UKH

He's only gone and done it!

Be interesting to see how that pans out.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I agree, very interesting.
59.5% pretty conclusive result.

In reply to Yanis Nayu: And at 4.5% Liz Kendall got for more votes than she deserved. At least she had the grace to laugh when the result was read out.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Al last we have a chance.

Al last an actual Labour person leading the Labour party.

In reply to Skip:



And the Conservative Party have even more of a chance!

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I think his strong opposing view to the status quo (which seems to be a significant move to the right, to growing inequality and toward the wishes of big business) will act to bring the national view more toward the centre, even if he doesn't get elected. I don't think I've explained that very well.

In reply to Oceanrower:


So what to do, continue with the "Tory lite" approach thus giving the electorate no real choice. Continue going against core Labour values in a misguided attempt to gain power.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

It's remarkable share of the vote for the first round of a four-candidate election!

With only 15% of MPs nominating him, and some of those doing so grudgingly, has the elected party ever been more out of step with the membership?

This is fascinating to watch - there are so many ways it could pan out.

I'm not convinced by all the doom-mongering for Labour, as it looks like Corbyn has harnessed similar energy and support to that which saw the SNP take Scotland from Labour.

However, it's not clear whether or not that would be enough to carry a general election vote in England (and at 82% of the UK seats total, that is very likely to be what matters). There's a lot of talk about winning the middle ground being the critical thing - but as far as I can see, for a majority, it is necessary to win the middle ground PLUS much of either the left or the right - so Labour do need to win back the left.

Then there's the matter of whether Labour will now try to depose Corbyn from within - or even split to form a socialist party and a social democratic one - the social democrats aren't keen on Corbyn at all.

So much will depend on whether he turns out to be a credible leader, or whether he's more of the bumbling fool the right-wing press would have us believe. We'll see!

In reply to skog:

I thought his speech was pretty impressive.

In reply to Oceanrower:


Big party in Tory hq tonight, celebrating being in power until 2025.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Also, for those who haven't yet had this pointed out - with Tom Watson having won the deputy leadership, Labour are now being run by Tom and Jerry...

In reply to summo:

I suspect he will do better than the Tory Party would think.

And not as well as the Labour Party would like.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I like him - he seems to actually be quite honest, and say what he thinks rather than what he thinks people want to hear.

This may prove to be electoral suicide, of course, but it just might be what a lot of people are looking for just now.

In reply to summo:

Do you think Andy Burnham would have won an election? I'm not sure I do. I think Corbyn's separation from the Tory position will act to moderate their excesses and that would be better than having someone leading Labour who loses an election more narrowly. I hope so anyway.

In reply to skog:

Labour do need to win back the left.

Which is why they lost the last election. Loads of Labour supporters couldn't have voted for Labour as they were no longer Labour.

In reply to skog:


I think people are sick of slick, professional politicians, which is why Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage are so popular.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Yes, agreed. If Corbyn can harness that and hold on to it, and if Labour can win back some of the middle ground too, things might get interesting.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Great news. I'm off down the food bank to celebrate.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

It's pros and cons.
At last the party have a charismatic leader who can string two sentences together and is not going to get picked on for stupid things like eating a bacon sandwich.

The cons being that he represents the noisy minority and I doubt people will trust him with things like defence and pensions.
The left don't handle well the difficult decisions where head has to overcome heart.
listening to various debates on R4 the issue seems to be that the people that are likely to vote for a party lead by him all live in the same constituencies so baring a change to PR voting they'll end up losing with massive majorities in fewer seats.

In reply to gethin_allen:




Maybe.

A lot could depend on who he picks for his team, on how balanced it is. It doesn't have to all be about Corbyn.

In reply to skog:



It has been recently.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

On the plus side, he clearly has enormous leadership qualities, and a razor-sharp mind. The problem is: will his ideas appeal to a large enough swathe of the electorate? At least, however, it means that we shall almost certainly have an effective opposition at last.

In reply to skog:

Agreed. I think there has been an element of "groupthink" that a left-leaning Labour party is unelectable because the current voters tend to the centre ground. There is talk about marginal constituancies and the swing required and can Corbyn deliver this.

What this ignores is many left-leaning voters (myself included) had a poor choice in the last election between Tory, Tory-lite, and Lunacy (being Conservative, Labour and UKIP respectively). Many as a result may not have voted (I did, by the way).

If Corbyn can reactivate millions of left-leaning voters who have stopped voting as there was no choice available for them then I actually think 2020 is perfectly winnable. The conservates won the last election on a very narrow margin on a very low percentage of the overall vote. It's notable that the Labour leadership contest has re-energised a lot of the previously democratically athiest.

If I was in the conservative party I would be looking at the 34% of people who didn't vote in the last election and be getting a bit nervous.

In reply to gethin_allen:

I think he makes Labour completely unelectable in a general election unless there is some major event like another world financial, crisis that knocks the normal electoral process well off kilter. He seems very honest but in effect his politics are broadly no different from Tony Benn and as a bonus has some pretty dodgy 'friends', in Hamas and Hezbulah and the Trots (who will be playing entryism all over again in labour, just like they do in the unions). Having a leader that speaks the truth but allows the conservatives an easy electoral ride to pursue more of their ideology will be a disaster for the country. Its like the party has given up on the painful reality of political compromise required in elections and government and believes in tooth faries.

Mind you I'm unfashionable in that I thought Liz Kendal did OK with what she wrote and said, and the result for her was inevitable given the shit hand she had to play... being a pretty unknown blairite is hard given how Blair was never that liked in the party ranks and in the public view sullied the ideals of the labour centerists by the actions in government (esp with Iraq).

In reply to Offwidth:

Labour are going back to their roots.
It's just that they are going to dig a bloody great big hole first.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Not necessarily. The opposition won't be effective if it's riven with disputes. According to R4 Corbyn has been at odds with the 'party line' on something like 500 occasions. What happens when the bulk of the party are at odds with him?

I think it's good to have a left wing, rather than centre right, party in Parliament as a counterpoint. However I'm unsure if Lobour is now electable. They may end up as a left wing version of UKIP. Not as hard left as the SWP, not someone people would necessarily want running things, but saying something that chimes with a lot of people and that the other parties are studiously ignoring. UKIP moved the other parties to the right on immigration. Labour under Corbyn may move the other parties to a more anti-austerity, pro NHS/education/social services position than at present, which would be no bad thing. However I think the LibDems will capitalise on this, not Labour.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

His leadership qualities are completely untested... its going to be interesting to see how the most rebellious of the current labour MPs will control his own party. The election was a public beauty contest with three pretty bland realists from variants of a failed status quo against a straight talking optimistic outsider. The party has inflicted this on itself by not being open on key issues that form many of Corbyn's most popular views and are anything but extreme; I can hardly think of anyone who, defends Blair over things like Iraq or Ecclestone. Modified Keynsian economic views about austerity politics may well still be the dominant position of world experts.

In reply to Ridge:

We obviously have to wait and see. We still don't really know what he will be like now he's in power. The biggest test will be if or how he manages to unite the Labour Party. A nearly impossible job, but he may surprise us yet.

In reply to skog:
"It doesn't have to all be about Corbyn."

If only people could look beyond the figurehead of a party.

The lib dems were slaughtered at the last election because of Clegg I believe, Labour lost a lot of votes because of the perceived incompetence of the leader, when in reality there are/were a lot of very clever sensible people in the parties with real intentions to do good things.
Instead we got the conservatives and far too many SNP MPs; we've got to do something about the electoral system, how can so many votes result in so many MPs?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

>

He what? How do you work that out?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

>he's in power

In what?? Did I miss a general election?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

No, I meant in power in his party, of course.

In reply to gethin_allen:

>we've got to do something about the electoral system,

Given that only the electoral system saved us from having God knows how many UKIP fruitcakes as MPs, it strikes me that changing it is the last thing any person of sense should be proposing.

jcm

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I care little for politics or the Labour party, but I have a feeling that with many labour MPs coming out against him as leader, perhaps they know more about his abilities and potential than the Labour supporting public.
We shall see what happens, but I would lay money on him not being elected ever as PM, a 70 year old Corbyn as leader of the UK, I don't see it.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




Prior to the election I was very pro PR. If it had been used we would now be in a lot more trouble than currently.

In reply to skog:

"Labour are now being run by Tom and Jerry..."

AKA....The Marx brothers...

In reply to Postmanpat:
I'm not sure he will be effective, we have to see what his policies are, am unpopular Labour Party will just be no opposition. He's also got to unite the party quickly or at least publicly look as one.

In reply to the 'Labour are now unelectable':

Go throw yourself in the sea!

I know that I am not alone in thinking for the first time that I might vote labour next time round...

In reply to Roadrunner5:


I just can't imagine what the evidence is for him having a "razor sharp mind". Academically he peaked at 2 "Es" at A-level and has spent the 50 years since trotting out a tired pick and mix of leftist cliches.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

If he ever becomes Prime Minister (and I seriously doubt he will) I just can't imagine him representing Britain on the international arena. I may be proved wrong but either way, it'll be very interesting to see this one run its course.

In reply to Baron Weasel:



A Labour victory is assured then.....

One view I heard, and I can see the sense in it, was that a lot of hopes are being placed on Corbyn engaging a lot of disaffected people who have never voted before and are alienated from politics. I can see how that works. However the point was made that a lot of those potential voters live in the sort of deprived area that already votes predominantly Labour anyway. Hence there may be a lot more votes for Labour in those areas as a result, but no additional seats.

In reply to Offwidth:


Which is no different to Blair who was mates with Gadaffi and Thatcher who was bezzies with Gen Pinochet. Are Hamas and Hezbollah actually his friends (and what does that term mean in the way you're using it), or is it a misrpresentation of what actually happened by the media?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Well I guess it's another lesson that what we learn from history is that we never learn from history.

In my time Labour has tried three and a half left wingers - Foot, Kinnock, Brown and Miliband - and lost every time. They tried a centrist -Blair - and won three times in a row. Yet somehow they have managed to convince themselves that the secret of success is someone even more left wing than the previous bunch of losers. You really could not make it up.

What's that
definition of insanity? Something about doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:





Exactly.. Using Tory light as some sort of insult of anyone who is left centre is also silly and inaccurate.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

"> Given that only the electoral system saved us from having God knows how many UKIP fruitcakes as MPs,"

A lot of people don't agree with conservative party policies and see many of their MPs as fruitcakes so can we devise a system that blocks them from having any part in politics.

Although we may not agree with them it's not really democratic to use process to block people having a say.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Whatever, the guy is a breath of fresh air, with different views, offering alternatives and a real choice. I hope he is more in touch with the common man as opposed to a bunch of etonians whose apron strings are firmly attached to the establishment and business elite. What does it matter how many a levels he has. If you believe everything the media pump out at you, you are being conned anyway imho. Mostly fearmongering.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


It seems that Corbyn is personally quite a pleasant chap, although he would appear to have a bit of a temper, but his supporters include the usual abusive leftist thugs who have been taking out it on their "Tory scum" comrades like Cooper and Kendall with their specialist brand of sexism. Not nice people.

In reply to Offwidth:


I agree, I have voted Labour in recent years but there is no way I would continue to support the party if it moves back to the extreme left. Maybe the Liberals being more middle of the road will now see a revival at Labour's expense? You never know

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

You know, I'm a firm Tory, always have been always will be. That said I think the Labour party has just done the country a grave disservice in electing a mediocre, naive and economic illiterate as their leader. Strong government comes from checks and balances, and one of those balances in parliament is that a strong opposition keeps the extremists of the governing party at bay.

This country has, for the recent past been centrist, libertarian and the government has, more or less mirrored that. That is why the Conservatives and Labour have migrated towards the centre - its where most of the votes are. Electing Corbyn will only serve to lower Labour's seats at the next election and allow the more radical elements of the Conservatives free rein to propose things that even I as a natural supporter (and member) will find unsettling.

So thanks for that.

In reply to Trangia:


I hope so. It's certainly a big opportunity for the Liberals to try and reoccupy the centre.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I said that on the other thread, which was disliked.

But it quite clearly has opened up the cente ground for the lib dems to step in. As grey says I think this will allow the Tories to go further to the right, labour have gone even further to the left and so the centre ground is there for the lib dems.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I like to think that it might kill off the hard left and allow for a new party of the left under the Liberal banner but it's probably wishful thinking.

Fantastic to see Burnham, the ultimate Nulabour man, now saying he's with Jezzer because the party needs fundamental change. Has he no shame?? Will probably end up as a Liberal, if not a Tory, if they stay in power. (Did you know he likes football, apparently)

In reply to Grey area:



Possibly, but the evidence so far is that the Tories see it as a chance to sweep into the centre ground. They already branding themselves as the "party of working people", and stealing Labour policies like the living wage. It'll make it very hard for Labour to recapture that ground if they need to.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:




I think you're looking at this a bit one dimensionally.

1. Moving to the centre is, generally, good for winning elections. But it also affects where the centre is. The tories don't look as disgustingly right wing as they are, because in contrast to the Labour party they weren't so much different. And, in this case, they have very little chance of winning with any of the other candidates. So they're shifting the debate without giving up too much in terms of electability.

2. As well as the left-right thing, there's the an anti-establishment/robotic politician thing going on. Maybe he's not quite as unelectable as people think.

In reply to Donald82:
They are very different. There's been a lot of reform under the Tories, as you'd expect. Plus very different stances on the EU til now..

However look at the states too.. Sanders, Trump, Carson..

Those with little front line political experience are coming out popular as people are fed up of the career politicians.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

as a union member,this is good news. right wingers are trying to make a joke out of it. that is because they are scared

In reply to mark s:


I really don't think that is true. As someone who is anti-Tories I just do not think this will scare them at all.

In reply to mark s:

LOL, they currently think it's a magnificent own goal. There is a chance, as Donald points out above, that the anti-politics vote might just be enough to give Corbyn a head of steam but I'm sure the Tories currently view that as a very small outside chance.

Of course, given that the whole political and media establishment thought his chance of the Labour leadership were non existent, he shouldn't be written off.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Not from a public perspective, because labour chose not to challenge tory deficit nonsense

In reply to Donald82:
>

What do you mean? (what are you replying to?)

In reply to mark s:


Labour need to gain Tory seats if they want to win the next election, and I doubt that any Tory MPs will be scared now that Corbyn is Labour leader.

In reply to Postmanpat:


And that's your evidence for refuting a statement pertaining to how '.....sharp..' he is?! Quoting A level grades....the prospect of a left wing country must really be twitching you!

In reply to Grey area:


So, how is having an opposition who just agree with what ever the Tories say giving any kind of check or balance? They've done nothing for the last five years that's why no one voted for then. If all parties are crowded into the center ground saying exactly the same thing then we've effectively become a one party state.

In reply to Frank the Husky:
I have had to work with trots who know and supported Corbyn from the beginning, who are almost the opposite of any labour ideals I know although they do have sympathisers at the far left of the party. The trot led political group, the SWP, actively support these terrorist organisations. Corbyn spoke at their co-organised rallies. I guess they don't publisise it in the leadership campaign as in typical far leftist fashion they think the public are too dumb to understand. This isn't media distortion Corbyn admits most of it. He has said the more extreme things things like the call for Iraqis to kill invading troops (including UK soldiers) was because not all views published aroud the Stop the War coalition (that he led) were supported by him.

I've grown to feel the SWP are a really dangerous cult like group who have always used organisations of the left as hosts and twisted democracy based on the idea that the electorate is an uninformed plebescite to be led on simple enough sloganism within a russian doll model where only those who are actively involved enough at each layer deserve asay and full knowledge. Their history and that of sister organisations, like Militant, is a littany of entryist dishonesty, extreme bullying and complete apologism for bad behavior of the leading committee members who rule the roost ( like the SWP rape scandal ). The treatment of those who abandoned the absolute discipline of the SWP is especially nasty. A handful of labour MPs havent complained much when the well funded and disciplined SWP and affililated activists support their own ends.

Corbyn has refused to answer questions on some of his more odd links on the recent Panorama and elsewhere and fudged others ...so much for full honesty...he shares that trait with all politicians. On the Thatcher and Blair points mulitple wrongs don't make a right but they were both avowed pragmatists (liars when needs must), as opposed to a beacon of truth.

In reply to abr1966:


The prospect of a left wing country horrifies me, vanishingly unlikely though it is.

I was asking for evidence of his intelligence. Obviously academic evidence would be one place to look for that but I drew a blank. So I pointed out that he doesn't appear to have said anything notably intelligent in the 50 years so that drew a blank.

Where else do you suggest we look?

In reply to Offwidth:


Worth looking at some of his organisational team, notably Simon Fletcher who was (and quite probably still is) a member of the trotskyite "Socialist Action" group which was a very low profile entryist group from which Livingstone drew much of his core management team. (Fletcher also worked for Milliband). Then there is Andrew Murray, the Chief of Staff and possibly the real power at Unite and still, I think, a member of the Communist party. Like several of them, he came through the far left Stop the War link.

Folk like this play the long game and can finally sniff power. Watch this space.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Why's that? Surely you relish sky high taxation, ever increasing public spending, a "cut to the bone defence policy, a Putin/Hamas/Al Qaeda/Jihadist/Taliban orientated foreign policy, a union led stranglehold on industry, zero investment. Lovely, just like the sixties and seventies.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I honestly don't think thats very relevant... he is clearly bright enough even if he comes over very much as a marketised Benn Lite. Many world leaders were pretty average intellects with clever people behind them and some of the cleverest people I've met would be some of the scariest I could imagine if they ever got near any power.

In reply to Offwidth:


Probably true. I was just wondering what on earth made Gordon think he is "razor sharp".
My impression so far is that outside his area of special interest, which appears to be Palestine, he is just, somewhat uncritically, adopting off the shelf policies of people like Richard Murphy.

In reply to FesteringSore:


Good to see he has so many new ideas. Happy days, indeed!

In reply to OwenM:


I would agree that diversity is desirable in politics. But, clearly the labour model of old is either not needed anymore, or population don't want it. In the last election if people didn't want labour when it was a little left of the tories, they didn't want Libdem when they were a little bit further left, why is anyone going to vote for labour when it goes a million miles left of the tories? They might have quite a lot of seats now, but there won't be some many for them in 5 years time.

So it's a choice between labour following it's 100 year old roots and having very few MPs, or representing the views of the people who vote for it. Either way it doesn't matter, half his senior bods have resigned and gone to the back benches already, so he's hardly going to unite the party. He'll be gone before the 2020, the wise MPs who were in the shadow cabinet have jumped away from him, so when it comes crashing down they aren't associated with him, then they'll leap out and try to save labour in a few years time.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well i'll enjoy that prospect! I don't actually believe he will be leader when the next election comes along.....it'll be someone like Tristram Hunt or an equivalent but i do think he will facilitate debate, scrutiny and broaden the rangw of expressed opinion within the labour party. He will, hopefully, form an effective opposition which has been significantly absent and when someone else takes over pre election there will be more substance than the vacuous media focused rubbish we are being offered currently across the whole political spectrum.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

As an aside, dead ringers (R4), does a spoof phone call every week, this week they pretended to be JC calling a Saville Row tailors for a new donkey jacket and string vest.

In reply to summo:

Never mind....'At least the trains, will run on time'..

In reply to summo:


I nearly crashed the car when I heard a BBC comedy show mocking a Labour politician. Those Nulabour luvvies must be going into meltdown!

In reply to mark s:
Why on earth would conservatives be joining up as friends of labour for £3 to vote for Corbyn if they were scared of him? I've worked for decades as a moderate in my union including national level work and I think anyone directly linked to trots simply can't be trusted. I'd love to be wrong about Corbyn that he could genuinely move and embrace the political centre ground but I just can't see it. The conservatives are scared the truth about things like austerity and increasing inequality will get out but Corbyn is the very easiest target to deal with in pushing their false orthodoxy through a Parliamentary majority with a largely compliant press (way too left for the Guardian so just think what papers support him?). The damage this government is going to for disadvantaged minorities is bad enough, imagine what they could do next time with an even larger majority. Elections are won in the mid-ground and mid ground politics in normal times moves slowly... Owen Jones (a supporter of JC) said today the election was the easy bit, the hard work of convincing the electorate is now starting (I'd say its a near impossible task unless disaster strikes). Even if he does win because of timing in some unexpected economic slump, look at what became of Tsipras... blind leftist popularism and optimism dug an even deeper hole in, from a leftist perspective, the same depressing structures.

In reply to Postmanpat


Yes, reminds me of Philip "the Undertaker" Hammond some years back.

In reply to Offwidth:

Looking at the results, not including Registered Supporters and Affiliated Supporters, just under half the membership voted for him, well over twice as many as for any other candidate. Puts claims of entryism to bed as far as I can see.

http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/results-of-the-labour-leadership-and-de...

In reply to Postmanpat:


What could go wrong? ...a thin skinned, teetotal vegetarian, with dodgy facial hair, and whose BFFs in the Middle East, call for exterminating Jews, and want gender segregation.....

In reply to dek:

I still think he may have been invented by central casting on the basis of reading Dave Spart in Private Eye and "The History Man"

In reply to Postmanpat:
Was wondering if you'd heard about JC having gained the approval of 40 economists recently?

(I don't know what I think of JC...)

In reply to Postmanpat:


Why on earth would they? Since everyone, outside of the rabid right, would have noticed them taking the piss for many years now.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Militant won public elections in labour controlled areas and they were entryists; are you really that niave? Corbyn isnt a trot, he is just supported by them as he is a step towards the revolution and they hope the door to labour seats will open again. Hardly any of those voting for JC are the middle of the road votors in swing constituencies that will stop the tories winning again and most of those that are just dont understand his politics yet (and boy will the press make them know in the next few years).

In reply to Postmanpat:


I liked Andy Murray wanting to release a record(his mum's advice) and phoning a record label the best one so far.

In reply to KevinD:


I just wish they'd brought spitting image back, the past 5 years would have been so much more entertaining.

In reply to dek:


you'll be lucky with Corbyn and unions together, the drivers won't even get out bed for a £100k a year.

In reply to Timmd:

That is a rather a red herring (get it.... . They denied his economics were as barking mad as portrayed by Osbourne et al and all good Keynsians despair about austerity economics, including quite a few of a conservative bent. I think Corbyn is spot on about austerity economics being wrong (if remaining very unconvinced about his solutions: QE and magic levels of tax recovery) and some other middle ground headline policies the other labour candidates lacked courage with... it's the small print of his Bennite position that is the problem.

In reply to Offwidth:

I think you're being a bit hasty. As I said before, we just have to wait and see. One never knows what a leader is like until he's actually in power (i.e become leader) - the next few weeks will tell. He could be a complete disaster (as most expect), but he could just surprise us all. Examples in recent history were a) Gordon Brown who seemed so strong in opposition, just seemed to melt away once he was PM. Seemed scared on steps of Downing St and it went downhill from there. b) John Major - few took him seriously, but he turned out to be an unusually able PM. c) Ed Milliband. I think few anticipated just how bumbling a leader of the Labour Party he would turn out to be.

Wise tweet from Nick Hurd MP, that I retweeted on my website:

Congrats to @jeremycorbyn on stunning victory. Caution my party against complacency. Cocky Tory always a bad look. #one nation

In reply to Offwidth:

Aah, I see. It would be a red herring.

In reply to KevinD:


I meant that the luvvies are going into meltdown over Jezzer's win. Higher taxes? May have to lay off the Bulgarian maid and cut back on the weekends in Tuscany.

Jezzer Hardy, of course, hardly has time to appear for scribbling anti-socialist "humour"

In reply to Postmanpat:

The BBC comedy shows have mocked Labour before you know?

The buckle for your blinkers is round the back of your head.

& :-p too etc

In reply to Offwidth:
A good perspective . What's your view on john cruddas saying the Labour Party has to learn to rehabilitate Tony Blair?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


He was widely regarded at the time a failure. It's with hindsight that people are beginning (correctly) to reassess.



Agree with that.

In reply to Timmd:


Tokenism

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


you are joking, the writing was on the wall even when both brothers were in the race for leadership still.

In reply to Offwidth:


Possibly, or maybe just not as hysterical as some.

>Hardly any of those voting for JC are the middle of the road votors in swing constituencies that will stop the tories winning again and most of those that are just dont understand his politics yet.

I don't think many middle-of-the-road or swing voters tend to vote in party leadership elections full stop.

In reply to neilh:

I don't think they've done the punishment bit properly yet.

In reply to neilh:
?. as in something like compulsory community service (street cleaning etc).. I'd love it. Its New Labour not Blair that needs rehabilitation but look what happened to the relatively untainted Liz. Labour have just rebooted the same soul searching and 'return to the roots' nonsense that led to the election of Foot, who although not as electable as other choices at least stood a vague chance during Maggies maddest phase (pre-Falklands) whe the unions were a lot bigger and more powerful. the centre has drifed a good bit right since then and the Unions have been pretty battered in membership and legal terms.

Isn't it funny that Cruddas was once regarded as being a bit left for labour... I certainly have more time for him than most of them. He did a lot of useful internal work pragmatic work on tactics in the party, that mostly got ignored.

In reply to Offwidth:

His interview on R4 was interesting. I believe he is of the opinion that being anti austerity is not good electorally . Is that your take on his views. ?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Listening to a pundit on the TV, he compared his election to that of Margaret Thatcher, who was not expected to win, as Corbyn wasn't at first, but she went on to change her party completely. It was also pointed out that the SNP, the Greek government are all quite left wing and so maybe there has been a swing in people attitudes towards what sort of society they want to live in.

It is quite possible that Corbyn will attract back people who used to vote Labour but feel marginalised and have/or turned to UKIP and other parties. Has there been a party that represented the working class vote in the last 20 years?

He appears to at least to have some convictions and beliefs rather than being born Tory such as much of the government we have at the moment.

In reply to jasonC abroad:


Do you think that might be because we have a Tory government at the moment?

In reply to summo:


I remember thinking David seemed more 'solid' somehow.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I think it's a good time to be a security cleared building contractor for the security services, they are going to need lots of extra space for JC's file over the coming years.

In reply to jasonC abroad:


This is another good point. What about Scotland? Much as I like the SNP I would imagine the SNP are very, very worried (hence NS query about Trident?). They know that 50% don't want devolution but still voted for them in the election, presumably because of their policies - and they are reasonably left wing. This whole group is going to naturally head for Labour if it stops being just another Tory party. Left wing but not devolution.

If I were Cameron (which I'm thankfully not) I would seriously consider another referendum on devolution before 2020 so he can jettison the problem.

In reply to summo:


As they would have done no matter which of the Labour candidates won. They could gave had that party when the nominations were over.

In reply to John_Hat:

Scotland has devolution, a very strong majority support it, and the referendum on it was won in 1997 (having been lost with a majority, but inadequate turnout, in 1979).

I think you mean independence..!

In reply to Jim C:


true, any potential threat wisely didn't run. Looks like most have resigned to the benches too, ready for the re-election in 2-3 years time.

In reply to jasonC abroad:


The UK general election in May is probably a better indicator of UK attitudes and voting intentions.

In reply to jasonC abroad:


they are both also very good at spending money they don't have. I think on average the UK population have had enough of debt fuelled spending. Feel free to model your economy on Greece, not my ideal choice though.

In reply to skog:



I do... Brain fail moment...

In reply to summo:


Absolutely!

"We used to think you could spend your way out of recession and increase employment by boosting government spending,”

Prime Minister, James Callaghan, at the 1976 Labour Party conference.

In reply to John_Hat:

In which case, maybe!

A strong, credible Corbyn leadership could present an enormous threat to the SNP's level of support.

However, weak leadership from him, or Labour staging a 'coup' against him, could consolidate or even increase the SNP's support from the left.

I'm not sure what a Labour split would do - that could go either way, I think, depending on how it panned out.

In reply to Postmanpat:

To reply to your comments on JC's intellect (and please don't think that I think he would be a good PM), the two most intelligent parliamentarians of my lifetime were possibly Enoch Powell and Michael Foot. Do you think either of those would have made a good prime minister? And John Redwood was a formidably bright man - a fellow of All Souls who realised that investment banking paid far better than academia, and so completed his Phd on the tube on the way into his bank.

Your honour, I rest my case.

In reply to Postmanpat:


What absolute twaddle.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Which bit?

In reply to summo:

I think the UK population have been the victim of a very successful campaign to promote politically-motivated austerity, aided and abetted by a frankly pathetic opposition.

That austerity doesn't work, isn't necessary, and that actually all we've really got is a government using fear and lies as an excuse to impose politically motivated appalling cuts on the poorest of society, is somthing that Labour have - shamefully - let the government get away with without challenge.

The UK is currently enjoying historically tiny debt and interest payments (as a % of GDP). There is plenty of scope for increased spending.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/debt_history

In reply to John2:


As I've said , my question was simply a response to Gordon's claim that Corbyn was "razor sharp".I'm agnostic about whether that would be a good or bad quality in a PM.

Foot wasn't very clever. He'd just read a lot.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Taking certain people seriously can be bad for your heath.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The idea that the BBC doesn't mock Labour politicians. Unadulterated rubbish.

As for the luvvies going into meltdown, not sure I understand what you're saying.

In reply to John_Hat:

So whilst the world is on the brink of another recession with China doing everything in it's power to stop a currency/stocks fall, you think the UK should be borrow more? How about live within it's means first and start to clear the debt a little (both public and private).

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I don't agree with all of JC's policies, nor do I think he'll actually be leader once election time comes around.

But, I fail to see how, given the stalemate of politics since Blair, someone coming in to centre stage who people actually believe, whose ideas are clear and different to the status quo, and whose policies resonate with a sector of the population who've felt unrepresented for decades, can be a bad thing.

In reply to Postmanpat:

He was more clever than Corbyn.

In reply to summo:

Yes, I do. You are unfortunately equating personal debt and national debt. They are not the same for a number of reasons. Not least is the government is immortal, is in control of the money supply, and has, as stated, historically low amounts of current debt. I would go into more detail, but Lady Blue wants to take me out to dinner, so I'll just point you at the below.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerit...

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Seriously, this felt like a departure. It wasn't about eating bacon sandwiches or Iraq. It was actually a suggestion that Corbyn's policies are a mess and so is his head. Not unique but very unusual.


They like to posture but if anyone actually introduced a real left agenda they'd no longer be able to send Toby and Harriet to nice schools and eat at the Grauniad recommended restaurants every weekend.

In reply to Timmd:



Economists have been known to be completely and totally wrong, same as everyone else!

In reply to Timmd:


Careful….

In reply to Postmanpat:


A bit like our most vocal village "leftie" for whom JC has already obtained God-like status and is perpetually banging on about the horrible rich.

With her 3 (possibly 4) houses in the parish. I can't wait to suggest that Corbyn's first policy is one house per family and surplus are given to the homeless and poor.

In reply to Moley:


my lips bleed after visiting some of our friends at times, a family. 3 kids, he does lots of work for cash and she only works part time even though the kids are at school and she has the option of full hours again, because in her words " she's become so used to the lifestyle of working only half hours". Guardian lovers, always moaning about the rich etc.. but then they complain when local services are being cut, schools funding being tight etc.. they simply don't see the connection.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Oh, the unspoken subtext was.

'Which people is subjective to the individual, ie who is bad for one person's heath could be good for another person's.'

Sorted.

In reply to Postmanpat:


The way he speaks shows a very clear head and a sharp intelligence. What's more he has a clear vision. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm simply acknowledging someone with very definite leadership qualities when I see it. And don't hold his academic record against him. Bear in mind that Churchill was famously backward at school.

Your second sentence is very odd indeed. Very sloppy use of the term agnostic, such that I'm not clear what you mean; how you think dimness is a characteristic that might not be unwelcome in a PM is even stranger.

In reply to Timmd:




Don't understand, nor am I sure I understood your previous comment!

In reply to Postmanpat:
Different people can drive different people mad if taken too seriously.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

No, the way he speaks is clear and he has a clear vision because it is simple, because it is simplistic. On your grounds Ronald Reagan was a rocket scientist!


Gordon, read the thread. Offwidth and John2 had both made the the point that intelligence didn't necessarily make a good PM and indeed, might make a bad one. I was simply responding that I didn't have a strong view on that subject. In common parlance that the term "agnostic"is used if one doesn't have a strong view on something.

In reply to John2:



Your case if very poor, given the examples you've chosen. All three lacked political wisdom. Enoch Powell was quite exceptionally stupid; Michael Foot had a merely donnish intelligence, not at all suited to politics, still less to being an effective PM; and John Redwood (famously described as a 'swivel-eyed idealogue') was exceptionally unpleasant and humourless ... and, of course, so dim that he made no attempt whatever to hide his innate unpleasantness.

I don't normally take much notice of politics or get too excited by the BBC coverage of it....

....but the main news tonight didn't start the balanced reporting of the new Labour Leader too well. No doubt many congratulated him today, but I know, let's be balanced and show him hugging the countries most prominent Union Leader, and then show a ringing endorsement from Gerry Adams. That will give him the proper quality of introduction to the British non-labour public!!

In reply to Wainers44:



especially with collapse of power sharing for very dubious, but not that surprising reasons.

In reply to Postmanpat:


No, that's not what agnostic means. It means 'not knowing'. One can assert very strongly that there is insufficient evidence to claim to know something with scientific certainty. (Just as a juror who thinks that there is insufficient evidence to find someone guilty can feel very strongly about it, e.g that the defendant should never have been charged with the particular offence in the first place.)

In reply to Offwidth:

Corbyn won with 60% overall in the 1st round with:
49.6% of the membership
83.8% of the registered supporters
57.6% of affiliates

That represents an incredible victory that is far greater than predicted by most. It also represents a significant potential increase in Labour's activist base. The fact it has happened despite intense media criticism represents parallels with the independence referendum and SNP electoral success where for the 1st time alternative media, blogs and clicktivism have supervened over traditional media. Together activists and new rules of engagement make future elections far less predictable.

I went to hear Corbyn in Dundee to see what the fuss was about. Yes there were a fair share of trade unionists reps there, but there was a surprisingly broad base of people present: doctors, teachers, uni academics, students and he filled 2 lecture halls. Clearly he is not much of an orator and he may have fecked up his A levels but he's far from stupid. My dad fecked up his A levels too and had to resit them. But those were the days when a CC and D still got you into medical school. Besides I am far more interested in the right policies than the plastic presentationalism of Blair and Cameron we've become attuned to Anyway, he went through the economics in a pretty rational way.. ..making the Krugman style arguments against austerity and proposing the newer Richard Murphy ideas on PQE to be used in place of QE if and when such is indicated. He did not proffer nationalisation on principle, but rather in those cases where the market divisions are artificial and have been unsuccessful: Energy and Rail. He spoke much about shifting the balance of support away from large business toward small and medium enterprises and incentivising growth thereof through the tax system and banks. He also spoke about the trade deficit and the over-reliance on the financial sector and the need to target growth in a modern manufacturing sector and an attempt to reverse the deficit that leads to constant growth in for example the foreign ownership of property, especially in London. So on economics alone he has changed the debate and refused to accept the false Tory/metro media narrative that Labour spending crashed the economy and even in the FT letter of the economists who disagreed with his economic policy is seen a shift in the universal acceptence and agreement with Corbyn of the need for infrastructure investment now.

This didn't sound anything like Marxism to me! But perhaps its because I'm unclear of what Trot means when applied to Corbyn and his supporters. I've challenged the likes of McTernan and Rentoul to explain what they mean when they've used the term, as they often have, in the derogatory, and have had no success. So perhaps you could fill in their blanks.

I'm pro EU in the sense that I think there are some things that require coordinated responses and broader collective responsibility:
-Energy provision and sustainability
-Food provision and sustainability
-Coordinated humanitarian responses eg to the refugee crisis
-Efficient trade facilitating accessible markets etc
-Protection of human rights

But I am not for the EU that has been a tool for globalisation that has increased the rate of utilisation of resources such as via the CFP. I am not for an EU that protects corporate interests and places financial endpoints above those that are democratic, as has been the character of the Eurozone. So I accept an in Europe but reform it position. I amn't clear on what Corbyn wants here, but we can't have an in Europe at any cost position and the threat to leave must be real.

Lastly. He spoke about a democracy within the party and within Govt. Partly that seems insightful in terms of what he can achieve with such division with Blairites. Leading by democratic consensus would represent a definite shift from the presidential dictatorialism of Blair. Personally I see that as a good thing which undermines the refuseniks and those fleeing the cabinet today. It remains to be seen if he can join the party together, but if he can, I will join Labour once more.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

The question is whether he can connect with enough of the wider electorate, and he hasn't got much time. The Tories have already started to try to paint him as untrustworthy on the economy and on defence/security, and we are going to hear that again and again, day in, day out.

I don't think he has much time to establish his credibility, probably only a couple of months, and he's got a huge task on his hands to do this against the combined efforts of the Tories and the majority of the press.

The SNP will be keen to see he doesn't succeed, too, for their own long term interests.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

' Enoch Powell was quite exceptionally stupid'

Enoch Powell was one of the most intelligent people of his generation. He obtained a double first in classics at Cambridge, then was appointed Professor of Greek at the University of Sydney at the age of 25, missing by 1 year his aim of beating Nietzsche's record of being appointed professor at the age of 24. On the outbreak of war he returned to the UK and joined the army, where he became the youngest ever brigadier.

If that's your idea of quite exceptionally stupid, I have no words to describe you.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


I'd struggle to vote for any of them; none of them come across with any depth. I suppose Corby at least says what he thinks, even if that is unlikely to make Labour electable.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Sorry Gordon, you're wrong on every count. Powell had a brain the size of a planet, but he did lack the ability to express his concerns in a more acceptable way. His concerns are recurring to this day. Foot was not 'donnish', he was a frigging journalist, with the tendency of all his ilk to be simplistic. Redwood is bright but wrong; he also holds the honour of actually making one of the few jokes by a Tory that was genuinely funny. (When he was criticised for returning home every evening despite being Welsh Secretary, he made the point that 'I'm the first Tory to be criticised for wanting to sleep with my wife every night', which I've always thought was both amusing and endearing.)

In reply to John2:

Many people in this thread about intelligence not being enough to make a good politician. I used the term stupidity as the opposite of wisdom rather than intelligence. I am thinking about a wider raft of qualities. Enoch Powell may have been very bright but he didn't handle many political issues very well at all, and arguably inflamed some to no avail.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Yes, note the use of the term "common parlance". As it happens, do you think it is possible to "know" whether great intelligence is a necessarily a good thing in a PM?

Incidentally, Powell unarguably was a brilliant man but sorely lacking in emotional intelligence. I suspect that nowadays he would be be regarded as being slightly autistic. A lot of brilliant people are.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

So you still claim that Enoch Powell was quite exceptionally stupid?

In reply to Timmd:


I'm always deadly serious

In reply to Postmanpat:


I would have thought that a lack of intelligence would be a rather severe handicap in a prime minister, just as lack of strength and stamina might be a problem for a climber. But, of course, there are different types of intelligence, and I'd prefer to concentrate on the idea of political wisdom. That's what Corbyn is going to need bucketloads of in the coming weeks. Early signs are quite good, but he could easily be a massive disappointment, even for his followers.

In reply to Jimbo W:

We've had our differences in the past Jimbo, but what you've put there is right on the mark. I'm not a natural Labour supporter and am supportive of meritocratic society and free markets, but for me many of his policies are appealing and offer something interesting and appealing.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
PMQ will be fun as he rips posh boy with all his fantasies (lies) to shreds!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Blimey, you're pedantic about my use of "agnostic" and the come up with those definitions of intelligent and stupid!! Better to stick to "wise"and "unwise". As in,"John Major was wise" and "Michael Foot was very unwise"

In reply to summo:


We've been here before Summo. There is little point dicussing economics with you because of your failure to grasp the basics of macro economics. You supported the TROIKA position in that earlier thread on Greece but even members of the TROIKA have backed away from the harsh economic proposals that YOU were endorsing.

In reply to Shani:


that's ok, I was not discussing anything with you here anyway. But thanks for saying hello.

In reply to Removed User:

Cameron has a quick and shallow intelligence which will see off Corbyn like swatting a fly
But I agree that it will be different and interesting except that Corbyn is looking like bottling it by handing over the questioning to other MPs.

In reply to Removed User:


I don't think corbyn could rip the peel off an orange, but it's not long until Wednesday and we'll see.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Who even cares what facile crap gets spouted at PMQs. Corbyn's strength is that he is in possession of a soul. If you stabbed him, he would bleed red, human blood. He is not programmed, nor is he dead inside, unlike Cameron.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Ah, the old moral superiority trope which you deny exists. Untrue, obviously.

In reply to Postmanpat:

No, it's quite personal, actually. David Cameron is a paper-thin flap of nonsense who has no values. Jeremy Corbyn believes in something; with whom you agree is not the point.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

How long before the press 'demonise' him ? Didn't they do it for another Labour leader a few years ago?

In reply to skog:


Very true - almost as apt as when the USA was being run by Bush and Dick !

In reply to Removed User:


Feck me, your joking right? He couldn't even deal with a channel 4 news sycophant, without going into a near meltdown.
His head might explode at PMQs...

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Neither of us actually know what either of them believe in them unless you believe second hand hearsay and media bollocks. You can't actually think that "believing in something" regardless of what it is one believes in is a good thing??

In reply to sbc_10:


Er, about minus 3 months I think!

In reply to Postmanpat:

Maybe. I think it's clear from what David Cameron does that his mind is empty of any thoughts of any value or substance. Again and again he will take a very serious moral issue and totally fail to engage with it, and instead play some pathetically cowardly politics with it to further his narrow interests. Examples: Iraq, Israel, gay marriage. For this reason, his face, with its dead eyes, disgusts me.


It's hard to say, isn't it. Am I more disgusted by the vacuum of Cameron and Blair, than by the genuine malevolence of Thatcher? You're right, I think I'll take Blameron, thanks.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
>
No, not at all.ISIS believe in something and it's horrible.

I'll side with people who get on with using their brains for the good of everybody rather than shut their brains down in favour of grandstanding their moral virtue.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I agree - they're even worse than Thatcher!


[belly laugh]

In reply to Jon Stewart:



Ditto

In reply to Jimbo W:

Great post. Makes a change from the Corby = SWP + Hamas guff that's engulfed the conversation.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Can't believe you're so naive about how these far left bastards work.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Ditto

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Are you joking? Corbyn fans are the most partisan people I've met. Dare anyone to write a post on Facebook criticising him.

Bog

In reply to Postmanpat:

You just sound paranoid. What is it that you think's going to happen? What is it that I should be so afraid of?

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Derek Hatton MKII?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Guff? Pretty well documented isn't it

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Same as happened in the 70s and 80s. Many of the same characters still loitering around.
Pretty interesting that Offwidth, not known for his Tory sympathies and involved in union activity, clearly shares the concern.

In reply to MG:

What is? Do you think Jez's followers going to start suicide bombing the Tory shires?

In reply to Postmanpat:


But the political and economic landscape is completely different. How would JC implement the time-travel policy he's accused of championing?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


He wouldn't be the prime mover any more than Foot was! Fill the party with far left entryists, deselect MPs , bind the left wing unions in etc etc.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Shall we wait and see what tactics he employs then? Or whether he just has some left-wing policies that appeal to perfectly sensible, moderate people like scrapping Trident and ending unquestioning support for Israel, but which the swing voters aren't so keen on?

In reply to Jon Stewart:



You seem to think he can call the shots. He promises to democratise the party…….

As Sean Matgamna of the laughingly labelled "Alliance for Workers Liberty" and backer of Corbyn puts it:

"If Jeremy Corbyn wins, it won't be the end but the beginning of the fight.

A leader of the French Revolution once observed that “those who make half a revolution, only dig their own graves”. A Corbyn victory will at best be only half a revolution. It will energise the PLP and its backers in the press for a serious fight back. If we don't respond blow for blow, with determination to win, then the right-wing counterrevolution will win. There will be a severe repression of the left. The chance of a new beginning for working-class politics will be squandered.

If Corbyn wins, then the left should immediately go on the offensive. Irreconcilable MPs should be de-selected."

In reply to Postmanpat:

'Fill the party with far left entryists'

His elevation to party leader was an amusing variation on that theme. Committed Conservatives were queueing up to pay £3 a time to vote him in, in the knowledge that he was unelectable.

In reply to Postmanpat:
What makes you trawl all these websites of the hard left? Is that one anything to do with Corbyn at all, or just someone who supports him because he was the left-wing candidate>

In reply to Jon Stewart:

You mean like er, the Indie and the BBC? His campaign manager was and probably is member of a hard left entryist group. Unite, his main backer's, chief of staff is still in the CP and they are apparently already producing "a little list".

Do you honestly think that all these far left groupings are just sitting on the sidelines cheering Jezzer on? Of course not, they're getting stuck in.

Their whole modus operandi is "plausible deniability", always is : plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

In reply to Yanis Nayu: i don't want to seem a bit thick but whenever the next election? Next week, 3 months, next year. Don't think so, unless Cameron decided labour are so weak he call a snap one now.

I think the next election is in 5 years time. It didn't seem to go so well for Labour in the last one did it, so theres no point voting in another Blair clone. Corbyn can make a heck of a fuss , propose an extremely different for 3 years, and then labour can vote someone else in and have plenty of time to get ready forthe next battle. If you can think past next week it's hardly the end of the world.

Postmanpat and some others - you have used the phrase in the past 'Play the ball and not the man'. Doesn't that apply any more?

In reply to wbo:
The ball is the man here!

In reply to John2:


'I Claudius' somehow springs to mind.

In reply to Postmanpat:


So what has this guy done that's so mad and dangerous? He's a union guy, isn't he. What else? What are these extreme dangerous views?


Wow, that sounds incredibly sinister. Do you know, I don't think I'll sleep at all tonight.


I'm afraid I just don't see Trades Unions as a moral plague on society. Although my experience of unions hasn't been positive, I think they're important in principle.

In reply to wbo:


Sheesh. As MG says, the man is what is under discussion, and the people who want to use him.One can't discuss what might happen next without discussing him and them can we?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Presumably if he's member of the communist party he's a ,er communist? I think communism is a really bad philosophy so I'd rather he wasn't allowed to use the money and power of his Union to take over the Labour party for his own ends.

And don't think of mentioning "reds in the beds" and all that.


Why not? You're not a moderate Labour MP are you? Sarcasm isn't a substitute for argument. There is plenty of evidence that far left groupings see Corbyn as an opportunity to further their ends and historical evidence that Corbyn and his few mates in the PLP are OK with that. So simply mocking the idea is not a sustainable argument.

That tactic was tried before and your party was nearly destroyed as a result.


So do I, but I'd rather the far left factions within them weren't allowed to pervert the democratic process to pursue their particular political ends.

In reply to gethin_allen:

It's not all about Jeremy. It's all about *us*.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I could sing the playground rhyme that your moniker prompts, but I have too much dignity.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Hilariously, with all the talk of entryism etc, I find it astounding that the media don't even know the name of our current Commie Party. CPGB died in the 90s. Ditto RCP. Today it's the CPB. A little history, folks.

In reply to Postmanpat:


The thing is, I don't know specifically what the CP actually believe in, and how it differs from socialist policies such as higher taxation and public ownship of more stuff. So Corbyn believes in higher taxes at the top end and public ownership of rail and energy/utilities (but nothing else I know of). I'm not going to vote for a Communist govt, but that's not what Corbyn is offering.


What sparked the sarcasm was the use of the word "communism" in place of an argument.


You talk about "perverting the democratic process" but there's a huge mainstream backing of Corbyn which just won him the leadership. A lot of people agree with his policies, that's a massive boon for the democratic process and you're choosing to ignore it while obsessing over the threat of the Trots and all that.

And think about the unsavoury associations on the right of the Tory Party, and all of the vile policies that some of the current crop supported back in the 80s. The religious right, the bigots, the racists (e.g. that hoo-ha over the European voting block).

In reply to David Alcock:


I think you'll find there's still at least ten (at the last call 13?) parties in the UK claiming the moniker.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Why? How odd. So one can mention "far left" or "hard left" but "communist" provokes some sort of knee jerk need to be sarcastic. Last time I checked the (many different communist parties) were generally considered to come under those two general descriptions hence the reference to his affiliation.

Communists believe in communism one assumes.


If the Labour party wants him to their leader and he sticks to something along his lines of his current policies then so be it. He asks many of the right questions but finds most of the wrong answers but that's just the way it is. I hope he will lose lots of votes and we can get a political realignment and somewhere along the line the far left will be buried for eternity. (fat chance)

I happen to doubt whether it will go that smoothly and so, it seems, do many commentators and many current Labour MPs.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Anecdotally, a lot of people I'm connected with on Facebook have voted for him, and are celebrating his win, a lot of them are people in their 20's, & I can't think of anybody I'm directly friends with who would be a Trot.


I agree.

In reply to Postmanpat:


We're as likely to see the total annihilation of the far left as we are of all the racists and bigots on the right. That's the political spectrum, and thankfully in this country both fringes are just that.


I can't see him lasting as leader - the parliamentary party simply don't agree with what he believes in, I just don't think it's a tenable situation. But I think it's a healthy process that will hopefully improve the party.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Here's a quick example of how the far left works. It's about Mark Serwotka's takeover and purge of the PCS union. Funnily enough, Serwotka tried to pay his £3 to vote for Corbyn but got found out. How long before him and his union find their way in and he uses the same tactics he used in the union too hijack the Labour party? And he's not exactly alone in trying this.

http://www.eclecticblue.org.uk/the-labour-party-purge/

Sweet dreams !

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Well, I agree that Blairism had run it's course and no longer had any distinctive meaning so some sort of mass reassessment had to happen. The next five years, with the possibility of the EU imploding or exploding and the likelihood of another serious recession could see all sorts of unexpected outcomes.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think you might be proving my point. It's nearer 100 btw.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

It is really good idea for him to let other MPs do PMQs. It will mean we will soon find out who can really lead the party from one of the MPs who will stand in for him at PMQ.

In reply to neilh:


If PMQs is the arbiter of political worth, I am never voting again.

In reply to Jimbo W:

I am not at all surprised JC has those numbers as he has a coherent story to tell on some pretty intellectually moderate leftist issues on austerity, rail nationalisation and equality, to those of a leftist bent desperate to see a change from the mess that labour had become. The other candidates were running scared and didn't say this as they were told it wouldn't play well with the general public. As I said, he is not a trot (nor marxist), he's a Bennite. The elephant in the room is that he now has to organise a party from its edge and his MPs from their very edge whilst facing a press where the most left of the majors thinks he is way too leftist with all those embarrasing extreme links exposed fully and in that context convince middle ground voters in swing constituencies who don't do intellectual arguments. We are not a country falling apart at the seams (like Greece) so unless something earth shattering happens he simply doesn't stand a chance; which in practical terms means the tories will get reelected next time with a big majority.

If labour didn't have a habit of choosing the wrong leaders after marginally loosing an election when in power and being pretty nasty amongst its sub tribes we would in my view currently have a centrist labour government led by David Miliband.

In reply to Offwidth:

Persuasive post.


I think everyone knows DM should have been leader, who knows if he'd have won the election given the Scottish issue, but it is quite possible. Do you think it's possible after the implosion of Labour under Corbyn who has successfully revealed what Labour supporters believe in (but can't possibly lead the party because the entire PLP hate his guts), that a much better politician (i.e. David) will swoop in and get on with the practical business of politics (not exactly Corbyn's forte)? In which case, his election is a fantastic victory.

Obviously I'm putting forward a best case scenario here, but prior to Corbyn, I felt that Labour was simply dead. A party of no interest to the left, and of no interest to the right. The people they appealed to were those who would rather die than vote Tory, and couldn't bring themselves to vote for a smaller party for fear of it being a "wasted vote". Something had to change.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Some on the far left have started the de-selection nonsense already. JC was very clear he would have none of it.

Entryism doesn't need deselection it just needs enough local party members to influence selection committees when new candidates are needed. It might seem hard to believe such things could happen but since Militant was booted out, in various Unions they have moved (usually briefly) to a controlling majority of elected lay officials on National Councils, or influenced policy heavily, despite a much more moderate membership (including my own academic union) because in some unions (especially mine) most ordinary union members don't vote in their own internal elections.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Its easy to paint that picture but Ed got pretty close as bad as he was and a tiny swing in the election before would have seen a lib-lab pact. With all the muddled messages from labour and a shit leader, a nod to the social democratic voice is enough to run neck and neck with the tories. All this election is is groundhog day wish fullfilment for depressed party and leftist activists. All the dark days of the 90s before Labour realised they needed to move to the centre to win elections and they now want to repeat those mistakes.

In reply to Offwidth:

The difference is that this time the centre ground has become toxic; it is associated with lies, and with war, and with screwing the poor. It is necessary to completely review the policy agenda, to have a firm and distinct position on issues like Trident, foreign policy and welfare cuts. Without that change, the Labour party is completely useless - even if they do win an election, if they don't have any policies to change the status quo, there is no purpose.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


That's rediculous. Throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The centre ground should be associated with election wins and a labour government.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


That'd be nice. Why then, did Labour supporters overwhelmingly reject insipid, status quo politics?

What I find ridiculous is the painting of JC as "extreme" and "hard left". Yes, the far left support him instead of the others, but his policies are generally just the things that normal Labour voters believe in. OK, they're not the things that Tory voters believe in, and if that's the only way to for Labour to win elections then it's right that they should lose.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Thats just not true and is looking backwards at the problem. The swing votors are not tainted with war, just certain politicians. The point is to run the country with fairer policies than the current goverment, not to try to force feed leftist ideology to an electorate that dont want to know. The alternative is a re-election of a much nastier goverment and the party becomes a martyr driven failure (until the legendary revolution arrives) .
The point you keep missing is that the swing votors are not normal labour votors and they are the ones who vote you into power. JC simply is extereme: as an elected labour MP he is on the far left of the party, he has very extreme friends on the revolutionary left and possibly tops the list of those who rejected the party whip.

In reply to Offwidth:


The point you keep missing is that people who won't oppose the Welfare Bill, will keep Trident, and who will be bullied into messing up the world with insane foreign policy interventions (military or otherwise) are not worthy of government.

In reply to Offwidth:


They can just wait for the boundary changes and mandatory reselection. Will give them time to organise.
In the mesntime they can put pressure to turn £3 supporters into members.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

The bit I don't understand you listen to JC and his gang, you would think 59% of the UK population had voted for him, rather than 59% of those who could be bothered to join the labour party. Nationally he isn't that popular, otherwise millions would have joined labour to vote.

In reply to summo:

Why would you think "59% of the UK" had voted for him? Have any of his supporters made that claim?

Nationally Cameron isn't popular. Even amongst Conservatives i understand opinions are not high of him.

In reply to summo:

I think it's safe to say that the increase in members and affiliated supporters in order for people to vote for an opposition leadership election is unprecedented. It is absolutely remarkable. I don't remember it happening for any other politician, left or right.

In reply to summo: As a conservative supporter that's quite a dangerous argument to head into. Dacid Cameron doesn't have a mandate from the British people based on majority support, rather he has luckily/effectively won an election based on the current rules

To Jon Stewart - you state that the centre ground is 'toxic'. I would disagree - the NewLabour version pre election is what was toxic. What you state about ' insipid, status quo politics' is correct - as well as policies you need a vision of where you want to go to inspire people.

In reply to Shani:


And with very good reason. He's a reasonable PR bloke, but he's a very poor PM.

In reply to wbo:


You're right, it's only toxic to 'old' Labour voters who felt betrayed by Blair. But that toxicity has certainly lasted and is behind JC's victory.

In reply to Shani:


Of course I don't think that, but he and his supporters speak as though the whole of the british population have voted 59% in favour of him, rather than the 59% of a very small proportion of the voting public. It's the rhetoric they use etc..

yes, but they follow Cameron. Since Corbyn came to power, how many resignations?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Not really remarkable, how many of them were labour voter anyway, so they may not of actually gained a single voter from another party. Plus, how many were tories?

You don't remember it happening, because no other party, no labour has ever elected it's leader by this fashion until now, so there was no precedent. The system was changed within labour by Milliband.

In reply to wbo:


I was more implying that the words or language he used, is like "the people have spoken", "the UK wants change"... when really a fraction of the UK's voting population voted for him and until 2020 we won't know just how much of the total UK adult population actually want him.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



Interesting that when it changed from Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Leader to Jeremy Corbyn for PM his Twitter / Facebook accounts first post used a quote from Che Guevara.

If he's not hard left why is he going out of his way to be seen singing the Red Flag and quoting Che Guevara?

In reply to Jon Stewart:



Because those were more active. But those hard line members don't make up a significant number of the 60+ million.. Hence why a traditionally left Labour Party has done so poorly.

Of course Corbyn is hard left, he's for high taxes, nationalization and clearly aligns strongly with the red flag lot..

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
This really concerns me. I can see some bad things happening.

1. The House of Commons will stagnate, every bill that the conservatives try to pass will be blocked.
2. Labour will be unelectable because they have now lost the centre politics and will lose what floating voters they still had.
3. When the Conservatives win in 2020, there will be civil unrest worse than the unrest we saw when Labour lost back in 2010.

I can see a new, very successful party emerging to fill the left of centre ground and the official Labour Party will disappear to be a very small minority party.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Here is toxity in full flow from a labour man and trade unionist...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11859233/The-day-the...

Think on that in context to all the platitudes about working together under the new leader. Not many seem to be dealing with the donations issue... the new TU legislation and shift to the left could bancrupt the party. Another quiet point is the view of our western allies to someone so anti-eu, anti nato pro-palestinian.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

if so good. Why should we accept mediocrity from our politics? New labour didnt occupy the middle ground, they loitered in it. JC is only one man. Essentially the party is the same just with a new leader, hopefully it will simply galavanise change and a refocusing. I hope at least.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Maybe but Greece runs through this like a stick of rock.

In reply to Kemics:


No. It didn't. The Blair administration gave huge tax benefits to the middle classes. If Corbyn starts taxing rich people, the first to be hit hard will be the middle class. That's a huge proportion of the UK.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

So we allow the rich to hold a gun to the head of the UK government. There's the 'centre ground'.

In reply to summo:


You said "[if] you listen to JC and his gang you would think 59% of the UK population had voted for him", I challenged you on this point. You then said above "of course I don't think that" - thus retracting from your initial assertion, and then in the very next sentence say "but he and his supporters speak as though the whole of the British population have voted 59% in favour of him" thus repeating a claim you'd denounced in the PREVIOUS sentence!

Well done. No seriously, well done.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

The problem is the 'rich' make up about 70% of the population. But no one thinks they're the 'rich'.

This kind of politics is divisive and will cause unrest and destabilisation if we're not very careful.

Personally I don't want to see rioting in the streets because we're seeing what happens now in Syria.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Is he for high tax? Or is it more specific and targetted than that? Nationalisation of rail - is that bad? I don't think nationalisation of rail nor targetted higher tax are particularly 'red flag' and would posit the view they are middle of the road.

In reply to Shani:

Did I say it was bad. That is not the point.

I just said he supported that.

And higher tax of the rich is a generally left policy, but overall it seems he wants to raise tax income, targeting the rich but actually raising taxes on those on decent wages but far from rich. Whether it is good or bad is another point entirely but deny he is hard left (for a mainstream politician) is very odd..

I don't think many will argue cutting down on tax avoiders is something that has to happen, but I think upping the tax on the rich will be divisive and ruin the labour party's chances.

My personal view is we will spend millions on buying things back and little will change.

But this wasn't about our personal views, it was about if Corbyn is a hard left politician and I think it is hard to argue he isn't.

In reply to Roadrunner5:




Higher tax is actually of the rich is a mainstream policy and has been for several years. From Thomas Picketty to Warren Buffet there have been concerns raised about inequality and its damage to economic progress. It is a concern across the political spectrum.

So how do you identify him as "hard left"?

In reply to Roadrunner5:




And do you know what? If you leave out the a, t, i, o, n, 2nd a, l, second i, , 3rd a, t, o and n from your spelling of nationalisation your get NAZI?

Think about it

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Sorry American I-phone...

In reply to Shani:
Political Spectrum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Hard left > centre left > centre > centre right > hard right

Where would you put corbyn?

From the same page?

"In the United Kingdom in the 1980s, the term hard left was applied to supporters of Tony Benn, such as the Campaign Group and those involved in the London Labour Briefing newspaper, as well as Trotskyist groups such as Militant and Socialist Organiser."

So who is in the campaign group?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Campaign_Group

Current members: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Campaign_Group#Current_members

"The Campaign Group, as it is commonly known, is on the hard left of the Labour Party and has been highly critical of the New Labour project."

Its not an insult to say is hard left..

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Where would I put Corbyn?

Well this is the crux of the argument. Old labels no longer apply. Identity politics is bust and I will vote on polucy.

So for example I totally disagree with JC in his protests against the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as I value free speech (as long as violence is not incited). However, Cameron is not averse to appeasing Islam in this respect, putting him on the same side as JC on this issue.

Now Corbynomics. I value PQE. Only today in the NYT Paul Krugman was suggesting Japan follow a form of PQE as they are in a low inflationary, stagnant economic malaise. Other economists have suggested the same approach for China and Europe. Many economists are now recognising the contractionary nature of austerity is self defeating. So is JCs PQE hard left? It's opposite of Cameron and Osbournes approach but PQE would tick right wing economic boxes.

Now tax avoidance and evasion. JC wants to clamp down on this. The Laffer curve is a busted flush and corporate welfare is unsustainable. Corporations seek markets to exploit much more than simply a low tax environment. Most of us squeezwed middle would heartily welcome Google, Amazon, Starbucks etc... paid appropriate tax for the privilege of doing business here. Hard left or middle ground?

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Greece is likely to throw out Syriza at the next election according to the polls....

In reply to Offwidth:

This has been an interesting discussion about a fascinating turn of events. In all, my feelings are certainly mixed. The arguments that JC is disastrous for the Labour Party are certainly compelling! But then, he is actually a genuine human being, with clear ideas, many of which are very good IMO (but some, sadly, are not) and embody a system of values that I and many others who have become cynical about politics can firmly support. This is a huge leap forward in politics, and young people have seized it - it's exciting.

From an intellectual and ideological point of view, I find the scaremongering about sinister connections with the extreme left and terrorist groups laughable and pathetic. Although from a political point of view, it is terrible, thanks to widespread idiocy and the gutter press.

As for the "hard left" charges, well yes, now I've looked a bit more at what that term is used to mean, they stick. If that just means you support high taxes, nationalised railways and a unionised workforce then that's my kind of extremism!

On balance, we don't know what's going to happen. I hope that it's a positive shake-up and that a more suitable leader will be found in due course, rather than a permanent car-crash for Labour. But even if it's the latter, enough people out there hate the Tories to form an effective, electable opposition based on sensible liberal values, given a bit of time.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I don't think it would take long at all.

I see a new party ready to be elected by the next election. A group of people who don't have to bow to the Unions, have been elected MPs on the strength of their left centre views. Pretty much a done deal.

They may even get some liberal and conservative defectors.

Interesting times.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

If we can have Ken Clarke and Paddy Ashdown, this new Social Liberal Alliance Party has already got my vote!

In reply to Jon Stewart:





Yes exactly. JC has blown apart the beige politics of the past 20 years. The capitalist model has torn itself apart and globally, economists agree these are NOT normal times. New thinking has to come along. JC has not only brought new ideas but is pulling new people in to politics. The media are defending the status quo but are simply appearing isolated and out of touch like the politicians they endorse. Their hatchet jobs on JC are only working on those already convinced. People can smell the medias attempt to crush alternetives and protect what we have - even though this only favours the few.

Most of us have left identity politics and are looking at policy. JC has many good ideas. Using PQE to fund transport, conservation and green energy programs, deregulation of the power grid etc... he's going to mop up a lot of votes from Greens, the young, the left and the middle. Also the middle classes.

*apologies for typos but this website performs poorly on my tablet and I cannot resubmit edited posts. Grrrrrrr

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Where will they get their funding from?

In reply to Shani:

What new ideas?

I don't think its new at all.

It's different to the status quo but I don't think we can call it new.

In reply to Shani:
"Yes exactly. JC has blown apart the beige politics of the past 20 years."

Don't be so silly. He might do that ^, but he's only just been elected leader of the opposition, so why don't you see how he gets on before you cream your knickers.

In reply to neilh:


For a moderate centerist party?

In reply to Shani:

Yep, he is taking the UK, or rather only Labour, right back to 1975... Life on Mars, political style!!

Big national strikes, CND marches, failing nationalised industries, power cuts, soaring interest rates, almost hyper inflation etc.. oh the UK must be so excited, with this to look forward to. I guess it would make Greece look a rosier comparatively.

In reply to Sir Chasm:



I've seen attendance at two of his public meetings and I've NEVER seen anything like it. My local MP is Nick Clegg and even at the height of his popularity (yes, he was once very popular around the "I agree with Nick" days), it was nothing like JC's appeal. And i can testify that Clegg's clinics were well attended. Try to look beyond the media spin about JC and try to attend events he is present at. Look at the crowd he draws. This is definitely 'sonething' - and not the hard-left something the media present.

In reply to summo:


Wow - he's already won the election and we're all aboard his time machine. What a load of shit.

In reply to summo:

Hyperinflation? How so?

In reply to Roadrunner5:




Name ANY other politician to have suggested PQE?

In reply to Shani:

Preaching to the choir. The people he needs to convince are the people who don't attend political meetings (like most normal people).
And I'm not saying he isn't something, but to proclaim that he's "blown apart" politics is naive wishful thinking.

In reply to Shani:

It is still not a new idea. Its simply printing more money.. it's been done in the past.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



The gutter press like the BBC and the indie? You've been presented with the evidence of the intentions of the far left, the evidence of their previous in the Labour party and the unions, and evidence of their current connections to Corbyn.
On intellectual terms the ball is in your court to undermine the arguments. Laughing doesnt really cut it.

In reply to Sir Chasm:



So you don't think that a politician largely unknown just three months ago described by most of the UK media as hard left, taking control of one of the two main political parties in the Uk with one of the biggest majorities in living memory, and now setting a policy agenda on issues such as PQE - a policy that is being suggested may have application across Europe, Japan, China and possibly the USA, furthermore filling out venue after venue on a UK tour such that several meetings had to be held outdoors or had people queuing round the block - you don't think that is blowing domestic politics apart?

If the media were less hostile (or you were better informed), you'd have greater appreciation of what is going on.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Then you don't understand PQE and how it differs from QE.

In reply to Shani:

He hasn't set a policy agenda (he may have done it within the labour party, big deal). And the media are what they are, like it or not. So, no, he hasn't blown politics apart (how ridiculous). He's shaken Labour up a bit.

In reply to Shani:

Or maybe many disagree..

Its printing money and giving it out.. maybe it will work, but its been suggested in the past.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/29/why-the-peoples-quantita...

"There’s really nothing new about this idea although Murphy not having studied much economics he doesn’t realise this."

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Funny how Murphy, a retired accountant, is so often billed as an economist.
Even stranger that Corbyn happily regurgitated his back of envelope claim that £120bn of lost tax revenue could be collected when Murphy himself had apparently downgraded this to £20bn.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Sorry, I've looked back up the thread, but I can't see the articles you're referring to. What do they show?


There are loads of union nobs out there who are connected to Corbyn, obviously, given his background and pro-union stance. What I've not got my head around is why I should be scared of them. Do they have the power to take over and break our economy? I've always considered union leaders shouty and self-interested, lacking in any understanding of the bigger picture of how the economy works. If they attempt to drag the Labour party down that road, replacing the New Labour lot with their own, then...well I just don't think it will happen. But if it did, that would cause the party to split, I guess. Either way, there's no prospect of a far left government in this age, so all this talk about strikes and the 1970s is completely ridiculous.

What is the actual threat - i.e. something that could actually happen - that the far-left Corbyn connections actually present?

And we haven't even mentioned his terrorist bedfellows, that one really has me in stiches!

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Apparently the Tories thought it serious enough to start warning people over twitter:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/13/tory-theme-corbyn-threat-na...

Utterly contemptible really.

In reply to Trevers:


Or rather amusing, when coupled with that concerned Cameron face.

In reply to Jon Stewart: Ah who can tell how much calamity he can wreak as the powerless leader of a minority opposition. It's a good job the conservatives have a majority and can do what they see fit.

Although oddly i see that one of their own has spoken out about the upcoming union bill. What's worse, labour trending back to the 70's or David Cameron trending back to General Franco?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


The two aren't mutually exclusive

In reply to Trevers:





Also nicknamed among his labour colleagues as Jeremy Cor Bin~Laden.
Utterly brilliant really.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Unfortunately some of us can remember the last old labour governments and the power of the unions. Whilst the Tories have many faults, god help us if Corbyn et al ever get elected. I suspect in fact they would be 'unelectable' for that reason but it's enough to make people worry.

In reply to dek:


Sounds like the sort of thing The Sun might be proud of. At least Labour have a sense of irony I suppose.

In reply to Skyfall:


This will be a disliked post..

But I wonder how much this is the old hard lefters and the new voters who never knew anything but Blair... I'm 35 on the cusp on knowing the labour party pre Blair. I remember my primary school teacher playing through the news of Thatchers resignation when I was 10. I think it was one of my first political memories.

In reply to Shani:

have a look back at the UK's inflation rate in that era. It was blasting along.

In reply to Skyfall:


There in lies the future problem, with the joys of the late 70s drifting further away, those who recall the events with any clarity are getting older. There is a whole new generation who probably won't have heard about how grim many aspects were and think JC is representing some new way, rather than a failed old way.

In reply to Jon Stewart:




Well we now have a shadow Chancellor who favours(ed?)nationalisation without compensation (ie theft). You're happy with this?