Jeremy Corbyn

It's been an hour and no one's yet told Louise Mensch that it's entirely her own search history on Twitter that's creating these autocomplete search suggestions:

[img] [/img]

[quote=CaptainFlashheart said]Oh why not! It is Friday after all!

Saucy! Oh, sorry. Source. Ish.

So Jezza fans shop at Co-Op, wear Agent Provocateur and drive Range Rovers ?

Okaaaaayyy.

As somebody politically somewhat to the right of JC (but not at all keen on the current political system) I'm actually quite looking forward to him becoming leader - and not because I'm hoping he will make Labour unelectable. I'm hoping some things might change in the long term as a result

I suspect that you are far from unique in that respect aracer.

Much to my surprise Corbyn appears to be attracting some support from people who would otherwise be considered somewhat right-wing. A recent poll showed that he has very slightly more support among UKIP voters than Labour voters (and the same poll showed that he enjoyed more support among Labour voters than the other 3 candidates)

Although to be fair many UKIP voters are actually significantly more left-wing than UKIP is (when asked specific questions)

What this apparent contradiction suggests is that for some of the electorate at least "change" above all else is what matters to them, the left v right argument doesn't seem to resonate with them. They see the established politicians and political parties as having failed.

And the offer of change, significant change, can be an extraordinarily powerful catalyst in causing political upheavals. For example the Labour landslide of 1945 was built on the promise of substantial change, the Thatcher victory of 1979 was built on the promise of change from the previous post-war consensus, and the Labour landslide of 1997 with its [i]"things can only get better"[/i] was built on the promise of change after 18 years of Tory rule.

More recently Barack Obama won in the US on the back of the "change you can believe in" slogan, and in Greece Syriza went from less than than 5% of the vote to becoming the party of government in just over 5 years by promising significant change.

Why people in bourgeois democracies ultimately see their politicians as having failed and yearn for change is another question. But Corbyn currently appears to be a beneficiary of this recurring yearning for change. Whether he makes to Downing Street is of course another matter.

.

would it be such a bad thing if Corbyn won, pulled the party left (or at least to some sort of coherent platform) and then was replaced by someone more "electable"?

What would someone more "electable" than Corbyn look like? Clean-shaven, suited, and media trained? Perhaps someone like David Miliband who no one quite knows what he believes in but we can all safely assume that it's not significantly different to the Tories, and it won't upset the agenda set by the Daily Mail.

Will that make Labour more electable? Or pointless?

Well Dave, our glorious leader, has just weighed in to denounce Jezza as 'a threat to national security'. If it wasn't in the bag already, I'd say that's a Willie Wonka Golden Ticket, when the leader of the Tory party sees fit to rail against you.

Looks even more like 'The Establishment' closing ranks to keep their closed shop, neo liberal arrangements

He couldn't possibly have asked for more. He must feel like the SNP. Did when labour aligned themselves four-square behind the Tories in the referendum debate

[quote=binners said]
He couldn't possibly have asked for more. He must feel like the SNP. Did when labour aligned themselves four-square behind the Tories in the referendum debate

He being Dave presumably ? 🙂

@ernie what Syriza promised during the election and what they delivered has been rather different, in fact the opposite.

@kona recent history has shown that the further left Labour has gone the less electable they've been, that was Blunket's point. Just like Corbyn lots of well attended rallies by the party faithful but dire election results.

This must be the first time in many years I've agreed with the bulk of the Parliamentary Labour party, at least in terms of Corbyn's unlevtability. It's just as such he's got my vote, big time.

Read today Burnham thinks there will probably be a legal challenge to the leadership process. Chaos of the Labour Party's own making.

[quote=jambalaya ]recent history has shown that the further left Labour has gone the less electable they've been,What was the most recent move leftwards for the Labour Party?

Burnham thinks there will probably be a legal challenge to the leadership process

He certainly hopes there will be one if he loses. Toys are being prepared to well and truly thrown out of the pram.

recent history has shown that the further left Labour has gone the less electable they've been,

That's the narrative being pushed anyway, not so sure it's true.

nach - Member

It's been an hour and no one's yet told Louise Mensch that it's entirely her own search history on Twitter that's creating these autocomplete search suggestions:

That's terrible- she should invent her own Twitter competitor and... no, never mind.

jambalaya » recent history has shown that the further left Labour has gone the less electable they've been,

[img] https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSLYop4Hxmksg9RLTNJbq8U3dGAFso4zHl73rvQqJytHu2a20OYgA [/img]

@ernie what Syriza promised during the election and what they delivered has been rather different, in fact the opposite.

Eh? What's that got to do with Corbyn?

So what if Corbyn delivers something completely different should he become PM?

It is indisputable that Corbyn's appeal is based very largely on the fact that he offers "change".

Who knows, perhaps he'll turn out to be no different than Tony Blair. But there is no doubt that his apparent present popularity is because he is seen to be fundamentally different to Blair.

The last time the Labour Party was remotely 'left' was over 20 years ago. We live in a different world.

The only people to put a left wing proposal to the electorate since then was the SNP. It didn't go to badly

When it comes to left wing voters, there may be a lot of people mistaking "**** ed over, excluded and disillusioned" for "non-existent".

Northwind - Member
That's terrible- she should invent her own Twitter competitor and... no, never mind.

😀

The fact of the matter is that Dave knows after the last election that people are unlikely to vote for a Tory-lite Labour Party with any of the other 3 at the helm. But a left wing offering? That's an untested theory, apart from North of the border, where it didn't go particularly badly.

So what does he want? Someone who he's a pretty confident idea he can beat? Or an unknown, untested quantity? Given that the pollsters and commentators all called the last election result wrong

Left or right is increasingly becoming an anachronism. There are now many more factors in play. And Dave's not stupid

Yay, I've had my email to say I can vote. And online too! Don't have to bother with a postal ballot. 🙂

And I'd though they would root out those closet tories like you DD

Eh? What's that got to do with Corbyn?

Ernie - I guess you were confused by his use of the present historic.

Perhaps DD promised to vote for Liz Kendall 😉

Although there have been cases where people have been told after they have voted that their Labour supporters registration has been rejected and that their vote won't be counted.

They are obviously still thinking about me as I haven't been given a vote yet. I'll be gutted if they don't reject me.

😀

Eff orf you two!

Got my email for online voting too. Chalk another one down for Liz 🙂

😆

Got my email for online voting too.

I've already voted. However, I'm not sure it'll count for anything. I have no doubt if Corbyn wins (and I fail to see how he won't) there'll be some sort of a challenge and ultimately the election will be annulled and a new one called with new rules either excluding the new Corbyn supporters or even excluding Corbyn altogether. If the blairites don't get their way, they'll be perfectly happy to destroy the party and/or it's electoral chances with legal challenges, splits etc.

It could even lead to a greater democratic/constitutional crisis as it would result in there being no effective opposition in parliament which will undermine confidence in the government. The tories should be careful what they wish for.

It could even lead to a greater democratic/constitutional crisis as it would result in there being no effective opposition in parliament

And the lib dems, rise like a phoenix to become her majesty's loyal opposition...

*shudders*

It could even lead to a greater democratic/constitutional crisis as it would result in there being no effective opposition in parliament

Well there isn't an[i] effective[/i] opposition at the moment. But I agree that the Blairites are so short sighted that they'd almost definitely prioritise their own interests over those of the country, and be plotting and scheming against Jezza while the Tories are given free reign to do whatever the hell they like

I've used my online vote. Corbyn for leader. Great value for £3.

Well there isn't an effective opposition at the moment.

No but it's a temporary situation which mostly coincides with the summer recess. If that continues into the next parliament then it's a more serious problem. What will happen if the labour party fails to elect a new leader? Presumably Harman will carry on as caretaker. I can see a scenario where the existence of the party itself could be threatened. If the blairites somehow overturn a Corbyn victory then the remaining unions will almost certainly withdraw funding, and huge numbers of members and constituency parties will leave, leaving a rump of MPs who are labour in name only. Maybe this is how a new party could be setup.

Well there isn't an effective opposition at the moment. But I agree that the Blairites are so short sighted that they'd almost definitely prioritise their own interests over those of the country, and be plotting and scheming against Jezza while the Tories are given free reign to do whatever the hell they like

The Labour party abstaining from voting against cuts to welfare should have suggested to Dave's mob that that was already the case.

Given the recent election results the suggestion labour will be inelecrable under new leadership is a bit of a hollow threat.

What they need is to get back the electorate who jumped to UKIP, Green, SNP and mobilise the young who dont vote. JC could do that, none of the others can because they just seem to be inept tories.

The leadership election process confirms they're presenty incapable of running a political party let alone a country.

If the blairites somehow overturn a Corbyn victory then the remaining unions will almost certainly withdraw funding, and huge numbers of members and constituency parties will leave, leaving a rump of MPs who are labour in name only. Maybe this is how a new party could be setup.

JC to win!
JC to keep Labour out for 2 to 3 generations!
Yes, I think he should lead Labour just for the entertainment.
He is that sort of die hard heavy weight "left" who is very good at arguments but blinded by himself.
I think he is a confused person like Pol Pot in his early years.

😛

[quote=chewkw said] Pol Pot in his early years.

😯 😆

Another erudite contribution there, chewkw

Says the individual frequently banned for his contribution to STW.

duckman - Member

Says the individual frequently banned for his contribution to STW.

😆

Chewwy regularly posts gibberish (and I'm being generous). What's the relevance with pointing that out and the frequency of someone else's bans?

EDIT : Just to be clear I don't think there's any need to criticize Chewwy's posts, and I don't understand why some people appear to have a strong desire to do so, I'm just a little mystified at the connection being made.

All this Labour leadership change,introspection and hand wringing seems a bit peculiar to me. At the 2015 election didn't Labour's % share of the vote increase by almost twice as much the Tories-despite the "catastrophic losses" in Scotland or am I reading the figures wrong?
What are JC's views on electoral reform?

ernie_lynch - Member
Chewwy regularly posts gibberish (and I'm being generous). What's the relevance with pointing that out and the frequency of someone else's bans?

Consistency, consistency ... not gibberish.

The meaning behind the gibberish can only be seen by those who can see them. 😆

EDIT : Just to be clear I don't think there's any need to criticize Chewwy's posts, and I don't understand why some people appear to have a strong desire to do so, I'm just a little mystified at the connection being made.

Hey, I am opened to criticism so all comments welcome good or bad. No hard feeling at all because we all doing the same to each others ... 😆

nick1962 - Member

All this Labour leadership change,introspection and hand wringing seems a bit peculiar to me. At the 2015 election didn't Labour's % share of the vote increase by almost twice as much the Tories-despite the "catastrophic losses" in Scotland or am I reading the figures wrong?

That's actually right- but people only seem interested in the seat-swing caused by our dysfunctional electoral system, rather than the votes cast. You could keep the actual votes cast identical but move them around the country and have Labour win the election, I expect (no I am not going to do the maths). I think it just suits many people on all sides to treat the result as if it really reflects the voting. Mostly tories mind, who want to act as if their majority is legitimate but also it suits the Blairites very well to claim that everyone since the messiah has been worse than they really were.

[quote=nick1962 ]All this Labour leadership change,introspection and hand wringing seems a bit peculiar to me. At the 2015 election didn't Labour's % share of the vote increase by almost twice as much the Tories-despite the "catastrophic losses" in Scotland or am I reading the figures wrong?

Lies, damn lies and statistics. Labour went from 29.0% to 30.4% whilst the Tories went from 36.1% to 36.9%. The thing is, Labour actually gained seats in England and Wales - it's only their annihilation in Scotland which resulted in them losing seats overall, and despite their support in Scotland halving, that resulted in only a relatively small difference to their overall vote share. So yes it does show the way that % vote share doesn't translate to seats, but then we knew that anyway - traditionally Labour has benefited from this in a huge way (for example in 2005 Labour had a significantly lower % of the popular vote than the Tories this time, but a much larger majority - the % vote was lower even than the Tories got in 2010).

I'm also not sure too much should be read into Labour's gain being 1.4% points compared to the Tories 0.8% points when they were still 6.5% points behind. Even more clearly, the number of seats gained or lost for a given % point change depends on what % you started on.

Oh and incidentally, since WW2 only Michael Foot has got a lower % of the popular vote for Labour than Gordon Brown, Ed is in 3rd.

Oh and incidentally, since WW2 only Michael Foot has got a lower % of the popular vote for Labour than Gordon Brown

I'm not sure why you think that is relevant to what is being discussed.

And it is disingenuous to make a straightforward comparison between the Labour vote in the 1983 and 2010 general elections.

Gordon Brown didn't have to deal with the defection of 28 Labour MPs who formed a rival party which was designed to split the Labour vote and damage its electoral chances. If he had then I'm sure that the Labour vote would have been somewhat lower than it turned out to be in 2010.

Presumably the right-wing in the Labour Party were sufficiently satisfied with Gordon Brown not to, with help from the Tory press, deliberately sabotage Labour's electoral chances.

I wasn't having a dig at Foot - though I can understand why you might think that given the subject of this thread, and apologies for giving that impression. Simply that 83 was a reference point as a record post war low for Labour (for whatever reasons) and the last two elections have come close - if anything I was having a dig at Brown, but more commenting on the general loss of support. It certainly wasn't my intention to read anything at all into the Labour result in 83.

Mostly tories mind, who want to act as if their majority is legitimate

In what way is it not? They won a majority using the voting system we have. The same system Labour were happy with in 1997, 2001, and 2005 when they got the majorities.

irc - Member
'Mostly tories mind, who want to act as if their majority is legitimate'
In what way is it not? They won a majority using the voting system we have...

It's a good point though. Our current system means that we often get a govt with much less than 50% of the vote, and so we go from one extreme to the other.

I wonder if it would be better if there was a requirement for any govt to have over 50% of the elected MPs.

(I can think of some disadvantages, but maybe it would lead to more middle of the road govt)

We were asked if we wanted to try a different voting system.

We didn't just say 'no', we said 'F*** off!'

Interesting article...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/22/jeremy-corbyn-economists-backing-anti-austerity-policies-corbynomics?CMP=share_btn_fb

I wasn't having a dig at Foot - though I can understand why you might think that given the subject of this thread, and apologies for giving that impression.

I didn't think you were having a dig at Foot, nor Brown, I thought your direct comparison between the 1983 and the 2010 was misleading, for the reason I stated - different circumstances.

Any Labour or Tory leader faced with the defection of 28 MPs who form a rival party with the specific purpose of damaging the electoral chances of their old party can expect to be at a serious electoral disadvantage.

And btw I've mentioned it before but although much is made of Labour's poor showing in the 1983 general election under Michael Foot no one mentions the Tories poor showing in the 2001 general election under William Hague.

Who bangs on about the Tory election disaster of 2001 ? No one. And yet perhaps they should because the Tories under Hague managed to get even less votes in 2001 than Labour got in 1983 under Foot.

This isn't obvious in the percentage result though but that is because by 2001 Blair had already lost 2 million Labour votes as former Labour voters didn't bother voting. In 2001 Blair received over 2 million votes less than Thatcher did in 1983. Turnout in 1983 was 72.7% while it was 59.4% in 2001.

It is only Labour voter apathy under Tony Blair which hides the fact that the Tories received less votes in 2001 than Labour did in 1983.

And the Hague managed to do worse than Foot without even having to deal with 28 of his own MPs defecting and forming a rival party.

although much is made of Labour's poor showing in the 1983 general election under Michael Foot no one mentions the Tories poor showing in the 2001 general election under William Hague.

Eh?

Hague was fighting a comeback leading a divided party, after an utter butt****ing at the '97 election, against a still popular Blair at the height of an economic boom. Electoral doom had stared the tories in the face since day one of the campaign.

Foot was fighting a woman who, a year earlier, had been the most unpopular prime minister ever, brought us a doubling to three million unemployed, swingeing public sector cuts, recession - the conservatives also saw a huge drop in support after the announcement of the Liberal-SDP alliance (conservative party fell from 45% to just 27% in the polls after launch of the alliance).

Foot was fighting a woman who, a year earlier...

1983 wasn't a great time in the UK.

Foot was fighting a woman who, a year earlier, had been the most unpopular prime minister ever, brought us a doubling to three million unemployed, swingeing public sector cuts, recession

Foot was also fighting right-wingers in his own party of which 28 right-wing MPs defected to form a rival party and split the vote, thereby guaranteeing a Tory victory. Doubling unemployment to three million, swingeing public sector cuts, and recession, wasn't an issue for the hard-right in the Labour Party.

Likewise today the hard-right aren't in the least bit bothered if Labour loses the next general election, that's why they are backing the candidate which out of the four is least likely to win.

Everyone knows that Liz Kendall has absolutely no chance of being the next Labour Prime Minister, but the hard-right would rather see her fail than Corbyn succeed.

If anyone wants to make a comparison between today and 1983 that is it.

also fighting right-wingers in his own party of which 28 right-wing MPs defected to form a rival party and split the vote, thereby guaranteeing a Tory victory

As I pointed out - even after the launch of the SDP, Labour saw a large poll lead over the Conservative party, and the creation of the SDP-Liberal Alliance in late '81 hurt the Tories as well as Labour

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2449&view=wide

At the time of the invasion the Labour Party and the Tories were level pegging in the polls

What you also have to admit, is that the launch of the SDP was entirely due to the left wing swing in the Labour party led by the Bennites - it was that which doomed their chances, an entirely self inflicted defeat, that's why It is seen as an electoral disaster.

Anyway, back to Corbyn - I suspect he would hand the Falklands to Argentina!

Anyway back to my question,what are JC's views on electoral reform?
In their wilderness years I am sure Labour supported an organisation that was set up with a broad base of support including the Liberals and other minority parties and reformers to look at electoral reform.It was all quietly forgotten when Labour won in 1997.
CBA checking all the electoral results but IIRC governments are often unpopular because the majority of the country vote against them in general elections,not to mention those who don't vote.Why should the country be led by a government which more people voted against-makes no sense to me?

Being 50 odd years old job have lived and worked during the thatcher blair years and for me I hate both with equal venom (well actually Blair probably more than Thatcher as I think he is and was unhinged but no one seemed to notice?) Corbyn is not Blair or Foot or Kinnock he has simply offered a different view that appeals to many people - the animated Blairite posturing of the other candidates is frankly stomach churning and Blair jumping in was petulant on an epic scale - if Corbyn wins best of luck to the man but it appears democracy may once again be thrown out by a court saying the "wrong" people are voting...

We were asked if we wanted to try a different voting system.

We didn't just say 'no', we said 'F*** off!'

A referendum that didn't offer what people were asking for and was doomed to fail from the start. The level of outright lies that popped up on the 'no' campaigns advertising material was also incredibly depressing.

This is well worth a read. Especially to those making Michael Foot comparisons. I imagine that if your like me, you're old, jaded and cynical when it comes to politics generally, so this is a fresh angle...

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/23/why-young-voters-favour-jeremy-corbyn ]please don't patronise me[/url]

[i]In fact, the panicked pleading that we should vote for anyone but Corbyn speaks volumes to the interchangeability of the other candidates. If it doesn’t matter whom we vote for, we may as well pick names from a hat or introduce some kind of rota system for Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall.[/i]

Whatnobeer, I agree with everything you said.

'AV' wasn't a perfect option, but as a system, it has it's merits (you get to vote for a local mp, for one).

By declining AV, I believe we shut the door on electoral reform for at least 20 years.

A referendum that didn't offer what people were asking for and was doomed to fail from the start.

Indeed.

The ATV system sounded like a right load of faff compared to straightforward PR.

(Under AV) All you have to do is rank your choices if you want to.

Hardly a massive change.

PR presents some real headaches. For example, how do you fairly 'dish out' the MP's to different constituencies?

I thought it was fairly obvious at the time that a vote for AV was also a vote for 'bringing PR a step closer'.

But anyway...

Hang on I've already mentioned I think Corbyn will be Labours equivalent of Hague or IDS i.e. he speaks to the party faithful but will be a disaster at a General Election. I think Labour could do a lot by looking at Tory history from 1997 on and their choice of leaders. Ed = Hague and Corbyn will = IDS.

irc - Member

In what way is it not?

The bit where it's not a majority, mostly.

Question re the IDS comparison:

Did IDS inspire many thousands of people to join the Tories?

AV?the referendum choice was such a terribly fudge that even those who like PR struggled to support it

When coupled with lib dems becoming Tory light and ignoring all their principle it was hard to feel inspired to ensure the Lib dems were always the power broker and vote yes for PR

Its so much fairer than now that one day it will have to come here but we move so slowly - see the fact we have the house of lords despite the vast majority accepting it needs reform/change

Who knows, when next it arises maybe the big parties will have noticed that it doesn't always work in their favour after all... The last general election delivered some of the most ridiculous results in recent years after all. SNP and UKIP especially.

The problem with PR is that the electorate don't choose the govt. With FPTP we can throw a govt out. With PR we don't know what the govt will be until after the election when the parties do the horse trading and decide among themselves.

And you don't know what you are voting for. Like in the 2010 election many LibDem voters didn't realise they were voting for a Tory led govt for the next 5 yrs.

As for the SNP result. No more ridiculous than the past decades in Scotland where Labour got 2/3rd of the seats with less than half the vote. The SNP were the most popular party in 56 seats. That's politics.

The problem with PR is that the electorate don't choose the govt.

I get your point but FPTP is really poor at this
What have we had 1 govt ever with a majority vote - anyone know the answer i only recall one?

Please dont count the last coalition

irc - Member

And you don't know what you are voting for. Like in the 2010 election many LibDem voters didn't realise they were voting for a Tory led govt for the next 5 yrs.

As for the SNP result. No more ridiculous than the past decades in Scotland where Labour got 2/3rd of the seats with less than half the vote. The SNP were the most popular party in 56 seats. That's politics.

The 2010 election was run under fptp o'course, so that's not an issue unique to PR. And likewise shows how horse-trading means you don't directly choose the government either unless one gets a majority. (and I do mean majority here, not 36%)

And yes, it is more ridiculous- the SNP got 56 out of 59 with 50% of the vote. That's surely worse than getting 3/4s with 42% as in 2010? It's the same problem but driven to extremes.

(I voted SNP btw... but fptp means that parties with 50% can get damn near 95% of seats, parties with 12.7% of the vote to get 0.2% of seats. Or of course for a party with a third of votes to be the "majority". PR and other systems have their issues too but FPTP is disenfranchising and, fundamentally, undemocratic. It's a total absurdity imo.

What have we had 1 govt ever with a majority vote - anyone know the answer i only recall one?

In a multi-party system with 4 or more parties getting a decent share of the vote you are never going to get a UK govt elected on more than 50% of the vote.

With FPTP a party aiming to govern needs to listen to a good chunk of the electorate to get the 35-40% of votes for an overall majority.

I'd rather have that system than PR where small parties with a handful of MPs can have a disproportionate influence in a coalition govt. Obviously not everyone agrees.

Instead we have a system where large parties almost always have a disproportionate influence, and small parties almost always have a disproportionate lack of influence.

Well obviously. The fact they are small parties mean they are a minority viewpoint. Democracy is about the wishes of the many outweighing the wishes of the few.

Small parties need to convince others of the value of their arguments and become big parties.

irc - Member

Democracy is about the wishes of the many outweighing the wishes of the few.

And FPTP is clearly terrible at this- the wishes of the few (36.9%) currently outweigh the wishes of the many. Not just outweigh; render them irrelevant.

No way to ask this without seeming rude, is this all just a subtle troll?

And FPTP is clearly terrible at this- the wishes of the few (36.9%) currently outweigh the wishes of the many. Not just outweigh; render them irrelevant.

I think you'll find the 36.9% is more than any other party. The parties all gave the electorate a manifesto. More people voted for the Tories ideas than voted for any other others. Simple.

No way to ask this without seeming rude, is this all just a subtle troll?

No. I don't see why you find FPTP so hard to understand. FPTP and PR have advantages and disadvantages. I think on balance FPTP is best.

Instead we have a system where large parties almost always have a disproportionate influence, and small parties almost always have a disproportionate lack of influence.

Well not really. We had a coalition from 2010-2015. IN 2015 a couple of percent less Tory votes and we might have had Ed Miliband as PM with Nicola Sturgeon working the strings.

Despite quoting "almost always" you still read "always" apparently 🙄

Frankly "I don't see why you find FPTP so hard to understand" is just taking the piss. Clearly I understand FPTP- I don't understand how you can think your defence of it makes any sense. You've said that it's about the many over the few, while admitting that the numbers show it's about the few over the many. You've said that a situation where 50% of votes gets 19/20 seats is no more ridiculous than 42% of votes getting about 2/3ds of seats. You've asked me why I think 37% of voters isn't really a majority, and you've tried to used the outcome of GE2010 to make an argument against PR, while actually demonstrating that the same issue that you criticise PR for exists in FPTP...

The charitable explanation was that you were trolling. But if you actually think this is a good argument, then I just feel a bit sorry for you.

There's one defence of FPTP. It's not a good defence, but it's this- you can claim that it's better to have one clear winner than it is to have an outcome that reflects the will of the people. In this country, we do this with FPTP. In other countries, they do it with vote rigging, dictatorships etc. FPTP is, I agree, the best way to achieve a nonrepresentative and undemocratic outcome in an election.

[quote=ernie_lynch ]I didn't think you were having a dig at Foot, nor Brown, I thought your direct comparison between the 1983 and the 2010 was misleading, for the reason I stated - different circumstances.

Well I wasn't trying to do a direct comparison either. If '83 hadn't happened then I would have just mentioned that 2010 was the worst popular vote for Labour since the war (and 2015 a fairly close second) and it would all have been a lot simpler. Because of '83 (I'm not really interested in discussing why, and TBH wish I hadn't brought up Foot, because I don't believe he's at all relevant to today) I couldn't do that, which was the only reason it got a mention.

And btw I've mentioned it before but although much is made of Labour's poor showing in the 1983 general election under Michael Foot no one mentions the Tories poor showing in the 2001 general election under William Hague.

Please remind me if I don't bring it up next time the Tories are doing badly and we're discussing the Tories' worst ever performances. For now I was just interested how badly Labour had done in the popular vote at the last two elections, and just looking at the stats for Labour.

TBH wish I hadn't brought up Foot

Well you did, and many Blairite right-wingers like to bring up Michael Foot when discussing Corbyn's suitability as a Labour leader.

I think therefore it is perfectly reasonable to point out how the election result of 1983 and its causes are deliberately misrepresented by Blairite right-wingers, the Tories, and the right-wing press.

This assortment of right-wingers constantly offer 1983 as an example of a Labour defeat of unimaginable proportions, all solely down to, we are told, Labour being "too left-wing".

They willfully omit to mention that probably the single most important reason for the scale of the Labour defeat was because 28 right-wing Labour MPs, with huge support from the Tory press, defected to form their own party with the deliberate intention to thwart the Labour Party's electoral chances.

Sadly there are quite a few people, specially young voters, who are unaware of this.

Furthermore far from being a unique example of electoral defeat of catastrophic proportions, as right-wingers like to suggest, the Tories had a comparable general election result in 2001, something which is never mentioned.

And also comparable is the Labour defeat of 2010 which you have mentioned.

The Labour vote in 1983 was :

8,456,934 (27.6%)

The Labour vote in 2010 was :

8,606,517 (29.0%)

Gordon Brown manged to get 149,583 more votes and 1.4 more percent than Michael Foot. That really isn't a big difference. So when the blairite right-wingers describe 1983 as an absolutely appalling result for Labour how do they describe the 2010 result which was hardly any better - an almost equally appalling and terrible result? Do they ****, they don't even want to mention it.

So why did Gordon Brown do almost as badly as Michael Foot - because he was also too left-wing? He certainly didn't have to contend with 28 MPs defecting to form a rival party to damage his electoral chances, if he had I think that we can all agree that he would have done even worse than Michael Foot.

And of course in 2009 under Gordon Brown Labour suffered its worst post-war election result ever, worst than anything under Michael Foot. Presumably not because Labour had become too left-wing.

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8088133.stm ]Labour slumps to historic defeat[/url]

[i]Labour has suffered its worst post-war election result after it was beaten into third place by UKIP and saw the BNP gain its first seats at Brussels.

Labour's share of the vote at the European elections was just 15.3%[/i]

Remember that the next time right-wingers wheel out Gordon Brown to lecture us about how to win elections.

the country will trundle on in it's vaguely downward trajectory irrespective of who is in 'charge'

I think you'll find the 36.9% is more than any other party. The parties all gave the electorate a manifesto. More people voted for the Tories ideas than voted for any other others. Simple.

Democracy is about the wishes of the many outweighing the wishes of the few.

Your argument contradicts.

This assortment of right-wingers constantly offer 1983 as an example of a Labour defeat of unimaginable proportions, all solely down to, we are told, Labour being "too left-wing".

They willfully omit to mention that probably the single most important reason for the scale of the Labour defeat was because 28 right-wing Labour MPs, with huge support from the Tory press, defected to form their own party with the deliberate intention to thwart the Labour Party's electoral chances.

Why did they 'defect'?

The origin of the party can be traced back to the ideological divisions in the Labour Party in the 1950s (with its forerunner being the Campaign for Democratic Socialism established to support the Gaitskellites), but publicly lies in the 1979 Dimbleby Lecture given by Roy Jenkins as he neared the end of his presidency of the European Commission. Jenkins argued the necessity for a realignment in British politics, and discussed whether this could be brought about from within the existing Liberal Party, or from a new group driven by European principles of social democracy

Was I meant to say the labour party was too left wing 😉

Why did they 'defect'?

because they'd abandoned the principles of the labour party - in much the same way that all right wingers do.

Why did they 'defect'?

I suspect that it was a desperate attempt to hang on to their miserable and pointless political careers.

The only one with any sort of vague talent as a politician was David Owen, an early prototype of Blair - young, ambitious, highly egoistic, and capable of enormous lies. As Foreign Minister David Owen famously claimed that it was justified to support the brutal and murderous dictatorship of the Shah of Iran as the only opposition to it was communist. Someone would have told him that Ayatollah Khomeini wasn't a communist.

The remaining 27 defectors were talentless and unnotable MPs who probably felt that it was better to jump ship before being pushed. Only one had the guts to resign his seat and force a byelection - he lost. All the others remained SDP MPs despite being elected as Labour candidates, and they almost all lost their seats in the subsequent 1983 general election, while simultaneously splitting the Labour vote. It seems that not being left-wing didn't help them much.

Out of the famous Gang of Four who formed the SDP 2 lost their seat at the 1983 general election and a third one, Roy Jenkins, lost his seat 4 years later, to of all people, George Galloway - that famous moderate.

So why did many of those defectors jump ship before being pushed? Well things were changing in the Labour Party, previously once you were selected as the Labour candidate in a safe Labour seat you remained an MP pretty much indefinitely, it was extremely difficult under Labour Party rules to deselect a sitting Labour MP, no matter how utterly useless they were.

However the long battle of Newham North East in the late 70s changed that. Local party members in the Newham North East constituency fought a long battle to deselect their sitting MP Reg Prentice, a right-winger, claiming that he didn't share the aims and values of the Labour Party.

Reg Prentice fought back hard counter claiming that his local party had been infiltrated by hard-left militants. Eventually Reg Prentice lost and he was deselected in 1976. The following year he left the Labour Party and joined the Tories. In 1979 he stood as a Tory and won a safe Tory seat. Thatcher made him a minister in her government and had him knighted. He later became a Tory lord. Thereby utterly vindicating the Newham North East Labour Party members.

What the Newham North East deselection battle did was to send a shudder down the spine of useless and pointless right-wing Labour MPs, as they suddenly realised that their jobs for life was no longer guaranteed.

For many of the 28 defectors joining the SDP was their best chance of saving their political careers, although ultimately they almost all failed.

BTW although I can imagine some significant problems (although not as serious as being suggested imo) with some pointless right-wing Labour MPs should Corbyn become leader, I don't think a repetition of the split of the early 80s is remotely likely. Quite apart from anything else the LibDems have enough problems of their own without having to deal with a bunch of washed-up right-wing Labour MPs wanting to join them.