Jeremy Corbyn

He looks like he could have a ruck. I quite like him. I also like that he kicked off at that **** on C4 news.

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.

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.

self interest, self obsession, looking good in blue

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

Dads approve Corbyn’s functional beige clothing

I go do something else for a little while and come back to find that I am a £3 Tory-Beast, molesting the poor, innocent Labour Party. 😳

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.

I am so self-centred that I am giving them 3 of my hard earned pounds.

– 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).

Is democratically voting for a socialist, red in tooth and claw, to be leader of the increasingly left-wing party really against the aims of the party of Kier Hardy and Tony Benn ? (not to mention Jim Devine, David Chaytor, Eric Illsley, Dennis McShane, Margaret Moran and Elliot Morley )

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

Strange, I thought that I had every right to give them my money and help choose a leader – I don’t see how having a vote undermines the rights of others – perhaps you could explain that ?

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

Would that be the party of the Dodgy Dossier? The £1 million bung to allow tobacco adertising to continue on Formula One ?

Hear the Mighty £3 Tory roar!

::squeak::

Perhaps best not to use the Telegraph link…

The direct link on the Labour website is

https://supporters.labour.org.uk/leadership/1

Cranberry, maybe you are right. You are perhaps giving people more choice in future, even if that is not your actual intent. Roll on with your £3 🙂 Its been such a long time since so many of us had any party worth voting for.

Have a nice night, off to bed myself now.

Chuka, Chuka Khan’s weighed in….

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33561504

Jezzas brother is Piers Corbyn..the source of many of Daily Express bonkers weather forecast headlines

wiw win –three pound to vote–money on at the bookies , pays for itself and we get a leader who is princpled, and offers hope for millions of poor people …..

there is an irony in ‘making’ money and getting a socialist elected for leader of a revisionist party that seeks to appease capitalists more than the tories….

Interesting blog post on this;

http://barristerblogger.com/2015/07/17/committing-electoral-fraud-to-back-jeremy-corbyn-is-a-bad-idea/%5B/url%5D

Well worth a read if you have a couple of minutes.

wiw win –three pound to vote–money on at the bookies , pays for itself and we get a leader who is princpled, and offers hope for millions of poor people …..

😉

Transient hope or real hope – we shall see. What’s going on elsewhere suggests more of the former frankly.

a load of tripe –that blog –full of lazy cliches–wonder if he does copy for daily fail writers as well—-i’m voting corbyn because i agree with his stance –and millions of others do as well–but in this stage managed ‘democracy’ it is usually denied us a voice in the puppet show..

I think the blog is about those voting for him because they think his beliefs are a bad thing for the labour party electorally, not those who agree with his views?

voting corbyn because i agree with his stance –

This is a good thing – tempted to do so myself.

Voting for him because you support another party and think his election will nuke the labour party into oblivion to your preferred party’s benefit is a bad thing not only because to do so you are being fraudulent but also for the general health of democracy. That was the thrust of the blog wasn’t it?

I think it’d be a novelty to actually have a party leader who doesn’t just blindly accept the neo-liberal consensus, like its been passed down from god on tablets of stone, and actually offers an alternative. I’m so frigging bored with them all unquestioningly offering more of the same, with a different coloured tie. It’d just be nice to hear someone voice an alternative.

It seemes to have gone dowwn well north of the border last time out. I’m sure it’d go down equally as well in plenty of other places too

Listened to whatever-his-name-is who’s just been elected Lib Dem leader this morning … “blah blah blah… fiscal responsibiliy….. blah blah blah… hardworking families… blah blah blah… balancing the books….. blah blah blah… fiscal responsibiliy….. blah blah blah… hardworking families… blah blah blah… balancing the books….. blah blah blah… fiscal responsibiliy….. blah blah blah… hardworking families… blah blah blah… balancing the books…………”

Oh just **** off!!!!!

Hmm, well, to tackle the blogs points – the declaration that one supports Labours aims is quite simple to pin down – the Labour Party constitution sets out its aims in clause iv:
The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.

I’d suggest that most tories could happily sign up to that, they just have a fundementally different belief in the best ways to go about achieving it, indeed, one could argue that in redrafting the clause in 1995 it was specifically worded in this wooly fashion, so that it could attract former conservative supporters.

As for the point on ”not a supporter of any organisation opposed to” surely that is a double edged sword, one recalls Ken Livingstone being thrown out of the party because he stood against it, would you suggest that Ken should not be able to join and vote? George Galloway? Vince Cable? Shirley Williams? Are they to now be excluded from the democratic processes of the Labour Party too? How about members of the socialist Labour Party? Can they take part in the election? former Labour supporters who joined The Lib Dems, are they out? those who went from Labour to UKIP? How about members of the Communist Party or Militant? CPGB(ML)? green? Can they vote? How about ‘natural’ Labour supporters who voted SNP because they thought the Labour Party had abandoned them? Surely they have become ‘supporters of an organisation opposed to Labour’?

I’m inclined to think that the ‘political left’ probably should have learnt of the danger of “purges”…

As for the point on ”not a supporter of any organisation opposed to” surely that is a double edged sword, one recalls Ken Livingstone being thrown out of the party because he stood against it, would you suggest that Ken should not be able to join and vote? George Galloway? Vince Cable? Shirley Williams? Are they to now be excluded from the democratic processes of the Labour Party too? How about members of the socialist Labour Party? Can they take part in the election? former Labour supporters who joined The Lib Dems, are they out? those who went from Labour to UKIP? How about members of the Communist Party or Militant? CPGB(ML)? Can they vote? How about ‘natural’ Labour supporters who voted SNP because they thought the Labour Party had abandoned them? Surely they have become ‘supporters of an organisation opposed to Labour’?

Well quite obviously most of them shouldn’t, no (Although as Ken is a member of the party’s national executive committee I suspect he might be voting 😉 ). It’s not really that hard. The vote has been extended to ‘registered supporters’. The clue is in the word ‘supporter’. I don’t think it would be unreasonable to consider ‘registered supporters’ to be current Labour party voters than aren’t actually signed up members of the Labour party. That was the intent at any rate. I’m not entirely sure why you think gorgeous George or Vince as members of other political parties who stood against Labour candidates at the last election would consider themselves ‘registered supporters’ of the Labour party and would want to vote and denying them a vote would be some huge breach of democracy.

Chukka Umunna and Tristram Hunt on Newsnight last night illustrated perfectly why Jeremy Corbyn is proving popular. Everything they said was about being tactical and thinking ‘how can we win?’

Don’t they realise that in order to win a general election the Labour party will actually have to stand for something and be about something?

To paraphrase Walter Sobchak, say what you will about the Tories but at least they’re clear about what they stand for, however unpleasant, intolerant, uncaring, selfish and nakedly greedy that might be. Since Blair’s misadventures in the middle east, Labour really haven’t stood for anything at all and that’s why not enough people have voted for them.

its a lazy piece of copy,been aired elsewhere, what is funny that something that started out as an afterthought to have atoken left candidiate,has exposed the moribund and clueless offerings from the blairite rump , that is over represented in the parlimentary section but not among activists –history tells us that thinks can change very quickly and what was unbeliavable last week becomes accepted by many a week later…i dont know how many of you have read marx and engels -communist manifesto written in 1848 -its a very easy read , not long , but would possibly alarm some in its accuracy….

Chukka Umunna and Tristram Hunt on Newsnight last night illustrated perfectly why Jeremy Corbyn is proving popular. Everything they said was about being tactical and thinking ‘how can we win?’

indeed

They’re just Tories, with different coloured ties, who perhaps aren’t going to look like they’re actively enjoying it quite so much as they shaft the poor to line the pockets of their rich friends.

I’d like a labour party back that doesn’t just shrug from its comfortable upper middle class ivory towers, and just accept that that’s just the way things are

Everything they said was about being tactical and thinking ‘how can we win?’ ‘how can we attract the broadest level of support for the party’

one leads to the other….

@Convert – on that basis, you sucessfully rule out the possibility of attracting lost voters – eg. The natural Labour supporters who went to the SNP and UKIP.

Chukka Umunna and Tristram Hunt on Newsnight last night illustrated perfectly why Jeremy Corbyn is proving popular. Everything they said was about being tactical and thinking ‘how can we win?’

Don’t they realise that in order to win a general election the Labour party will actually have to stand for something and be about something?

I thought the same – Umunna’s comment about “boxing clever” was profoundly depressing for those of us on the left. Whether you agree with Corbyn or not, he has the courage of his convictions and is passionate, and just perhaps that is why so many are warming to him, given the bland, uniform mediocrity of his competitors.

apparchniks with no beleifs other than self interest -career politricks, that is what fills most of the benches in that crumbling edifice dahn saaf….the difference is that the tory side actually run tings,so its slightly less hypocritical of them –the so called liberal and labour puppets seem to have been voiced in a chinese workshop with random messages….as for burnham -he even looks like a puppet!

@Convert – on that basis, you sucessfully rule out the possibility of attracting lost voters – eg. The natural Labour supporters who went to the SNP and UKIP.

True (and I guess I am in that camp as I voted green at the last election as Labour in my constituency was a wasted vote and I like the green candidate personally). Maybe it should include those who intend to come back (with the right leader in charge). Either way it excludes active members of other parties. To be honest though, any labour voter who went to UKIP can stay there as far as I’m concerned. I’d rather not be involved in any political party that someone even remotely attracted to UKIP could find a home.

Is Corbyn the natural successor to Tony Benn?

I would have thought that Hilary Benn was the natural successor to Tony Benn…

and let’s not forget what support for Tony and a shift to the left did to the party in the Eighties…

Its not the eighties though. The political lanscape is now unrecognisable from then.

Lets be honest… the present Tory-light Labour party is totally unelectable. Its a pointless irrelevence. So to just continue with the more of the same offered by the main candidates isn’t going to get them anywhere. Why go for a pale, hand-wringing imitation, when you can have the full-blooded, cruel, nasty, heartless real thing?

So rediscovering some left-leaning principles, or any principles at all, would be a start IMHO.

I wish Corbyn would form a real left wing party. He has a cat in bells chance of moving the LP significantly from the centre ground.

Let’s have a genuine socialist party and then we can see how much genuine support there is and what impact it can make.

Otherwise like everyone from Blair, Hollande, even Tsipras you will continue to see supposedly LW parties merely implemented the policies that all other parties would implement. Think which of the above is implementing the most aggressive austerity plan, then which one is banging in most about supply side policies – all traditionally associated with right of centre parties?!?

The alternative scenario is that this will lay bare the actual impotence of politicians and governments. In truth they do not lead. They react. Perhaps this whole nonsense in Europe and elsewhere will wake us all up to the fact that governments should and do have limited roles.

everyone thinking that Corbyn is the messiah and that a left wing labour government can surely only follow his ascension is delusional.

The only true question is whether the “left” want a strong-voiced, clear left-wing ideological party in permanent opposition OR an electable centre/right/left red Conservative electable brand of Labour with which to block right wing government and press the social democratic agenda.

When the delusional come to their senses, do they still stand by the principled left wing politician, or will pragmatism lead them back to No10 with Chuka to evict Dave?

I think you’re jumping the gun a bit there, he’s only one person and even if he does get elected, the Labour party won’t change all that much over night just because someone with a beard is the leader.

When the delusional come to their senses, do they still stand by the principled left wing politician, or will pragmatism lead them back to No10 with Chuka to evict Dave?

After reading the recent Guardian profile of Chucky, and his opinions, him taking over from Dave would shift policy in Downing Street substantially to the right.

George Osbourne could make a more credible pitch to represent the traditional values of the labour party

fair enough binners. Do you mind voting for Yvette instead then, as I have £25 at 5/1 riding on her and I need all the help…

The only true question is whether the “left” want a strong-voiced, clear left-wing ideological party in permanent opposition OR an electable centre/right/left red Conservative electable brand of Labour with which to block right wing government and press the social democratic agenda.

When the delusional come to their senses, do they still stand by the principled left wing politician, or will pragmatism lead them back to No10 with Chuka to evict Dave?

But I guess the question is why would you care? If a tory in a red tie got into 10 Downing Street would a supporter of the true left feel any more that a party which represented them was in power than if a tory with a blue tie was in power? It’ll just be more of the same. I’d rather support a party that was truly left of centre that was not in power than have no left of centre party to vote for at all.