Jeremy Corbyn

stumpyjon - Member

Mind you Ernie's already getting his excuses in to explain why the left won't succeed and as usual it's all somebody elses fault, be it the Telegraph or the Tories or the EU.

Either I'm really crap at explaining myself or you're really crap at reading. Or the third option, you prefer to deliberately misrepresent what I am saying.

I haven't blamed the Daily Telegraph for anything as you will of course see if you reread my post. I said some right-wingers in the Labour Party want the election cancelled [i]"claiming that it was tainted by the interference of the Daily Telegraph"[/i]. It's right-wingers who are using the Telegraph as an early excuse to explain why their candidate is likely to lose, not me.

And nowhere in my long and rather rambling post do I even mention the Tories, let alone use them as some sort of excuse for anything. Perhaps you think I should have ?

I do indeed however point out the limitations placed on any government by EU membership, this is a widely recognised fact, not an excuse.

The rest of your post is equally nonsense with for example [i]"the whole rhetoric of the left seems to boil down to it's not fair",[/i] when it's in fact right-wingers like Tony Blair and New Labour who talk about 'fairness' and 'a fairer Britain', the left tends to talk about legitimate rights and taking control of our nation's wealth for the common good, but quite frankly I've probably already given your post more attention than it actually deserves 🙂

You're pushing it a bit to claim that the Guardian is "socialist". They're not even social democratic - it's been a very long time since Guardian leader writers have argued in favour of a mixed economy.

As opposed to what other sort of economy?

Just look at today's papers all focusing on anything but the non election manifesto 40% cuts bonanza

Kimbers it's a scandal isn't it. There's old Austerity (sic) George announcing less than promised cuts and opting for tax increases instead (bloody Tories eh!), slower deficit reduction than promised (bloody Tories eh!) and a delay in delivering a budget surplus (bloody.....). It's shocking how he has got away with not doing what he promised isn't it? And after an outright majority too. Who can you trust?

Bloody politicians....

I see [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/22/tony-blair-labour-will-not-win-if-it-steps-away-from-centre-ground ]Bliar the Messiah[/url] has put his tuppence worth in the pot.

I think if the last labour govt had stuck to 'tax and spend' rather than 'borrow and spend' then they might still be in govt now. Also I really don't see why left policies are seen as incompatible with modernism. A lot of uniquely modern phenomena such as the open source movement, crowdfunding, open data, and various other things associated with today's information/knowledge economy have their roots in leftwing ideology. In a lot of respects the left is changing and adapting much more than the right. It seems to me that the people who are obsessed with the 1970s and 80s are not the left, but the right who think that's the only leftwing option.

Edit: [url= http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun ]An interesting (if rather long) take on the future of capitalism by Paul Mason[/url] - Looks a bit leftwing to me.

Sorry Ernie, rereading your post it was the ranting on about right wingers and the mention of the Tories twice that made me confused. I didn't realise you meant ineffectual, populist centre ground politicians when you were referring to right wingers. Anyway your rambling post made it quite clear someone other than your favoured candidate was to blame so i stand by the ascertion. Your general disdain for the democratic proces even within a party is quite worrying.

I don't accept this 'move to the left and you're unelectable'. Are people not simply parroting what they've been told by the press? I voted for Corbyn when I lived in Islington, met him once or twice, and he struck me as a very conscientious and principled bloke. I'm no great supporter of Labour, although that's who I vote for, but with him at the helm you would have a clearer distinction between the parties. In my view, Miliband lost because he wasn't leftwing enough.

I don't accept this 'move to the left and you're unelectable'.

I accept it if it means 'go back to the 1970s days of unbridled union power, dustbins not being emptied and mass nationalisation as a matter of ideology', but I'm pretty sure that's not what 'left' means these days and I don't think even Corbyn is suggesting that.

stumpyjon - Member

Sorry Ernie, rereading your post it was the ranting on about right wingers and the mention of the Tories twice that made me confused.

I think we'll settled for the third option - you prefer to deliberately misrepresent what I am saying. You know full well that I do no more than 'refer' to the Tories, as in [i]"right-wingers would rebel and vote with the Tories",[/i] nowhere do I discuss the Tories or blame them for anything at all - as you quite falsely claimed.

Your general disdain for the democratic proces even within a party is quite worrying.

And that silly disingenuous half-wit comment puts you firmly in the Z-11 camp as yet another right-winger who lacks the intellectual skills to engage in sensible debate, and has to resort instead to puerile point-scoring and taunting.

And that silly disingenuous half-wit comment puts you firmly in the Z-11 camp as yet another right-winger who lacks the intellectual skills to engage in sensible debate, and has to resort instead to puerile point-scoring and taunting.

[img] [/img]

as if on cue.

And that silly disingenuous half-wit comment puts you firmly in the Z-11 camp as yet another right-winger who lacks the intellectual skills to engage in sensible debate, and has to resort instead to puerile point-scoring and taunting.

Now read that back to yourself and have another think about who's degenerated to flinging personal insults around.

I'm voting for Corbyn because I think he is the only candidate that can A give a clear vision and B attempt to break the neoliberal consensus. I have been rather disappointed at how some in the party have behaved in recently weeks, at the moment those not supporting Corbyn are bashing him saying he is un-electable when they instead should be putting forward their own vision. It's not great when the best thing you can say is 'vote for me because the other guy can't win'.

Andy B should have shown leadership and resigned from the front bench to vote against the Welfare Bill it's pretty much recces so it wouldn't have even mattered that much. Instead him and Yvette bent in the wind like human palm trees. The only good thing to come from Harriet's leadership on this issue is that it has exposed Yvette and Andy for what they really are.

Now read that back to yourself and have another think about who's degenerated to flinging personal insults around.

You mean you got a reaction from your silly disingenuous half-wit comment : [i]"Your general disdain for the democratic proces even within a party is quite worrying."[/i] ?

There is no disdain for the democratic process, even within a party, from me.

Now do you fancy returning to the subject matter, ie Jeremy Corbyn, or do you want to focus solely on tit for tat posts rather than attempt to make a constructive sensible comment ?

Andy B should have shown leadership and resigned from the front bench to vote against the Welfare Bill it's pretty much recces so it wouldn't have even mattered that much. Instead him and Yvette bent in the wind like human palm trees. The only good thing to come from Harriet's leadership on this issue is that it has exposed Yvette and Andy for what they really are.

Yep, spot on imo.

you prefer to deliberately misrepresent what I am saying.

Quite annoying that isn't it? As is...

puerile point-scoring and taunting.

Ernie I'm quite happy to return the debate, again you're one degenerating to flinging the insults.

From what little I know of Corbyn he seems to be quite a principled politician and we need more of those. I don't agree with his principles and I don't think most of the population will either so he's a dead end for Labour and will give the Tories free reign to romp around with impunity and whilst I agree with their stance on welfare and the ongoing need for austerity (populist anti austerity is working out well Greece isn't it), there are other key areas I would like to see some effective opposition to, the wholesale rolling back of support for renewables and the unpalatable zeal they seem have for animal cruelty (Fox Hunting). So to sum up I think superficially Corbyn for leader will be a good thing but on deeper reflection a person with such utopian ideals isn't whats needed to reinvigorate British politics.

Happy now?

A “Left-wing platform”, he said, would “take the country backwards”, in the “unlikely” event Mr Corbyn won a general election. Labour was “going back in time” to the early 1980s, when it “persuaded itself that the reason the country voted for Margaret Thatcher was because it wanted a really Left-wing Labour party. This is what I call the theory that the electorate is stupid.”
Left-wingers like Mr Corbyn were “in fact quite reactionary”, and blind to the chasm between their own beliefs and the public’s. On the rare occasions they did notice the chasm, they always assumed it was the public that was on the wrong side of it, never themselves. “When I became leader, we had a meeting where a guy got up and said: ‘Tony, the British people have now voted against us four times in a row. What on earth is wrong with them?’”

When Tony Blair is the more in tune with the voters than a majority of the party then you know something has gone horribly wrong.

So we're doomed to have a Tory government forever, even if Labour win, because the English public are all right wing? And people wonder why the SNP/Independence movement is growing stronger by the day.

Steve bell nails it as usual....

[img] ?w=940&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=efe7810446ef266472d431bfd1e66487[/img]

Blair, 2010:

[i]The danger for Labour now is that we drift off or even move decisively off, to the left. If we do, we will lose even bigger next time. We have to buck the historical trend and face up to the reasons for defeat squarely and honestly.
…
If Labour wants to come back, it has to realise just how quickly defeat has altered the political landscape. It means the Tories get to clear up the economic deficit and define its nature, and can do so while pointing the finger of blame at the previous government.

If Labour simply defaults to a 'Tory cutters, Lib Dem collaborators' mantra, it may well benefit in the short term; however, it will lose any possibility of being chosen as an alternative government. Instead, it has to stand up for its record in the many areas it can do so, but also explain where the criticism of the thirteen years is valid. It should criticise the composition but not the thrust of the Tory deficit reductions.

This is incredibly difficult Of course, the key factor in our economy as elsewhere, is the global economic crisis and all nations are having to cut back and adjust. However, we should also accept that from 2005 onwards Labour was insufficiently vigorous in limiting or eliminating the potential structural deficit. The failure to embrace the Fundamental Savings review of 2005-6 was, in retrospect, a much bigger error than I ever thought at the time. An analysis of the pros and cons of putting so much into tax credits is essential. All of this only has to be stated to seem unconscionably hard. Yet unless we do this, we cannot get the correct analysis of what we did right, what we did wrong, and where we go now.

Attacking the nature of the Tory-Lib Dem changes to public spending requires greater Intellectual depth and determination, and each detail has to be carefully considered. So, for example, if we attack as we should the cuts to school investment, we have to be prepared to say where we would also make more radical savings than the new government. But it is better than mounting a general attack on macro policy - 'putting the recovery at risk' - and ending up betting the shop that the recovery fails to materialise. It is correct that the withdrawal of the stimulus in each country's case is a delicate question of judgement, but if you study the figures for government projections in the UK, by the end of 2014 public spending will still be 42 per cent of GDP.

Such an approach is the reverse of what is easy for Oppositions, who get dragged almost unconsciously, almost unwillingly, into wholesale opposition. It's where the short-term market in votes is. It is where the party feels most comfortable. It's what gets the biggest cheer. The trouble is, it also chains the Opposition to positions that in the longer term look irresponsible, short-sighted or just plain wrong.[/i]

So to sum up I think superficially Corbyn for leader will be a good thing but on deeper reflection a person with such utopian ideals isn't whats needed to reinvigorate British politics.

What are Corbyn's "utopian ideals" which you claim he has ? Let's not misrepresent him.

There are not that many issues which separates Corbyn from the other leadership candidates, although they might be quite fundamental.

Firstly unlike the other candidates Corbyn very strongly opposes tuition fees which is hardly a utopian ideal as tuition fees are a relatively new idea. Nor is it particularity left-wing, or an election loser for that matter.

In fact Nick Clegg who no one would call left-wing was so convinced that it was an election winner that he created a big media backed song and dance highlighting his opposition to tuition fees. Remember this ?

[img] [/img]

And scraping tuition fees has not proved to have been an election loser for the SNP. There is no evidence that Corbyn's opposition to tuition fees is a vote loser or perceived by the public as being particularly left-wing.

Then there is Corbyn's commitment to the nationalisation of the utilities and in particular the railways. Now that is an indisputably a left-wing policy, but there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that it's a vote loser.

In fact polls show overwhelming public support for the nationalisation of the utilities and the railways, even among Tory voters, as people see the absurdity of applying the "free-market" to utilities and the state subsidised railways, and handing them over to foreign state owned companies.

I can't imagine many people refusing to vote Labour because they like the idea of French, German, or Chinese state owned companies, owning our infrastructure.

Then there is Corbyn's opposition to austerity as a means of reducing the excessive deficit caused by bailing out the banks and the recession it caused. Well yes that is a left-wing Keynesian analysis, but hardly an extreme left-wing view - even the IMF, not noted for its left-wing utopian ideals, now recognises how futile austerity can be when attempting to get an economy healthy.

The SNP claimed opposition to austerity did not seem to cost them any votes 6 months ago in the general election, in fact they did rather well. The evidence that Corbyn would lose a general election due to his opposition to austerity is very sparse, in fact there is some evidence that aping Tory economic policies is what cost Miliband and Balls the general election.

Next the issue of foreign policy separates Corbyn from the other 3 candidates. Is Corbyn's commitment to justice for the Palestinian people for example really a vote loser? I very much doubt it, and it might even result in greater support for Labour.

Nor is there much evidence that voters particularly like Labour's recent past record on war and would be put off by Corbyn's commitment to peace.

Finally what differentiates Corbyn from the other 3 candidates is his commitment to reintroducing democracy into the Labour Party, I doubt very much that electoral support of Labour hinges on the fact that one man, and one man alone, decides party policy.

You might view those policy differences as unattainable 'utopian ideals' but they are every bit as attainable as the creation of the National Health Service, which presumably was another utopian ideal ?

Well I must say, Ernest my champagne sipping constructioniere, I totally agree with all that, surprising as it may seem.
[img] [/img]

I don't think Corbyn has enough of a thick hide to take the battering he'll get as opposition leader. If he is going to flip out that easily on C4 News he isn't going to cope very well the worse side of the press.

Also does he actually travel much? Seems very Islington orientated to me, and getting around the country will take its toll.

If Corbyn is in then I'm afraid you can forget Labours chances of being elected anytime soon.

maybe, but we can definitely forget about their chances if he doesn't win.

Labour, as a centre-chasing tory-light party, is pointless.

but the non election manifesto 40% cuts bonanza

Technically it's not 40% cuts, non ring fenced departments have been asked to run analyses for 25% and 40% budget reductions. No actual reductions to budgets have happened (yet).

I see that the labour party has fully grasped the whole idea of interanl democracy. Andy Burnham and Yvette Coopers teams have ben putting pressure on Liz Kendall to withdraw so that they can hoover up her votes to prevent Corbyn getting in.

Here's a novel idea.... why the **** don't you concentrate on upping your game a bit, so that people actually want to vote for you instead? Actually come out and say what it is that you're for or what you represent? Because right now, none of us have got a clue 🙄

Say what you like about Corbyn, at least he's communicated what it is he's about. Love it or hate it, its fairly unambiguous.

The others? Anyone got a the faintest idea...?

Actually come out and say what it is that you're for or what you represent? Because right now, none of us have got a clue

Burnham did fairly well on that last night - to wit: He doesn't believe that Labour should have abstained on the welfare bill, and he wanted to vote against it, but was happy to set his principles aside and do what he was told because he's a true leader like that. So vote for him.

I think they missed the point of internal democracy when they decided to organise a leadership election that could be so easily influenced by their political opponents. Whether outside influences and non-supporters will actually change the result is a moot point, but if Corbyn is elected, he will be dogged by the constant whining that it was the Telegraph wot won it.

I think Corbyn put himself into the contest so that the left could have some kind of voice in the debate over the future of the Labour Party. In that sense a couple of years of his leadership would be a lively way to reconnect Labour with its roots, or, if that isn't possible or worthwhile, to split out a new centrist party with the bulk of its MPs.

I don't see him contesting the next election. I don't think he even really wanted the job, just the opportunity to shape the direction of the Labour movement.

Burnham did fairly well on that last night - to wit: He doesn't believe that Labour should have abstained on the welfare bill, and he wanted to vote against it, but was happy to set his principles aside and do what he was told because he's a true leader like that. So vote for him.

Priceless!

Labour, as a centre-chasing tory-light party, is pointless.

Worked for Tony Bliar.

And I would say that it does have a point if not an idealistic one - even if the Tories and Labour are near enough identical (and I don't think that's really the case though on many key issues it's essentially true), having the ability to vote one lot out and replace them with another lot does have benefits.

Recent experience of long term Tory and then Labour governments shows that politicians tend to become complacent, (more)self-serving and run out of ideas if they're in power too long. Even just refreshing the people doing the same things has benefits IMO.

Worked for Tony Bliar.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. If you cast your mind back to Labour's first term, they introduced the minimum wage, human rights act, working time limit and substantially increased spending on schools and hospitals. Not the acts of a tory-light party...and that's before we consider that Labour had an open goal due to the Tories being in disarray at that time.

Anyway, all this talk of left vs right is to miss the point. Do people really think that Corbyn is doing well because of his (supposedly) hard-left politics? Or is it because he is authentic, principled and passionate? I very much think the latter.

@Ransos:

indeed. He appears to have prinicples. A rare sight in political debate these days (especially among prominent Labour figures, it's sad to say).

also this -

"...the theory that the electorate is stupid.” Left-wingers like Mr Corbyn were “in fact quite reactionary”, and blind to the chasm between their own beliefs and the public’s. On the rare occasions they did notice the chasm, they always assumed it was the public that was on the wrong side of it, never themselves.

So if Corbyn is so out of touch, the 250K-odd Labour members will vote for someone else, right? Or is "the theory that voters are stupid" alive and well within the Labour ranks, only this time it seems to be coming from the centre?

😐

Worked for Tony Bliar.

At the time. The Tories then splashed around in shallow water wondering how to win by being Tories, just as Labour had done (Being Labour) before Blair. It wasn't until they decided to copy New Labour and Blair that they stood a chance.

The game has moved on so Labour now need to find an angle that works again. The Blair formula that was fresh at the time is now old, tired and copied by all.

There seems to be a tendency among all the labour candidates to blame the electorate for their recent defeat, like they were simply too stupid and made the wrong choice, rather than their own many shortcomings

So if Corbyn is so out of touch, the 250K-odd Labour members will vote for someone else, right?

You've misunderstood what Blair is saying, it is not the core voters of your party you have to appeal to (they'll vote for you anyway) it is the swing voters. And they sure as hell ain't hard left in view. Corbyn is to the left what IDS was to the right in 2001 i.e. popular with the hard core of the party but un-electable to the 'normal' voter.

Just did a quick bit of wiki research to see if i could outline the key differences between the other candidates.

Yvette Cooper: mid 40's, Oxbridge educated, never had a job outside politics, Blairite
Andy Burnham: mid 40's, Oxbridge educated, never had a job outside politics, generally Blairite
Liz Kendall: mid 40's, Oxbridge educated, never had a job outside politics, pretty much Blairite

You can kind of see why Corbyn threw his hat in the ring. Even if he does have dubious taste in hats

Even if he does have dubious taste in hats

[img] ?quality=80&strip=all&strip=all&w=768&h=552&crop=1[/img]

You've misunderstood what Blair is saying, it is not the core voters of your party you have to appeal to (they'll vote for you anyway) it is the swing voters. And they sure as hell ain't hard left in view. Corbyn is to the left what IDS was to the right in 2001 i.e. popular with the hard core of the party but un-electable to the 'normal' voter.

No no, I agree with all that.

But Blair was attacking the idea that people are too stupid to vote 'the right way'. I agree with him on that. But you can't then say that your own party are too stupid to vote the right way. Because that would be hypocrisy.

I do think that Corbyn at a general election would be an extremely hard sell (to put it mildly). But that doesn't mean that the Labour party should steamroller their own democratic process to kick him out of the way.

You really think Corbyn would be worse than Ed M?

doris - thats pretty much the crux of it - the membership of the labour party want more left leaning policies (or at least not what the centrist leadership propose) while the leadership have essentially hijacked the labour party (Blair onwards) as a vehicle to deliver the centrist policies that they know will actually get them elected.

A split could well be suicide and IMO it'd be awful for the country as the Tories would get an even freer reign to do what they want but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen, particularly if Corbyn did get elected AND was actually able to get more left leaning policies adopted.

What job has Corbyn had outside politics?

If he gets elected then he is going to have to answer a lot of questions on his love of terrorist organisations like the IRA and Hamas, he'd better have some good, snappy answers.

me? No, not substantially.

But he would probably get a much heavier battering from the right-wing media (of which there is an awful lot) digging up his history and claiming he wants gulags for all - and it's hard to predict how that would play out.

human rights act, working time limit and substantially increased spending on schools and hospitals.

I really think he'd do a good job, we've been ready for a leftish trending government for a long time now, we voted left in 97 and got right hence the trend of not to bother anyway.

One thing they are all missing is the Green vote, oceans filling with plastic bags, big money in pointless wind projects half of which cost more to start up electrically than they generate, propping up oil for all the wrong reasons (BP a big donor and mate of Blair), if they did nothing more than offer a sensible set of progressive green policys a lot of us would return to the fold. Nationalising Utilities & Transport is in everyones interest, but so is looking after the planet ffs yet nobody seems to be concerned about that in the Labour movement.

The point about attracting swing voters to win is valid, but the other problem about attracting 'core vote' is that you activate the reactionary opposition core vote too. Nothing would make right wing Tories who went to UKIP flock back better than Corbyn as Labour leader.