Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Red Dreams said:
it would have gone down well with Labour voters.

end off.
Click to expand...

It would have gone down well with people who are happy for Labour to become nothing more than a protest movement, with the Conservatives in power in perpetuity.

Labour needs votes from people who are not strongly tied to either right or left. Corbyn's issue is that he seems to think he can do his job by only ever appealing to voters who already agree with him.
 
lynchie said:
It would have gone down well with people who are happy for Labour to become nothing more than a protest movement, with the Conservatives in power in perpetuity.

Labour needs votes from people who are not strongly tied to either right or left. Corbyn's issue is that he seems to think he can do his job by only ever appealing to voters who already agree with him.
Click to expand...

Apart from immigration which policies do you think he's out of touch on? I'm excluding trident as he's agreed to go with the parties position (i suppose that could change)

A lot of his polices have repeatedly polled quite well. I'd say it's the publics perception of him rather than his policies that is the issue.
 
Smores said:
Looks like it was a Labour MP who was shouting down Corbyn during his measured response to the Chilcot report yesterday in the commons, Ian Austin MP for Dudley.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-iraq-war-after-publication-of-a7122871.html

Fecking disgrace. If you read his twitter the guy very quickly comes across as a complete idiot. This is the image the PLP are sending out to the world right now, anyone who thinks those associated to this coup will come out of it strongly is naive.
Click to expand...

The sooner Corbyn gets rid of these parasites the better.
 
Smores said:
Apart from immigration which policies do you think he's out of touch on? I'm excluding trident as he's agreed to go with the parties position (i suppose that could change)

A lot of his polices have repeatedly polled quite well. I'd say it's the publics perception of him rather than his policies that is the issue.
Click to expand...

Public perception is quite important in a leader. I'd say on Trident and the EU, his inability to seem committed to the party's agreed policy comes across very poorly. Also, he's more and more made his public speeches to crowds of people from Momentum and the SWP. Even on the eve of the EU referendum, he was appearing outside a Waitrose in Islington. Those are votes he already has!!
 
Ady87 said:
My town has always been one for Labour. Huge numbers of people locally are signing up and paying the monthly subscription in support of Corbyn. I must have counted 20+ comment on my own Mum's facebook status about it saying they had joined.
Click to expand...

This type of stuff shouldn't be taken for granted especially in light of the referendum when it seemed like alot of momentum was being generated by Brexiters and everyone was blindly ignoring it thinking fear would take hold and they would vote for the status quo come election.

I think Corbyn has a decent chance of winning the election tbh.. more than Ed Miliband did anyway.
 
I don't think he'd win an election, but the coupers and their supporters have certainly grossly misread the public mood, and seem completely unable to grasp it.

Ironically, quite like Blair.
 
lynchie said:
Public perception is quite important in a leader. I'd say on Trident and the EU, his inability to seem committed to the party's agreed policy comes across very poorly. Also, he's more and more made his public speeches to crowds of people from Momentum and the SWP. Even on the eve of the EU referendum, he was appearing outside a Waitrose in Islington. Those are votes he already has!!
Click to expand...

Yeah I can agree with that. The campaign has been very focused on building a base but with an election likely to be round the corner he'll need to widen his audience.

I just don't think it's policy issue, a puppet leader like Jarvis with these policies would do well. If the party unites now behind Corbyn I think he'll be seen as stronger for it.
feck knows how you unite the party though. The bitterness of the progress branch has only increased. I do wonder whether they'd have done the same to Burnham eventually.
 
Smores said:
Yeah I can agree with that. The campaign has been very focused on building a base but with an election likely to be round the corner he'll need to widen his audience.

I just don't think it's policy issue, a puppet leader like Jarvis with these policies would do well. If the party unites now behind Corbyn I think he'll be seen as stronger for it.
feck knows how you unite the party though. The bitterness of the progress branch has only increased. I do wonder whether they'd have done the same to Burnham eventually.
Click to expand...

Burnham's a disaster. He's another one that doesn't really get the difference between being an effective campaigner on individual issues, and being a leader of a broad party. Hopefully, once he loses his mayoral bid, he'll go back to being a shadow minister, comfortable in a narrow policy area.

I think a different leader would do well if they made their leadership about the policy, rather than the more philosophical issues that seem to be Corbyn's focus - things like a "new kinder politics" are just setting up to be mocked, particularly when your main backers are the guys in Momentum. It would also be nice if there was a leader that could be a bit more emphatic about condemning the small pockets of anti-semitism that are reflecting so badly on the wider party.

I'm honestly not sure who the next leader should be. I do quite like Eagle, and think her performances in PMQs have been very good. Jarvis and Starmer could be good candidates, thanks to their backgrounds outside parliament, and I think they would understand the demands of leadership. The party will never "unite" fully. It's too broad for that. But if they can reduce the infighting so that we can go back to seeing the Tories as the party in disarray, they'd stand a better chance.
 
Mockney said:
I don't think he'd win an election, but the coupers and their supporters have certainly grossly misread the public mood, and seem completely unable to grasp it.

Ironically, quite like Blair.
Click to expand...

If he consolidates powers and, using the public support he has, drives the trouble makers out of his party to form New New Labour he has every chance of having a good shot in the next election. In a time when the far right is picking up support after a long spell of centrism I wouldn't be surprised to see the left start getting equally enthusiastic support from those in fear of a rise in right wing politics.
 
Flamingo Purple said:
Is the party being doomed not about how you perceive his electability?
Click to expand...
I think the party ideologically is caught between a rock and a hard place.
Core Labour voters up north have become more nationalistic, isolationist and are moving to the extreme right on some issues and these people are moving to UKIP in droves.
Labour voters like me (millennials) and most of my generation, see the benefits of globalization, are staunch liberals etc.
I cannot wait for Labour to find where it wants to go.
Lib Dems ideologically is still very similar to my beliefs. Also, Tim Farron has an established policy of halting this Brexit process. Something Labour is never going to do.
As many Ld MPs in parliament as possible suits me.
 
Pexbo said:
If he consolidates powers and, using the public support he has, drives the trouble makers out of his party to form New New Labour he has every chance of having a good shot in the next election. In a time when the far right is picking up support after a long spell of centrism I wouldn't be surprised to see the left start getting equally enthusiastic support from those in fear of a rise in right wing politics.
Click to expand...
With FPTP, neither Corbyn Labour (or indeed, UKIP) will get into power, though, as they would be niche parties. Both would be sidelined in favour of parties able to capture the centre, and at present, only the Conservatives (even if the nationalist faction defects to UKIP) can do that. So a split would guarantee a Conservative majority for many years to come.

I think Corbyn consolidating his party won't be enough. They simply aren't polling well enough to win. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/voting-intention

I guess there's two sides to this - whether the ideological purity of Corbyn is better than actually winning the centre and getting elected. Ideological purity risks a Conservative government for many years to come - is that truly worth it?
 
x42bn6 said:
With FPTP, neither Corbyn Labour (or indeed, UKIP) will get into power, though, as they would be niche parties. Both would be sidelined in favour of parties able to capture the centre, and at present, only the Conservatives (even if the nationalist faction defects to UKIP) can do that. So a split would guarantee a Conservative majority for many years to come.

I think Corbyn consolidating his party won't be enough. They simply aren't polling well enough to win. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/voting-intention

I guess there's two sides to this - whether the ideological purity of Corbyn is better than actually winning the centre and getting elected. Ideological purity risks a Conservative government for many years to come - is that truly worth it?
Click to expand...

All of this comes under the faulty assumption that Labour would be guaranteed to "win the centre" if only they tried. I think that is a losing strategy for Labour. "Tory-lite" doesn't just relate to ideology, it also relates to the fact that trying to beat the Tories at their own game is a losing strategy when there appears to be no one in the party with the vision, focus, and charisma of Blair or even Cameron for that matter.

It also assumes that Corbyn backers are only interested in ideological purity at the expense of winning. I have a different idea of how to win than just blindly following polls and focus groups.
 
Shamwow said:
All of this comes under the faulty assumption that Labour would be guaranteed to "win the centre" if only they tried. I think that is a losing strategy for Labour. "Tory-lite" doesn't just relate to ideology, it also relates to the fact that trying to beat the Tories at their own game is a losing strategy when there appears to be no one in the party with the vision, focus, and charisma of Blair or even Cameron for that matter.

It also assumes that Corbyn backers are only interested in ideological purity at the expense of winning. I have a different idea of how to win than just blindly following polls and focus groups.
Click to expand...

good post.
 
Shamwow said:
All of this comes under the faulty assumption that Labour would be guaranteed to "win the centre" if only they tried. I think that is a losing strategy for Labour. "Tory-lite" doesn't just relate to ideology, it also relates to the fact that trying to beat the Tories at their own game is a losing strategy when there appears to be no one in the party with the vision, focus, and charisma of Blair or even Cameron for that matter.

It also assumes that Corbyn backers are only interested in ideological purity at the expense of winning. I have a different idea of how to win than just blindly following polls and focus groups.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, it comes from the assumption, that has been played out over the last 40 years, that if Labour ignores the centre, they lose. I haven't seen any evidence that Corbyn and Momentum are interested in appealing to anyone that doesn't agree fully with their very narrow brand of politics. That's fine if you're the Green Party, shouting at the perimeter. It's not so fine when you're the official opposition.
 
lynchie said:
On the contrary, it comes from the assumption, that has been played out over the last 40 years, that if Labour ignores the centre, they lose. I haven't seen any evidence that Corbyn and Momentum are interested in appealing to anyone that doesn't agree fully with their very narrow brand of politics. That's fine if you're the Green Party, shouting at the perimeter. It's not so fine when you're the official opposition.
Click to expand...

Is it though? I'm not hugely convinced the electorate at the large cares about whether a party is far left, far right or in the centre.

Seems to me that the party that wins the election is the one with the slickest presentation, best handling of the media, and the perceived 'know what they're doing factor'.

I'd say Corbyn's failure to convince the electorate that he knows what he's doing (not helped by Labour politicians repeatedly telling the electorate that he doesn't know what he's doing) is a bigger issue than his politics.

Case in point, the electorate as a whole broadly like a right wing fascist in Nigel Farage because they think he 'tells it like it is' and 'gets them' despite the fact that he never ever actually gives a straight answer to anything he's asked and has campaigned for something that actively harms the electorate.

I think Blair won elections because he knew how to play the game, the shift to the centre helped for sure, but I don't see it as being a bigger factor than the fact he was able to manipulate the media far better than the Labour party have before or after him.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Is it though? I'm not hugely convinced the electorate at the large cares about whether a party is far left, far right or in the centre.

Seems to me that the party that wins the election is the one with the slickest presentation, best handling of the media, and the perceived 'know what they're doing factor'.

I'd say Corbyn's failure to convince the electorate that he knows what he's doing (not helped by Labour politicians repeatedly telling the electorate that he doesn't know what he's doing) is a bigger issue than his politics.

Case in point, the electorate as a whole broadly like a right wing fascist in Nigel Farage because they think he 'tells it like it is' and 'gets them' despite the fact that he never ever actually gives a straight answer to anything he's asked and has campaigned for something that actively harms the electorate.

I think Blair won elections because he knew how to play the game, the shift to the centre helped for sure, but I don't see it as being a bigger factor than the fact he was able to manipulate the media far better than the Labour party have before or after him.
Click to expand...

Farage only appears popular because he has vocal supporters. He's never won a constituency in many attempts. The EU Ref was won by Boris. Blair's great success was holding the centre while the tories elected a bunch of inward looking right wingers like IDS and Howard.

Cameron realised that, and so went for the centre with his "compassionate conservatism" bullshit, and it worked, helped in large part by a global financial meltdown.

Labour now have their version of Howard as leader. It'll be weird to see what happens if Leadsom becomes leader. No one holding the centre. Maybe Tim Farron will have a surge, if he can find a personality.
 
If anyone wants to read a decently-long empirical analysis of Labour's faults in 2015 and what they'd need to do to counter them, Jon Cruddas published one not that long ago - https://www.scribd.com/doc/313245238/Labour-s-Future-19-05-16

Obviously I'm a broken record, but if anyone can read that and say "Corbyn is the solution" then I don't know what to say.
 
So Labour went down the 'middle' last election and Lost.

Why do you think. They offered Tory Lite. No vision that ordinary people can relate too. Hey. You have to tighten the belt. But not as much as what the Torys say.

Polls and think tanks are not going to win you elections.

An honest vision from an honest candidate will.

Such a candidate will move people to come vote for you.

We also have to ask ourselves if we want any of these people who voted for an unjust war that ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people, representing us.
 
Red Dreams said:
So Labour went down the 'middle' last election and Lost.

Why do you think. They offered Tory Lite. No vision that ordinary people can relate too. Hey. You have to tighten the belt. But not as much as what the Torys say.

Polls and think tanks are not going to win you elections.

An honest vision from an honest candidate will.

Such a candidate will move people to come vote for you.

We also have to ask ourselves if we want any of these people who voted for an unjust war that ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people, representing us.
Click to expand...
So you read 50 pages in 9 minutes? Impressive stuff.
 
Red Dreams said:
So Labour went down the 'middle' last election and Lost.

Why do you think. They offered Tory Lite. No vision that ordinary people can relate too. Hey. You have to tighten the belt. But not as much as what the Torys say.

Polls and think tanks are not going to win you elections.

An honest vision from an honest candidate will.

Such a candidate will move people to come vote for you.

We also have to ask ourselves if we want any of these people who voted for an unjust war that ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people, representing us.
Click to expand...

Sometimes good campaigns don't win. I think Ed was actually reasonably decent, if not the most inspiring leader, but Labour couldn't overcome the shadow of financial crisis, and the public acceptance that it was somehow the UK government that caused a global collapse. There's no evidence that there was some enormous pool of left wing votes that Labour was missing out on by not being more socialist.

I don't think that's a reason to abandon a generally successful electoral strategy. Labour needs to be seen as a moderate party in order to be effective in putting down the extremist nonsense from UKIP and the hard right of the Tory party.
 
I like Corbyn and would vote for him myself... but I'm not sure he can win a GE which is why I'm torn on the Labour leadership issue.

I think for the most part his problem will be with the wider public perception and the media hammering he receives. As far as actual policies go, I suspect they'd be very popular with a large portion of the electorate... but that won't make too much difference when the right wing media will have spent months destroying his credibility as a leader in the run-up to a vote.
 
Ubik said:
Worth reading from Labour's sole south-east MP. Think he has a decent idea of the public mood here.

http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d57858d2bdbc2ba256db60991&id=e7c09b4ae6&e=d4c7898469
Click to expand...

Decent read. His analysis of needing to go centre doesn't really align to his own constituency though as they lost it originally because of seeping votes to the Lib Dems and only regained it due to its collapse. In fact in the last GE they got the most votes they ever had.

The Green/Lib Dems vote is exactly what they need to secure victory there. Both groups which Corbyn polls well under.
 
It really shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but I don't think people are going to elect someone who looks like he's bought his clothes at a charity shop. It's probably for the best if he's convinced by his team to step aside for someone who will appeal more to the wider public, whilst still being in a position to influence proceedings. A director of football type of situation, if you like. His policies, but someone else fronting the election campaign.
 
Badunk said:
It really shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but I don't think people are going to elect someone who looks like he's bought his clothes at a charity shop. It's probably for the best if he's convinced by his team to step aside for someone who will appeal more to the wider public, whilst still being in a position to influence proceedings. A director of football type of situation, if you like. His policies, but someone else fronting the election campaign.
Click to expand...
You're probably right and that is yet another piece of compelling evidence that people, in general, are absolute idiots.
 
This has probably been said already, but I think there is a clear tension between the rather Blairite wing of the Labour Party which makes up most of the MPs, and the grassroots voters who are more aligned with Corbyn - very left-wing. I think eventually, one of these is going to have to give and have to leave the party because it does not seem like they can coexist. People dont like splits but, it has to happen IMO.
 
Andrew~ said:
This has probably been said already, but I think there is a clear tension between the rather Blairite wing of the Labour Party which makes up most of the MPs, and the grassroots voters who are more aligned with Corbyn - very left-wing. I think eventually, one of these is going to have to give and have to leave the party because it does not seem like they can coexist. People dont like splits but, it has to happen IMO.
Click to expand...
So why are the grassroots abandoning Labour for UKIP if they're aligned with Corbyn?
 
Adisa said:
So why are the grassroots abandoning Labour for UKIP if they're aligned with Corbyn?
Click to expand...

Its as Classic Mechanic said up there. Neither the Blairite nor the Corbynite wing really speaks to that traditional Labour electorate anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.