Jeremy Corbyn

Is there a poll for this?

yes

[img] [/img]

@molgrips as many of us have said the centre ground wins UK elections and Corbyn is way way off to the left of the centre ground. As such his policies do not appeal to the majority.

I think it is a lot more complicated than that, Jam.

The left/right/centre spectrum concept does not accurately model how peopel think and vote.

Mefty - is that approval rating? Not the same thing at all. I was talking about policies, not personal approval rating.

The left/right/centre spectrum concept does not accurately model how peopel think and vote.

I does to quite a great extent imo. However in the case of Corbyn much of his appeal is based on the fact that he appears to be significantly different to most other politicians - he speaks what he thinks and believes, not what someone has told him he should think and believe.

Many people across a fairly broad political spectrum find this highly refreshing and rather appealing.

It models the big/small government thing, but many policies have cross spectrum appeal. Like the NHS, railway nationalisation, taxing big companies, taxing fat-cats and so on.

People are generally fairly left wing, they just let themselves be convinced by whoever spins the best bullshit.

Agree with Molgrips, I'm sick of being labelled left or right. I'm tend one way on finance / bebefits etc. but would be considered to be at the other end of the spectrum when it comes to things like equal rights, gay marriage etc.

I do find Corbyn's honesty refreshing but I don't find many of his views appealing and would never vote for him. However I do agree with most of what says about air strikes.

many policies have cross spectrum appeal.

Which policies?

If you really want "cross spectrum appeal" then I would suggest that you look at the Tory-NewLabour-LibDem consensus.

Something which coupled with the perceived "lack of choice" the electorate seem to be fairly pissed off with and turned off by, and something which was so central to Corbyn's rise.

think it is an intersting debate as typical right wing v left wing
There has often been the illusion of consensus as in the post war consensus. The end of which can accurately be termed " I blame Thatcher"

Perhaps those of you who dont see a thing as left or right are the floating voters who decide all elections? YOu can genuinely be swayed by policies as you are not as ideological - I dont mean that as an insult to be very clear.
Personally I cannot see what the choice would be that would lead to me voting tory and I am sure many on here say the same about Labour.

The left/right/centre spectrum concept does not accurately model how peopel think and vote.

Totally agree. I'm not sure it ever did.

Also the idea of people feeling some kind of football-team-esque loyalty to a specific political party is long gone. [1] People are more sophisticated and have their own views on individual issues right now.

many policies have cross spectrum appeal. Like the NHS, railway nationalisation

Paying for 'more' NHS and Rail nationalisation is not popular though, even among people who identify themselves as 'left'. The SNPs 'penny for Scotland' campaign was a disaster - twice.

[1] Ok it's not gone on STW. But even then only one party attracts that kind of "rossette colour" worship. I can't think of any Tories/Liberals/UKIPers/SNPers who identify themselves as such.

molgrips it's nice to write "edit" when you edit your posts.

I does to quite a great extent imo. However in the case of Corbyn much of his appeal is based on the fact that he appears to be significantly different to most other politicians - he speaks what he thinks and believes, not what someone has told him he should think and believe.

Cmon Ernie, you don't really believe this BS do you? Different??? Let's look.

Principles abandoned from day one in favour of pragmatism.

And who's the spin doctor driving all of this. Yes Mr Seumas Milne

Winchester
Balliol
PPE

The new politics indeed. Just how gullible can people be (at least S of the border)?

Principles abandoned from day one in favour of pragmatism.

This. (Quite openly.)

I'm staggered that even his own supporters describe him as a 'different' kind of politician - especially today.

Cameron was unsure he could win a vote on bombing Isis in Syria. Corbyn could have whipped his MPs which have perhaps meant no vote or a vote not to bomb Isis in Syria.

Corbyn then announces it's a free vote and an hour or so later Cameron says "thnakyou very much for those 50 votes Mr Corbyn" and calls a vote.

Why has Corbyn done this? To hang on to his front benchers because it politically suits him to do so.

A few days ago he was the *leader* of the stop the war coalition now he's got a real chance to stop a war, and he's chosen not to try purely because it suits him politically.

Why has Corbyn done this? [s]To hang on to his front benchers because it politically suits him to do so.[/s]Because it is entirely consistent with his belief that demoncracy should mean democracy, because 'whipping' would be hypocrytical and he would have been castigated for it, because it was the right thing to do, because he openly admits that the party is bigger than one man's views.

Tories be Tories slating people for not acting like Tories.

Because it entirely consistent with his belief that demoncracy should mean democracy, because 'whipping' would be hypocrytical

If this is true then clearly the Labour party won't whipping any votes.

Or is it sometimes democratic to whip?

Whether you like corbyn or not..

This is gonna sound un-pc but whatever.

The guy is spent.. He's old, he lacks strength, just look at him.. He needs to be eating scones in a cafe, not leading a country.

If this is true then clearly the Labour party won't whipping any votes.

Dunno. There's people a lot cleverer and more politically savvy than me who will doubtless be along in a minute to answer that question. Alls I can say is, as someone who has been cautiously impressed with Corbyn's integrity under fire so far, this decision has done nothing to cause me concern.

[quote=mattyfez ] He needs to be eating scones in a cafe, not leading a country.

😆

... not leading a country.

I see nothibg inconsistent in this. He personally doesn't want to bomb, he is campaigning not to bomb, but he doesn't want to force his party as it's anti democraric, this is not a political vote.

It's probably what I would have done.

There's a lot of talk of "leading" on this thread without apparently much consensus of what that actually means. For instance, 5e, to me leadership does not mean forcing the people you lead to do what you want.

quite shrewd move really allowing a free vote, the closet tories reveal themselves and Jeremy lets the membership/activists do the rest.

mattyfez - Member

This is gonna sound un-pc...

Or is it sometimes democratic to whip?

I think the reverse is a better question

Is it sometime democratic to have a free vote on issues unconstrained by "party politics". IMHO wars and also say the EU and perhaps electoral reform should be consciousness issues

TBH Corbyn was a hiding form tories whatever he did

1. WHips the vote he is undermining democracy and he has serious issues with in the party/open splits and he is a bully and has no control etc.

2. Does this and he is accused of having no principles and folding.

Both arguments have some merit to them but life and politics is more nuanced and that and all we really have is folk who already disliked him using this version of his decision options as an example to explain why they dislike him.

I also think its credible to be questioning how he has been doing as a party leader and he has certainly bent to the pressure of leadership and he is on a steep learning curve.

Juries out IMHO.

Alls I can say is, as someone who has been cautiously impressed with Corbyn's integrity under fire so far, this decision has done nothing to cause me concern.

Nor me. There's not enough targets for the vast array of bombers as it is so this decision won't cause a single extra casualty. For that reason I'm not bothered whether Corbyn tried to stop it or not.

But that wasn't my point - I was merely agreeing with THM and picking the most recent example of Corybn being just like any other politician and not remotely principled.

For instance, 5e, to me leadership does not mean forcing the people you lead to do what you want.

Hilary Benn's speach was remarkable.

I'd always dismissed him as a hereditary poltician. But he was impressive. Kind of the opposite of JC.

Hilary Benn, you opportunistic little shite, you.

If they're not doing what you want you've failed to lead.

You would quite like dictators as they were really rather good at this 😉

TBH Corbyn was a hiding form tories whatever he did

1. WHips the vote he is undermining democracy and he has serious issues with in the party/open splits and he is a bully and has no control etc.

2. Does this and he is accused of having no principles and folding.

He believes the option he chose will cost innocent lives. The other option would merely cost him political capital. If he's dammed either way why not pick the one he thinks is right instead of the one that he claims will cause deaths.

Watching the debate highlights now. Benn got a round of applause - I thought that wasn't allowed.

Hilary Benn, you opportunistic little shite, you.

Explain? What does he have to gain?

Explain? What does he have to gain?

Oh I dunno...let's all have a think about it.

IIRC, he was all out for Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. So, yeah, while we're all masturbating to his fine speech, we should remember how right he was on those ones as well.

OOB, Do you honestly think that if Corbyn had of 'whipped' the party, the result of the vote would have been different? Come on...

Explain? What does he have to gain?

I'm thinking Mr Darcy believes Hilary is pitching for leader after Corbyn has been routed at the ides of March.

Personally (and I love Mr Darcy dearly, but we are not going to agree on this) I think Benn put some drama into a pragmatic speech defending a pragmatic proposition.

Just as Johnson emphasised the "finger jabbing certitude" of those against intervention, Benn drew on the subtleties of the threat, the limitations of the policy, but at the end of it the moral obligation of the vote.

Benn's not a bad man. He's not his father, nor should he be, but made a sound case.

Unlike what the tit cameron came out with last night. Sheesh, what a dick.

If he's dammed either way why not pick the one he thinks is right instead of the one that he claims will cause deaths.

Oddly this was my point and then you just did it whilst saying it was not true it was just that this was the really wrong one.

Chapeau you proved my point.

Corbyn only dropped the whip when it became clear that half his shadow cabinet would ignore it.

Alan Johnsons speech was rather wonderful earlier, as for Benn being 'opportunistic' - well, it's Corbyns inadequacy that opened the door. I suspect the tories are going to go very easy on Corbyn over the next few days, they won't want to lose their best weapon.

Crbyn knew he didnt have half the cabinet by 20th Nov, but blundered on regardless.

Oh I dunno...let's all have a think about it.
IIRC, he was all out for Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. So, yeah, while we're all masturbating to his fine speech, we should remember how right he was on those ones as well.

So how is it opportunistic? You're saying he's always voted for wars?

OOB, Do you honestly think that if Corbyn had of 'whipped' the party, the result of the vote would have been different? Come on...

I think the fact Cameron called the vote immediately after the decision to allow Labour MPs to vote for was taken is strong evidence that Cameron wasn't at all sure he could win if Corbyn didn't lend him the votes he needed. So yeah, I think if Corbyn had "whipped" there may never have been a vote.

However, it doesn't really matter to my point. My point was Corbyn aint principled and this is the latest bit of evidence of that.

I beg to differ.

Corbyn is highly principled and that is why he is inappropriate for leadership. He has no capacity for the pragmatism. He draws on utopianism as a guiding light and only a few people will fall for it.

Electable socialism is the only viable socialism. He is a circus freak.

Corbyn knew he didnt have half the cabinet by [s]20th Nov[/s] when he became leader, but blundered on regardless.

FTFY.

I'm sure those who died fighting in the International Brigade against Franco will be turning in their graves as Benn invokes their memory as he makes a fine speech in favour of sending planes to drop bombs which will inevitably result in the deaths of civilians.

Crass opportunistic little shite.

I'm sure those who died fighting in the Inernational Brigade against Franco will be turning in their graves

Like they'd have turned down air support.

If he's dammed either way why not pick the one he thinks is right instead of the one that he claims will cause deaths.

Because which ever one he picked folk like you will explain why it was the wrong one.

I can't see how that answers my question.

Corbyn is highly principled and that is why he is inappropriate for leadership. He has no capacity for the pragmatism. He draws on utopianism as a guiding light and only a few people will fall for it.

Jury still out though as still the honeymoon period....actually writing that made me realise you are right...it wont get any better will it 😥

honeymoon period

the bike sheds

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Draw me like one of your French girls....

I'm thinking Mr Darcy believes Hilary is pitching for leader after Corbyn has been routed at the ides of March.

I thought it was generally accepted that Corbyn can't resign until he loses in 2020. His mandate makes him hostage to the membership.

So if Benn was making the case for bombing to further his career he's going to have a long wait. But why would being pro-bombing be good career wise? Most of his party are anti-bombing.

I can't see any reason why Benn would be anything but straight on this issue.

I'd like to understand the contrary case.

EDIT: Straight, but wrong, of course.

I think this is more a NUM quickie where they are having it in a large hole they have just dug for themselves 😉

If I hear one more politician say "Moderate forces" I'm going to go crazy with a machette. That is all.

He has no capacity for the pragmatism.

But THM just criticised him for being pragmatic?!

I'm so confused!

Outofbreath - member
...principled...

So if Benn was making the case for bombing to further his career he's going to have a long wait. But why would being pro-bombing be good career wise? Most of his party are anti-bombing.

Benn will be struggling to hide his erection at how important he's made himself look tonight. Sending others to kill people doesn't really matter. I'm sure he realises time is getting on and he needs to position himself sooner rather than later.

I'm going to go crazy with a machette.

If you do, should the police shoot to kill?

Benn will be struggling to hide his erection at how important he's made himself look tonight.

Right, so just to be clear you're saying that Benn did something unpopular with his party for nefarious reasons in order to make him look important.

And that's what you meant by opportunistic.

Thanks for clearing that up.

If you do, should the police shoot to kill?

I'm going to go crazy with a machette.

If you do, should the police shoot to kill?

To use a recent quote, "I wouldn't be happy about that".

But THM just criticised him for being pragmatic?!

No I didn't. I merely observed...you can make the value judgment

I'm so confused!

No need

No, there's no confusion for you, it's black and white.. 😉

I wonder though - if/when the campaign turns into a shitstorm, it might end up making Corbyn look good.

OTOH if we eliminate ISIS and secure a peaceful Middle East, it will make him look bad. Hmm....

I wonder though - if/when the campaign turns into a shitstorm, it might end up making Corbyn look good.

If it's a shitstorm he can say "told you so".

OTOH if we eliminate ISIS and secure a peaceful Middle East, it will make him look bad.

If the mythical moderates turn up and it ends well he claim that his free vote made it inevitable *and* point out that Cameron waited until he declared a free vote to hold the vote. Chances of this going well are rather low, though. 🙁

Personally I think Corbyn stuck to his principals. He's always ignored the whip so to have tried to impose his will on his own party would have been inconsistent. Plus of course it would have made no difference to the result and as such he's better served hanging on an hoping for better days.

The Labour peer Jeffrey Rooker hits the nail on the head with this statement today about Corbyn, Daesh and the Labour Party

[i]My party leader cannot be accused, like the prime minister, of misleading anyone. He has never, to my knowledge, agreed to protect the realm, the British way of life, or western liberal democracies - and he won’t. We need to get rid of him before we face the electorate and have a leader fit and proper to offer themselves as our prime minister... The case is clear, Daesh is coming for us. They try to use our innate tolerance to undermine us – exactly the same way as the anti-British Trots in the Labour party are using our tolerance to try and get control. The history of Munich tells me not to give in to the easy route. If you don’t fight when under attack, you lose – and we are under attack.[/i]

Plus of course it would have made no difference to the result

I'd question if there would have been a vote if Cameron had to guess how many Labour rebels there would be in a whipped vote. As soon as it was a free vote it was obvious he could win and he called the vote - that suggests Corbyn's decision made a difference.

teamhurtmore - Member

Cmon Ernie, you don't really believe this BS do you?

Well I believe what I claim to believe.

In contrast I obviously don't believe all the bullshit which you repeated spout on here concerning you not being a committed Tory voter.

Or your absurd claim of being, quote, "politically neutral" 😆

Hilary Benn, you opportunistic little shite, you.

This. Never have I seen such a blatantly deliberate attempt to further one's own ambitions. You could tell he'd been practising that speech for days. And obviously now the guardian is already promoting him as the next leader. Something tells me though that however much he thinks he's done well, who of the labour party membership are going to vote for someone who was cheered to the rafters by the tories? Corbyn should have whipped the vote and sacked him. In fact he should still sack him now.

Personally I think Corbyn stuck to his principals.

Jesus you've only just realised this? Welcome to the reason that most people voted for him. I do wonder about you sometimes.

You could tell he'd been practising that speech for days

According to the Spectator, he was seen to have been writing it in the chamber whilst listening to the debate...

as always, its often better to listen to the full speech rather than just the potted highlights:

https://soundcloud.com/spectator1828/hilary-benns-rousing-speech-in-favour-of-syrian-airstrikes

Well, the last time I remember Tories applauding someone from the Labour Party, it was Blair wasn't it?

Oh...

The reason for the spontaneous ejaculation from the government benches and the warmongering members of the LP, was that all night, they'd been yearning for legitimacy. And Benn presented it in all its tumescent beauty as, while anointing himself a statesman with the blood of innocent civilians, he gave the Yes vote the illusion of it being the [i]honourable[/i] thing to do. The opportunistic, crass little charlatan shite that he is.

According to the Spectator, he was seen to have been writing it in the chamber whilst listening to the debate...

He probably wasn't sure how he was going to vote.

The history of Munich tells me not to give in to the easy route.

He has never, to my knowledge, agreed to protect the realm, the British way of life, or western liberal democracies

System justification, the disease that condemns us to war without end.

I watched the whole thing live. The theatrics were ridiculous. Clearly designed to make himself the focus of the debate, rather than the arguments. Not that he had much to say other than 'but we'll look a bit stupid if we don't join in'.

This. Never have I seen such a blatantly deliberate attempt to further one's own ambitions

Well I think he was speaking from the point of principle because the likelihood of deposing Corbyn is tiny. A major change has happened. The Left has control at pretty much every level, assuming Corbyn manages to keep his supporters happy and his health holds up, then it is difficult to see how anyone can unseat him. Over the next five years, the Left's control (or the membership's to be fairer) will become stronger, by the next election there will be sufficient MPs to ensure a left candidate can always get onto the ballot, I really don't see a future for the right of the party.

I really don't see a future for the right of the party.

Can't say I agree. The clamour over the coming months for Corbyn to go will become almost irresistable. And you can see the argument after a clearly unambiguous challenge to his authority that Benn delivered tonight. The fact is Benn could have disagreed quietly on a point of principle, made his arguments and then left it at that. That wasn't what we got though was it?

The Left has control at pretty much every level

Well that's very clearly not true. If Corbyn was knocked off his bike and killed tomorrow the right would immediately regain control. And they certainly wouldn't allow a left-wing candidate to appear on the leadership ballot paper again. The left would be completely powerless. However overwhelming support for a left candidate might be.

Look at the Labour rules, if he doesn't stand down, there is no way to unseat him.

EDIT: EL - I did qualify for health which I think covers for being knocked off his bike.

EDIT 2:

But your analysis is right, you need him to stay on unto the election when with boundary changes etc you should have enough Mps to get a left winger on the ballot.

@dazh supposedly Corbyn's treatment of Benn in the last few days lead Benn to decide to deliberate that type of speech. I was commenting on Corbyns principals as others here seemed to believe he'd ignored them. Corbyn would have lost a whipped vote, had to sack/seen resign shadow cabinet ministers and been left with a genuine chance of being listed as leader. So it was never an option.

@ernie, that's why I was so keen for Corbyn to have a crack at being leader as I thought it would consign hard left politics to the dustbin for decades.

I did qualify for health which I think covers for being knocked off his bike

So you fully accept that if Corbyn were to die that the Labour Party would immediately revert back into the hands of the right-wing, but you still claim that [i]"The Left has control at pretty much every level"[/i]?

How bizarre.

Well I kind of think it is a relatively remote contingency and not sufficient to take into account but worth noting as an assumption. Why are you protesting so much?

(EDIT: You may have missed my second edit, always difficult when the page turns)

I thought it would consign hard left politics to the dustbin for decades.

It's funny how not bombing people is "hard left politics" when it's from the Labour Party but not when it's from the SNP.

I guess there's other ways to scare people from the SNP.

Opps ... it looks like Labour might have a new leader in Hilary Benn ... 😯

Why are you protesting so much?

What am I protesting about?

I wasn't aware that I was.

I wasn't aware that I was.

We may be suffering from cross posts - I can't see how my analysis is that different from yours - do you think there is any reason Corbyn won't survive until the next election?

It's funny how not bombing people is "hard left politics" when it's from the Labour Party but not when it's from the SNP.

Well, we already know their attitude to fascists and terrorists:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-10-08/scotland-s-salmond-wanted-trump-support-for-al-megrahi-release

I don't think the left control anything within the Labour Party beyond the leadership. The fact that if something were to happen to Corbyn, however remote that might be, the party would immediately and irreversibly revert back into the hands of the right-wing proves this imo.

I don't agree with your claim that "The Left has control at pretty much every level". It has control of the leadership position and that's pretty much it.

Left's position on NEC looks pretty strong to me - but I guess you may differ on definition of Left for these purposes> I do agree you don't have control of the PLP but providing he can withstand that, he will be on the ballot as long as he wants to be.