UKC

43 minutes after the ballot closes.

So where do labour go from here? Will the PLP come on board? Or jump ship?

A lot of MPs have taken positions that I don't see they can come back from. A purge of deselections and momentum candidates in their place on its way?

Certainly a chance for the lib dems to come back from oblivion.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

These guys are still open for business
http://www.socialdemocraticparty.co.uk

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Has Smith conceded?
Do you have a link to this?

In reply to subtle:

Just reported on radio 5

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

all but....
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/owen-smith-concedes-defeat-labour-lead...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Assuming Corbyn has won my guess is we'll see many Labour MPs steeping back into line for now while they bide their time. Maybe a few will defect, some will remain outspokenly defiant on the back benches. Boundry changes will probably provide an opportunity to shift a fair few trouble makers out at the next election without an obvious 'purge'.

Whatever happens it's a bit of a mess really, they need to pull together, speak as a party and re-take the focus from both the pro and anti Corbyn camp to put it back on policy, advocacy and opposition. Not easy while there's shouting and plotting from the fringes but the Tories have managed it to some degree for decades.
jk

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

its not on bbc website yet. Strange

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
yay!

I'm sure I'll get shot down from this as the UKC voice appears to be "If you support Corbyn you're a f*cking moron, no further discussion", but the thing I've found is that it's very hard to find a proper representation of anything going on in Labour from the mainstream media. If you follow them on social media you see that there's a lot more talking and compromise being discussed than we're led to believe. It's not a broken party at all. However it will be an interesting week or two to see what happens.

(obviously assuming the announcment of the result aligns with what has been said on Radio whatsit, I didn't hear exactly what was said so dont' know if it was an official thing)

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Wonderful news..... a Conservative govt. at the next election then!

In reply to Scarab9:

I find this quite sad. As a Conservative voter I would like to see an effective opposition party, I think it is good for the system and moderates behaviors. Mr Corbyn is unelectable so Conservatives remain in power of foreseeable future.

In reply to Scarab9:



It looks broken to me. Assuming Jeremy is re-elected what has changed for the 85% of his MPs who declared that they have no confidence in him? Has Jeremy changed since last year? Are the MPs going undergo a Damascene conversion and forget their opposition? Every interview with those 85% will begin "do you have confidence in Jeremy?".

In reply to Scarab9:

It's not a broken party at all.

It is however, quite unelectable, by focusing on the 650,000 membership JC alienates the 14,000,000 who voted labour last year and still couldn't return a labour majority.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Assuming Corbyn has indeed won, and his stormtroopers then go about their "night of the long knives" in the manner threatened, then I believe that it will probably be the end of the Labour Party as a mainstream political party.

I say this because this country has a long and proud record of dealing with political extremists (and those who have stood up and been counted have invariably been the working and upper classes, rather than those in the middle).

Corbyn may appeal to middle-class pseudo-lefties, the type of people who like to tell everyone what to do. I do not believe that the working man (or woman) will take his views as worthy of support, and hence Labour votes will go elsewhere.

If Corbyn has won, then I personally will not vote Labour again until he and all his totalitarian acolytes are either thrown out or dead.
This is from someone whose late father was a shop steward at Longbridge in the 70's, and was very active in the local Labour party.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Not reported anywhere else, it looks like you misheard or something.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I agree, totally broken. There's no way that a huge majority of Labour MPs are going to convince the electorate that they stand behind JC in any way, let alone whole heartedly. To my mind it is JC who should split from Labour and then see how well he fares standing for the Revolutionary Workers' Party, or whatever he wants to call it, although fundamentally I'm not really sure that there is a traditional Labour movement any more.

To Scarab 9, I really don't think one can get any idea at all of what's going on' from social media, just thousands of people with their myriad opinions vehemently disagreeing with one another. I now stay away from it because of all the vitriol from every quarter.

In reply to Aztec Bar:


I agree, Corbyn as Labour leader basically represents a free pass for the next general election for the conservatives, which is all very well if you vote that way, however like you I feel any party in power needs an effective opposition to govern well.

Apparently, quite a few Labour MP's are hoping May calls an early election as they would rather get wiped out now, forcing Corbyn to step down (you'd hope) and to get on rebuilding for the next one rather than dragging it out 3 years, only to be wiped out and have to wait another 5 years before they even have a chance.

In reply to fred99:



Political extremists, FFS! he's not even very left wing by 1970's standards.

Instead of bleating DM headlines why not listen to what's he's actually proposing and his policies. Such as keeping the NHS and re-nationalising southern rail. What's wrong with PQI, unless you're a Tory voter I can see nothing in PQI that is bad as a system of stimulating the economy. We've had 10 years of Tory QE which has helped the banks make millions for it's directors, is this what you'd prefer?

You talk about him as if he was Stalin. And of course you're free not to vote Labour, but aren't you voting against the man and not what the party stands for. Isn't this what the REAL issue is, the media don't like JC, some of his party have been plotting against him since day 1. Which only makes him more attractive to some voters because he hasn't been given a chance.

Once again the only way to test "the working-man's" opinion is for a GE, but Labour must pull together first. bickering amongst themselves isn't useful.

In reply to Siward:


Why do you think it's JC who has the problem?

Milliband lost the last election, without the help of JC.

JC has brought 600,000 new members into Labour, yet you seem to think this is trivial or of no account what so ever.

In reply to krikoman:


Not a great advert, given the state of things in the 1970s.

Actually though, you are probably right on the narrow point of Corbyn - his policies, for what they are (slogans really) are the most part not that exceptional. It is more the company he keeps and his history that is the concern on this front. The Momentum brick throwers and twitter abusers; the history of McDonnell and friends supporting all manner of dubious groups such as the IRA; and close links with explicitly extreme left groups all make him pretty much unsupportable.

In reply to fred99:

I'll be, and always will be, voting Labour whoever the leader is.
I may go LibDem if stops a Tory getting in.
We've got to get rid of them!

In reply to DerwentDiluted:



If only they had got 14,000,000 votes, they would have won by a landslide. They got less than 9,500,000 votes, some 2,000,000 less than the Conservatives.

In reply to The New NickB:


But there was before Jeremy, most people seem to be asking for more of the same. I really don't understand, there's a real chance, if people let him, of JC making a major change to British politics and yet, he's STILL being blamed for things in which he had no hand. Which is exactly the same issue with a large number of the PLP.

In reply to fred99:


Could you outline what makes Corbyn a "political extremist"?

Other than him being left of Blair, I don't see it myself - in much the same way being left of Clinton wouldn't make someone extreme either.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I don't understand why JC wants to lead Labour anyway if he has a track record of voting against the party on 400 occasions.

It seems mischievous to me to be tearing a long standing party apart just because you can. And because you have a pig headed approach that your way in the wilderness will somehow help the underclass of the country even though you will never come to power and never get the chance..

In reply to Babika:


Well he did vote in line on the vast majority of issues.
The ones he went against the line on arent really those which are traditionally considered core Labour values. Things such as the Iraq war, whether the Iraq war should be investigated, id cards and so on.

In reply to David Martin:

Well coming out of NATO is one thing and what looks like ambivalence to the USA is another clue.( I reckon this is more a clue than anything else).His fledling industrial policies and renationalising anything that moves looks like another. His proposal on any companys with more than a few 100 employees to effectively have closed union shops another.I have not seen or heard of him trying to engage with the business community- whether small business or large - which raises questions.

And finally - he enjoys making jam and has an allotment -typical virtues of a hard nosed socialist ( I say this in jest)

In reply to Babika:



Isn't he supporting the views of the 600,000 members? and are these not the tip of a large iceberg of the underclass that needs a voice within our political system?

I like how you can state with certainty he'll never come to power, where do you get this data from?

Is this the same data that told us the Tories had lost the last election or the one that said we'd vote stay?

In reply to neilh:


I like making jam, but haven't got an allotment, where does that leave me on the socialist scale?

In reply to krikoman:

Do you think that Labour under Corbyn will get more votes in 2020 than they did under Milliband in 2015?

2020 is still a good while off, but unless the Tories manage to commit electoral suicide, I really don't think that Labour will improve in their 2015 result.

In reply to neilh:


Would you say the Swedish government are political extremists?

(I'm pro NATO by the way)

In reply to The New NickB:



I'm saying I don't know, it depends what happens next. To be honest I can't see much changing, there seems to be a large number of the PLP who were never going to give JC a chance from day one. If they don't change then what's going to be different.

We might get some changes from the way the NEC and MPs are selected / elected which in turn might help Labour's image. But it's an uphill struggle and it's been so divisive it's difficult to tell.

what I'd like to see happen is the 600,000 members used to re-invigorate the core Labour voters and middle ground and floaters, but again this is going to depend on the party itself and where they end up.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

That is irrelevant as the Uk has always been one of the main contributors and we were one of the founders, whereas Sweden has not.

In reply to krikoman:

Is your jam any good? Send us a jar and let us see if you pass the socialist or capitalist jam test.

In reply to krikoman:


You assume that this is the tip of the iceberg is leaning towards what Corbyn offers. Not my experience - sadly, I think that is more likely a description of UKIP.



Sigh. We're here again. What if we just point out that all of the polls you're referring to underestimated how far right (not left) voters were?

In reply to RyanOsborne:


Sweden's foreign policy is a little different to the UK's though. Given that the UK has invaded half of the ME and North Africa over the past 20 years, now is probably not a good time to wave farewell to other fighting nations and reciprocal defence agreements.

In reply to krikoman:


f*cking right they need a voice and that voice needs to be either an effective opposition are least and preferably a party in power. The 600,000 members are probably not part of that underclass, the underclass probably don't know who Corbyn is. The new members are people who think £3 is a reasonable price to pay to legitimise all the Jeremey Corbyn articles they link to on Facebook.

In reply to neilh:


I think you need to be able to knit your own jumper too.

In reply to Tyler:


the logical solution is Corbyn leaves Labour, which he has never really liked or agreed with and starts a new far left party called Momentum. He and his posse can be happy together and Labour can go back to being an opposition party.

In reply to summo:


fook! I'm beginning to think I might be a Tory.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Not sure the number of UKIP members quite measures up to Labour members.


Sigh!! What if we point out the polls were just plain wrong!! They chose the wrong outcome, how far is a matter of semantics, they said one thing the opposite happened. Job done!

In reply to summo:


dont suppose you have some evidence for this claim do you?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:




I've just seen a pig fly past my window.

In reply to summo:


Here's another option, JC stays with te Labour party, the PLP who don't want to work with him can go and start the TLP ( Tory Lite Party ).

Obviously there's going to a middle ground needed, some of the existing PLP will have to go, I personally have no time for Bradshaw, after his instance on some show, that even knowing what we know now he would still invade Iraq because it would be the right thing to do

In reply to KevinD:

the number of times he has publically voted against the party leader of the day whilst on the back benches? Read on a few places 428 times he voted against the Whip/ Party leader in just 13 years... I would say if you vote against your own party 428 times, then perhaps your politics are not quite aligned with the party you have chosen?

EDIT - just so you don't think I made up 428, it's pretty widespread - https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=428++corbyn+voted+against+labour

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Oh well, that saves me £25 a year because I will be resigning from the Labour Party at the weekend.

In reply to krikoman:


But if you've voted against your own party 428 times, almost all your MPs won't even be on the shadow cabinet, it kind of hints that you are the problem not the party or it's politics.

The reality is he can hide within labour, it's paid the bills for a long time and it's much easier than starting a party that matches his own principles. He is a serial complainer, never a doer or person of action who will implement any meaningful change.

In reply to summo:


nah I thought you would be using this bollocks.
Oddly enough they work for you doesnt agree. Admittedly this doesnt cover his entire career but it does cover the more recent stuff. Looking at those cases its hard to see what core Labour values he is going against. Or do you feel that introducing ID cards and having a less transparent government is something Labour was built around?

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/islington_north

In reply to krikoman:


Is it because of his policies (that aren't that left wing in reality but unfortunatly seem more like t-shirt slogans that fully formed and costed policies) or the fact that he is an incompetent leader, undermines them (http://www.liliangreenwood.co.uk/lilian_s_speech_to_nottingham_south_labour... - for example) and he is associated with Momentum and John McDonnell?

In reply to KevinD:


If Corbyn is so aligned with the labour party, why won't any MPs work for him? Why do the polls have labour as unelectable? etc... Even the pre Blair MPs and party leaders are saying he has to go.

In reply to summo:


How about we stick with your original claim. So come up what of those times he voted against where things which should be considered a true Labour cause?

In reply to krikoman:


I can't vocalise enough how much this attitude amongst Corbyn supporters pisses me off. I think Corbyn has neither the tools nor the temperament to lead the Labour Party. What few policy ideas (and they have been few) he has floated, I have mostly agreed with. I have no desire to vote for a Tory Lite Party, I would like to be able to vote for a strong, competently led Labour Party please.

In reply to The New NickB:


I stand corrected, I looked it up a few weeks ago and somehow thought the number was 14m.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


The problem is Labour seem a tad hollowed out at the moment. The MPs who are most vocal do come across as a tad tory lite and also utterly incompetent in terms of their attempted coup.

In reply to KevinD:

Zombie Clem Atlee, we need you!

In reply to winhill:


Yes. Must have been a hunger induced hallucination. ...



I think on the news report they were over interpreting his statement that he would continue to oppose corybn from the back benches, which was stated without the proviso 'if I lose. ...'

His 'team' have since clarified, that's not what he meant

(Though that is what he meant. ...)

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Not sure an early defeat will help. This came up on question time last week, and (i cant remember who it was ) took the line that a loss in the short term might be needed in order to win in the long term.

Even after a heavy defeat, I fear that corbyn would likely be reelected again

In reply to DerwentDiluted:



couldn't return a labour majority when? I don't recall a general election under JC?

We had a general election with Ed Milliband heading the party.
We then had the locals and Labour did well
We then had the EU referendum where Labour voters (as far as polls showed) voted to stay.

Also you can't say "well only 650,000 support him vs 14000000". Stats don't work like that. You have no way to say how many of 14million support or against him apart from looking at the figures we do have, which is (we all expect) the majority of the labour members support him and they are a representation of the wider audience. How representative is up for debate, but the only conclusion you can draw with any backing at all.

In reply to FesteringSore:


I said 'a chance', not a certainty

In reply to KevinD:

Tory lite is a much bandied about phrase meaning nothing.

You really mean they are " centrist lite".

In reply to krikoman:


Not my point - the concern is that UKIP have been able to access a lot of people who felt underrepresented, by offering an authoritarian option (not a liberal left one), that's all.


This is a woeful over simplification. Two points: 1. Polls don't give a "yes / no" answer which is binary - they try to estimate how close a result is likely to be. If they say a result is likely to be 50.1% one way / 49.9% the other, and the actual result is 49.9% one way / 50.1% the other, in your world that is "the opposite", and therefore completely wrong. Whereas I think that's quite an accurate poll result (it's only out by a small margin, albeit one which changes the outcome).
2. If polls are consistently wrong, aren't you interested in finding out why? E.g. If they tend to show a position that is further to the left of the final outcome, isn't that useful to know? In all of the recent polls that you cite, the vote for the right leaning option seems to be under represented. I think that means it is harder to make an assumption that the left is likely to be underrepresented in poll results (which is what you're doing).

Tl/dr - it isn't black and white. You're saying that all polls are meaningless, which i don't think it a reasonable conclusion from the facts (which have shown polls to be a bit out in each case, bit within a relatively small margin).

In reply to neilh:


probably best not to claim others use meaningless terms and then use one which is equally meaningless. tory lite isnt possibly the right phrase since the tories havent always been about market worship. Using centrist for targeting the swing voters is even more flawed though.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I would have agreed with the short term loss for the long term benefit under normal circumstances, but a tory win would be interpreted now as a green light for whatever economically suicidal brexit plan is currently brewing, so I think it is currently too big a risk. The only helpful course of action would be for labour to either (a) get a leader who gives a shit about the EU, or (b) Corbyn to realise this will be determinative in how our country runs for decades to come, and start talking about the EU. Neither seems very likely.

In reply to Scarab9:

Of course the actual 9m and the 650k aren't mutually exclusive, and not all the 8.35m non party member voters will peel away, but my point is that Corbyn has done very well in mobilising a vocal and very enthusiastic demographic. This is great, he has arguably revitalised the labour party from a membership point of view. But elections aren't won by party members, and this is what the PLP are acutely aware of as it's their seats on the line. Corbyns policies are catnip for his supporters but leave the remainder of the political spectrum at best ambivalent and at worst frothing at the mouth. Its a facile comparison, but he is almost to the right what Farage is to the left. Labours electoral chances are further diminished by the SNP shooting most of their Foxes in Scotland and looming boundary changes. He and his supporters take great comfort from the party membership figures, but to me it looks like showing off your new kitchen while the gable end of the house falls into a sink hole.

It is JC's integrity and principals that to some extent are the problem, his disinclination to indulge in Realpolitik suggests to me that he will never appeal broadly enough to achieve a labour victory in a general election. Now I could be wrong of course, he may appeal enough, and he may be the default beneficiary from any anti tory backlash, but my hunch is that in May June 2020 Labour will be struggling to retain any credibility. I think the Labour party has lost its sense of identity as a party of mass support in post industrial Britain. The stones of its foundations have moved at a tectonic level and it struggles to find, literally and metaphorically, a constituency.

Anyway this is all conjecture and speculation, events dear boy, events, may change everything.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

They've never been in, but interestingly Sweden has been going through one of its every so often periods of reconsidering joining, what with Crimea and all. Would be a rum old time to do it if Labour did suggest leaving NATO.

In reply to KevinD:
Agreed It just shows that all these phrases are meaningless.

In reply to DerwentDiluted:

Good reply

In reply to krikoman:
It's all very well attracting new members, and good on him to some extent for that, but it is tempting to conflate a rise in membership with an ability to win seats at a general election and I just don't think this is so. This whole Corbyn exercise is just a gift to the Conservatives.

JC is the problem because, well, can you really imagine him leading the country, really? (also, although I admit this is just a personal gripe, he's an unintelligent and unquestioning stereotype bound by outdated dogma and I wonder how many of his new supporters are over 25 and just don't see that).



Oh, and more importantly, how is it that JC answered the now famous Mumsnet biscuit question by saying that he was 'totally anti-sugar on health grounds' [God, is he for real?] yet lists one of his favorite hobbies as jam making? We need to be told.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Worryingly the Torys now have 2 years to fill their next manifesto with whatever they like and have a free pass to election victory.
Corbyns policies aren't necessarily unelectable per se but will face steep opposition in a right controlled press but combine them with the man himself and it's an impossible task at the next GE.

In reply to krikoman:


The polls for the referendum and last General Election weren't that far out though, only 2 or 3 points. Corbyn's Labour however is absolutely miles behind where they need to be to win in 2020, currently about 12% behind the Conservatives. Under Miliband, Labour were 6% ahead at this stage and still lost. Opposition parties always do better mid term and decline as the election gets nearer, they should be c.15% ahead at this stage if they are going to win in 2020.
The last poll I saw of who would make the best PM put Corbyn in 3rd place behind May and Don't Know, that's 3rd in a 2 horse race.

In reply to DerwentDiluted:

Superb assessment of the bleak situation.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

+1

Sadly I agree entirely with that analysis.

And given the level of detachment from reality which some of his supporters seem to display, im not even sure a thrashing in a GE would change anything. The Truth must be pursued until the world finally realises it.

Ed miliband, by pushing through the changes to leadership elections, has left a spectacularly toxic legacy. They say all political careers end in failure, but few fail as abjectly as Ed's.

In reply to Scarab9:



Just in case nobody pointed out the bleedin obvious further up the thread, if you take a political party, or indeed any organisation's, social media accounts to be your principle news source about that body, don't be surprised if you don't get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
The accounts are managed by Corbyn's press team. They're hardly going to tell everyone how divided the party is. Even if the "mainstream media" (read: the media) contains an element of bias, you'll get a clearer picture of events by looking at it than you will from the party's own mouthpiece.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


I can think of one more recent example...

In reply to Martin W:

... which may in years to come be seen as the worst in British history ...

In reply to Will Hunt:


There's more to social media than the organisation own accounts though isn't there?
There are a vast number of news outlets which investigate and comment on issues that don't see the light of day in the UK, let alone on the BBC.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:




What truth is that? The £350 million to the NHS type of truth?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I think it already is.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I think Owen Smith himself said he wished Corbyn had been given longer - i.e. that the rebels had held off perhaps another year before challenging. All in all it was quite appalling timing from the rebels and raises just as many question marks over their competence and integrity as Corbyn's.

In reply to Trevers:

It's good that you draw a distinction between the 'coup' and those that have become disillusioned with Corbyn over the past year, as too many people on my social media think that anyone who resigned or voted no confidence is part of a "Red Tory" plot. The conspiracy theory left are an unfortunate burden, who take any criticism of Corbyn as 'proof' of the plot against him. After a while I find myself just rolling my eyes.

I hope there's no GE soon, as I find myself with no one to vote for.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


I'd like one now. Then, assuming JC wins at the weekend, we get to see the real level of support JC has got (instead of the supports saying everyone loves him and his detractors shouting "he's unelectable) and then Labour will be either be untied behind him as the new PM/Effective opposition leader or they can legitimately ditch him for hopefully a better candidate (thought the Labour Party does seem a bit short of them at the moment).

If I was May I'd leave it as long as possible and we're looking at two more terms of Tory rule......

In reply to galpinos:


Can they though, if he doesn't resign? I don't think he'd have any intention of going and a disastrous GE for Labour would be a good one for him, in that he'd get to clear the decks of dissenting MPs (they do tend to be in the swing constituencies).

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Well honestly I find myself politically someone right in the middle of the two camps. I share some of Corbyn's ideologies, and like some of his policy ideas, and last summer he was the most vocal in opposition of austerity. But he doesn't seem to be able to compromise.

I agree with the right that pragmatism and finding a way back to power is more important than holding rallies and demos, and that it's important to appeal to a wide audience. Yet I don't see that they have anyone who could do that. Owen Smith has no charisma, but that's supposed to be his strength, whereas Corbyn's popularity amongst his supporters seems almost due to his lack of charisma.

In reply to Trevers:

Same position I find myself in, and agree with everything you've written. I was hoping so much that Owen Smith would be better than he appears to be.

In reply to galpinos:

Irrespective of the issues for the Labour Party, to have a GE before triggering Article 50 would cause needless economic stress to the whole country.It would not play very well for jobs, investment etc.

In reply to neilh:


As would triggering Article 50 before a GE. The issue isn't a GE (which are, or can be, relatively short term in impact) but Article 50 which is a once in a lifetime decision.

In reply to Lusk:


And you are exactly what politicians want - sheep who'll continue backing them however incompetent they are. Or should I allude to you as a lamb ready to be led to slaughter.

In reply to krikoman:


Well, the way that those in the sub-group backing him are acting like Beria, he damn well is.
I somehow doubt whether anyone will actually get an ice-pick in their head, but I fully expect attacks of a more physical nature to be used when threats fail.
Corbyn himself won't get his hands dirty - he's a pacifist.
But he won't complain when his acolytes get stuck in - purely for the greater good of course.

In reply to GrahamD:

We do not want 2 problems. 1 is bad enough( although more and more it looks like a soft landing)

In reply to neilh:


nothing has actually been done yet so its hard to predict that. A soft landing though is likely to result in lots of pissed off out voters when they realise not much has changed on either side of the table.

In reply to KevinD:


not to mention lots of pissed off in voters when they realise we've lost our seat at the decision-making table and all future vetoes and gained nothing but a weaker currency in return.

In reply to fred99:


Just wow.

Without any hint of irony you are seriously comparing the vegetable bothering pacifist Corbyn and his supporters to one of history's true monsters; a man who sent nearly 20 million to their fate in the gulags and Siberia, who's famines killed as many again, a man who ruthlessly killed anyone and everyone who stood between him and power. Seriously?
jk

In reply to jkarran:


The bit I find fascinating about Corbyn is how he gets some people insanely for him and others equally insanely against.
This is a particularly good example of the latter.

In reply to Aztec Bar:


And if Smith had got in, he would have been unelectable too, so Conservatives would still have remained in power of foreseeable future.

They needed a better candidate, before stirring up that hornets nest, a total wast of time.

In reply to jkarran:

First of all - far far more than 20 million. Double it and add some more.

Corbyn claims to be a pacifist. In reality he eggs other people on to do his dirty work for him.
In that he is exactly the same as Stalin - both cowards getting others to do the rough stuff.

Beria started small, and then went on to bigger and worse things.
Momentum haven't got full power yet - if and when they have, then the real trouble will occur. This is however Britain, so they'll only be able to go so far - but I'm sure some people will be driven to commit suicide by the treatment they and their families will get.

We all accept that right-wing extremists are thugs.
Strangely we find it more difficult to accept that left-wing extremists are just as vehement and violent thugs.
There is no difference between the two extremes - neither wants democracy, just power.
And they don't care how they get it.

This country will never elect a far right government.
It is our job now to ensure that we do not elect a far left one.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

If Labour is to move on to once again become a credible and electable opposition it seems to me that it needs to return to first principles. Redefining what it actually believes in and those things that strike a chord with members and voters. It's hard to see how you can do that with so many careerist MP's that only offer a "managerial alternative" to the current right wing government and the world view promoted by the mainstream media. The Labour party needs to remember how to be ambitious and "bold" on issues like nuclear weapons, unjustified intervention in the Middle East, Scottish self determination, education, welfare and immigration. Perhaps they have forgotten quite how much positive change the Labour movement has been responsible for since the days of Keir Hardie, James Maxton or John Maclean.

In reply to fred99:


It's good to see you're giving them a fair and open minded hearing.

In reply to fred99:


He's got a funny way of going about it or is it some sort of reverse psychology he's employing every time he publicly calls for calm and respect?


You're delusional.
jk

In reply to john arran:


I thought after Brexit the UK would regain it's seat at the World Trade Organisation that it lost to the EU rep?

In reply to fred99:

I think he is still at the list forming stage for his future victims. A few other power crazed leaders started that way.

In reply to summo:


I think you're seriously clutching at straws there.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

If he is becoming power crazed, (and I think he definitely has the potential for it, he's acting like this is the first time in his life that anyone has actually listned to him - and he seems to be liking it), then he is in for a bitter disappointment.

He's going to end up the unopposed leader of the Judean People's Popular Front, or something very similar.

In reply to summo:


Wrong. Corbyn is the vehicle of a necessary recalibration of the party towards normal labour values. He's got shortcomings- he hasn't raised his game apparatus wise, but the big picture sue is actually 200 odd mp's refusing to accept him s published c mandate.

In reply to KevinD:

Well we have already stepped back from attending the last big EU leaders meeting so as to leave them to get on with it.... in a political way that was significant.

In reply to colinakmc:

but, those 200 MPs were elected by members of the public who read the Labour Manifesto in 2015. Corbyn included. Those 200 MPs are following the wishes of the many millions who voted for them, not the few hundred thousand who put Corbyn in as party leader.

If he is going to change the Labour party, he can't guarantee he will win all those seats back, he might only get half of them, he could of course get more. But, most polls ever since he took over as Leader have indicated a steady decline of popularity with the general public.

In reply to summo:


That is a rather large leap of imagination.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


perhaps, but just like the far right has some nasty folk on their extremes, who take people like Farage's word to extremes. So does the Far Left happily take Corbyn and Momentums message to extremes. Violence and criminal damage are normal fare on any anti capitalist rally these days. Now that Corbyn or his close side kicks are forming lists of MPs who are loyal/core, etc.. it doesn't take a big leap in the mind to see where this can go. Some labour MPs who oppose Corbyn have had bricks through windows etc.. this year already.

In reply to KevinD:


Why? all Labour MPs were elected in May 2015 on the basis of the Manifesto that Milliband was pushing. No current serving labour MP has been elected on the basis of a Corbyn Manifesto, even with Corbyn as leader. The election in Bradford(??) to replace the MP who was murdered will be the first and as it is unopposed it won't really be a fair representation of future labour voting.

If you think back to May 2015, I think you'd have got laughed out the room if you said Corbyn would be the next party leader, pushing a far left agenda.

In reply to summo:


Once again lets deal with your actual claim about people reading the manifesto. I somewhat doubt that is true but I am sure you have the figures to back it up.


You should be laughed out of the room now with that claim. Could you explain all those far left policies.

In reply to summo:

That is not strictly true, Batley & Spen won't be the first by-election under Corbyn, there were a few late last year, Oldham for one, after the death of Michael Meacher. She was called Jo Cox by the way.

Having just checked, there have been four, one in Oldham, one in London, one in Wales and one in Shefield. All won by Labour. I'm not a Corbyn supporter by any stretch.

In reply to summo:


Which MPs were those? I was aware of one and even that case it is somewhat dubious eg a window was smashed in a shared stairwell. As opposed to the window which would have been marked as hers.

As for lists of who is loyal. Do you really think any party leader doesnt have one of those?

In reply to KevinD:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/12/brick-thrown-through-windo...

No doubt just coincidence like the last one.

In reply to MG:


That one sounds more likely than the previous one. Not quite Stalinist levels though is it?

In reply to KevinD:


Never said or meant they had read it word for word, but folk voted labour on the points that MPs argued, based on the manifesto etc... I don't really see the difference between reading it and voting for it after hearing your MP reference something from it. Either they voted a Milliband led Manifesto. And as has been pointed only 4 have been previously reelected under a Corbyn led party.

In reply to summo:


4 out of 4 wins for a supposedly unelectable party is a little curious don't you think?
jk

In reply to summo:


You did say they had read the manifesto which would imply just that but lets move on.


I would love to see the evidence people actually pay serious attention to manifestos. I dont know many people who read them. Although thats still a f*ckload more than would have heard their MP speak about it.
Lets also not forget that there are those who argue manifestos are meaningless anyway and can be dropped once convenient.


I look forward to some of those who have been valiantly defending MPs right to act for themselves leaping to attack you. I doubt it will happen though in this case.
Lets skip past your previous claims and stick to this one. Nice simple question.
What are the main deviations that Corbyn has made from the 2015 manifesto?


I believe thats the most out of any of the parties current leadership. I assume you are equally critical of May and whats his name from the lib dems? Or is this a selective approach.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

The Lib Dems will continue to enjoy their oblivion.
Not a bad thing really for Lib Dem MPs......the ability to jaw off in parliament from the comfortable position of never actually being tested at the sharp end of government.
Money for old rope.

In reply to KevinD:

So when we talk about Labour policy changes and manifestos they are meaningless claims post election, but when brextieers talked about the NHS & £350million they should be held to account for their lies? Another referendum etc.. cake and eat it?


I'll give you one wee things to get on with, Trident. A bit like the 350m for the NHS, Corbyn has spent the money saved on Trident 3 times over.

Labour conference in militant heartland next week, we'll get to see their peace and love then.

In reply to jkarran:


Hardly challenging seats, what would you care to bet over Labour winning Camerons seat?

In reply to jkarran:
By 'unelectable' I don't mean 'can't get a vote, or even a seat' as this is patently absurd. I mean unable to win a majority in the house of commons, to do so will mean reaching out to the centre ground, capturing votes from the Lib Dems, UKIP and the Tories. Corbyns plan looks like to recruit enough young people on the left previously disenfranchised from politics to make up for not bridging this gap. This is a one chance gambit as one track precludes the other. My uninformed guess is that that won't be sufficient.

First past the post stacks the odds against anybody without universal appeal (2015 UKIP 14% of vote 1 MP, SNP 5% of vote 50+ MPs) and I just don't see Labour under Corbyn having enough universal appeal in either England or Scotland.

I try to make no value judgement on JC personally, or his policies, that's for each individual to draw their own conclusions. Just offering my musings as someone disinterested in party politics but definitely not uninterested, my two concerns are that a strong government should be held to account by a robust opposition, and that there is some kind of electoral reform so that everyone, be they UKIP or momentum, feels represented at an appropriate level, and that the negative influences of frustration, protest and strategic voting are reduced to a point where everyone feels they can vote for something rather than against something. The two party hegemony looks a bit worn at the edges and FPTP, designed in the olden days for Tories and Whigs looks increasingly anachronistic. I guess that makes me a wishy washy idealist, better go for a lie down.

In reply to Tyler:


Sadly the £3 membership only allowed you to vote in the first leadership contest.

Are you saying that only the underclass are allowed to support Jeremy, considering I keep being told he needs to gain the middle ground, it appears the UK is in a worse state than I thought.

In reply to fred99:





I can't even argue with that, it's so left field (pun intended).

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I'll be staying In, but if the Corbyn camp moves to deselect sitting MPs I will resign faster than Corbyn can say "we need a kinder politics"

In reply to summo:


There is an obvious difference between the two. Plus, of course, I didnt say I particularly liked that viewpoint. However you only need to look back through this thread and some of the others to see people rabidly defending the right of MPs to do as they please and leave it to the next election to take care off. I am sure the only reason you didnt attack this view earlier with such righteous indignation is that you missed it and not that they were also arguing against Corbyn,


The policy hasnt yet changed. It has been suggested that the policy should be reviewed and that is ongoing as far as I am aware.
Now come on. Where are these far left policies (which incidently nuclear disarmament isnt) you keep ranting about them so it really shouldnt be hard to produce some.


I have no idea why you have come out with this. I am guessing its the normal throw some shit and hope it sticks. Nice attempt to put him in the same place as, well, the people the sainted May has put in charge of the EU negotiations.


We might. There are some arseholes associated with Labour just as there are with all political parties. However the impression being given is rampaging mobs which so far havent materialised and have come nowhere close to materialising.

In reply to KevinD:


Pretty certain no one has said (even non-rapidly) that MPs have the right to do as they please. Rather that they are elected to act in constituents best interests according to their beliefs and the position of the party they affiliate to.

In reply to MG:


It was said above numerous times, that the MP might vote as THEY wish and if the constituents don't like it they can vote for someone else at the next elections, not just this thread but I've had this "option" spouted many times.

I happen to think 5 years is too long to wait, if the constituents aren't being represented.

In reply to krikoman:

If I lived in the same constituency as you and held different views which of us should our MP represent?

In reply to krikoman:


No, I'm saying the underclass are a group that needs a government other than the Toires more than most and yet indications are that (of those who vote) are veering towards UKIP and away from Labour. So Labour may be losing, some of, what was considered its core support whilst not going the middle ground it needs to win a GE

In reply to krikoman:

I think there is also an issue for that MP to try and determine if objections / letters they receive are actually the views of all their constituents, or just the views of the most vocal.

I think you're viewing the world as a lot more black and white than it really is. In practice, I think MPs will feel an obligation to support measures that were included in their party manifesto (as, regardless of whether people actually have read it, those who had looked into policy would be voting for those actions). Beyond that, my experience of MPs is that they take into account the views of their constituents (to the extent they know them) but ultimately have the final say themselves.

Personally, I think the current system is a decent balance. It's clear that they don't just ignore their constituents, but ultimately a decision needs to be made, and the buck has to stop somewhere. They will be presented with detailed evidence on policy measures which the public won't have, and they will attend debates where issues are considered in detail. It's then their job to weigh up those different factors and make the right decision.

If there was any other override (e.g. as you seem to be suggesting, that their constituents could overrule their decisions) then a host of other issues would arise: e.g. what if the constituents asked for incompatible things (no taxes but higher expenditure is the classic example)? Also, how does the MP know that those views fairly represent the constituents - you would have to hold referenda to be sure. Otherwise you're just saying you want more power to lobbyists.

In reply to KevinD:

It is too late, they didn't debate it quick enough and the vote has passed. Probably because he doesn't have any MPs to lead the debate unless he gives the job to Diane. That is Corbyn text book quote for every decision, "we have yet to have an open and honest debate".

There is no way Corbyn will lead a party that wants to keep Trident, so with or without a debate that is Corbyn's policy. If Corbyn publically said he wanted Trident the next time he speaks at some stop the war rally, the crowd will all start throwing rotten tofu at him.

In reply to krikoman:


No it wasn't. You are still not understanding the idea of representation.

As example, if in the MP's opinion constituents are best served overall by all roads being painted blue (possibly supported by a manifesto commitment) , that is how the MP should vote, even if the MP themself is best served by red roads, and constituents have an immediate preference for yellow roads. After five years constituents consider whether in the round the MP was right about this and all the other issues MPs do and elect them again, or not.

In reply to MG:

Best example of this is the Labour MP for Barrow who is pro renewal of Trident - for the obvious reason. That MP will always vote for its renewal.

In reply to MG:


They have red, white and blue roads in parts of Belfast - the MP in these areas does not change that often

In reply to subtle:


And the constituents are happy with the state of affairs. Good example

In reply to krikoman:

It's just generally very good news for Labour or Jeremy https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/09/23/labours-losing-leave-voters/

In reply to krikoman:

Oops, missed out the "not". I'll leave you to insert it wherever seems appropriate.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I don't think he cares, he will just see them as Blairites etc... I don't think Corbyn would care if Labour shrunk to 25% of it's current size, as long as it matched his values. He clearly hasn't got any desire to be PM, drive or enthusiasm to the lead Labour as a whole or the nation. He is just happy with his little niche, which would be more suited to separate new party. Socialist Party?

In reply to summo:

Didn't you call him power crazed above? You seem to hate Corbyn for whatever thought pops into your head at the time, with no real consideration behind it or rational analysis of him or his policies. You hate Corbyn in the way that people hate cyclists, just because they see others doing it and want to join in, but don't have any real reason for that hatred.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


you can still be power crazed forming your little lists of non believes within your extreme left political cult, 'without' actually having the desire, belief or idea that you'll actually ever be PM.

In reply to summo:

Yeah, ok.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


I'm guessing he'd have you down as 'core', I'm probably having a house brick gift wrapped with some militant newspaper right now.

In reply to summo:


Not at all, I'd happily vote for greens, or the lib dems if I thought it would be the best option. I'm not a Labour member, and I'm not particularly wedded to any party.

I don't think Corbyn is perfect by any stretch, and I'd like to see him try harder to convince more Labour MPs to follow him through being more flexible and understanding of their viewpoints. But I think he has a strong vision for the country, which I respect, and he goes about politics with more integrity than any other politician I can think of. As it happens, I have a very good (pro-Smith) Labour MP, who I'd happily vote for.

In reply to summo:


Of course I care FFS!! but it's where you lay the blame for those figures that's the issue.

Since JC s just won again by 3:1 isn't it time the PLP woke up and see what their supporters want, stop the infighting and got on with fighting the Tories.

I don't see who JC keeps getting the blame, except because "that's what you do" and that what the media do. The main problems within Labour have been the constant, plotting against JC since day 1.

Once again it's NOT just HIS values, but a significant number of people throughout the country that are sick and tired of "modern day politics" and are looking and hoping for a change. JC is the only one that's proposing any change, many of the PLP want business as usual, and people are sick to death of spin and bullshit.

In reply to Sir Chasm:




See my reply above, the two main reasons against could be fixed very easily by the party working together, and stopping the infighting, whether that will happen is a different matter but there's always hope. The media and the PLP seem intent on destroying Labour, but with the choice of business as usual or a chance for change, people seem to be looking for change.

Remember Labour didn't win the last election, BEFORE JC was in charge so they weren't doing their best previous to JC anyway.

In reply to fred99:

He appeals to more people than that, people in their 20's who can't afford a home (and doubt they ever will) and find society to be unjust in a number of ways, and older working class people further to the left than the middle ground. I'm a greenie - but I have friends who are fans of him. I have a 'feeling in my waters' he'll struggle to bring Labour to power so generally avoid politics when with them.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Good.

In reply to krikoman:




That's a view, but not one I agree with. Let's suppose you are right and this the PLP trying to undermine JC all the time, then best thing is for them all to resign en masse isn't it?

Then they can go through the selection process, stand if selected and take their place specifically appointed by those "sick and tired of modern day politics...". Better that than spend the next few years slowly destroying Labour between them all?

I really am not having a go or pop at anyone, I just think that this vote has changed nothing, the Tories will rule unchallenged for years and labour will simply ebb away to the margins with JC unable to do anything about that.

In reply to Wainers44:

In just a few years Labour seems to have transformed itself from a credible opposition into a protest party, starting I suppose with when the 'wrong' brother was elected to lead them last time around.

I think it's great that the UK now has a strong and principled protest party but I do wonder where the viable opposition is now going to come from. I find it hard to believe there aren't back room talks going on right now along the lines of the Gang of Four and mass parliamentary migrations to a new or hitherto minor party.

In reply to krikoman:


Your mathematical literacy is as bad as your political literacy, it was actually half that amount.


Then this is the far left version of the Brexit? An irrational protest not a positive move?

In reply to john arran:

Really do hope you are right. The two alternatives to that are both pretty scary...

Option one unopposed Tory rule with all the division within the country that entails.

Option two some of the also rans slide their way in. Hello UKIP and their shiny new lady etc

In either case...beam me up Scotty.....

In reply to john arran:
I really hope you're right too. I'm a Liberal supporter, but fear they're never going to be strong enough (though gaining strength by the day) without some kind of alliance with a new centre/centre-left party formed from ex-Labour non-Corbynites and anti-Brexiters. Otherwise we're probably doomed to have this Tory govt until 2025.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Yes, I agree. But the history in this area is not encouraging.

I watched 'brexit: a very British coup' last night. It was striking how effectively the tories have regrouped after the chaos they were in after the referendum. Labour seem intent on a protracted period of internecine warfare instead. And given how much the membership has moved to the left, i don't see how they find a way back.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

So, that's the 2020 election sorted.

In reply to Big Ger:

Think you are spot on. It is crazy half a million people and jeremy live in some bubble where reality isn't welcome... now the rest of us who are rational and pragmatic and who sit near the centre will suffer when the Tories romp to victory!!!.

If a snap election was called I wouldn't vote. No party appeals to me what so ever at present. I am traditionally a Labour voter but right now I am not a Labour supporter.

In reply to Alan M:

Sorry, but 'the centre' is currently skewed hugely to the right, so some actually vaguely progressive politics is long overdue. Do I think that Corbyn is the right man to lead that changeb? No. But to dismiss the concerns of those that have woken up to the cynicism of 30-40 years of unfettered capitalism is naive.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Mr Corbyn is the upholder of true labour values. These are what the labour party has always stood for. Most Labour MPs are simply trying to gain power under the guise of being upholders of labour values. When, in fact, they are simply not quite as right wing as the Conservatives.
If you want to be a labour supporter then follow Corbyn.
If you want to gain power then pretend to be a socialist but advocate right wing politics , a la Mr Blair.
As a conservative supporter it's good to see a person - Mr Corbyn - stand up for what he believes, even if this means he and his party will never be in power. Or has politics been reduced to 'say whatever is popular even though you don't believe in it'?
For all those who wish for a different leader, maybe form a new party and see how much support you can get.
Mr Corbyn should be applauded for his stance.

In reply to baron:

I reckon you hit the nail on the head.

In reply to Alan M:


It's easy for him to live in bubble. Big house no doubt paid off, big salary, 1 or 2 pensions coming in too... He has made a very comfortable bed just talking about how things could be, without actually having any sense of how things will change or motivation to do it. He just wants to keep his little gravy train ticking along for another decade actually getting labour into no.10 or even being a strong opposition isn't a priority.

In reply to summo:

Whilst I am no fan of JC, his policies strike me as really not addressing fundamental issues in the UK, your comments are so way off the mark they are unreal.

In reply to baron:


As a Tory, I'm not sure you'd be the first port of call for someone wanting to know what true labour values are.

Certainly the wife who was married to Corbyn in the 1970s says that he has never left the 70s.

But more worrying for Corbyn is that he is even less popular among the tradional Labour supporters than Blair.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-results-liv...

Amongst the general public (whose votes are being sought) Owen Smith was a lot more popular and he is no less an upholder of true labour values than Corbyn.

In reply to neilh:


He reminds of the union leaders of late bringing everyone out on strike after very minority votes, because it suits their political beliefs, but not the will of the vast majority of union membership.

In reply to winhill:

.. I suspect Owen Smith will be back shortly after the next General Election ...

In reply to summo:

I'm right behind the strikes over the plan to not have guards on trains, I've seen a few instances where somebody has been saved from having problems were a train hasn't set off because a guard hasn't allowed it to.

In reply to winhill:
Please, so as a conservative I don't know anything about Labour vaues?
As a Mrs Thatcher supporter living in Liverpool I think I do know what labour values are.
Mr Smith is no more a labour supporter than I am.
He and most Labour MPs are simply after power.
Doesn't matter what they have to say or do they just want to keep their jobs, either in government or as the opposition.
Mr Corbyn might be unelectable but so what?
Should he say things that he doesn't believe just to get in to power?
Then what?
If he is PM does he then continue to follow policies he doesn't believe or does he show his true colours and disappoint those who voted for him?
People are fed up of politicians, of all parties, saying one thing and doing another.
Mr Corbyn has just won another leader election by a huge margin and yet people still say he doesn't have the support of the labour voters.
Really?

In reply to baron:


I agree that it would be refreshing to have a leader who really believed in a principle and was prepared to argue persuasively for it, rather than trying to figure out which way the wind was blowing (as both Johnson and May did).

Unfortunately, Corbyn has shown little sign of leadership outside his disciples. I'm open to persuasion, I've been known to vote Labour, but he's not so far said anything that amounts to a coherent manifesto, let alone convinced me that he has what it takes to lead the PLP, be a convincing leader of the opposition and potentially be a competent Prime Minister.

In reply to summo:


Of course there are no conservative like this at all are there? If you're complaining he's far removed for the reality of "normal" life, I'd suggest there are many more at cosmic distances away from it.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


What did Owen Smith offer, he kept telling us he believed in JCs policies and never came up with anything different. His main thrust was JC wasn't liked by the PLP or the people.

If you believe the Labour members are PEOPLE and not Uncle Joe incarnate then the people have once again backed JC.

I think Owen was an opportunist at best.

In reply to winhill:



in the many conversations I've had with Jane over the years, she never once mentioned she was once married to Corbyn, I wonder why? Imagine my surprise when her photo started appearing in the press.....

In reply to krikoman:


Of course. The difference is most conservatives don't proclaim to be messiahs of equality and fairness, where as Corbyn does. Whilst I disagree with some Tory policy at least they practice what they preach.

Or the current labour voice against grammars school, whilst at the same time renting a house at taxpayers expense in the 'right' catchment or sending their own kids to private school.

Reminds me of Russell brands anti capitalism books. That allowed him to buy a nice house in the shires, probably for cash too.

In reply to krikoman:


More likely a stooge, told to run, to make it look like a fair democratic contest, when it was a forgone conclusion jc would win the party vote.

In reply to summo:


Isn't that what St. Theresa has just done, to govern “for everyone, not just the privileged few”. Is this not a proclamation?

In reply to krikoman:


Well she has barely started so maybe judge her in 2020? You can't change a country in 5 years, never mind 5 weeks.

In reply to summo:


Strange. I have many years experience around the hard left, its union leaders and their SWP ilk. I didn't enjoy it one bit and developed quite a dislike of the left as a result.

But Jeremy Corbyn comes across as nothing like them at all. Though no doubt he shares some common ground with them, Teresa May no doubt shares some common group with the BNP hard-right. That doesn't make her a fascist.

From what I've read of Momentum (LRB did an interesting write-up on them), they also come across nothing like they are portrayed in the gutter press too.

Is it possible the dislike of Corbyn is in no small part down to media smears and fear of anything more left than Blair? If Blair defines the limits of left-wing acceptability then why have an opposition at all?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


'Unelectable Corbyn Elected Again!'

youtube.com/watch?v=8os-nKuoM3o&

In reply to mac fae stirling:

Haha the spin-doctoring war-mongering bush-felating tory-imitating good old days. Nice.

In reply to David Martin:
My experience and views of the hard left in Unions are close to yours, except perhaps I have more time for ex-communists than current trots.. What you didn't say is Corbyn has always been hard left in the PLP. This is the real difficulty in electing labour since they need to convince the same sort of middle ground swing voters Blair attracted, but in much larger numbers (Blair's first election manifesto was actually pretty typical Labour: it was his actions as leader that let the country down). . I don't think anyone leading labour is unelectable ... lucky circumstances could get anyone in Labour or the Tory leadership in fptp. I just think his chances are very very slim. The unpopular SNP coallition required, the boundary changes working against the labour demographic, lack of trust in the swing vote focus groups on his political associations and budget trustworthiness (even though making ground being honest at last about austerity) the press situation, and inevitable bunfights around reselection of some on the right of labour (even if just due to boundary change, rather than blatant targetting like Ken Livingstone publicly suggested in The Politics Show last Thursday) all just stack up too much.

The SWP that I know were campaigning hard in my Union and elsewhere to get JC elected. I know Momentum have plenty of genuine far left infiltrators despite being a small minority amongst the genuinely enthused. It suits them to ride the bandwagon just like Militamt Tendancy once did, much to the eventual detriment of the Labour party. Even the gutter press haven't claimed a majority of entryists in Momentum. The SWP and their ilk never needed majorities for their entryism to succeed... just association with others that can maybe dominate key groups and enough naive idealists to vote in elections with low turnouts. It can work... their coalition group took the majority of the NEC briefly in my Union a decade back.

In reply to summo:

That strikes me as unfairly cynical. I think (in his own way), he's possibly a little bit like Lemmy was, in having what he thinks and believes in and sticking to it continually throughout his life. He's very different to Lemmy too of course, but I see a similar unwavering quality. Whether this is a good thing for the future of Labour seems to be what nobody quite knows.

In reply to summo:


I take it you extend the same level of indignation to General Elections and referendums?
Also could you list some of these political motivated strikes?

In reply to mac fae stirling:

Sam Gore has a similar diatribe in his facebook page thingy. Sorry only fb link as with the amount of swearing a cut&paste here would never go through into a post.

https://www.facebook.com/ISeeYouStories/photos/pb.552777451492999.-22075200...

In reply to Timmd:


I think lots of people do know really.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/category/leader-approva...

In reply to pec:
They know if the statistics are accurate, and if nothing changes within the next four years - which is a long time.

The perception of Brown changed once he got to be PM, 'from Stalin to Mr Bean' as Vince Cable memorably put it.

In reply to summo:


Those books which were written while he was living in his girlfriend's father's mansion, the one owned by a hedge fund you mean?

Brand typifies the left leaning luvvie of today.

In reply to KevinD:


Everyone in the UK over 18 etc.. can vote, it's their choice on if and how they do. Not everyone has a choice if well paid RMT workers strike on the underground, which they do frequently, even if a very modest percentage of them are in dispute on something.

In reply to David Martin:


Labour is bankrolled by them. Corbyn has appointed a few as his side kicks. McDonnell and Watson would be described by most as hard core unionists, perhaps I'm not giving Corbyn credit for his wisdom in surrounding himself with dogs to do the dirty work for him? Keep those pacifist hands clean?

In reply to baron:


I'd say you have a rigid and distorted value of what Labour values are. Like the Tory part you support, it has always been a broad church with various factions. At different stages of its history it has fought the Tories for the centre ground to gain power.


An electable opposition can be quite influential. An unelecatable opposition has little influence and faces losing its 'major' party status. Most friends of mine who support Corbyn consider him electable, they might be right in time, personally I think it's unlikely.


It's been a very successful political tactic over the years, but I doubt it would work for Corbyn, his opinions are well know. The recent Tory power struggle has been a masterclass in disingenuous political manoeuvring, it's funny how you seem to accept this from the party you support, but expect Labour to be a model of righteousness.



Yes, it's entirely feasible that former Labour voters will not vote the same way as current Labour party members.

In reply to summo:


sigh. That wasnt your original claim. The same, of course, is true of union strike ballots so a completely meaningless argument.
I am curious. Did Corbyn kick your dog or something? Since your level of incoherent hatred must have some cause.

In reply to summo:


IT doesn't take 5 years to make a proclamation though does it, she's already done that bit. You seem to be able to want to wait five years to see it Ms.May can produce the goods yet find it OK to ridicule JC for doing the same.

In reply to mac fae stirling:



Excellent, sort of sums it up really, very succinct.

Though the NEC would be taking away his membership vote 'cos he's a bit sweary isn't he?

In reply to summo:


Watson was elected, not appointed, he also barely appears to be on speaking terms with Corbyn. Aren't one's evil henchemen supposed to do what one tells them?
jk

In reply to Big Ger:



Once again what sort of insult is this?

That people with money can't also be socialists?

Does it work the other way around that poor people can't be capitalists or Conservatives?

If it does what's you cut off point for how much you earn when you have to switch parties?

Martin Taylor, hedge fund manager doesn't see his wealth as being and issue to supporting the PLP in their fight against JC.

So just where do you draw the line?

Or is it just another opportunity to attack Labour, which sounds reasonable to people who can't think for themselves, but when you think about it makes no difference how privileged you might be, on how your political affiliation HAVE to be.

In reply to krikoman:


That's my point, May will need time to make changes, some of which like grammar schools I don't agree with.

Jc doesn't need any time, he just needs to be credible in opposition, putting across sound reasoning representing the voices of the constituents of his 200 plus elected labour MPs. It hasn't happened.

Voicing the opinions of the 1/2m labour party/momentum members isn't the same as representing the many millions of voters who made labour the opposition party. He confuses the two.

In reply to jkarran:

>
I suspect that in this case the roles are reversed, Jezzer does what his evil henchmen tell him. Watson, of course, is not one of them.

In reply to summo:


JC doesn't have the support of 1/2m Labour members and supporters though; a little over 300,000 of the 1/2 m who voted, voted for him - still an impressive majority by normal standards. Interestingly, according to YouGov, quoted in the Guardian, Owen Smith had a similar 63% majority among people who were labour members before 2015. I think that explains why it is all so bitter and so many labour MPs and members feel like 'their party' has been invaded and taken from them despite the clear majority support for JC. Also the fact that he is trying to make a leftward shift of the party, whilst welcome by some who didn't vote Labour before, is going to be negative factor for others who voted Labour under Blair, Brown and Milliband and isn't likely to win over many disaffected swing voters from the Tories.

If Labour are going to win the next election though they are going to need the support of a lot more than 300,000 and a lot more than the 9.3m who voted for them in 2015. The Fabian society estimates, with boundary changes and the situation in Scotland, they need to go from 30.5% of the vote to 40% just to get a majority of 1.

I'm not sure that JC or his supporters have any idea of how to do that or even if they want to.

(edit to remove a stray remnant of draft text)

In reply to NathanP:
>

All true, but then again if you track the polls back to the last election there has not been a collapse of support for Labour since then or since Corbyn's elction as leader. Basically the gap between Labour and Conservative has been around the 5-10% with occasional outliers and still is. So is the problem Corbyn or Labour?

It's true that an opposition party would hope to be doing better at this stage in the cycle, especially in the light of the disintegration of the PM and his team, but do we know that a Labour party led by eg. Yvette Cooper, whilst probably much better organised at attacking the government but with policies that have demonstrably failed to win an election, would be doing much better?

Is it not possible that if Corbyn's mates could actually get his/their act together in terms of attacking the government and marketing their ideas (albeit in my view ridiculous ideas) they might win by default?

In reply to Timmd:


Generally as you get nearer an election support for the opposition decreases.


Ok so Corbyn is scoring better than Brown but then he was PM at the time, people in office always do worse than those in opposition. He's still behind Micheal Foot and we all know how that ended.

In reply to pec:

It was that perceptions can change over time which was my point.

In reply to krikoman:



Noting Brand's hypocrisy isn't "an insult".

"The price of privilege is poverty" he said....