Forum menu
Exactly. And ties perfectly into the other main reason Cruddas identifies, IIRC 31% of voters (not the public at large, those who voted) said they don't know what Labour stood for. That's as fundamental as you can possibly go- who'd ever vote for a party that they can't say "I know what you stand for"?
That's why Corbyn would be a great choice imo, and not 'unelectable' at all. You know where you stand with him and it'd give the party a direction. The other 3? More of the same Torylite shite.
I don't know. His anti austerity stance has been backed as a sound plan
By both Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe.Some people from Venezuela and Zimbabwe did question the policy of printing money until it had no worth, but don't worry, they have been decried as tories and enemies of the revolution.
For example
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/19/corbynomics-why-we-should-take-it-seriously
Seems like Harriet is trying to kill the start of a mass movement before it begins......
IIRC 31% of voters (not the public at large, those who voted) said they don't know what Labour stood for.
it looks like 75% of the present leadership contenders are struggling with it too
Apaprently they've disqualified 1900 green party "supporters or members"- if the DM polling is right, Labour stand to take 400000 voters back from the Greens if Corbyn's in charge, so what's suspicious about getting 1900 leadership votes from green supporters? These aren't diametrically opposed parties.
Members, that's an easier argument to make- you want to win back Green members as voters but you don't necessarily want them making decisions at this point. But people who've supported the greens? That's not adequate reason to disqualify imo.
A cynic might observe that these Greens will probably be mostly voting Corbyn.
But people who've supported the greens? That's not adequate reason to disqualify imo.
No, but being a member of the Green Party obviously is. I'm not sure why the Green Party hasn't banned its members from registering as Labour supporters, not even their recent candidates apparently.
Green voters are more economically right wing than Labour voters. if Corbyn took Labour left, that would make it less attractive to Green voters, not more.
On specific economic policy issues, those planning on voting Green in 2015 tend to be less left wing than Labour voters: 64 per cent of Greens believe the government should redistribute incomes, less than the 70 per cent of Labour voters who believe so. Clearly then, contrary to their party’s policies, Green voters are not of the far left.
Green voters are more economically right wing than Labour voters
Bit of an aside but I know plenty of people who care about the environment but don't see the Green parties old lefty style re-distribution, anti-science and heavy tax as the answer. A liberal, capitalist economy with the right incentives and regulation, could achieve far more. These people will never vote for the Green party as it stands and that its why the Green Party in the UK will never take off IMO.
I was rejected as a former Green, and told my views don't align with Labour's aspirations.
64 per cent of Greens believe the government should redistribute incomes, less than the 70 per cent of Labour voters who believe so
I'll take the cryptic "less than the 70 per cent" as meaning "69 per cent", not a very significant difference. What is the survey's margin of error and was it from a reliable and credible source?
Either way it suggests that Green voters share simular views to Labour voters. Since Labour voters are more likely to support Corbyn than the other 3 candidates then it's reasonable to assume that Green voters also would, which was Northway's point :
[i]A cynic might observe that these Greens will probably be mostly voting Corbyn. [/i]
[quote=ernie_lynch said]
I'll take the cryptic "less than the 70 per cent" as meaning "69 per cent",
Eh ?
Eh?
Misread as "less than 70%". The figure is 70%, which still isn't a big difference.
64 per cent of Greens believe the government should redistribute incomes, less than the 70 per cent of Labour voters who believe so.
64% of Greens believe something.
This is less than the 70% of Labour voters who believe the same thing.
As in, 64% is less than 70%.
Yeah my mistake allthepies, I edited before your above post.
I was rejected as a former Green, and told my views don't align with Labour's aspirations.
Given we haven't had the leader elected yet, how does Labour HQ know what the party's aspirations are?
Well, I guess they're not Green? 😆
I wanted to argue the point with the woman I spoke with on the phone, about similar policies and so on, but TBH, she was just following a script, and it wasn't her decision, so I didn't find out how my being a former Labour member, and lapsed Green member prevented me from become a Labour member again.
It was all a bit weird. FWIW I don't think I mentioned Corbyn
Green voters share similar views to the left wing of Labour, that's very believable
@kona, I'm not the only person describing the process as a shambles and most of the critisms I've posted of Corbyn have been made by senior figures of the Labour Party with decades of experience of elections.
Corbyn looks like a nailed on certainty to win in the first round so I'm delighted. We will get a chance to see him "lead" the party and a public debate of whatever policies he may wish to put forward. Right now it's just a wall of proposals and consultation. We'll also get a proper debate of his stance towards the IRA. He won't face a challenge immediately in my view but he's going to struggle to form a viable shadow cabinet, perhaps he won't even bother. His campaign in the upcoming Scottish elections will be entertaining and it's my predict ion he will be destroyed by the far. More electorally savvy SNP. That will kill him off which will suit the SNP as it's easier for them to fight the "Westinster elite", the "Tories" and the "government we didn't vote for" than a left wing Labour Party.
Go Jeremey, go 🙂
Do jam and THM have a rota,one sleeps/works while the other ensures that everybody remains warned about the SNP?
most of the critisms I've posted of Corbyn have been made by senior figures of the Labour Party
Is this the first time you have attempted to boost your rather questionable credibility on this forum by claiming that senior figures in the Labour Party agree with you?
As a committed dyed-in-the-wool Tory who uses every opportunity to attack the Labour Party it speaks volumes that you find yourself so much in agreement with the right-wing political elite in the Labour Party with regards to this leadership contest.
It also encapsulates the Jeremy Corbyn phenomenon and helps to explain his apparent runaway popularity among Labour Party members and supporters.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/25/labour-union-leader-vote-jeremy-corbyn-pcs-mark-serwotka ]Satire is now officially dead.[/url]
You really couldn't make it up!
he will be destroyed by the far. More electorally savvy SNP
But aren't there a lot of left leaning voters who only voted SNP due to lack of faith in a left leaning Labour government? Seems to me Labour would win back a hell of a lot of votes under Corbyn. Whether or not it would be enough to win seats I couldn't say.
Binners he is exactly the type of person the Labour party don't want as he is Trot, and has previously aligned with the Socialist Alliance & Respect Party. Further PCS aren't actually affiliated to Labour.
This is the problem with this election, its allowed people from other parties to try and gain a hold and influence its course. Idiocy.
He can't be destroyed by the SNP - they managed to do that with the last Labour leader in Scotland. There isn't anything really left to lose.
Unless the SNP are planning to stand in English seats too...
Any gains, however marginal will be spun as a Lab victory. Possibly in thehope it sparks some new momentum in Scotland.
Any gains, however marginal will be spun as a Lab victory. Possibly in thehope it sparks some new momentum in Scotland.
I think if he managed to walk the walk as well,he would make serious gains up here. I voted SNP,but know that they can do little in Westminster other than vote against the reintroducing of serfhood by IDS. But a Socialist Labour party who could get into Government...I would vote for them.
breatheeasy - MemberHe can't be destroyed by the SNP - they managed to do that with the last Labour leader in Scotland.
Nah, they never really lifted a finger tbh, Jim Murphy stepped up and took care of it for them.The SNP did a decent job of taking advantage but it just goes to show Labour [i]can[/i] still change minds!
konabunny - Member[s]Some [/s]Green voters are more economically right wing than Labour voters. if Corbyn took Labour left, that would make it less attractive to[s] some[/s] Green voters, not more.
I mentioned the DM poll- it found that 36% of people who voted Green in the last election, would vote Labour if Corbyn was leader. (though tbh that must be pretty small fraction of the sample). That doesn't have to mean they agree with everything Labour says mind- lots of tactical thinking since the Greens will probably still be unelectable in most seats.
The guardian are outdoing themselves today. Splashed across the front of their website earlier today was [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/26/women-only-train-carriages-a-possibility-under-jeremy-corbyn ]Corbyn raises possibility of women only carriages[/url]. This is then followed by numerous comment pieces by various columnists about how mental an idea it is etc, and then the original story is replaced by a follow up piece about the [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/26/jeremy-corbyn-backlash-women-only-train-carriages-cooper-kendall ]supposed backlash[/url]
And sure enough halfway down the the 'backlash' article, is the following paragraph...
[i]"In the document Corbyn stresses that he would prefer not to introduce women-only carriages. “Some women have raised with me that a solution to the rise in assault and harassment on public transport could be to introduce women-only carriages. My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform to the bus stop to the mode of transport itself,” he says."[/i]
So an entire day's media spinning about an inconsequential paragraph in a policy document. Says it all really.
The guardian are outdoing themselves today.
The Right On/Guarduianista/New Labour Adoring/North London/Blair Apologist/Toynbee war machine has been in full flow, and getting increasingly hysterical for weeks now. Its getting embarrassing. Its like some second-rate Chris Morris spoof . Tomorrow - Corbyn revealed as having released bad Aids into the world.
Ironic seeing as they all live in his constituancy
I mentioned the DM poll- it found that 36% of people who voted Green in the last election, would vote Labour if Corbyn was leader. (though tbh that must be pretty small fraction of the sample). That doesn't have to mean they agree with everything Labour says mind- lots of tactical thinking since the Greens will probably still be unelectable in most seats.
Corbyn's policies are pretty much lifted straight from the Green manifesto anyway, aren't they?
most of the critisms I've posted of Corbyn have been made by senior figures of the Labour Party with decades of experience of elections.
I do so look forward to your appeals to authority that suggests everyone agrees with you.We have had the international community , World opinion, Western leaders,Economic experts and now the Labour party senior figures.....its not your best one yet tbh.
If one uses STW as a barometer for how "real" your views are its very difficult to find someone who does not mock you let alone someone who agrees with you.
So an entire day's media spinning about an inconsequential paragraph in a policy document. Says it all really.
I find it hugely reassuring that in their desperation they are driven to "spinning about an inconsequential paragraph in a policy document" which says exactly the same thing as the Tories said a year ago without any fuss at all being created, ie, that's it's worth considering the possibility of women-only train coach option.
Hugely reassuring.......they really are seriously struggling to attack him. Corbyn is doing so much better than I could have ever imagined.
Corbyn's policies are pretty much lifted straight from the Green manifesto anyway, aren't they?
I very much doubt that Corbyn bothered reading the Green Party manifesto, although I could be wrong.
He is saying much the same thing today as he was years ago, he has been totally consistent and predictable. In fact his political opponents who are opportunists and lack conviction attempt to criticise him for it.
Following Labour's Great Purge of £3 members who don't support the current version of "Labour values",
I presume their distaste will extend to refusing to count those votes in the next election.
I'm sure Harriet Harman has a PIE chart of where her support lies...
🙂
Just saw this on a random link, did we really miss this?
[url= http://www.****/news/article-3207363/Prime-Minister-Corbyn-1-000-days-destroyed-Britain-brilliant-imagining-Corbyn-premiership-reveals-Tories-gloat-Labour-s-woe-careful-wish-for.html ]http://www.****/news/article-3207363/Prime-Minister-Corbyn-1-000-days-destroyed-Britain-brilliant-imagining-Corbyn-premiership-reveals-Tories-gloat-Labour-s-woe-careful-wish-for.html[/url]
Yes it's a Daily Mail link
There's some jolly good ideas in there.
May I suggest the heads of all members of the HoL on spikes outside the Parliament.
Be a bonzer tourist attraction and they'd finally be doing some good, and it would leave some little boys unbuggered.
Green voters share similar views to the left wing of Labour, that's very believable
that's the opposite of what the research showed.
@kona, I'm not the only person describing the process as a shambles and most of the critisms I've posted of Corbyn...
you have repeatedly called the PROCESS a shambles because you don't think the OUTCOME is wise. get it?
...did we really miss this?
I thought the link might take me somewhere worthwhile and not to be missed.
I read this much :
[i]"The night sky over London was thick with choking black smoke, but in the hellish glow of the flames rising from a myriad burning buildings, the rioters, looters and......"[/i]
And decided I'd had enough.
A vote for Corbyn means arson, rioting, and looting, apparently.
Unlike presumably the arson, rioting, and looting, under the premiership of "moderates" and "centrists" such as Thatcher and Cameron, yeah right.
I'm sure the article continued in the same vein and the rest was just as entertaining and amusing but quite frankly I couldn't be arsed.
There was some good stuff in that article - especially this
One Direction went off on a US tour and never returned.
A vote for Corbyn means arson, rioting, and looting, apparently.
No, it means no more women in the pub and we'll all have to work down pit. And we'll be invaded by Russia.
...did we really miss this?I thought the link might take me somewhere worthwhile and not to be missed.
I read this much :
"The night sky over London was thick with choking black smoke, but in the hellish glow of the flames rising from a myriad burning buildings, the rioters, looters and......"
It seems like a fine, balanced, unbiased piece of journalism to me. Not remotely alarmist, at all. And probably entirely accurate
I wasn't going to post anymore but I had a friend who went last night to the Labour hustings and in his opinion Andy Burham came out best, Cooper was okay, Liz worst and he thought Corbyn's was a good speaker but his economic polices were idiotic.
but his economic polices were idiotic
Am I right in assuming that your friend presumably thinks the anti-austerity criticism expressed in recent times by the IMF is also "idiotic" ?
Central to Corbyn's economic policies is a strong criticism of austerity on that he is closer to the opinions expressed by the IMF, a rather conservative organisation, than the other 3 candidate.
It doesn't make him right of course but it does suggest that "idiotic" is probably not the best term to use.
Furthermore for a conservative organisation such as the IMF, whose Managing Director is a retired right-wing politician, to increasingly take an anti-austerity stance suggests that the arguments put forward by people such Corbyn are gaining traction due to economic reality, not because it is idiotic.
IMF self-criticism over its past support for austerity :
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/11209593/IMFs-push-for-austerity-was-wrong-says-funds-internal-auditor.html ]IMF's push for austerity was wrong, says fund's internal auditor[/url]
[i] The International Monetary Fund ignored its own research and pushed too early for richer countries to trim budgets after the global financial crisis, the IMF's internal auditor has said.
The Washington-based multilateral lender, concerned about high debt levels and large fiscal deficits, urged countries such as Germany, the US and Japan to pursue austerity in 2010-11 before their economies had fully recovered from the crisis. [/i]
Ignoring your own research now that does sound rather idiotic.
Am I right in assuming that your friend presumably thinks the anti-austerity criticism expressed in recent times by the IMF is also "idiotic" ?
No my friend happens to work as an economist but is definitely on the anti-austerity / IMF side of the fence. So if he's not convinced good luck convincing the electorate.
my friend happens to work as an economist but is definitely on the anti-austerity / IMF side of the fence.
And yet he's backing Andy Burham rather than Jeremy Corbyn on that issue, your friend sounds a tad confused.
[url= http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/andy-burnham-attacks-rival-jeremy-corbyns-anti-austerity-promises-11363996077937 ]Andy Burnham attacks rival Jeremy Corbyn's anti-austerity promises[/url]
.
So if he's not convinced good luck convincing the electorate.
I'm not sure how much of it needs to be down to luck, Corbyn has managed to convince 2 Nobel Prize-winning economists that he has the best economic policies out of the 4 candidates.
Dunno.......is that lucky? Or idiotic? Or does it mean something else?
your friend sounds a tad confused
Oh he really isn't.
Were those two Nobel prize winning economists also the same rent a quote ones that backed Ed's policies per chance?
Were those two Nobel prize winning economists also the same rent a quote ones
Yeah I think I'll leave it there........describing Nobel Prize-winning economists, one of them a former chief economist of the World Bank, as [i]"rent a quote"[/i] gives a fair indication of the futility of this discussion.
.
In other news.......
A shocking revelation :
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyns-supporters-are-more-working-class-than-other-candidates-research-finds-10476433.html ]Jeremy Corbyn's supporters are more working class than other candidates’, research finds[/url]
Labour Party.......working class? Whatever next?
Someone please stop this madness.