UKC

I would!

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Me too.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

In the absence of any other option with integrity, so would I.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

I'd vote twice

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Yes I would.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Me too

In reply to Baron Weasel:

What are you lot talking about - haven't you read the press? He's completely un-electable.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

I'm a Tory, I'd vote for him.

In reply to Baron Weasel:
I might continue voting labour despite him.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:


I know, what if Rupert finds out about us.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

He has my vote.

In reply to Baron Weasel:
Definately. I'll be out chapping doors and posting leaflets to make sure that we do get elected.

In reply to Big Ger:


That's a relief! You and me both. For a moment I thought you'd abandoned him.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Me too... I think.

In reply to Baron Weasel:
I wouldn't.

He stabbed the party in the back by not campaigning to remain in the EU. Though he is always the first to point out he's democratically elected he didn't back a campaign that the vast majority of members believed in. What a hypocrite.

(I'm assuming you mean vote for him in a leadership challenge?)

In reply to Baron Weasel:

I wonder just how many did vote twice (as krikoman suggested he would), and also how many tories and far right supporters voted for him.
There were serious questions raised at the time regarding the sudden influx of "supporters".
It would be far more sensible for any organisation to close the books on membership/"supportership" the moment any election is triggered.
As it is leaving entry open to all and sundry is inviting both corruption and (more importantly) the suspicion of corruption in the election process.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

I would too. I don't agree with some things but he's principled and the UK has been dragged so far to the right since thatcher that we need something like a corbyn administration to level it a bit. It's only really the establishment who want him to go. They tend to ignore the elephant in the room which is the huge and vast support he has from actual real people.

In reply to doz generale:


Like Brexit.

Corbyn was in between a rock and a hard place with Brexit. He has always been a eurosceptic, but I think he felt he had to be seen to follow the party line.

In reply to Baron Weasel:


What are we voting for?

He'd have my vote for a long list of jobs, sadly Prime Minister or leader of the opposition don't figure on that list

In reply to timjones:


I have seen the word "sadly" used in this context on the JRM thread. Just out of curiosity, what are the connotations of this word?

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Nope. Voting for Big Tim.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

I won't be voting for him because I don't live in his constituency, I'm surprised there's so many UKCers in Islington North.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Me Me Me Me Me!

In reply to Baron Weasel:

I would.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:


Which would be a decent reason to dislike him except of course he did campaign extensively for REMAIN.

Could he have made better use of TV airtime had he been willing to share a platform with Cameron et al... probably.
jk

In reply to Jack Frost:

Good point.

Whilst he's still giving it a go, I will always vote to get David Drew back into the commons. So voting Corbyn indirectly.

In reply to jkarran:

I don't think anyone was convinced that was his best effort. If it was then he should resign anyway due to incompetence IMO.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

I would vote for him. But I would also support Labour picking a new leader, especially if they were mature about it and the new choice presented a similarly different philosophy to the Tories.

He is clearly a man of principle and he thinks hard about stuff before opening his mouth which is different from the rest of the bunch of self interested Westmister village types. Sadly he isn't looking like a leader at the moment, his lack of visibility and muted message is coming across as a lack of confidence. It doesn't help that he is in a really tough spot and much of his MPs don't seem to have learned any lessons from the Milliband era. They need to move forward with him and present something truly progressive as an alternative to the sad neoliberal consensus.

In reply to jkarran:



I'm still unconvinced this would have made the slightest difference to the referendum result. Only marginally more Lib Dem voters voted for Remain, which says it all if you ask me.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

I'd vote for the bloke. -

In reply to Baron Weasel:

I don't live in Islington, so I can't.

Does he make me less likely to vote Labour? Not especially, I know and like my MP and her main rival is UKIP.

If there was a leadership election and I had a vote, would I vote for him? Definitely not.

In reply to The New NickB:
Who would you vote for Nick?

I know it's hindsight, but I've been thinking this morning about what would this country be like if John Smith's ticker hadn't given up the ghost. Iraq? Afghanistan? They would have still happened, but with our envolvement?

We ended up with the hope of Blair for a few short years, but he was either a consummate illusionist or more likely, corrupted by those some would call Zionists.

Corbyn is a pale shadow of Smith, but nonetheless still an incarnation of the man. Maybe that's why he got elected in the first place - an antedote to Blair.

In reply to jkarran:


Maybe 7/10, maybe.

In reply to doz generale:

>...the UK has been dragged so far to the right since thatcher that we need something like a corbyn administration to level it a bit....

No, we really don't. Hard right then hard left is is just as good a plan for countries as it is for a skidding car - either way ends in a crash.

Any move to the right has not been at all uniform. I think the UK is much more socially liberal these days - a move to the left but I agree there certainly has been a move to the right since Thatcher on economic issues. This has benefited many people and the overall economy is (well, was until 23rd June) a lot stronger but a lot of people have been left behind, feeling marginalised, alienated and hostile to those they see as benefiting from it. It is the weird coalition of the left behind and the little Englanders of the Tories that won the Brexit vote.

Swapping from extreme right to extreme left and back every few years is a recipe for chaos and economic decline. A better corrective, to my eyes, would be both Labour and the Conservatives picking a moderate centrist leader and competing over the centre of politics, marginalise the extremists and do something (the trick is knowing what that something is) for the left behind and marginalised so that they can participate in and contribute to the

My worry is that the next general election will give us (in England) the choice between a Labour party taken over by the hard left student politics brigade with no connection to traditional labour supporters, Conservatives under Andrea Leadsom who are only talking to their right-wing, living in the past base and UKIP trying to win the traditional Labour vote on a platform of lies and xenophobia. Barely a single viable policy between them and a complete vacuum in the centre.

In reply to Baron Weasel: He's the only one who would ever get my vote. The Tories have f*cked themselves with their stupidity, double dealing and the installation of yet another god botherer as PM. The Blairites still can't accept Bliar's a war criminal so Corbyn, who's speech in 2003 was scarily accurate about the consequences of invading Iraq, is the only one who stands up to any scrutiny.

I've never voted Labour in my life.

In reply to NathanP:

Many good points, but I'm not sure about the centralist view.

We need a moderate left and a moderate right, to promoted healthy debate in Parliament, forget the centralist part. The centralist view has led us to Blair, Brown, Cameron, Osbourne, Milliband(s), bickering over the same ground because they have nothing to truly debate.

As much as I think the EU referendum was a poor idea and even more poorly executed, this is the first time in my life (nearly 50 years), when the whole country has been debating politics. There were good and bad arguments (and a bucket full of lies) created by both sides. The one true positive that should come from this, is that the country has been engaged and should carry on being engaged. I'm not holding out much hope though. X Factor and Christmas will be on us sooner than we think.

For me the best politcal scenario at the moment would be:

Right: Jacob Rees-Mogg
Left: Hillary Benn

(Relatively) Moderate right vs moderate left, in vs out, a measured debate and a break from The Bullingdon Club vs Champagne Socialism.

In reply to Hugh J:

No election, so no candidates. I'd be looking for someone who could unite the bulk of the party and provide an alternative to the Tories that could gain broad public, not just party membership, support. I'd also like world peace and a large pay rise.

In reply to The New NickB:

OK, hypothetically then, who could that be? Would Hillary Benn fill that criteria?

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Leadership contest? If the only other candidate was Angela Eagle i wouldn't vote. If a suitable (as yet unseen) 'unity' candidate was put forward, I'd pay £3 to vote for them. I'd like Corbyn to remain near the top (deputy leader?) as I like his views generally.

General Election? I would probably vote Labour, unless this 'Progressive Alliance' idea gets off the ground in which case I would just vote for whichever candidate I liked best (I live in a Lib Dem-Labour-Greens three-way marginal).

In reply to fred99:


It seemed like that to me too, but maybe that actually reflected the way he felt on this complicated issue, I voted remain but I could sympathise with some of the Leave arguments.

The alternative is to be like Boris who is widely suspected of running a campaign he didn't believe in to further his career ambitions.

However - in the position he is in it would help to really come out swinging one way or the other, I think the fact he appeared to be virtually silent on the issue could have been to do with the way the media portrayed it but I am not sure.

In reply to Hugh J:


Possibly.

In reply to Baron Weasel:
I would vote for Corbyn, without hesitation.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Problem with JC in my humble opinion is that for all he appeals to the Labour hard-left and student politics movement, he doesn't appeal enough to the middle-ground of voters and the Labour party will need a leader with this appeal to win a general election, or even properly occupy the territory of an opposition.

Sure, he can speak eloquently in public to large gatherings... so what? They are mainly JC fans anyway. This isn't going to sway the middle-class, middle-ground voters who are too busy to go to his public speeches.

Like it or not, the media is the way to get the message out, and i don't feel he is good enough or charismatic enough to do it.

I'm not a Labour voter, possibly never will be, but i wouldn't be swayed to vote for JC's Labour party in a general election.

In reply to LG-Mark:





I think a lot of people would agree with you but the shift away from the center by the tories at the same time will, I believe, make a lot of people vote for a Corbyn government who probably think he's too left wing. This could also be the making of the Lib dems. The center ground is theirs for the taking. They just need to have some conviction and stick by what they promise.

In reply to Hugh J:


In my case I say sadly because regardless of the political persuasion of the government I believe that we need a credibly electable opposition. I seriously doubt that Corbyn is going to mange to unite the labour party well enough to achieve this.

In reply to Baron Weasel:
I would vote Corbyn also, that said SNP would win around here.

In reply to Hugh J:



I think I worded my thoughts badly - you put it much better. A moderate left and moderate right was just what I would like to see. My fear is that things are going the opposite way and those of us with a mix of soft-left and moderate conservative views will have nowhere to go.

In reply to The New NickB:


I wish you luck with the pay rise

In reply to fred99:

Would you rather he lied, and said he was 110% behind the EU or, like he said, it needs some reform but generally we're better in.

I really don't understand why someone speaking the truth gets put down for it. IS this what YOU want from our supposed leaders?

In reply to fred99:

How can you vote twice? I was joking, it doesn't really matter if the Tories voted for him, it's the electorate he needs and so far they've backed him.


Because they say someone who could make a difference and WHO they could relate to. Someone who looked like they actually had some integrety and honesty.



Or even democracy, perish the thought.

In reply to Baron Weasel:
I'm a lifelong labour voter who'll vote against him if there's a leadership challenge. in fact I would urge anyone who votes Labour but isn't a party member to join the party so they can do the same.

If Labour is about anything, it's about getting elected so it can help the people the Tories have left behind, and Labour will not win a general election with him as leader.

His performance during the Referendum campaign just makes me bloody angry.

In reply to NathanP:


Not good enough, as an analysis. 17 million voted Leave, plenty of whom are neither desperate nor stupid. The case for Remain wasn't made well enough, and for me (a Labourite) Corbyn carries much of the blame for that.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:



Snag is, you're not correct. There was a recent article which stated that he made well over 100 speeches in support of the EU and campaigned a lot more than anyone else on the labour side.

Unfortunately the mainstream media were far more interested in strife in the tory party and backstabbing in the labour party, and his efforts largely went unreported. Deliberate? Don't know. The less well known media outlets were reporting them.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Absolutely no way I would vote for Corbyn. A bit like choosing porridge on a breakfast menu. Stodge.
Let's have a mediocre future for everybody.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Tories who joined the Labour Party.

In reply to Hugh J:


I think that's the problem. The rest of the PLP have, almost without exception, abandoned every shred of integrity. In fact, they have almost gone out of their way to discard it at every possible opportunity.

Corbyn has been attacked, viciously, by his own PLP before the election, during and after the election, and ever since. The guardian has been running multiple attack threads per day for 10 months. I have never seen a politician ever hounded so comprehensively in my life.

The thing is, I don't get why. "Oh, he's unelectable" people cry. Really? Surely that's a reason to help him, to rally round, to show a united front. A party isn't one person. Not to drop a line to your mate in the Guardian and line up for an attack-corbyn column next Tuesday.

Throughout this I think that Corbyn has behaved extremely well. With integrity, you might say.

I'd vote for him.

I'd add that I'm a professional on a good salary, so not a "Labour natural". Labour and Corbyn's economic policies would almost certainly make me worse off, personally. Why would I vote for them? - because I think they are right for the country and the people as a whole.

In reply to John_Hat:


Really? I saw Gordon Brown, Sadiq Khan, Harriet Harman and others getting involved but Corbyn was nowhere to be seen. He was bloody useless. But of course you'll say it's all the fault of the media

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Oh dear, with comrades like this who needs enemies?

In reply to James B:

It's because he confuses talking 150 SWP types in some hall with national leadership.

In reply to James B:


I agree that the remain case wasn't made well enough - the vote shows that, but it is difficult to make a case to people who don't engage with the issues, don't think critically and whose access to the news is limited to a quick glance at the front cover of the Sun or the Mail before turning to the sport and gossip.

In any case, it wasn't meant to be an analysis, just a sound-bite summary of a substantial portion of the 17m. I accept that there are a variety of reasons people voted leave. Some of these I have considerable respect and sympathy with, even if I decided the overall balance was that remain was a better choice.

Some of the other reasons that led people to vote leave, I have less respect for:
- Simple xenophobia and hostility to all foreigners and thinking that vote leave would lead to anybody who wasn't white British being shown the door. I can't imagine what gave them this idea: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/06/16/Farage_addresses_the...
- Actually believing some of the leave campaigns' claims like an extra £350m a week to spend on whatever and being too innumerate to realise that is small change compared to £35,700m per week GDP https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp
- Feeling left behind and resentful so wanting to register a protest vote and thinking this was a good place to do it.
- Thinking the country is going to hell in a handcart; too many foreigners with their shops and food all over the place; roll back LGBT rights; bring back capital punishment, corporal punishment and national service... Generally thinking the Daily Mail is a newspaper.
Take those away and there would not have been a majority for leave so I don't think it is unreasonable to use the line I did.

In reply to John_Hat:

I don't believe that was his best effort though. There was and is a lot of talk going around inside the party about him sabotaging the campaign and refusing to cooperate. The stuff in the press about him not agreeing to speak beside Cameron or even former labour leaders also makes me loose confidence.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Och aye the noo.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

No, because although he fits the bill for a well meaning leader of a pressure group, Parliamentary democracy really needs a strong, unified opposition with leadership. He just can't hack it, and if the LP wants to be more than a pressure group, it needs a new leader.
It's unfortunate for him as he's undoubtedly principled and a believer in representing a wide constituency, but he comes across as spineless and disengaged. He should go back to what he does best as an excellent constituency MP and back bencher.

In reply to James B:

Gordon Brown made around 40 appearances, Corbyn around 120, if I recall the article correctly. Corbyn was triple Brown, I remember that correctly.

It's up to you whether you think it was the media's fault that you have the view you stated, I don't know what/if you read. Personally I would say, as a Guardian reader, I was surprised to find out how much Corbyn had been doing as, as you say, from a mainstream media point of view it's like he didn't exist. Hence I went burrowing elsewhere for information and found a lot of coverage in the alternative (call it Tier 2 news) media. Odd. It's almost like the mainstream media didn't like him.

However the actual amount of canvassing, appearancing, speeches, etc is a matter of record.

In reply to John_Hat:

120, or any number, that no one knows of are useless. It's the quality that counts. He wasnt on any debates, he was equivocal when he did speak. As Labour leader he could have commanded a huge platform and communicated with many Cameron and others couldn't reach. However instead, he did his usual thing of muttering to those who already agree with him. Pathetic or complicit. Neither is much good.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Not me, I'm afraid.

He should be the Labour Party's conscience, but he's not leadership material. Labour needs someone to engage, inspire and deliver with and for the electorate as well as the Party. Day after day, Corbyn shows he isn't that person.

T.

In reply to John_Hat:


Not sure about that. Anyway, his contribution wasn't very effective, was it? Three weeks before the Referendum, research by the Remain camp showed that only about half of Labour voters even knew what Labour's position on the EU was:

"A campaign memo from Britain Stronger In Europe leaked to the Guardian shows that only about half of Labour voters have realised their party is in favour of staying in the EU, with the rest thinking it is split or believing it is a party of Brexit.
"In a sign that Labour’s arguments are not cutting through to the mainstream, it revealed that a group of undecided working-class women in Liverpool mostly assumed the party was for leaving the EU."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/30/labour-voters-in-the-dark-a...

Corbyn's leadership during the EU referendum campaign was derisory, and I'll never forgive him for that. He needs to go.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Not me. And I'll happily pay £3 for the priviledge.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

anyone who uses drop end shifters on bike is ok with me
would be interested to see some May vs Corbyn polls..

In reply to James B:

This is the same Labour party that voted almost unanimously to back the government's cuts to social security and the introduction of the bedroom tax.

Obviously we are thinking about different Labour parties, when it comes to helping those left behind by the Tories.

D

In reply to Hugh J:


He's retired now, or had...? But he's now our new CLP Chair.

And yes I'd vote for Corbyn.

In reply to Dauphin:

Angela Eagle didn't. Join Labour and vote for her. You know it makes sense

In reply to malk:

Whilst I agree on the shifters, Theresa May would walk all over Corbyn at pmq's much the same as Cameron always has, but probably more so!

In reply to James B:

Yeah, I'll vote for someone with all the charm (political wit) and charisma of someone who looks and sounds like they rolled off the sofa and spent all night face down into the carpet after a night on the bongs. You get my vote Angela.

Surely a sacrificial pawn.

D

In reply to Dauphin:

Play the person, why don't you.

Possibly a more balanced assessment here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/10/angela-eagle-profile-mp-jer...

In reply to James B:

Alternatively, if we're doing Guardian 'top trumps':

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/10/divisions-over-jeremy-corby...

Food for thought.

In reply to James B:


blinks. Isnt that what half the attacks on corbyn are about?

In reply to

We could say the same about Corbyn.

Guardian. Nah, thanks.

Eagle.

For the Iraq war, Against an investigation into the Iraq war, for I.D. cards, Abstained on the Social Security bill (!), Abstained on workfare, for an increase in University tuition fees, for trident. I could go on.

Shes a Tory.

D

In reply to LG-Mark:

Haha, to the dislikes on my previous post, I can't honestly remember any single time when Corbyn has actually put the current government under any real pressure..... for this reason alone, surely he has to go. It's not even funny any longer.

In reply to LG-Mark:

Agreed. Almost unlimited potential for taking a pop and nothing.

D

In reply to LG-Mark:


Oh come on.....it is a little bit funny, or maybe that's just me

In reply to Dauphin:

Oh yes, very Tory:

Consistently voted against reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms (which Labour describe as the "bedroom tax")
Consistently voted for raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices
Consistently voted for paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability
Consistently voted against making local councils responsible for helping those in financial need afford their council tax and reducing the amount spent on such support
Almost always voted against a reduction in spending on welfare benefits
Consistently voted for spending public money to create guaranteed jobs for young people who have spent a long time unemployed
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10182/angela_eagle/wallasey/votes

In reply to Dauphin:


there is a hope for the labour yet!

perhaps the old school socialist labour party models simply don't or won't work in more modern times. They have not been elected on them since the mid 70s. The world and people's mentality have probably changed since then, obviously Corbyn hasn't.

In reply to Baron Weasel:
Another link, to some (alleged) ancient history:
http://wire.novaramedia.com/2016/07/how-angela-eagle-got-to-be-mp-for-walla...

In reply to Postmanpat:
OK, you're right it is still funny

In reply to LG-Mark:


What because you have a poor memory?

In reply to NathanP:

The protest vote is one I've heard scarily often from the very few(!) people I have spoken to who voted leave.
From my extremely small-sized sample, it was the most common reason. I wrote "scarily" because none of them actually want to leave the EU, and I'm beginning to think the referendum was about as accurate a measure of the proportion of the population who want to leave the EU as the preceding opinion polls were. I admit I'm open to bias, wishing to remain in the EU, but despite this, I think there really is a significant probaility that a majority do not want to leave.

In reply to krikoman:

No, because it's never happened......

In reply to James B:

He convinced 63% of Labour voters to vote remain. Very good % in my opinion, as Labour Voters probably have the most reason to be eursceptics.

In reply to LG-Mark:


And all schools are going to be academies are they?

In reply to l21bjd:


Not just you, that's the reason more than half of the people I know who voted out, voted, to give politicians a kick up the arse!!!

Sad but true.

In reply to krikoman:

Hardy a ringing endorsement of Corbyn's ability to offer viable opposition though is it? On this very subject half of the Conservative party were against it, and even the Guardian made no mention of Corbyn being instrumental in the change of this policy....

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/06/government-backs-down-ove...

Further, the policy is maintained for underperfoming schools, which is probably a good thing.

In reply to msp1987:

If anyone did, it was Brown, Khan, Harman and others who helped convince the 63%. Unlike Corbyn they were prepared to use big media platforms to show some passion and commitment to Remain. Corbyn was at best halfhearted. Poor

In reply to Dauphin:


And here, in three words, is why I do want Corbyn to step aside as Labour leader. Momentum specifically, and many Corbyn supporters in general, are happy to fling this at anyone who isn't a true-believer in everything Corbyn stands for. For a lifelong Labour supporter, even for most of those of the centrist part of the party, being called a Tory is pretty insulting (at least its intention is an insult). It also gives away the game that, for the true-believers, Corbyn's Labour are the only true Labour, which in reality is a pretty narrow substrate of Labour voters. I would like to think there is room in Labour for both Corbyn and Eagle's type of Labour voter with it being the party's job to find the right balance in people and policies. Corbyn has shown no appetite or aptitude for ugly compromise, which has to be an essential part of the job of any party leader, let alone Prime Minister.

In reply to LG-Mark:


There are another 20 occasions when a governments bill was defeated, that was one close to heart and easiest to remember, but your amnesia will probably prevent you acknowledging the others too.



But there's no evidence the academies are any better, and your statement doesn't prove that not turning ALL schools into academies wasn't a GOOD thing.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


I agree with the first part of your argument, Labour would be better with a wider range of people. But it's not Jeremy who are trying by ANY means possible, which includes stabbing him in the back and front, to have him removed.
Some of the PLP have refused to work with him from day one, and gone against ALL his policies. If you think the PLP and Labour are broadly the same church then surly there should have been some issues on which agreement would have occurred naturally, yet quite the opposite there's an unnatural disagreement. I can't help but thinking this isn't by accident.

On top of that there's the overriding issue of process and democracy, both of which JC was elected by, yet this seems to be easily forgotten or by-passed.

If for some reason they get to NOT have JC as a nomination then the Labour party will die and probably rightly so, if they can be so far out of touch with their electorate then they don't deserve their support.

It's the way the coup has been handled that makes people so angry, not because they are hard left Trotskites, but ordinary Labour voters who are being told they've got it wrong. They may have it wrong, but it's their choice, asking people what they want and then telling then what they ask for is wrong, isn't a good way to get people to trust OR vote for you.

In reply to krikoman:

I would happily acknowledge any occasion where Corbyn has actually made a material difference to the outcome of government policy. But he just hasn't made any impact whatsoever.

I suspect that the Conservative party will be cock-a-hoop if Jeremy Corbyn continues as the Labour leader... there's nothing to fear.

In reply to KevinD:


Would you please STOP underestimating, half phf!!

In reply to James B:

I doubt that. Loughborough University analysis has shown that JC made far more appearance at EU events than any other memeber. Far more! Also I think the fact that him not sharing a platform with Tories was a good decision. Look at the mess that got us into in Scotland. Harriet Harman walking around ASDA convinced nobody to vote remain. At least JC could relate to voters more as he himself is a eurosceptic.

In reply to LG-Mark:

Forced academisation of schools? Saudi Arabian prison contracts?? Trade Union bill??

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Compromises don't get much uglier than this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36752920
jk

In reply to msp1987:

Yep, all those "seismic" subjects... yey!

Still no evidence of Corbyn specifically "making the difference" on those either.

And i stand by my point that the tories would love him to remain in post. Its pretty poor when even the sitting PM says that the opposition leader isn't good at his job.

In reply to krikoman:

I think youre right that some MPs have had it in for Corbyn from the start. But they were a small minority. Plenty more were happy to work with him. Crucially what's happened since is that the vast majority of the PLP has lost faith that he can deliver as a leader. His abysmal performance during the Referendum campaign clinched it for many. It did for me too.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Would like to vote Corbyn but can't see any principaled individual alternative. Wouldn't vote for anyone who supported the Gulf War. Might have to abstain.

In reply to LG-Mark:


Or are they frightened that after all the shit they've flung at him, he's not buckled.

You obviously have your views and it's evident that any facts are just flotsam and jetsam to be brushed aside.

Good luck with Mrs. May, you're welcome to her and her threats to send any immigrant workers earning less than £35k back home.

In reply to krikoman:

You obviously have your views about Jezzer, and it's evident that any fact that he is poor at his job are just flotsam and jetsam to be brushed aside

You along with many others obviously think that everyone who voted leave is a Xenophobic racist and i fail completely to understand why implementing a rational immigration policy as opposed to blanket acceptance of immigration is either a) Xenophobic b) Racist?
Are you suggesting that all Australians/Canadians/Americans/Botswanans/<insert country of choice with an immigration policy> are a bunch of racists xenophobes?

In reply to LG-Mark:


Pretty sure very few people think or say that. Certainly nothing Krikoman man's said would imply that.

There are, however, plenty of people who voted leave on here, who seem to think that any mention of racism in relation to Brexit is the same thing as calling them racists.

Great example here of you arguing with an imaginary Krikoman that said something different to what he actually said.

Krikoman - May's threatening to send everyone back
86inch - what's wrong with implementing a rational immigration policy.

So sending back many, many people already living and working here is a rational immigration policy?

In reply to Donald82:




There is a slight digression there i accept, but they are closely related. The answer to that question depends on the policy to be implemented at the point of separation. I don't think anyone including Theresa May is suggesting that at the point of separation we will deport every EU national earning less than £35K per annum.

There will have to be a coherent immigration policy that takes into account earnings, status of dependants, job sectors etc. If a said individual does not fit the policy, then harsh decisions may have to be made.
Myself personally, i would prefer to accept that anyone already here can remain post exit, but there is a difficulty that there *may* be a rush of people to jump aboard just prior to exit happening and so for the sake of any proposed policy implementation it would be advantageous to ensure that there is a stake-in-the-ground to limit this possibility.

I would like to point out that i personally have no issue with immigration from the EU, or the free migration of labour to the UK whilst in the EU.

Sadly we've digressed into territory away from the Corbyn issue, and so i will remain "on-topic" for the rest of this thread.

In reply to Baron Weasel:


Yes, but the real question is, would two million swing voters who voted Tory at the last election vote for him? Let's run through that once more: would two million people who like Tory policies enough to vote for the Tories decide that they now prefer what Corbyn stands for?

Because that's the question you need to answer 'yes' to before Corbyn stands any chance of becoming PM.

In reply to BarrySW19:


Alternatively, are there 2 million people who didn't vote last time who Corbyn has inspired to vote and happen to live in marginal constituencies?

In reply to BarrySW19:



Who knows?

But first of all before that, you need to hang on to the people who are generally Labour voters in the first place. If you don't do that, then I reckon your swing voters will swing elsewhere, either that or you need to be in a different party altogether.

From what I saw of the people who like Corbyn, it's not just core voters it's people who are looking for a change from all parties, (maybe not many Conservatives) but people really saw him as an opportunity for change and as someone they could trust.

There has been nothing to dissuade me of my thoughts on that, indeed a weaker man may have caved in and surrendered by now, that fact he's still there is testament to his resolve.

People who support him are being told they're the loony left, well of the people I know that isn't true, they maybe people who don't like being told WHAT they are in the first place, but not really loony lefties.

The only way to confirm this is if there's a general election, bring it on!

In reply to LG-Mark:


You haven't presented any facts, just said the one's I and others have presented are shit!



You've made all this bit up, so I'm not even going to answer it!!

In reply to krikoman:

And neither did you. I wanted clear evidence that Jeremy Corbyn has made material difference to the outcome of government policy - none were presented.


I don't need an answer - your views are clear.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Possible, but I doubt it - remember 2010? How everyone was going to be inspired by Clegg? That didn't translate into many votes - certainly the LibDems did well in that election but the masses who some expected to mobilise for a credible third-way never appeared.

It's certainly not where I'd be pinning my hopes - and when you consider the penalty of getting this wrong is another five years of Theresa May I hope the country's hopes don't depend on the mythical 'inspired voters' either.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

he might :
youtube.com/watch?v=VNl8-7pDoNg&

In reply to BarrySW19:


They are out there, just waiting for the call. Ask Krikoman, he knows.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Oh! FFS, what I am saying, and well you know it, is that no one knows, unless of course all the other stuff we were told beforehand would happen was just an aberration, and this is the "one true fact !!!"

It's all supposition, like JC not being voted leader in the first place, or us not coming out of Europe. It's funny how this is THE ONLY certainty any more.

In reply to krikoman:


Then you really need to take a look at the polls and by-election results from the history of general elections over the last 70 or so years. No opposition party has ever come close to victory with the numbers Corbyn is currently getting. For some reason Corbyn supporters seem to feel that the fact he hasn't particularly lost support in by-elections is somehow positive. Even if he keeps that level of support at a general election (which opposition parties never do) all it gets him is another five years of opposition.

To have any chance of victory in a general election he should be getting by-election results which put him at least 10% ahead of the Tories right now, but all he's doing is maintaining Ed Milliband's losing percentages. His numbers are awful - all serious political observers know it but his supporters have, unfortunately, lost all touch with reality.

In reply to BarrySW19:

All,
Essay coming up. Interested in people's thoughts (although I doubt it'll change my mind.)


I have always voted Labour and even modestly donated to the party at the last election. But I could not vote for the party now with Corbyn as leader, and so I am strongly of the view he should be replaced. Here's why.


1) Policies. For many people these will be the main, or even only reason on which to determine their choice in a forthcoming Labour leadership election. In fact for me there are other more important reasons in this particular case - see below. On the pure policy front, I am personally strongly opposed to unilateral nuclear disarmament, but otherwise I think most of his individual policies are good ideas. A problem for me here is that I just think he wants to do too much at once for the general public to 'bite', especially once the right wing Press get their teeth into it. A National Investment Bank, National Education Service, nationalisation of the railways (and energy companies?), much higher minimum wage and a complete turnaround of many aspects of foreign policy - some of these I think are great individual ideas, but people will be nervous about voting for so much change all at once at a General Election (and will be scared off by the 'papers). It needs to be done more gradually, focusing on a much smaller number of these major changes, with lots of detail behind them.


2) Inability to compromise and put the country before himself. Any leader needs to be able to show pragmatism and to compromise on an issue for the good of the country if it becomes clear they can't just have their way. Corbyn can't do this because his principles are too strong - they appear more important to him than the actual results of his actions. Examples include stating outright that he would never use the nuclear deterrent (note: the whole point in it is that a potential aggressor never knows for sure; there was simply no need for him to answer this question, and there is nothing to be gained by doing so.) Another example is his unwillingness to share a platform with the main 'Remain' campaign in the EU referendum. Many other politicians bit the bullet and talked together with their usual opposition to try to achieve the outcome they all felt was right for the country. But the main Labour party under Corbyn couldn't. On occasions he seemed more interested in highlighting how different he was from Cameron. At best, what he did was inadvertently dilute the 'Remain' message by confusing the electorate with a different set of reasons to stay, and then not standing firmly enough behind them. (I'm going to assume positive intent here and believe that he did in fact want to stay in the EU, and wasn't deliberately doing a half-job.)
I strongly believe that whatever your position on Trident or on the EU, the above examples demonstrate an inability to understand the true consequence of his actions, or to direct them towards the best end outcome. He is too driven to follow the principles he has held for many years without compromise.


3) Communication (in)competence. He has said too many things in public that could be interpreted the wrong way, and communicated too weakly at important times, for it to be bad luck - he clearly lacks the ability to think on the spot and get things reliably right. The most recent example of this was comparing the Israeli Government to 'those various self-styled islamic states or organisations', widely interpreted to mean IS. Whether he meant it or not, his team were left to pick up the pieces, with Jewish leaders publicly condemning him. And this was all at an event supposed to address accusations (hopefully unfounded) of anti-semitism. The country simply cannot afford to have a Prime Minister prone to this sort of gaffe. It would be a disaster waiting happen (in the modern world of social media on top of the traditional TV and Papers, maybe even more so.) So if you want to have a Labour Government, he can't be the Labour leader either.


4) Practicalities of MP support. The simple fact is that even if party members vote to keep him now, he has too little support amongst his MPs to actually lead a credible opposition. After the last set of resignations, I understand he had too few people left to even form a full shadow cabinet. That implies that Labour are no longer a realistic prospective party of Government, and that we are moving towards a one-party state, which we must avoid. Notwithstanding that, he will also be unable to command his party well enough to form a strong opposition block to the Tories when voting in Parliament on any remotely controversial or difficult issues (even with SNP support, which Labour must avoid relying on). Therefore, now that so many of his own MPs have declared other allegiances, he simply can't lead the party, and in my view has to go, even if you discount my other points above. And when people talk about his democratic mandate from the last Labour leadership election, remember that those MPs have all been voted for, despite an overall weak Labour performance, by their local voters of all types in the last General Election. That is the mandate that is really most important.


Overall I think Corbyn should be commended for his strong principles, most of which are genuinely about creating a more equal world, his willingness to be 'different' and his ability to raise passionate support amongst his admirers. But ultimately for the reasons above I think he is only suited to being a vocal back-bench MP or to leading a protest group, not a party of Government. For the sake of the UK, Labour must make itself a realistic party of Government again.

In reply to thread:

>that fact he's still there is testament to his resolve.

He's voted against his parliamentary colleagues a few hundred times. He's unlikely to bow to pressure or turn into a consensus seeker at this late stage in his career...

In reply to Si dH:

Just a quick answer to what I can,

1) Angela Eagle counldn't tell Andrew Neil, what the differences are between her and JCs policies, so voting for her isn't going to help.

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/11/simple-question-andrew-neil-leaves-labou...

2) I think you've got this a bit wrong, he compromised on Trident, at least against HIS principles, in that there was a free vote within the Labour party on renewing Trident. HE's not putting the country before himself, he's putting the people who elected him before the PLP. If you think ANYONE elected should then go against their wishes on the main issue of the election, then why would you bother voting in the first place?

What do you want for tea? That's ten votes for fish and chips, two for sausage and mash, OK you can all have sausage and mash then!!!!

3) I think this was blown out of proportion, much like anything JC says that the media want to twist. If you listen to the whole speech it was very different to the sound bite. He was condemning the Israeli government, with good reason, not the Jewish people.

4) Then the party MPs need to look at why they are against him, surely if the members vote for him and the MPs don't there's a mismatch, so where is this schism, because I don't think it's between the electorate and the members I think it's between the MPs and the electorate. The MPs are voted for because, that's what the electorate are given. The whole reason JC was elected leader in the first place is because Labour voters were sick and tired of what we'd been given to vote for. He was a person of change, away from Convservative Lite, which the party has become, for a great many people. They'd forgotten their core voters and went chasing floaters!

For the sake of democracy the party should support their members and the electorate by supporting the ELECTED leader.

It isn't JC that's losing out here, it's democracy and by default it's US the electorate!

In reply to krikoman:

Well said. The massive growth in Labour membership under Corbyn speaks for itself as to how electable he really is. The fact that the media outlets with a vested interest in tax breaks for the rich don't like him makes me like him all the more.

In reply to krikoman:

>where is this schism, because I don't think it's between the electorate and the members

That's an assertion but this is the issue. Who's closer to potential Labour voters? The MPs (elected, or not, by these voters), or the members?

In reply to johnjohn:



Well that's the thing that's not been tested, I can only go from my own experience and I'm on the side that members are more in touch ( or are a sub-section ) of the electorate , who are looking for a change in British politics.

A lot of people became members because they saw an opportunity for change, this is now under threat. The very rise in membership, should show how much people are getting engaged.

I would suggest this is an indication of the general electorate, at least it seems to be from the people I know.

In reply to krikoman:

Odd - my view is that the impression of him in the general electorate is the opposite, and that he isn't much liked. Personally, I had some sympathy for him originally but feel thoroughly let down by his inability to manage a party, or to achieve very much. Given the disarray in the Tory party recently, labour should have had them on the ropes, but instead they've had pretty much a free pass.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


It depends on who you blame for the Labour party disarray, since his election as leader, there have been a number of MPs who've undermined him at every opportunity. To me it's pretty obvious where the fault lies.

It also happens that many of the internal enemies are the one's I would not like to have to vote for, remember many of them voted AGAINST an inquiry into the Iraq war, some even now, can't seem to understand what Chilcott means.

Look up Ben Bradshaw on the Andrew Neil show, it might explain why there's already a rift in, not just Labour, but politics and the electorate.

In reply to krikoman:


Exactly, Corbyn offers a change from the established political class who for the most part are self serving, lying war mongers. The media smears against him just prove that said political class are shitting themselves about how many people the opportunity for change has struck a chord with.

In reply to krikoman:


We desperately need proportional representation in this country - the fractures on both left and right are making politics unworkable. Unfortunately, the Tories tend to be a lot better at suppressing their differences for the sake of power - Labour currently seem completely incapable of doing so. What we really need at the next election is Labour and the LibDems to co-operate to withdraw candidates in constituencies where their combined vote could take the seat from the Tories. Then they form a coalition government, bring in PR and have another election. Result - both the Tories and Labour could split into at least two separate parties which could offer real representation to their supporters rather than this current infighting.

One can dream...

In reply to krikoman:

I agree he hasn't had an easy ride. But (a) nor does any politician; it's not like the press treat right wing politicians as saints (see Leadsom for an example); and (b) even if he isn't having an easy time, that doesn't mean that everything that goes wrong is the fault of those who criticise him - which is the frequent implication.

He messes up of his own doing, anyway. Take when IDS resigned claiming that it was because benefit cuts were too severe - this is exactly in the middle of Labour policy, to oppose these cuts. Why on earth wouldn't you take that opportunity to stress the message to the incumbent government, because it directly supports Labour's cause?

In any event, he's just inept. What happened yesterday - Angela Eagle launched a leadership campaign in the party he is leading. Where was Corbyn? Oh that's right, he was at an event in support of the Cuban dictatorship, an administration which jails opposition members, trade unionists and homosexuals. Clearly more important to give support to that than deal with the crisis in you own party / country...

In reply to krikoman:

,...so where is this schism, because I don't think it's between the electorate and the members I think it's between the MPs and the electorate. The MPs are voted for because, that's what the electorate are given....

I agree with that, if it is the MPs are out of touch with their leader who arguably IS in touch with the electorate, then Labour party need to stop selecting the wrong kind of candidates for MPs , as what is put up for election is the only choice the labour voters will then have, and so they will then vote in MPs that are not in agreement with the leader who they say is unelectable. Maybe they need to test the water and change the type of candidates that they select. I don't think Angela Eagle is in any way electable as a Prime Minister, so why put the party through a change of leadership so that all the MPs are in agreement with an unelectable leader.

I do hope that Corbyn does challenge them in court if they try and stitch up the 'leadership 'challenge', perhaps it is the MPs that should resign and the party should put up canditates that are aligned with the current leadership.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Not sure that really supports your case. Leadsom was clearly not approved off by the media so got the knife treatment. Whereas May was treated with kid gloves.

In reply to KevinD:


Right. It wasn't anything to do with the fact she's an intellectual lightweight who has almost no relevant experience and had (at best) allowed her supporters to embellish her cv to the point her previous managers didn't recognise it.

In reply to Baron Weasel:


I would too. If we were electing a chairman of our allotment society.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

Well you're right to a point, this is "exactly in the middle of Labour policy" and so it should have been during the voting for welfare bill in July 2015 when most of Labour abstained!! There were 48 MPs who voted against the bill.

This bill was, I agree, exactly what Labour should be fighting against, and they didn't. F*cking Jeremy Corbyn, doing f*ck all for the people he's supposed to represent.

Although, hold on a minute, JC wasn't in charge then, it was Harriet Harmon, and he defied what he was TOLD to do in the interests of the people he represents.

If you NEED an example of how far Labour have misjudged the electorate, I don't think there's a better example.

If fact I think this issue was the one where people decided the Labour party no longer represented them and looked for change. That change is JC, who along with the other 47 voted with their conscience and for their constituents.

So if you're telling me Labour should be fighting for better welfare reform, look who voted against the bill first and then decide who's on the side of fairness and justice.

In reply to KevinD:

My point is that it isn't on right / left lines. I should add that I'm saying this as someone who wants a left leaning government. I just don't believe for a second that Corbyn is going to deliver one. It almost doesn't matter if that's because the press doesn't like him or otherwise - the point is that, as things stand, it seems very unlikely that he'll succeed. I'd rather have a more centrist party in than give the tories free reign to go further left. A lot of the Corbyn supporters don't seem to agree.

In reply to krikoman:

1. IDS resigned while Corbyn was in charge, and he didn't even mention it at PMQs. The one high profile chance he has every week to hold the govt to account, and he decided it "wasn't for him to point that out". I'd applaud him for not playing the game, if it were not for the fact that by not playing, he loses by default.

2. Didn't fancy defending him for his support of the Cuban dictatorship? Your response is silent on this point.

I should point out again that I fully support moving politics left of where it is now. But so far, Corbyn hasn't really achieved that. And whenever moderates like me say anything, we get told we're wrong and that Corbyn is at the centre of a revolution. That's fine, but from where I stand it's a small revolution and getting smaller. It doesn't feel (and the polls don't suggest it is) anything like a groundswell of public opinion that would win an election.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Would that be the Cuban regime that even the USA has decided to thaw relations with, the one that has been almost completely impervious to decades of imposed isolation?

Perhaps it's time to try talking instead.
jk

In reply to jkarran:
Good point. But I still question whether this would be the key moment to do so, rather than focussing on the issues in hand...

EDIT: there is also, I think, a difference between thawing relations and talking to people, and offering full support. In the case of a regime which clearly has a lot of serious flaws (including on human rights issues) then I think talking may be appropriate; expressing full support may not. It's more of Corbyn playing to the furthest left audience, not pitching to the majority - he'd rather be really popular with those who already agree with him than convince anyone new.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


He loses what, a petty argument about why someone resigned, he didn't even resign for the reasons he said did he?


I didn't think it needed it, a JKARREN said the US president has already been over there. JCs "full" support was against foreign intervention, so not really FULL support in all they do.


And you feel the best way around this is to have a coup and then don't allow the current leader the option of standing? Once again if you believe the polls, JC wouldn't be leader in the first place, the Conservatives wouldn't have won the last election and we'd still be in the EU!

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Was anyone claiming that? As opposed to favoured politicans tend to get an easy ride.


Possibly because looking at what happened under Blair is that the tories did get free reign to go right or rather were forced to. Labour go right, tories go righter and then rinse and repeat.

Many traditional supporters of Labour felt abandoned since those "centrist" voters were courted at their expense.

In reply to krikoman:


How do you know? And even if he didn't, isn't that still an opportunity to try to press the govt into doing something?


OK, fine. I just really dislike the hypocrisy - JC won't share a platform with Cameron, because there is too much


I didn't say that I support a coup, or JC being denied a chance to stand. Do you believe that he has widespread support, though? I agree he does have some support. But I know very, very few people myself who would vote for him - and I'm relatively left leaning. Do you really think that he will win over the generally centre right majority of the UK? Will solidarity with Cuba / Chavez's Venezuela bring disenfranchised voters in to the Labour fold? Or (more likely, I would suggest) will he just be seen as out of touch and caring more about his pet projects than people in this country?

In reply to KevinD:


OK - so we agree. What makes them favoured if not left / right leaning policies, though?


Another way of looking at it is that this period actually allowed Labour into power because they were able to occupy the middle ground, while the Tories went off to the right in a period of self-indulgence (which is what kept them out of power). The financial crisis allowed the Tories in again, because a hefty recession will almost always unseat the incumbent, but the Tories also positioned themselves as the more central party in both 2010 and 2015. And so won. Put another way - name an election in the UK where the party that won was the one that pitched furthest away from the centre?


It depends what you think those traditional supporters really want. I think those who are crying out that our govt doesn't do enough in solidarity with far left regimes worldwide are few and far between.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


I am really not sure what you are trying to argue here.


Apart from we have ended up with a scenario where moderate left wing policies are portrayed as far left. We also ended up with lots of pissed off voters on the left and right with a severe dislike of the "elite" and "professional politicans".


far left?

In reply to KevinD:


Not an argument - just a genuine question. My intention with all of this is not to start an argument - but t seems impossible to say anything negative about Corbyn without it being interpreted as one!


I don't think Corbyn's fault is that he is "far left" - I think it is more that he isn't in touch with ordinary voters either, and that his ideal version of politics is as nostalgic and backward looking as UKIPs (albeit harking back to a different past).

I just find it difficult that when even the trade unions are saying they think Corbyn isn't doing a good job, his supporters just say "yes he is" and stick their fingers in their ears. I seriously think a split of the labour party may be the best idea, at this point.


Cuba, Venezuela - yes, far left regimes, which he has said he supports or (in the case of Venezuela) idolises. Didn't think this was controversial?

In reply to andyfallsoff:



It's not harking back to the past, it's looking forward to the future, a different kind of politics, one where the electorate is involved and represented. It's difficult to deny the number of people who have become involved in politics in the nine months JC been the leader. It's not about being on the far left either, his and McDonell policies are hardly communism, but rational alternatives to QE and supporting the banks. It's only just off centre to be honest.

My biggest gripe is the issue with the democratic process and the ease with which the PLP seem to sweep aside the people who have joined the Labour party precisely because they saw the slightest chink in the usually vote "for me so I can be an MP" bullshit. It's about empowering the forgotten electorate in town around the country who feel they have no say in how they are governed and by who.


Have you listened to Len McCluskey? Most of the unions are backing Corbyn.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a split, and I don't see how this can be avoided, yet Corbyn will be BLAMED for this when in reality it's been the small group in the PLP who refused to work with him from day one, and the other who have now decided to join them.

I'm still of the opinion that many Labour voters support JC, but there's only one way to find that out.

In reply to krikoman:


I fully agree some have been brought into politics by JC and I am genuinely happy about that. However, my experience from talking to people is that Labour is also losing voters because of him - those of a more centrist persuasion, but also those who just don't think he is enough of a leader. From where I'm standing, there seem to be more of those than the joiners; from where you are standing, the reverse - we will have to agree to disagree until there is an election.



I was referring to the YouGov polling which suggests members aren't backing him (by about 2 to 1) - I know Len McClusky is (as is Dave Prentis). It appears there is something of a disconnect between the views of the members and the leaders of the unions, if the polling is to be believed.


I don't quite agree. Why could it never be Corbyn's fault? What would you do as an MP if you share the view that I have; i.e. that he is unelectable, and you care about your party's success?


Agreed! The only reason I bang on about this is because I really, really don't want another term of a freshly further right Tory party. My fear is that by keeping Corbyn, we're making it easier for them...

In reply to doz generale:

This kind of huge and vast support from real people.

Opposition leader ratings after ten months:

Foot - 32
Kinnock -7
Smith +1
Blair +29
Hague -16
IDS - 9
Howard -15
Cameron -1
Ed M -7

Corbyn -41

From IPSOS MORI.

Yep Corbyn's really on course for government.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

I suppose it boils down to who you believe, currently I've got little faith in polls, since the Conservatives won the last election, JC won the leadership and we voted out of the EU, all of which we were told wasn't going to happen.

I'm also angry at the treatment of JC and his supportes by the media, which has hounded him since day one. I know it goes with the territory, but this has been a magnitude different.

Further the attacks on what I see as a democratic process, don't endear "ordinary" people to the process. If they can't win by the rules change the rules, how can this be good for anyone?

Finally, I know it's only 100 but this speaks volumes, "Out of 100 CLPs who have voted on such motions (support for JC), 84% expressed full confidence in Corbyn – sending a resolute message to the PLP."

In reply to Si dH:

Excellent post Si. I too have always voted Labour and have donated to them. Corbyn reminds me, whenever he speaks, of Gerry Adams. For all his lauded principles, his words sound specious to me and I never expect a straight answer or get the impression that he wants actual action. He talks of his support from the 'members' yet ignores the views of the MPs in his party, for whom a much larger number of people (like me) voted than are members of that party. That is, he ignores the basis of a parliamentary democracy. A major strength, indeed the point, of that version of a democratic system is that it moderates the views of the mob, among whom the empty vessels will tend to speak loudest. That is why we don't have capital punishment.

In reply to mbh:


presumably you regard Tony Benn with similar bigoted contempt?

In reply to Baron Weasel:
I would, at least he is a proper alternative representative, Blair wasn't Labour, just wore the outfit.

In reply to krikoman:

I agree polls should be taken with a pinch of salt - it just seems that to think Corbyn might win, you need more than a pinch.

Media treatment hasn't been great, but sadly I think a lot of the public do believe what they see in that same media, so have a poor image of him. Whether that is right or wrong won't affect what matters, which is whether he can get elected (personally, I think in some cases it is unjustified; but in many others people are right to think he isn't doing a great job).

As for the "democratic" process - isn't the most democratic process the one that takes in the views of the MPs, who are voted in by the public, rather than just the smaller subset of self-selecting paid up Labour party members? That is the nature of a representative democracy, after all. However, I can see why the rule change p*sses people off - although there is an argument it could be as much to do with preventing the tories who paid to vote JC in so there isn't a viable opposition, as preventing others. I think there are probably arguments both ways.

Interested in the CLP vote - is that community labour party? Where's the stat from, out of interest?

In reply to andyfallsoff:


But they didn't give him a change of being leader in the first place.


Well you might say that in general Conservative voter have more disposable income than Labour voters (wide brush I know but I don't think it untrue in general) so by putting the prices up they've defeated what they set out to achieve, if that is indeed their reasoning.

MPs aren't voted in by the electorate though either, they are selected by the Party, so if the party doesn't like someone. They could deselect them and the electorate don't get to vote for them. This is where the party / personality issue comes in, people might want to vote Labour but hate who they have to vote for (Ben Bradshaw would make it difficult for me to vote for). That's precisely why the vote for Corbyn was SO important, because it was the ONE chance people (of a Labour persuasion) had to pick their leader, it was their votes that counted and made the difference.


From here:-
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/14/labour-leadership-battle-just-taken-anot...

I'm not that mental that I can't where JC has faults, he's not the most charismatic person, it's more to do with the way he was elected. I think he was elected democratically, and the way in which this is now being challenged, and has been since his election. It seems to me that they will try anything to get rid of him, from smear campaigns to rule changes, as long as he's gone that's all that matters.

This is only confirming what the mass of the people think, that they have no voice and and say they do have will be taken away from them if the people in power don't like their choices.

If the Tories are so sure he f*ck it all up, I don't think David Cameron would be telling him to stand down.

In reply to krikoman:


Oh dear. Politics is a sly business. By telling Corbyn to resign, Cameron makes it much, much harder for a principled man to do so. It's a trap deliberately set to highlight and aggravate Labour infighting at a time of Conservative weakness.

In reply to BnB:


A good point, see that's me seeing the truth in people all the time, it's a weakness I have, which isn't always taken advantage of.

In reply to Si dH:
Great post. Agree with every point except -

1. Ambivalent about nuclear disarmament.

2. I'd agree with all his policies going in except a much higher minimum wage. There are better ways to get wages up. It wouldn't be enough to stop me voting for him in a general election election.

3. Only the policies point should stop you voting for him in a general election*. The others are about electibility s should relate more to a leadership election. If that's the case you need to think the "too much change" is worse than the alternative. (May had proper some quite goof centre left stuff, so maybe the alternatives not so bad)

4. Their proposed fiscal rule us good (not sure if mentioned that)

(*Although you could argue wasted vote on the other points)

In reply to Baron Weasel:
As a constituency MP yes, and I have.

As a potential PM and leader of my party, no.

A bit like Solskjaer - great player, very fair and sporting, not a Premiership manager*.


* admittedly his backroom staff are not a crowd of old skool Marxist binary bullies.

** I hope he does a good job a Molde (Solskjaer that is)

In reply to Si dH:

Great post. I am generally pro Corbynite policies (inc. scrapping Trident) but I think he's a disaster for precisely the reasons you give. Roll on the split of the party and a new coalition the centre-left.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


Or Blairite, if it's not our way then it NO way, children.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Yes
I'd vote for Trump as PM if it meant we'd get the f*cking Torys out!

In reply to Donald82:

Thanks for the feedback. I dont agree with you that only the policies arr important in a general election though. I've always argued strongly that they should be the over riding factor in the past, but there has to be some point at which you say, whatever the policies, an individual is clearly not up to doing the job. For the reasons I've outlined, for me that includes Corbyn. If he was still there, I'd feel compelled to either vote for someone 'neutral' (lib dems, greens) or directly vote to keep him out, depending on my strength of negative feeling about the tories at the time.

In reply to Si dH:
Ah, fair enough - I was reading them as you wouldn't vote for him because he was inelectable. But see your point re general competence.

Worth reflecting on the fact that he's still only alternative and on the general competence and incompetence of what's gone before, though. Competence in persuading the public cuts are necessary. Incompetence in leaving the EU by accident.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Lovely fellow travellers you have...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyns-supporters-like-lenin-8...

In reply to Postmanpat:

Oh dear, comrades "at arms", not "in arms".

In reply to BarrySW19:
Totally agree
Proportional representation has to be the solution to our limited binary politics mentality-

and it will also counter the effects of losing the social justice and green ideas formerly supplied by the EU arrangement of the past and from which Scotland did benefit from and anyone interested in say social justice and green issues within the UK as a whole.

But I can't see PR not also being accompanied by a federal type of constitutional reform. Interestingly, a cross party bill on federalism has been produced in Westminster BUT will need the reigning government's support. If we did go to a general election I hope this policy will be a signature policy of at least a few left wing parties- well not SNP as they haved nailed their colours to the concept of independence.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

But what would you be voting for?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/16/corbynism-sounds-deat...

"He (Seamus Milne) is what the far left becomes when it crashes through the looking glass. Milne defended Stalin’s one-party communist state but is now turning England into a one-party Tory state. He says he fights for the working class and dispossessed, while ensuring the continuation of a rightwing government that will protect the interests of his upper-middle class. He says he is a socialist but bends the knee and doffs the cap to Putin’s capitalist kleptocracy. He says he is principled, but what is striking about Milne and the rest of the Corbyn “insurgency” is their vacuity. For what is the far left now? What does it want? It will tell you at length what it is against, but what is it for?"

In reply to Postmanpat:


Only if you believe what you're told in the press.

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/07/17/angela-eagle-lied-about-her-office...

When you get the facts you can then make your own mind up, it's funny how this was presented on ALL the major TV news channels.

Just to add to that:

"Joy Boyd on July 17, 2016 at 12:29 pm

Before looking at the alleged breaking of a window at Angela Eagles Constituency office let me tell you a little about myself. I lived in Wallasey for 25 years and passed the office most days. My children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren still live in Wallasey and Ms Eagle is their MP.
Demographic of the Constituency office.
Ms Eagles office is adjacent to the car park for Liscard Shopping Centre. The Royal oak pub is directly opposite and two further pubs to the left and the right are no more than 50-100 yards away. It is an area known for trouble and vandalism and this can be checked by FOI. Ms Eagles office is contained within a building with 4-5 other businesses in situ.
When I lived in Wallasey (I left in 2008) there were many incidents of shop windows being broken and many of incidents of wing mirrors being kicked off or body work scratched and car badges taken. My home was broken into and invaded on two separate occasions. It is a poor area with a high incidence of drug use. I therefore found it strange that Ms Eagle, Jane Kennedy (Merseyside Police Commissioner and the whole of the press immediately ‘knew’ the broken glass at Sherlock House was firstly an attack on Ms Eagle, and secondly it had been carried out by a Corbyn Supporter.
There are many variables as to why the window had been broken, vandalism, drunkenness or dissatisfaction with one on the four occupants occupying the premises. However we were told almost immediately the broken window was a Corbyn supporter. Jane Kennedy went so far as to call it a ‘cowardly act’ and informs she will dispatch personal to protect the premises.
As a former resident of Wallasey who endured burglaries, and vandalism a number of times I find Ms Kennedy’s sycophant behaviour inexcusable and left me very angry. Where was her voice speaking out for me and countless other real victims in Wallasey?
The media have been complicit in this ridiculous story of the ‘Curious case of the Broken Window’; lazy downright shabby reporting by media establishments that should know better. In November 2015 the Liscard Christmas tree was vandalised; the tree no more than 50-100 metres away from Eagles office. Did Jeremy Corbyn’s Supporters vandalise the tree? Rake Lane Cemetery 150 metres from Eagles office vandalised, again did Corbyn Supporters have a hand in that? It now transpires it was a window in the shared stairwell and not Miss Eagles office at all.It’s all been a concocted fairy story given credibility by a lazy media."

In reply to krikoman:






Thankyou for your somewhat random reply, but amongst the allegations of Corbynista bullying and misogyny I can find only one tiny mention in the Daily Mirror article of the attack on Ms.Eagle's office. So why don't you address the article rather than one half line in it?