At the risk of derailing this thread into another circular repeation nightmare.

The left demonstrated they were willing to move on by supporting Starmer in the leadership election and his intention to unify the party.

Labour membership over time:

Undeniably membership jumped hugely under Corbyn. To around 580,000 from around 200,000.

In the leadership voting:

401,564 members voted.

Starmer won in the first round with 225,135 votes, so even if we assume that literally every pre Corbyn member voted for Starmer (and they didn’t leave in that period which seems unlikely) then that’s potentially an extra 25,000 “Corbyn members” who put Starmer as their first vote. (Affiliates makes this hard to prove)

This is the minimum that could of done that, in reality it’s likely way higher than that, and the number of pre Corbyn members that left in the Corbyn years is likely much higher than 0.

It’s not hard to believe that a decent chunk of “Corbyn members” switched to Starmer at least as one choice on their votes.

You stick with Grandpa. Like two completely dissimilar things in a pod.

Could we give the ageism a rest?

Could we give the ageism a rest?

Ok, I’ll rephrase it.

Keep your ideological ‘purity’ and thus condemn Labour to be a political irrelevance for another few years.

Undeniably membership jumped hugely under Corbyn. To around 580,000 from around 200,000.

Membership isn’t votes in a GE.

Keep your ideological ‘purity’ and thus condemn Labour to be a political irrelevance for another few years.

I see this criticism a lot here but don’t know what it means.

You’ve got more chance of getting elected if you have fewer principles. It is an unfortunate truth that the Tories capitalise on.

I see this criticism a lot here but don’t know what it means.

If you really honestly don’t understand the meaning of that phrase, you have no business commenting on a political thread TBH.

I presume the massive jump in members under gramps was because people wanted the opportunity to vote for a leader with any chance of winning a GE at the earliest opportunity. I know that’s why I joined.

‘Ideology’ is to see the world from a particular perspective, everybody has one. Therefore it is a nonsense to talk about someone being ‘ideological’ (presumably as opposed to ‘scientific’) or ‘ideological purity’ as though ideologies came in a pure form. The challenge is which ideology bests understands the here and now. A full and comprehensive understanding of society can only come from the standpoint of the people exploited by it not the people justifying exploitation. So an ideology based on social class gives the most objective view of processes and events and not much comes as a surprise.
Starmer is very keen to prove that his ideology is absolutely no threat. When he could have challenged £12bn extra on arms and argued for money to go to the hard-pressed many, he said his first priority under his new management was defence. Socialists should be up in arms.

Starmer will need to offer people something much more tangible than the current gov, he should start with social housing on a vast scale via housing associations and direct gov intervention on land acquisition this will create jobs,training etc on a vast scale – then offer those houses after a 5 year tenancy at cost + whatever, if the house is sold on within 5 years all profits back to the gov if within 10 years 50% profit back to gov. – take rent and salesprofit and build more houses, create a gov investment bank directly for small business, upgrade the Northern railway’s to reasonable, take back the railway’s into public ownership and run them as a service, allow private developers the opportunity to convert town/city centres into housing.

Finally invedt in renewable energy at the appropriate level not Boris chump change.

Socialists should be up in arms.

They’re too busy arguing amongst themselves.

If you really honestly don’t understand the meaning of that phrase, you have no business commenting on a political thread TBH.

Unsurprisingly you misunderstand. I understand the phrase but not why people are using it as an apparent insult. A failure of comprehension, I guess.

It was not meant not be taken literally, it was a little play on words. Unity should come from persuasion and evidence not ad hominems, suspending and expelling like the head boy is currently embroiled in.

‘Ideology’ is to see the world from a particular perspective, everybody has one.

What you’re describing there is a ‘worldview’; it’s people’s perception of how the world is. An ideology is a view on how things should be. Sociologically, they’re interrelated, but distinct, concepts.

I understand the phrase but not why people are using it as an apparent insult. A failure of comprehension, I guess

And who’s fault is it if it isn’t ‘comprehended’ properly?

As for for its use as a apparent insult; because it alienates people (Voters) who are deemed to insufficiently share the ideology, and then implies moral inferiority.

In the case of Corbyns ideology, it came across as incredibly po-faced, utterly humourless, pious, sanctimonious, self-righteous and judgemental, and it’s adherents uncomfortably cult-like and intolerant

It repelled voters in droves, to deliver a huge Tory majority

Good point DJ but perception is based on ideology: you see a bloke and someone else sees an unwelcome foreigner.

In the case of Corbyns ideology, it came across as incredibly po-faced, utterly humourless, pious, sanctimonious, self-righteous and judgemental, and it’s adherents uncomfortably cult-like and intolerant

It seems to me that your first instinct is to insult and belittle those who don’t share your ideology.

I’m not trying to insult or belittle anyone. I’m merely pointing out how this was/is a common perception of the Corbynite left. You might not like that (clearly), and you may not deem it accurate, but it’s a commonly held opinion. This isn’t an opinion unique to me. You could argue that the refusal to acknowledge this, let alone address it was one of the Party’s major failings and contributed to their thumping electoral defeat

And the words ‘pious and sanctimonious’, as well as the word ‘useless’ were used to (accurately) describe Jeremy Corbyn by none other than Alan Johnson, who lest we forget was instrumental in delivering 3 successive election victories (booooooo, hiss… bloody centrist) and someone who would almost certainly have become leader had he stood (but said it was the last thing he wanted)

I’m not trying to insult or belittle anyone.

You can’t have had a straight face when you typed that. It’s pretty much all you do.

You can’t have had a straight face when you typed that. It’s pretty much all you do.

Everyone’s a bleedin’ critic 😁. Perhaps that’s the best way forward for this thread: comment on debating style of previous poster?

Everyone’s a bleedin’ critic 😁. Perhaps that’s the best way forward for this thread: comment on debating style of previous poster?

If you like.

Oh Christ on a bendybus! Please god let’s not make this about me again

Could you just answer me the following questions

1. Do you think calling Corbyn pious and sanctimonious (we’ll take po-faced and humourless as a given, shall we?) is inaccurate or unfair?

2. Do you see and understand why a lot of people perceive him as being so?

Feel free to show your workings in the margin

Oh Christ on a bendybus! Please god let’s not make this about me again

That’s up to you. The phrasing of your questions is ample evidence that you’re not interested in answers that might not accord with your ideology.

If you’re interested in genuine debate, you need to stop acting in bad faith. Your choice.

You might not like that (clearly), and you may not deem it accurate, but it’s a commonly held opinion. This isn’t an opinion unique to me.

It’s also a commonly held opinion that Brexit is a great idea, Trump is a good president, and white people are best. What’s your point?

My point is that you have to deal with the world as it is, rather than how you’d like it to be.

The problem with the left, both here and in America, over recent years it that they’re so convinced of their piousness and moral correctness that they feel the fact that they are ‘right’ should be obvious to everyone, who should then dutifully vote for them. They are thus absolutely terrible at ‘selling’ their argument as they think that they shouldn’t have to bother

This has delivered predictable results

But even after those catastrophic results, Corbyn came out and stated ‘we won the argument’

Those 4 words spoke volumes about the attitude of those on the left and their total detachment from reality

If you’re interested in genuine debate, you need to stop acting in bad faith. Your choice.

I don’t think Binners could act in bad faith if he tried

What he understands as does Starmer is that people who voted conservative at the last election need to be persuaded to vote Labour. The left double down with statements that anyone who votes conservative is openly xenophobic and racist or has murdered 60,000 people

One approach will get labour into power, the other sees the worst conservative government of the modern era continue for another term.

The Corbyns rise is similar to Farage’s both can’t seem to withdraw from the limelight, both are badly flawed talismans and British politics will be better when they disappear to spend more time in the allotment/pub

+1 big_n_daft

Many of us ‘rabid centralists’ have also voted labour all our lives. I want a labour government not an 80 seat majority tory one.

My point is that you have to deal with the world as it is, rather than how you’d like it to be.

No shit. But that doesn’t mean you have a monopoly on the best response.

I find it interesting that “the left” is continually caricatured as an immature, inflexible, monolithic entity. Yet the maths of Starmer’s leadership victory clearly show that left wingers voted for him in their thousands.

can’t seem to withdraw from the limelight

After the change of leadership, I was hoping that Corbyn (by dint of his strong continuing support in the party, even by people who could see that Long-Bailey might not be the best choice leader for Labour’s rebuild) could be a part of a strong wing of the party to keep the party’s policies left wing, while acknowledging that they need modernising and reframing to persuade more people to vote Labour. But rather than fight on policy, he decides to fight based on a report, with legal standing, about antisemitism. I really wish Corbyn had sought to keep himself quietly useful in keeping Labour to the left while also widening its support… but no, he wants to die on this hill. He now needs to just be gone. Which is a shame. The 2017 manifesto got me voting Labour for the first time… so many good policies… I fear that fewer of those will live on into the next Labour government (if we ever get one now) because of his failure to do what needed doing, and say what needed saying, when the EHRC report was published. I’m angry with him to be honest. I doubt I’m alone. I still think Starmer was wrong not to give him back the whip… but at this point… he must really wish Corbyn would just disappear… and doesn’t want to be seen to accept him as part of his parliamentary team… I don’t blame him.

It like the early days of Corbyn’s leadership when he was hamstrung by various members of the PLP plotting against him. Now JC is a drag anchor to SKS’s leadership.

Karma is a bitch!

& the country is the loser for all this stupidness from the LP.

The left double down with statements that anyone who votes conservative is openly xenophobic and racist or has murdered 60,000 people

The worse ones for this are the “moderates” in my experience. You only need to look in the brexit threads to see the people sneering arrogance at anyone they perceive are pro corbyn are also the ones coming out with this sort of crap.
The problem I have with this belief of chasing the tories rightwards is we have been there and done that.
We ended up with a political system far more skewed to the right than ever before. So how do you expect it to work differently this time and not end up even more skewed rightwards.
So then in a few years time we have the same people dispensing wisdom about “dealing with the world as is” without dealing with the fact it was them who helped make it that way?

We ended up with a political system far more skewed to the right than ever before.

That’s what we have now. The current Tory Government is further to the right than other recent ones, and they didn’t get there by being chased to the right by Labour, did they.

The worse ones for this are the “moderates” in my experience. You only need to look in the brexit threads to see the people sneering arrogance at anyone they perceive are pro corbyn are also the ones coming out with this sort of crap.

What were they saying?

There was plenty of vitriol at anyone who wasn’t an ardent remainer

As I recall the Labour party policy was for “remain” and JC as a good party man campaigned on that basis with the same vigor he puts into all the policies of the labour party

Why was there sneering arrogance?

They’re too busy arguing amongst themselves.

It’s safer that way. It means they don’t have to confront the real world.

A real world in which Jeremy Corbyn lost by 80 seats to an inept liar and crook who hid in a fridge to avoid scrutiny.

and someone who would almost certainly have become leader had he stood (but said it was the last thing he wanted)

The difference between Johnson and Corbyn being that when Corbyn was asked to put himself forward even though he didn’t want to, he stepped forward. If only Johnson had shown the same level of commitment to the cause we might not be in this mess now.

The difference between Johnson and Corbyn being that when Corbyn was asked to put himself forward even though he didn’t want to, he stepped forward. If only Johnson had shown the same level of commitment to the cause we might not be in this mess now.

If my auntie had bollocks she’d be my uncle.

What are Labour going to do now?

I fear that fewer of those will live on into the next Labour government (if we ever get one now) because of his failure to do what needed doing

So Starmer diluting the 2017/19 policies will also be Corbyn’s fault? I see we are already gearing up for blaming Corbyn for the 2024 election defeat 🙂

It’s safer that way. It means they don’t have to confront the real world.

The only political party in the past 40 years which has made an attempt to confront ‘the real world’ was labour under Corbyn. It was the only party willing to challenge the corrupt and exploitative model of neo-liberalism and the power of the oligarchs and kleptocrats. It failed in the end but not because they didn’t try, but because its own Blairite MPs and officials sided with establishment interests in order to keep everything the same.

Centrists don’t confront the real world, they drop their trousers and allow themselves to be shafted by it in return for getting to play at being important and making some money out of it.

Good leadership comes from good debate within an organisation. To get that you need confident and articulate members and a preparedness to explore, discuss and feed back. If ‘unity’ means grudgingly being a follower in silence over certain issues and always watching your back then that’s not destined to work well. And it’s not.
Sir’s pronouncements about under new management would suggest that he has no interest in the membership’s ideas but even his front bench, including me me, seem strangely silent. Are they completely bereft of ideas, there to make the numbers up, not up to the task or just terrified? Actually, Sir doesn’t look too comfortable in his own skin and hence the big emphasis on shiny suits and hairdos. I can’t see a return to the status quo ante under Sir, you either lump it or leave.

Sir doesn’t look too comfortable in his own skin

I think his flushed, Charles Kennedy-esque red face indicates why he might not look very comfortable.

So Starmer diluting the 2017/19 policies will also be Corbyn’s fault?

Corbyn choosing to die on this hill, rather than respond as needed to the report, and then concentrate on trying to cement his policy shift in the party, is Corbyn’s fault. There are many people who will welcome Corbyn sidelining himself… but I think it will be a loss to the party. But it’s Corbyn’s choice.

On policy… a lot of what the public found problematic in 2019 was added late in the campaign… much of it welcomed by me, but easily ridiculed by others. The 2017 manifesto would be a better platform to build from… there is so much in there that this country needs. The 2019 manifesto has to be viewed as a mistake now, and any new leader would be signalling a move away from it. I’m glad if Starmer is already doing so (although I’ve not seen nearly enough of this myself so far, he seems to be avoiding policy completely in most areas). There is no point sticking to the 2019 policy platform 100% and claiming the argument was won. That would be foolish in the extreme.