Jeremy Corbyn

Pure revisionism. John Smith (and John Major) all but won the 1997 election. It fits the blairite creation myth to claim he made labour electable but it doesn't stand up at all.

Even Atlee, a popular pick for greatest, most effective PM of the twentieth century, only really got one term out of the electorate.

We know that when policies are anonymised, people as a whole are more left wing than their voting patterns might indicate.

Doesn't that suggest that what people say they believe in, and how they vote, are at odds?
Which further suggests that “listening to what people say” rather than how they vote, will keep you in opposition.

Under First Past The Post, you have to win more “least bad option” votes from people picking between options they don't really like, than genuine “support the policies” conviction votes.

So the Labour Party has to worry far more about scaring the “hold your nose and vote” voters away, then it does about pushing forward policies that its “true supporters” believe in.

Sad but true.

what kelvin said, really, parties are trying to attract;

1) older people (young people don't vote in enough numbers to worry about)
2) the middle ground - they need to attract the 10% of people who actually vote that might be trying to decide between the two main parties.

The two things that would radically change the electoral outcomes in the UK are;

a) compulsory attendance at a polling station (or postal vote/opt out)
b) proportional representation.

PR's already had a referendum and people didn't like it and no party's going to increase the number of people voting unless they can see a clear permanent advantage for them in it so that won't change either.

So we end up with elections fought over nuances of policy and personality.

I'm going to sign up and vote for him, just becasue come the next election I'd like an alternative to my previous choices of red/yellow/blue tories.

wwaswas - Member

PR's already had a referendum and people didn't like it

we had a referendum on AV, which is different. Different enough for lots of people to vote 'No'.

Corbyn has no chance, the vote is still a while away and most of this is hype/scaremongering by the media, mainly because he's the only candidate that isn't properly dull.

[i]we had a referendum on AV, which is different.[/i]

indeed, but not different enough for there to be a further referendum any time soon 🙁

I think a lot of people make the mistake that milliband lost because he was too left or mirrored too many conservsative policy. I believe it came down to Ed Milliband not tackling the lie that Labour caused the economic down-turn. David Camerons "Labour got us here and we are putting in the hard work to get us out". was swallowed hook line and sinker and Ed Milliband never tackled this head on or wasn't given the chance due to most newspapers being conservative led.

The C4 interview posted here, I can understand why Corbyn flew off the handle. The same thing has been brought up again and again that he called then "friends" and not really ever discussing the issue.

@wwaswas- unless Scottish voters are drastically different from English ones, the last election suggests that's not the case. Scotland's response to the Labour lurch to the right was to wipe them out. And the rise of UKIP in England suggests otherwise too.

Yes, the choice between the tories and labour is made on nuance and personality; but that's a symptom not the cause imo.

@hexhamstu- totally agree. And tbf that's not just Milliband's fault, or his team; it's what happens when you're a political party that doesn't know who they are. If you don't have a tune to dance to, you dance to whatever tune someone else plays.

The irony of this; if people had responded in the same way to the downfall of thatcher, there'd be no David Cameron.

Pure revisionism. John Smith (and John Major) all but won the 1997 election,

Funny, I remember hearing the same about Kinnock going into the '92 election...

The thing forgotten abou the 'core vote' movement is that every vote you win from 'natural labour supporters who didn't vote' in that direction, galvanises support for the tories at the other end of the spectrum through fear of a labour win, hence you saw Tory majorities increasing, seats won back from the lib dems, and voters flocking back from UKIP in the last election

That's why you have to win on the centre ground, its as much about not mobilising support from the Tory heartlands as about winning swing voters

ninfan - Member

Funny, I remember hearing the same about Kinnock going into the '92 election...

What, that Kinnock died 3 years before while holding a 23% point lead in the polls, and then someone else took over and won? 😆 I think that's just a[i] bit[/i] too much revisionism.

[i]unless Scottish voters are drastically different from English ones[/i]

I think on this occasion they were, it came on the back of the whole independence thing and whilst people didn;t vote for that they didn't want the old Westminster club to continue unchanged.

Whilst UKIP probably did some damage the problem for Labour is (and will continue) to be that the way constituencies are drawn up means they have a relatively limited number of seats they have a hope of winning in England.

Labours core vote is still very heavily in areas associated with an industrial age that no longer really exists;

[img] [/img]

they are struggling to find a way to appeal to voters outside of those areas.

I don;t know whether the solution is to present themselves as a true 'left wing' party or continue to chase Tory marginals tbh.

wwaswas, this is arguably more useful

[img] [/img]

Shows seat distribution a bit more clearly by equalising size

But seat distribution doesn't reflect population does it, with the biggest seat having double the electorate of the smallest.

The mess the labour party is in is all down to Blair. Another thing we've got to thank him for. Due to his messiah complex, and his intolerence of free-thinking or disent, he hollowed out the party from the inside.

He parachuted MPs into labour seats, in most cases completely against the wishes of the constituancy party, who were just careerist yes men (and women) who would unquestioningly tow the party line. The Claire Shorts and Robin Cooks were soon despatched to the back benches. All decisions were then taken by Tony and his little cabal of spin doctors, Campbells minions. No debate, no discussion, no other opinions alowed to intrude on the One True Path. It became like a cult. Cabinet ministers were little more than spokesmen given their lines to read.

So now that some actual analysis, fresh thinking, and direction is needed, and god forbid... actual ideas!... its no wonder they're not up to the job really, is it? They've never had an original thought in their lives. They're just drones.

Steve Bell had it rght portraying them as baked beans...

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

If the polling is to be believed the average voter agrees mainly the left and socialist policies:

https://data.voteforpolicies.org.uk/countries/results#countries/england

Which means that in an election policies actually mean **** all. Charisma and having the tabloids on your side means much more. David Cameron is obviously much better at this than Ed Milliband was. There was so many things you could attack the tories over and I just think he failed. It had nothing to do with his policies. I think alot of the possible labour leaders are far too obsessed with winning an election they are blinded. Allowing themselves to believe that to win you must be like the current winners. If to win you have to mirror conservative policies there would be truly no point in doing it apart from to secure a career as an MP.

That poll is self selecting, so will be dominated by the younger middle class views and cannot be considered representative of the UK electorate.

A socialist labour leader would-be great

On that we agree. I've paid £3 to make it happen. It felt dirty and wrong to give money to them, but I figure that with their financial incompetence it'll not do them that much good.

except that the right ght wing press have already started monstering him before he's even elected, of course the Tories/right wing. Press/ paymasters are scared of him

They aren't monstering him, they are laughing at the prospect of him becoming leader. He is Screaming Lord Such, with very nasty friends:

Which means that in an election policies actually mean **** all.

I reckon this is broadly true. For most people it makes little or no difference who the govt is. Osborne's last budget was a perfect illustration of this. He was roundly congratulated for his political manoeuvring in adopting labour's main flagship election policies, rather than being criticised for it either on the labour or tory side. The trouble is that the people who suffer (or benefit) most as a result of govt policies have almost no voice. Without effective parties or representatives to voice these views then there's no point. If you compare politics to law, it's like both defence and prosecution are the prosecutors.

The transmigration of souls.

[img] ?type=article-full[/img]

Doesn't that suggest that what people say they believe in, and how they vote, are at odds?

Yes it does. It may also suggest that if the Labour party is able to articulate a clear, credible message, and stop playing the Tories' game, then just maybe there is more appetite for that message than is commonly supposed.

Wasn't it Len McCluskey who (in the early days) said that Miliband was the best leader of the Labour Party since Foot 😀

its great that people like cranberry have donated to Labour, the right must be absolutely terrified of Corbyn if they will go to such lengths!
especially when a tory leadership election is just a battle of plastic tony blair clones and stirs so little interest among anyone
sadly this illustrates the gullible are easily led by the tory press and their corporate agenda, unless a PM tries to position himself in the centre right ala Blair/Cameron they will dictate the debate to the electorate and help their preferred candidate into power

Which means that in an election policies actually mean * all.

This may also be because no-one trusts politicians of any party to actually stuck to their manifesto promises. Policies mean * all because they'll be changed.

Yes it does. It may also suggest that if the Labour party is able to articulate a clear, credible message, and stop playing the Tories' game, then just maybe there is more appetite for that message than is commonly supposed.

^ This

its great that people like cranberry have donated to Labour, the right must be absolutely terrified of Corbyn if they will go to such lengths!

You can keep telling yourself this whilst rocking backwards and forwards in the corner of your room, but [b]repeating it will not make it true[/b].

I'll p*ss myself laughing if he wins. Other conservatives I've talked to love the idea of screwing up Labour for a decade for only £3.

its great that people like cranberry have donated to Labour, the right must be absolutely terrified of Corbyn if they will go to such lengths!

The right are so terrified of Corbyn that they're paying £3 to try to get him elected leader? That doesn't make sense.

Other conservatives I've talked to love the idea of screwing up Labour for a decade

That is one very large leap of faith.

It is better odds than you would get from 1.5 lottery tickets.

This may also be because no-one trusts politicians of any party to actually stuck to their manifesto promises.

It's bigger than that I think. Politicians of all flavours have always gone back on their promises, and largely people accept this as they understand that things change due to events or other constraints. What people don't accept though IMO is a politician or party completely changing their professed beliefs in a transparent and flagrant pursuit of power and self-promotion. And they especially don't expect this from the labour party.

Labour's only chance of re-establishing itself and not becoming even more of an irrelevance than it already is, is to become a party of principle again with clear beliefs which cannot be changed. Of course they used to have something like this in the form of clause IV, which was got rid of, when instead they should have reformed it.

The right are so terrified of Corbyn that they're paying £3 to try to get him elected leader? That doesn't make sense.

indeed they are clearly all bonkers!

[b]No - its not too late to join up and vote for Corbyn - there is still time.[/b] 🙂

I would suggest not putting 2nd or 3rd preferences on your ballot as they are going to try to use those to manipulate him out of the leadership.

"[i]I suspect if he is winning it will be due to conservative politicians and supporters paying three quid and voting for their preferred candidate.[/i]"

"[i]Corbyn is a step left that appeals to CURRENT members but won't win new members.[/i]"

I have never previously joined any political organisation.
I joined Labour (chose full membership price) last week only because of Corbyn.

[b]I know 4 other people of various political position (but none being tory voters) who also rushed to join Labour in the last couple of weeks. People who have never previously been members of any political party and they have all joined just to vote for Corbyn.[/b] I have been amazed how he has brought out activity and enthusiasm in people who until a couple of weeks ago had given up hope with UK politics and its corruption.

People are desperate for democracy and genuine democracy needs to offer free choice. Labour, Libral and Conservative have all been right of centre parties for some while - so there is no genuine variation in choice for voters.

A good opposition is vital to promote debate, to highlight options and alternative beliefs or choices. Similarity of recent politics does not offer even a decent protest vote to the population.

Corbyn is the only person offering DEMOCRATIC CHOICES for voters in the UK at this point in time instead of just more of the same. Until the last week or so (and Corbyn standing) we have lived the last decade in what is alarmingly near a 'one party / one policy set' state due to all parties becoming so similar, with most politicians seeing politics as a good career rather than as a belief or as a need to help others instead of helping themselves to perks and power.

A good opposition is healthy challenge for whichever party (left, right or other) is in government and good for the population as a whole. Corbyn can reinstate an intelligent and engaged opposition - good for all of us, whatever our political party preferences are.

I have been amazed how he has brought out activity and enthusiasm in people who until a couple of weeks ago had given up hope with UK politics and its corruption.

yep looking at Facebook, he seems to have inspired a few people I know to join Labour.

"[i]really, parties are trying to attract;

1) older people (young people don't vote in enough numbers to worry about)
2) the middle ground - they need to attract the 10% of people who actually vote that might be trying to decide between the two main parties.[/i] "

What they need to attract is the huge number of people giving up on voting as they feel unrepresented, rather than a comparatively trivial number of floating voters. Leading up to the last election I (left of centre) spoke to a friend who is a lifelong Tory and some friends who had moved from ex Conservative party membership to Liberal voting. All of them felt they were not represented any more and hated the self serving corruption of UK MPs - but could think of no party different enough to move votes to, from the ones they had been voting for.

It really come to something when even those who vote are in despair about limited choice.

That young people are not voting should also not be dismissed - its a major disaster.

Voting and political engagement is to some degree almost a habit or mark of your view of yourself. If they dont vote when young they most likely will remain disengaged and apathetic (for good reason). Politicians of conviction (Corbyn) or who at least show some personality rather than looking cloned (Boris, Ken Livingstone) at least bring or brought the start of engagement, if you support their individual beliefs or not.

I love the ego filled honesty of the Tory £3 voters - the willingness to tell us all what shallow, dishonest and utterly self centred people they are.

- Lying to screw up an election (you have to make agree with a statement that you genuinely support the aims of Labour in order to join up).

- Trying to undermining the rights of others to be represented by anyone other than a right wing party.

- Attempting to destroy a legitimately elected opposition party by underhand means.

What heroes. The words "integrity" and "honesty" must send you running ignorant and confused for a dictionary!

Edit:
I see Mr Corbyn is undermining his own chances - here IS a man of integrity

"The Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn has called on the party to root out people voting for him in a bid to to skew the election result."
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/16/corbyn-urges-labour-to-root-out-telegraph-readers-trying-to-skew-vote

He looks like he could have a ruck. I quite like him. I also like that he kicked off at that **** on C4 news.
[img] [/img]
He'd make a better leader than any of the last three (at least)

Just signed up to (genuinely) vote.

That young people are not voting should also not be dismissed - its a major disaster.

yes, mainly for them. Look at how Gideon stuffed the under 25s in the latest budget.

[img] ?oh=1f285b0e7cc0906ecd0c2b3795acd07f&oe=564F99B6[/img]

you have to agree with a statement that you genuinely support the aims of Labour in order to join up

You would have thought they might be better off asking their potential leaders to sign that...

You would have thought they might be better off asking their potential leaders to sign that...

Yep, pretty sure Milliband didn't have a clue what Labour stood for. I certainly don't know what Harriet Harmen stands for.

I certainly don't know what Harriet Harmen stands for.

In the meantime the LibDems have just elected someone from the left of the party to lead them - so that's the LibDems doomed then.

And the LibDems had done so well with their lurch to the right under Nick Clegg.......the electorate seemed to love it.

For opposition leader ... yes.

The question is will he be as good as Pol Pot?

You city people will be ploughing fields ...

😆

In the meantime the LibDems have just elected someone from the left of the party to lead them - so that's the LibDems doomed then.

Do the Libdems still have a left and a right wing? It's a bit like my semi-detached having an east and west wing.

Actually, having watched Corbyn taking apart that buffoon from C4 News, I quite like him. Articulate, properly passionate, not fake Milliband passionate. He'll be good at PMQs. Obviously, not so keen on any Year Zero policies, but I'm there to be persuaded. 🙂

The Mash approve

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/dads-approve-corbyns-functional-beige-clothing-20150716100194