend. And you obviously think that finding "clever ways" to use it is hilariously funny.

This is 100% accurate. You ysed the term on the rugby thread and were called out over it you then started using the term as often as possible in slightly diffetent contexts to make [s]yourself look like a tit[/s] yourself look clever. Its onbvious it causes offence so why do it?

THM, I don't follow the rugby thread. I have heard you say good things about Scotland, and enjoy your indepth knowledge of the Financial Times, and are clearly not stupid, however if true about the sweaty thing, I would be a bit disappointed. 😥

Serious question. Does Corbyn actually have any foreign policies ? Seems to me he's a classic protest candidate votes against everything (400 times against the Labour government) and be-friends the terrorists as you "have to talk to everyone". Pulling out of NATO would be extremely difficult so that statement from him is just another unworkable protest. Cancelling Trident isn't a foreign policy.

@duckman my take is a Corbyn win precedes huge amount of infighting with the centre/right of the Labour Party deposing him within 3 years as the party is further starved of funds (loss of 50 MPs has cut a large chunk from their budget/personnel) and Corbyn stumbles from one disaster to another with a ragtag shadow cabinet. The Blairites won't leave to form a new party any more than Corbyn left Labour.

Why would tmh be anti Scottish, the majority voted No ? Is "sweaties" any more offensive than pigeon holing people as the "Westmister elite" ?

yes, because it's a denigration of people for who they are (Scottish) rather than what they do (be part of an elite remote that supposedly insulates itself from "real Britain"). which is obvious

Because 'Labour' aren't socialist and won't become so.

Do you think JC is a socialist?

Why would tmh be anti Scottish

As you know I am not. Up there in a few weeks time for the handshake! And in October and December. Love the place.

Kona 🙂

Do you think JC is a socialist?

Well he's a member of the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Campaign_Group ]Socialist Campaign Group[/url] perhaps he's joined for some taster sessions to see if he likes it ?

Pulling out of NATO would be extremely difficult so that statement from him is just another unworkable protest.

Firstly you don't understand Corbyn or why he has become apparently so popular with Labour Party members and supporters. Corbyn is personally opposed to UK membership of NATO, as indeed am I, but that does not automatically mean that it will become Labour Party policy. It will be a matter for the Labour Party to decide, not one man. Gone will be the stalinist grip of the leader as demcracy, destroyed by the blairite hard-right, is re-introduced.

And secondly, you think the UK can be forced to remain in NATO ? 🙂 Leaving NATO would be a piece of piss. When France left NATO in 1966 it couldn't have been easier. Obviously there were a few technical issues such as having to relocate NATO headquarters from France to Belgium but hardly anything insurmountable.

"Do you think JC is a socialist?"

Well he's a member of the Socialist Campaign Group perhaps he's joined for some taster sessions to see if he likes it ?

[img] [/img]

I hate to be pedantic but France didn't leave Nato in 1966, it removed its forces from the Nato Military Command structure, it continued to be a member of the alliance and committed to defend Germany in the event of a Warsaw Pact attack. Also Nato's Joint Command Structure was in its infancy in 1966, being a member of Nato has been the fundamental pillar of our defence strategy for 60 years now, it would not be a piece of piss to unwind that. (My father was stationed at Nato HQ in France until 1965 and the broad nature of Nato's membership is illustrated by the fact that his boss was a Turk.)

EDIT:

[img] https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSFwtXSVI6l_SjiX2s7A1PLqPPzVyE65FqWbpYBRUfjNpV_iFew [/img]

My father was stationed at Nato HQ in France until 1965

And then NATO HQ moved to Belgium in 1966 when France withdrew from NATO. France did not become a neutral country and it did have a commitment to Germany, it had troops stationed there ffs, but it was not part of NATO command structure, although it did sometimes carry out joint exercises with NATO, it also occasionally cooperated with the Soviet military.

It continued to be part of the alliance(i.e a member of Nato), but not the command structure (i.e an operational member), as I said at the beginning of my post it is a pedantic point. I am not denying their withdrawal from the command structure or indeed the relocation of the HQ to Belgium. A process of immediate reintegration into the operational structure was also agreed in the event of a Warsaw Pact attack, which I believe extended to beyond merely a defensive role for their forces in the French Sector in the south of West Germany.

Being in NATO means being part of an integral command structure. When France withdrew from the integral command structure it was no longer part of NATO although it did maintain an alliance with NATO. If anything is difficult to withdraw from it has to be the integral command structure, France proved that was not the case and it was quite easy.

jambalaya's claim that it would be "extremely difficult" to leave NATO is false. Specially for a nuclear armed member of the UN Security Council.

I always wonder whether Judas would have beaten Barrabas if he'd been elected leader.

Well even though it makes me feel a bit dirty agreeing with Jambalaya, comparing the complexity of withdrawing after 15 years of operation (France 1966) compared to nearly 65 year of operation (us now) is invalid. De Gaulle was always insistent on Frence military self determination and planned according, we have never planned like this and are thoroughly entwined.

Specially for a nuclear armed member of the UN Security Council.

I thought nukes would be going too.

LOL at Mandleson's cunning plan.

Also laugh/shake head at anyone who says "Corbyn is unelectable vote Cooper"!

So you are saying that with every year you remain a member of NATO the harder it becomes to leave? Seriously? 🙂

Was it "extremely hard" for France to become a fully integrated member after a 43 year lapse then, or is this just a one way thing ?

OK this isn't going anywhere. You are going to agree with jambalaya that it would be "extremely difficult" to leave NATO, I however take a different view.

And quite frankly the "extremely difficult to leave" is the worse argument I've yet heard in favour of remaining in NATO.

And quite frankly the "extremely difficult to leave" is the worse argument I've yet heard in favour of remaining in NATO.

That is true, there are much stronger arguments for staying in.

LOL at Mandleson's cunning plan.

You mean the cunning plan where the other three candidates withdraw leaving Corbyn the only one ?

For some inexplicable reason the brains behind New Labour was under the impression that the leadership election would be scrapped if that happened.

Even though in the 2007 leadership election Gordon Brown was declared the leader as he was the only candidate.

Presumably Mandleson couldn't remember that. Or did he think the rules could be simply changed to suit him ?

Why are so many Labour senior figures jumping right onto the front pages without anybody in the party stopping them? I mean surely the Mandleson thing; somebody tells him on the quiet how their own elections work and he keeps his teeth together.
I wonder if the torygraph et all underestimate Corbyn,he is a survivor that the right assume is stupid because of his left wing principles. What if he becomes electable? It is a long,long time since we have had a Labour government.
Another tangent,but if he wants to take us out of NATO,what are the compelling reasons for staying?

Putin

Why are so many Labour senior figures jumping right onto the front pages without anybody in the party stopping them? I mean surely the Mandleson thing;....

Shock and panic? Events spinning out of their control? A feeling of impotence?

Watching the other three- its obvious they have no plan B to counter corbyn's rise. No one was programmed for this result as the opening odds suggested. That's what makes the Panto so entertaining. When the heat is on, that's when you see peoples' true colours. Who is fit to govern......?

really looking forward to see corbyn as labour leader -will make politics interesting again-( westminster stylee obviously)-will also have a big effect on trade union leaderships , with lots of dead wood being replaced with people who actually want fight for change...

be-friends the terrorists as you "have to talk to everyone".

This criticism of Corbyn over talking to Hamas etc is particularly pathetic. We are heavily in bed with the Saudis - 9/11 was planned and carried out by Saudis and they are the major backers of Islamic terrorism/extremism worldwide. Our dear leader has recently been chumming up with the leader of Kazakhstan who is responsible for all sorts of disgraceful human rights abuses. And your hero Maggie continued to defend Pinochet to the hilt even when evidence of his mass murder etc came to light.

The argument that we should engage in 'dialogue' with people doing things we don't approve of and try to influence them positively that way is trotted out quite frequently, but highly selectively.

Of course, this "talking to terrorists" thing was a complete failure for the Blairites, no?

[img] [/img]

Though we could always look at it another way - from Bliairs initial election winning manifesto, the party crept gradually to the left, with classic Labour behaviour and 'big state' spending gradually replacing the footing that he came to power on, every time loosing support - Brown went further to the Left, Miliband even further - each time bleeding votes, each time loosing worse - now Corbyn looks set to throw the party back to the days of the longest suicide note in history. No wonder the election winning Blairites are pissed off.

Some of what's been said above about the other leader-candidates not really having any clear policies is exactly what's killing them and previously killed the Brown/Milliband periods imo. Not that they moved too far left, it was that they didn't really understand how to form a left-wing opposition.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/17/labour-leadership-andy-burnham-yvette-cooper-contest ]Well they're now getting down and dirty[/url]. Not only is it utterly pathetic, and obviously handing victory to Corbyn on a plate, but it's tantamount to an admission of defeat from both camps as otherwise they wouldn't be engaging in such mudslinging. And to think the blairites talk about 'grown-ups' 🙂

Question: Do I have to put a second and third preference on my ballot paper? Of the other candidates not a single one of them deserves it.

teamhurtmore - Member

Who is fit to govern......?

[IMG] [/IMG]

Why are so many Labour senior figures jumping right onto the front pages without anybody in the party stopping them?

@ernie, so if I've got this right from your post withdrawing from NATO isn't a Corbyn foreign policy? This goes back to my earlier question, does he have any foreign policies ? We know he voted against the Labour government on virtually everything but what actual real policies does he have ?

@grum & others, if Corbyn wins there will be a tsunami of mud thrown at him over his links to terrorists. Even Gordon Brown raised this in his latest statement as have other leadership contenders. Just imagine what the Tories are going to do with this. Mo Mowlam has my huge respect as a politician and a person, Corbyn is no Mo Mowlam. Also Mowlam negotiated with the IRA as a represtative of government, Corbyn described the IRA and others as "friends" as outside government, a maverick who voted against his own party 400 times. As such meeting with Hezbollah and Hamas as a Maverick he can add nothing to the peace process, he cannot speak for the UK, he cannot add anything except give credibility to internationally recognised terrorist organisations. Trust me on this prediction if he wins the leadership election he will be attacked relentlessly on this from inside and outside the UK. How likely do you think it will be for him to meet anyone from the U.S. Democratic Party ? Syriza and Podomos, they will be his buddies giving further ammunition to the centre/right of British politics.

Having said all of that I hope he wins. If he doesn't I will have wished I'd spent the £3 to vote for him.

Trust me

No.

@Alex - what Corbyn says is quite clear (even if he has very few actual policies) its just he has to win a General election to do anything about it. IMO he cannot win an election. So he's a protest party candidate, he's just against stuff. Blair did what was necessary to get and stay elected, part of that was keeping Brown away from being PM.

@dead - few hear trusted me when I said 2.5 years ago that immigration would be a major issue at the general election and that together with UKIP would present a threat to the Labour Party. It seems more of the Scorpttish referendum voters agreed with me than STWers. People didn't want to accept my views of the outcome of the Greek debt negotiations and look where we are, a tougher austerity programme than they had in 2014 and billions wiped off Greek GDP due to Syriza's negotiating position leading to bank closures.

Let's see what happens if/when Corbyn wins, we can trawl back through my posts here. I'm pretty certain I'll be proven correct.

Just think about it, pretty odd that Ernie and I are backing the same candidate, just for very different reasons. A Corbyn victory will be the end of left/far left as a potential mainstream party in the UK for generations.

Go Jermey, go

Your self-belief, were it not so delusional would be almost admirable...if it didn't involve swaying in whatever breeze is blowing.

Just think about it, pretty odd that Ernie and I are backing the same candidate, just for very different reasons.

You might as well make a big deal out of you both choosing the same beer on a Thursday evening. What a ridiculous thing to say.

I'm pretty certain I'll be proven correct.

Indeed...just like when you, in a tumescent engorged sense of your own correctness, said that the Irish/Ireland was a primitive or backward nation. Were you as correct back then?

jambalaya - Member
@Alex - what Corbyn says is quite clear (even if he has very few actual policies) its just he has to win a General election to do anything about it.

IMO he cannot win an election.

So he's a protest party candidate, he's just against stuff

Blair did what was necessary to get and stay elected, part of that was keeping Brown away from being PM.

@grum & others, if Corbyn wins there will be a tsunami of mud thrown at him over his links to terrorists. Even Gordon Brown raised this in his latest statement as have other leadership contenders. Just imagine what the Tories are going to do with this.

So what you are saying is that you and various other spiteful, disingenuous, ill-informed parties are going to use this against him, despite the unbelievable hypocrisy involved, and regardless of whether or not Corbyn's approach might be effective?

Well that's one argument I suppose....

It's easy to be radical when you have no authority. To get a chance to implement his core ideals, a conviction politician must "get real" and gracefully compromise the less important ones. Political success or failure depends on agility at doing that.

I have no idea if he's actually a good politician.

jambalaya - Member

Blair did what was necessary to get and stay elected,

1) No he didn't. He inherited a winning hand from the 2 Johns. Not the first time this has been pointed out.
2) Why is it that even while inventing a creation myth for Blair and rewriting history to remove Smith's achievements, the best anyone comes up with is an excuse? "He did what was necessary". It wasn't his fault! He had to! Tell you, if I ever invent myself a legacy it'll not be "It wasn't my fault". It'll be "I achieved this and it was awesome".

Blair did what he wanted. He didn't "make Labour electable", he changed Labour for his own reasons. You could say he was right to; I'd be fine with that, I wouldn't agree but at least it's honest, and positive. But why is it his supporters don't say that- they say "It wasn't his fault, he did what was necessary"?

grum - Member

So what you are saying is that you and various other spiteful, disingenuous, ill-informed parties are going to use this against him, despite the unbelievable hypocrisy involved.

Well that's one argument I suppose....

I'd say it's a legit concern... Except that experience shows that whoever wins, they'll have a shower of shit thrown at them. There's no point trying to find a candidate that the press won't throw shit at; it's a fundamental fitness of purpose issue, anyone that the Telegraph, the Mail, Sky etc likes isn't qualified to be Labour leader. What you need, is a candidate that can take the shit. And who knows, maybe rise above it and make it obvious how ridiculous the whole thing is. Is that Corbyn? Don't know, he seems to be managing it for now. But it's not Andy or Liz and it's sure as **** not Yvette.

[quote=dazh ]Question: Do I have to put a second and third preference on my ballot paper? Of the other candidates not a single one of them deserves it.

I'm not sure of the precise details of this election and it's easier for you to check than me, but if it's a normal AV then no you don't have to put a second preference - and assuming from that you're planning on voting for Corbyn it would make no difference if you did as it's only if your first choice has the least support that your second preference comes into it.

[quote=grum ]So what you are saying is that you and various other spiteful, disingenuous, ill-informed parties are going to use this against him, despite the unbelievable hypocrisy involved, and regardless of whether or not Corbyn's approach might be effective?

Well of course they will if they think it's a vote winner

Corbyn will definitely be an entertaining "Leader" of the opposition.

However if, by some bizarre circumstance, he manages to become Prime Minister, he won't last long.

The broad thrust of British domestic and foreign policy is agreed on and implemented by an establishment represented at the action end by the Civil Service. Parliament is just the front of house window display.

History shows that individuals who try to derail the status quo because the country has "voted for the manifesto policies" don't last long.

dazh - Member

Well they're now getting down and dirty. Not only is it utterly pathetic, and obviously handing victory to Corbyn on a plate, but it's tantamount to an admission of defeat from both camps as otherwise they wouldn't be engaging in such mudslinging. And to think the blairites talk about 'grown-ups'

Question: Do I have to put a second and third preference on my ballot paper? Of the other candidates not a single one of them deserves it.

It's interesting isn't it how at the start of the leadership campaign Corbyn was attacking the Tories while the other three candidates were attacking Corbyn, now as things have progressed Corbyn is still attacking the Tories while the other three candidates are now attacking Corbyn and each other.

Just that tells you what you need to know about the candidates and why Corbyn's popular support is growing.

The blairite hard-right claims that a Corbyn victory will sow disunity within the Labour Party, what they are doing is actually giving a thinly veiled threat that should Corbyn become the democratically elected leader of the party they will do everything in their power to sow disunity, cause havoc, and tear the party apart. See it as blackmail because that is exactly what it is.

dazh you can vote for just one person and not give any other preferences if you want. To be fair if you're voting for Corbyn as your first preference your second preference is meaningless unless Corbyn doesn't make it to the final round. A Burnham v Cooper final round is unlikely in the extreme.

Poor Liz. Latest poll has her on under 8%. I watched Andy Burnham on the news giving a speech last night. He looked like he'd rather be anywhere else rather than where he was. Mind you: it was Blackburn.He showed all the fiery passion of a speak-your-weight machine reading a photocopier instruction manual.

Does anyone know if Yvette has been outside North London yet?

Poor Liz. Latest poll has her on under 8%.

But Tony Blair is backing her as the best candidate to be the next Labour Prime Minister. What's gone wrong?

I always have a good laugh at the revisionist Blair storytelling. He was the luckiest politician of his generation, pretty much all he had to do was smile nicely and not say anything controversial. This complacency was reflected in his time in government where despite things like the minimum wage, devolution etc he failed to deliver the transformative change demanded of a labour government. The tories learnt from this, and whether you like them or not, they at least get the idea that in government you have to do things. Yet now the blairite wing of the labour party want it to go back to doing nothing, with a frilling round the edges, not rocking the boat strategy.

They just don't get it. I've asked a few people I know who are anti-Corbyn just what Burnham/Cooper/Kendall offer that will succeed where Miliband failed, and not one of them can give me an answer. The bottom line is that for a long time people in this country, and particularly in the labour party, believe that something is wrong with politics which requires changing. Corbyn offers the opportunity for that change. No one knows if it will be successful, but it's an opportunity that can't be missed, which explains why he's doing so well I think.

The broad thrust of British domestic and foreign policy is agreed on and implemented by an establishment represented at the action end by the Civil Service.

This is quite true. Whitehall provides the function of governance. Parliament is the executive.

[quote=dazh ]This complacency was reflected in his time in government where despite things like the minimum wage, devolution etc he failed to deliver the transformative change demanded of a [s]labour[/s] socialist government.

For which he would have had to be a socialist

They just don't get it. I've asked a few people I know who are anti-Corbyn just what Burnham/Cooper/Kendall offer that will succeed where Miliband failed, and not one of them can give me an answer.

Rock and a hard place. Remembering the discussion before Corbyn popped up, and even before all of those announced they were standing and nobody stood out as being any better than Ed. Which explains why Corbyn is doing so well, but doesn't mean he'll be successful [s]if[/s] when he becomes leader. I'm just not sure he will actually manage to change anything in the long term - if he does in the short term, but Labour still lose the next election (with or without him) then I'd expect principles to be abandoned in favour of electability (as mentioned further up, the voters Labour need to attract don't seem that interested in what he has to offer - to some extent he's preaching to the choir, might win back seats from SNP, but they need more than that to form a government).

So it's not just Philip Hammond who forgets who Liz is?

Of course Blair, was lucky. Like most "successful" politicians and businessmen, they rely first and foremost on luck and then their ability to ride it. No surprise there. Fooled by randomness.

The only surprise is (given the obvious disdain with which politicians are held) is why on earth people want them controlling the commanding heights of the economy. A truly bizarre concept in most cases.

Incredibly the gap between, the Toires being in a similar pickle and Labour now was probably choosing the wrong brother. We could have so easily been watching the disintegration of the Tories instead of Labour. The fickle nature of politics!!!

After this panto season, we will then have the fun and games of the Tory version - Boris v George v some woman who regularly seems to be apologising to the house for the latest cock up

as mentioned further up, the voters Labour need to attract don't seem that interested in what he has to offer

They could also aim to attract the majority of folk who don’t vote in order to win. They tend to not vote as it make **** all difference perhaps if he offers a difference he will win?

Do agree that he wont attract southern floating voters /tory light types

The only surprise is (given the obvious disdain with which politicians are held) is why on earth people want them controlling the commanding heights of the economy

The only surprise is (given the obvious disdain with which politicians are held) is why on earth people want them controlling the commanding heights of the economy

Because the alternative is bankers, offshore media barons and tax-dodging corporate boardrooms. Another reputable and highly respected bunch. Its like asking if you'd like your huge shit sandwich on brown or white bread

Ultimately we just end up with an unholy hybrid of the two, doing each others bidding, to the total exclusion of everyone else. A bit like that Hovis neither-one nor't'other bread.

Thats what globalisation and free market capitalism have ultimately delivered us.

Still wondering why Jezza is proving more popular than expected?

Thats what globalisation and free market capitalism have ultimately delivered us.

Hard to say, nobody has tried free market capitalism yet.

True. Shall we call it corporatism instead? Socialism for the bankers, and subsidy-hoovering, tax-dodging corporate boardrooms, red-in-tooth-and-claw, let-the-market-decide capitalism for the rest of us?

Whatever you call it though, my point still stands....

If that's what we're being offered by all mainstream parties, is anyone really still wondering why Jezza is proving so popular?

Oh I see...bloody globalisation and free market capitalism (but as Woppit notes, hard to spot an examples on the latter but never mind). Let's go back to protectionism and state planning..."still wondering why Jezza is proving more popular".....no, it's clear now, thanks. Why was no one talking about this pre the election I wonder?

How about an addiction to debt?

Wage growth without productivity growth?

Weak investment?

Excess consumption?

Etc....

[quote=Junkyard ]

as mentioned further up, the voters Labour need to attract don't seem that interested in what he has to offer

Ah, maybe I should have clarified - I was referring mainly to the people who don't vote, I'm sure I saw something about them mentioned earlier and they didn't seem to be after particularly socialist stuff.

In the global capitlaism you espouse many [ the overwhelming majority all but the 0.1 %] will be losers
They want protectionsim in the same way even the most laissez fair capitlaist wants propoerty law and a ****ing great big state run police, court s and prison service and a big army against
Little people really suffer under globalisation and it gives us comapnies that treat you like an amazon employee and they dont pay tax either. Its not that hard to work out why folk might be a little unhappy with this

nobody has tried free market capitalism yet.

they always chicken out at the starving children point dont they