Forum menu
Do you really think becoming a party for the non-mainstream who crow and moan from the sidelines, along with going on pointless marches is a strategy they should follow?
Yeah I know what you meant, I just don't accept it. Presumably you mean that Corbyn's policies are so crazily wacky and extreme that no one agrees with them. Which would they be? Privatisation of rail and greater public control of energy has widespread support across voters of all parties (I'm not going to dig out the poll, do the googling yourself). Similarly trident. Also that's ignoring the recent poll showing that a majority of people in London would vote for a Corbyn-led labour party. So maybe it's his mental ideas on public investment in services and high skilled industry which are 'non-mainstream'? Or perhaps providing free higher education? A policy so radical that until recently the liberal democrats had it as a manifesto pledge. That must leave his ideas on having equal numbers of women in parliament and in boardrooms. Yes, utterly ridiculous. 🙄
[i]"never once in my life been involved in a mainstream party and have instead been someone who crows and moans from the sidelines"[/i]
That sounds like your average voter to me.
Why do you think the Labour Party shouldn't be interested in attracting those sort of people 5thElefant ?
Or why do you think it represents "industrial strength irony".
It seems to be precisely what the 3 quid Labour supporter category is aimed at.
Nato membership too.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/02/british-public-back-nato-pact-waver-defence-some-a/
[quote=konabunny ]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"?
I thought that's what most people were expecting to happen - and that the Blairites are afraid he will do such a good job he doesn't get replaced.
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 - they sure as heck wouldn't with any of the other showers of blandness in charge.
Oh why not! It is Friday after all!
[img] 
?w=900[/img]
[url= https://yougov.co.uk/profiler#/Jeremy_Corbyn/brands ]Saucy! Oh, sorry. Source. Ish. [/url]
He's a good old-fashioned socialist.
It's bitterly ironic that many of the selfish baby boomers who voted for the Tories have personally reaped the benefits of a society shaped by the kind of policies Corbyn is backing.
Pull that ladder up behind you, in true Thatcherite fashion eh comrades?
Without wanting to be pedantic, I said he had widespread support not majority support, the aim of course being to show that his ideas are not as marginalised or crazy as his opponents would have you believe.
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 - MemberIt'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.
sounds like good news to me. maybe it would even provoke a Tory split
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 - MemberSays 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.