Jeremy Corbyn

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

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

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.

Aren’t the first two EU statutes? And wasn’t the vast majority of the schools and hospitals spending done on the never never (PFI)?
One of the best things new labour did was squash the poll tax IMHO.

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.

@doris, to me he seems much more credible than Ed, but i think you are right, the daily wail would send in the SAS on him

substantially increased spending on schools and hospitals.

You mean increased debt for schools and hosps using the Tory PFI system. Public risk, private profit. As Gordon Brown said with PFI, financiers would be investing in services which

“The government is statutorily bound to provide and for which demand is virtually insatiable. Your revenue stream is ultimately backed by the government. Where else can you get a business opportunity like that?”

http://www.dropnhsdebt.org.uk/history-of-pfi/

Socialist or middle of the road?

Minimum wage? That the Tories have promised to increase to £9 an hour.

One of the best things new labour did was squash the poll tax IMHO.

Lol (I’m genuinely assuming thats a joke?)

But yeah, Labour fracturing into the usual old boys club and a new party that people who genuinely want change can vote for would be the end of it, I mean look at what happened up here, SNWho?

Oh…

I think a lot of you underestimate the electorate, moreso those who don’t vote because it’s seen as pointless. Look at what the SNP did up here (I’m not getting into an argument about what SNP stand for, just using them as an illustration) by presenting a genuine alternative to the the usual stuck record. Time will tell what happens but if they make something of their time in opposition then I genuinely believe the more gifted of thinking who don’t believe everything the press says will vote according to principles rather than abstaining or, even worse, habit.

realistically (hate to say this, but still) i suspect the ‘best’ option may be if Corbyn wins, leads the party for (say) 2 years, reminds the drones that principles, backbone and a social conscience can actually play well with voters, and then someone else takes the reins leading into 2020. Someone with slightly less toxic links to Sinn Fein / old school communism, perhaps.

But i definitely think Labour needs a big kick up the backside, and Corbyn is as well placed as anyone to administer it. Burnham/Cooper/Kendall would be pointless, and are only in contention (IMO) because they won’t rock the boat. As someone said on here yesterday, no-one got fired for buying IBM…

IF he gets elected & IF the labour party rallied behind him & offered some genuine left leaning policies, he could be a force for change & offer the disenfranchised an alternative to the current status quo. Sadly even if he did get elected, the labour party would not rally behind him as so obviously demonstrated by Tony B****y Blair.

& +1 to what Doris above said

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

Worked for Tony Bliar.

The Blair strategy was time limited in its affect. It completely relied on the supposition that traditional Labour voters would have nowhere else to go no matter how right-wing the Labour Party became.

That strategy certainly worked in 1997 but over Tony Blair’s premiership the Labour Party lost about 4 million votes. Just like crying wolf can deliver the expected result eventually people grow weary.

And “centre-chasing tory-light” votes in 2015 in Scotland proved absolutely disastrous for the Labour Party, despite it being a very successful strategy in Scotland in 1997.

The obvious significance of the Scottish result is that it was the only area of the UK where voters had what was perceived to be a credible party to the left of Labour. People’s enthusiasm for a party perceived to be to the left of Labour was in fact quite astounding.

I’m looking forward to receiving my vote- £3 well spent.

Do you know what made Britain great? It was having a functional democracy with oppositional politics.

So I hope you’re are happy undermining the democratic process and contributing to a the formation of effectively a one party state.

People’s enthusiasm for a party perceived to be to the left of Labour was in fact quite astounding.

The SNP got people who didn’t do politics talking about politics. My impression though is that the SNP gained not because it was left wing but because the Labour Party is now perceived as being unionist. So former Labour voters who had voted “yes” in the referendum switched to the SNP.

The Scottish Labour party committed suicide by campaigning alongside the hated Tories for a “No” vote.

Do you know what made Britain great? It was having a functional democracy with oppositional politics.

Actually that’s not strictly true universal suffrage is a fairly recent development in British history. By the time it had been introduced Britain’s position as one of the most powerful and wealthy nations’ on earth had already peaked.

universal suffrage wasn’t mentioned.

‘functional democracy’ was.

meaning: votes were cast, they got counted, and a government formed accordingly.

LW v RW, RW v LW – all total bullshit that is of only relevance inside the narrow corridors of part of the Westminster Village and the Internet.

For the wider (real) world, it’s an irrelevance that is why the parties in power typical occupy the middle ground – why? Because that is what those they represent broadly want.

Thatcherism was a myth – she was hardly radical in practice.
SNP – anti austerity, left wing. Yea right!?! Go an look what they do not what they say
Austerity George – running one of the most expansionary fiscal policies in the advanced world and this is RW austerity. What a crock…

This outdated framework needs to be abandoned. Yes the whole Corbyn debacle is amusing for the twists that are getting worse in Labours knickers. But for most people it doesn’t make a jot of difference.

The UK prefers centre politics and that is what they vote for. They are conservative with a little c. Governments respond to events, so there perceived politics are largely irrelevant. That is why parties often do the exact opposite of what they say and what they’re are accused/praised for. They are not the ones in control of events.

Go compare the actual policies of perceived socialists versus perceived RW parties with what they are supposed to stand for, and you quickly realise how silly the whole LW v RW debate really is.

My impression though is that the SNP gained not because it was left wing but because the Labour Party is now perceived as being unionist.

I’m surprised that anti-unionist feelings are so strong in Scotland that it effectively wiped out a long established party, but yet isn’t strong enough to have resulted in a vote in favour of the dissolution of the union.

I see a flaw in your analysis.

universal suffrage wasn’t mentioned.

‘functional democracy’ was.

meaning: votes were cast, they got counted, and a government formed accordingly.

If that’s the primitive standard we’re working to, Rotten Boroughs and all, then I guess we can hold up the current ‘votes for sale’ Labour fandango as a paragon of democratic function.

Do you know what made Britain great?

Wasn’t it the state bankrolling the armed forces so they could colonise and exploit large swathes of the world occupied by brown people so the merchant classes could make a killing?

teamhurtmore – Member

SNP – anti austerity, left wing. Yea right!?! Go an look what they do not what they say

You obviously don’t understand the term “a party perceived to be to the left of Labour”.

Have a think about it.