That's the point I'm trying to make. The fact that membership has gone up doesn't mean things are going well for Labour. Corbyn is preaching to the choir.
All the people joining the party officially were already Labour voters.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
All the people joining the party officially were already Labour voters.
Good video.
Who is the traditional Labour electorate, though? I'm not sure they can necessarily be defined with one sweeping generalisation.
What Im about to say is largely based on educated speculation, so not exactly scientific but in my opinion there are a few different types of Labour voters: firstly you have the highly educated pure Marxists/Socialists who follow the same trend as Tony Benn, Michael Foot and now, Jeremy Corbyn - these guys value their ideological purity over electoral success; then you have centrists who have dominated the party over the last 20 years who moved the party in order to appeal to middle England voters and achieve electoral success; lastly, you have the working class types who, in post-war Britain, found representatives in Labour and the trade unions. With the decline of the old mining and manufacturing industries and reduced unionisation of the lower end jobs, the connection between them and Labour has reduced.
Most of the powerful unions now, NUT, RMT, GMB are either filled with hard-line Socialists, or cater directly to people who might be considered middle England. The centrist parties have essentially labelled the rest the plebs sordida and drowned them out of the political sphere which has meant that they were an open audience for UKIP.
Small? He garners thousands of people in crowds and marches, the party membership has increased to the highest its ever been.
What point is there of having parties if you're just going to be populist the entire time. Why not just do away with the idea of opposition and alternatives, and have a few rich mates who will say the right things to the media and establishment.
Oh look a few thousand people from the green party and socialist workers party have joined momentum.... thats going to offset the millions of people who voted labour before but will never do so whilst corbyn is in charge????
Labour is finished and will become essentially a union funded momentum party on the fringes of politics if he is not gone soon
As opposed to the magnificent, dominant political force it'll become if Angela Eagle takes charge?
This "party membership at its highest ever/since the war/in Corbyn's lifetime" is, much like Corbyn's repeated claim to have secured an unmatched mandate, pure bollocks. Membership stood at almost 700,000 as recently as the late 70s, and topped 800,000 in the 60s. According to the Labour General Secretary as of about ten minutes ago, it's now at 515,000. It will very likely keep growing as the pro- and anti-Corbyn factions continue to recruit, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
https://medium.com/@Layo_91/how-mid...oyed-the-labour-party-8256e707ec01#.25y77zcfc
How Middle Class Liberals Destroyed The Labour Party
In his comprehensive report into why Labour lost the 2015 General Election, Jon Cruddas broke down the electorate into 3 broad but distinct groups — the affluent, socially liberal Pioneers, pragmatic Prospectors and socially conservative Settlers. Last May Labour suffered badly at the hands of two of these groups (The Prospectors and The Settlers). It was only the Pioneers who embraced Miliband’s message;
“…the Pioneers who currently make up 34 per cent of voters. They are spread evenly through different age groups. Pioneers are socially liberal and more altruistic than most voters. They are at home in metropolitan modernity and its universalist values. As the name suggests they value openness, creativity, self-fulfilment and self-determination. They are more likely to vote according to their personal ideals and principles such as caring and justice. They tend to be better off and to have been to university. They now make up a large majority of the Labour Party membership.”
These were my people, they lived in my circles and made up my social world. On the surface, the Pioneers were Labour’s greatest strength, but the in fact they were Labour’s Achilles heel. This is because the progressive middle class had one great fallibility, self-indulgence. It was these people who last summer destroyed the Labour Party.
As it became clear that my CLP was on the verge of nominating Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, I stood up and pleaded with them to learn the lessons from our defeat. I argued that we needed a candidate who will win us seats from Nuneaton to Dover to Great Yarmouth. Outside of our middle class liberal bubble, Labour was becoming a toxic brand. We were becoming seen as a Party solely for the liberal elite. Therefore we needed to look outwards and challenge these assumptions, not indulge them. We needed a Labour leader who can win back those who thought we weren’t credible in running the economy. We needed a leader who would listen to socially conservative voters worried about immigration, and challenge their assumptions that we have an ‘open door’ policy. Basically, we needed to win over voters who didn’t scoff at The Sun or dismiss the Daily Mail. Here we were, a stone’s throw from Goldsmith’s university, in the heart of metropolitan inner London — Labour will always win here.
My pleas fell on deaf-ears. I watched as rational, educated individuals hugged the warm blanket of electoral myths. I watched as my comrades sank into self-indulgence. For decades the Left have hung on to the idea that amongst the large numbers of non-voters, there is a secret well of staunch left-wingers waiting on the day that we build Jerusalem. If only we had a candidate who could reach out to them. Yet there is no evidence that non-voters lean predominantly to the Left. Immediately after the election The Trade Union Congress produced a wealth of polling on the attitudes of non-voters. When asked what prevented non-voters from supporting Labour, the top 4 responses were: 35% ‘don’t know’, 30% ‘they can’t be trusted with the economy’, 23% ‘they would make it too easy for people to live on benefits’, 22% ‘they would raise taxes’. That hardly sounds like the talk of ardent social democrats.
Time and time again Scotland was used as a stick to beat pragmatism with. Yet the idea that Labour lost their seats in Scotland because they were too centrist doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It was clear that moving to the Left in an attempt to win a handful of seats in Scotland while alienating the Tory voters we needed to win over across England, would be an act blind self-destruction. And it was. Moving to the Left in Scotland helped the Tories to portray themselves as the credible Unionist voice in Scotland. The SNP crushed Labour earlier this month. Humiliatingly, Labour are now the third biggest Party in Scotland.
Perhaps the most pervasive myth reeled out verbatim in stuffy community halls across the land was that Labour lost because they were ‘pro-austerity’. This independent inquiry into Labour’s defeat revealed that the opposite was true; the Tories didn’t win despite austerity, they won because of it. The result was brutal for the Left. Voters instead rejected Labour because they perceived the Party as anti-austerity lite. 58% agree that, ‘we must live within our means so cutting the deficit is the top priority’. Just 16% disagree. Almost all Tories and a majority of Lib Dems and Ukip voters agreed.
The idea Labour lost because they were ‘pro-austerity lite’ was a comforting falsehood for many of us on the Left. Like many liberal-lefties I believed that austerity was an unnecessary burden that hit the poorest while stunting growth. I didn’t believe we could cut our way out of recession. I too went on marches to voice my opinion in the hope that someone other the people walking next to me would listen. I don’t think anyone did.
Time and time again I was told that people voted for the Conservatives instead of Labour because they were ‘basically the same’, and this meant Labour wasn’t far enough to the Left. It was a favoured argument by a chattering-Left whose lives would be relatively untouched by tax-credit cuts or benefits caps. Why would a voter, annoyed at Labour being ‘pro-austerity lite’, disappointed they weren’t left-wing or radical enough, choose to go and vote Conservative? It is counter-intuitive, and this argument is downright illogical. To argue this point is to simply pedal wilful ignorance.
When Ed Miliband spoke the Pioneers nodded along and mostly liked what they heard. When Jeremy Corbyn spoke they hollered and cheered. Jeremy spoke the language that fired up the narrow membership. “Look at the crowds he draws! Can’t you tell that this a movement?” eager friends would tell me. A few older, wiser voices, had seen it all before, those who had seen the mass rallies of the early 80s and damning consequences of delusion. As MP John Golding recalled, when telling Michael Foot how bad the polls were. `He said, “You’re wrong. There were a thousand people at my meeting last night and they all cheered.” And I said, “There were 122,000 outside who think you’re crackers.” I didn’t want me generation to go through the experience that my parents’ did.
How Middle Class Liberals Destroyed The Labour Party
In his comprehensive report into why Labour lost the 2015 General Election, Jon Cruddas broke down the electorate into 3 broad but distinct groups — the affluent, socially liberal Pioneers, pragmatic Prospectors and socially conservative Settlers. Last May Labour suffered badly at the hands of two of these groups (The Prospectors and The Settlers). It was only the Pioneers who embraced Miliband’s message;
“…the Pioneers who currently make up 34 per cent of voters. They are spread evenly through different age groups. Pioneers are socially liberal and more altruistic than most voters. They are at home in metropolitan modernity and its universalist values. As the name suggests they value openness, creativity, self-fulfilment and self-determination. They are more likely to vote according to their personal ideals and principles such as caring and justice. They tend to be better off and to have been to university. They now make up a large majority of the Labour Party membership.”
These were my people, they lived in my circles and made up my social world. On the surface, the Pioneers were Labour’s greatest strength, but the in fact they were Labour’s Achilles heel. This is because the progressive middle class had one great fallibility, self-indulgence. It was these people who last summer destroyed the Labour Party.
As it became clear that my CLP was on the verge of nominating Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, I stood up and pleaded with them to learn the lessons from our defeat. I argued that we needed a candidate who will win us seats from Nuneaton to Dover to Great Yarmouth. Outside of our middle class liberal bubble, Labour was becoming a toxic brand. We were becoming seen as a Party solely for the liberal elite. Therefore we needed to look outwards and challenge these assumptions, not indulge them. We needed a Labour leader who can win back those who thought we weren’t credible in running the economy. We needed a leader who would listen to socially conservative voters worried about immigration, and challenge their assumptions that we have an ‘open door’ policy. Basically, we needed to win over voters who didn’t scoff at The Sun or dismiss the Daily Mail. Here we were, a stone’s throw from Goldsmith’s university, in the heart of metropolitan inner London — Labour will always win here.
My pleas fell on deaf-ears. I watched as rational, educated individuals hugged the warm blanket of electoral myths. I watched as my comrades sank into self-indulgence. For decades the Left have hung on to the idea that amongst the large numbers of non-voters, there is a secret well of staunch left-wingers waiting on the day that we build Jerusalem. If only we had a candidate who could reach out to them. Yet there is no evidence that non-voters lean predominantly to the Left. Immediately after the election The Trade Union Congress produced a wealth of polling on the attitudes of non-voters. When asked what prevented non-voters from supporting Labour, the top 4 responses were: 35% ‘don’t know’, 30% ‘they can’t be trusted with the economy’, 23% ‘they would make it too easy for people to live on benefits’, 22% ‘they would raise taxes’. That hardly sounds like the talk of ardent social democrats.
Time and time again Scotland was used as a stick to beat pragmatism with. Yet the idea that Labour lost their seats in Scotland because they were too centrist doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It was clear that moving to the Left in an attempt to win a handful of seats in Scotland while alienating the Tory voters we needed to win over across England, would be an act blind self-destruction. And it was. Moving to the Left in Scotland helped the Tories to portray themselves as the credible Unionist voice in Scotland. The SNP crushed Labour earlier this month. Humiliatingly, Labour are now the third biggest Party in Scotland.
Perhaps the most pervasive myth reeled out verbatim in stuffy community halls across the land was that Labour lost because they were ‘pro-austerity’. This independent inquiry into Labour’s defeat revealed that the opposite was true; the Tories didn’t win despite austerity, they won because of it. The result was brutal for the Left. Voters instead rejected Labour because they perceived the Party as anti-austerity lite. 58% agree that, ‘we must live within our means so cutting the deficit is the top priority’. Just 16% disagree. Almost all Tories and a majority of Lib Dems and Ukip voters agreed.
The idea Labour lost because they were ‘pro-austerity lite’ was a comforting falsehood for many of us on the Left. Like many liberal-lefties I believed that austerity was an unnecessary burden that hit the poorest while stunting growth. I didn’t believe we could cut our way out of recession. I too went on marches to voice my opinion in the hope that someone other the people walking next to me would listen. I don’t think anyone did.
Time and time again I was told that people voted for the Conservatives instead of Labour because they were ‘basically the same’, and this meant Labour wasn’t far enough to the Left. It was a favoured argument by a chattering-Left whose lives would be relatively untouched by tax-credit cuts or benefits caps. Why would a voter, annoyed at Labour being ‘pro-austerity lite’, disappointed they weren’t left-wing or radical enough, choose to go and vote Conservative? It is counter-intuitive, and this argument is downright illogical. To argue this point is to simply pedal wilful ignorance.
When Ed Miliband spoke the Pioneers nodded along and mostly liked what they heard. When Jeremy Corbyn spoke they hollered and cheered. Jeremy spoke the language that fired up the narrow membership. “Look at the crowds he draws! Can’t you tell that this a movement?” eager friends would tell me. A few older, wiser voices, had seen it all before, those who had seen the mass rallies of the early 80s and damning consequences of delusion. As MP John Golding recalled, when telling Michael Foot how bad the polls were. `He said, “You’re wrong. There were a thousand people at my meeting last night and they all cheered.” And I said, “There were 122,000 outside who think you’re crackers.” I didn’t want me generation to go through the experience that my parents’ did.
When the Labour Party listens to, and speaks to, all sections of society, it is the greatest force of progressive change this country has ever known. If I could prove what great things an outward-looking Labour Party could achieve, then maybe people would have a change of mind. Yet the more I spoke out, the more isolated I felt. When I pointed out the record of the New Labour government that offered me so much as I was growing-up, I was attacked by Labour members as a quisling sell-out. When I criticised the party leadership I was labelled as a ‘Red Tory’ and ‘Blairite scum’.
The self-righteousness of the metropolitan left combined with the cultism of the far-left has created a toxic cocktail of absolutism and puritanism within the Labour Party. If you are a Labour member and speak out against this ‘New Politics’ you will be confronted with a wall of vitriol or worse.
Labour’s results in regional elections earlier this month were what was expected. Labour have gone backwards since last May. Since 1988, there has always been movement towards the main opposition after one year of a parliament. Since 1974 and excluding general election years, opposition parties have always gained seats in local elections — with the exceptions of 1982, 1985 and now 2016.
Labour’s lead from this election result was 1%, which matches the movement from Blair’s landslide in 1997 to Hague’s Conservatives in 1998. While Hague was battling a Blair government, post landslide, enjoying his honeymoon period; Corbyn’s Labour were up against a Tory government that has had a shambolic year and has been split down the middle by the EU referendum. A credible opposition would have crushed the Tories this month. Ipsos-Mori have said that given Labour’s collapse in Scotland, they would need to win the 2020 election by 13% to form a government.
The ‘alternative Media’ will promote self-serving half-truths without a care in the world. Lonely op-eds in the liberal press will attempt to spin a pleasant web of delusion. But the truth is Corbyn’s politics cannot reach beyond his base. Labour’s few successes in the last elections came in places with a large middle class graduate or public sector base. As Stephen Bush of the New Statesman put it: “places where people put wind chimes in their front door”.
A middle class liberal cannot understand a working class individual voting for the Tories (because surely it would be against their economic interests, no?). The liberal middle class cannot understand working class voters, so they are instead treated with a gentle distain. Just look that how the Labour Party now talks about immigration. Simply repeating that freedom of movement is “generally good thing” and “migration is a plus to our economy”, is patronising and paternalistic towards socially conservative voters. We can’t just tell working class people what is good for them and expect their vote.
Studies have shown that socially conservative Settlers were more likely than other values groups to mention immigration, toughness on welfare, standing up for our country, Europe (either a referendum or pulling out) and fiscal responsibility. All the things Corbyn is weak on. The Labour Party has given up fighting for its working class base.
Jeremy Corbyn’s brand of old-school socialism attracted “high-status city dwellers” in the summer and they still like what they hear from him. Even after a woeful 9 months in which Corbyn’s leadership has looked rudderless and ineffective. Even when Labour look on course to suffer a defeat in 2020 even worse than under Ed Miliband. Labour members would still overwhelmingly vote for Mr Corbyn if a leadership ballot was triggered.
To the middle-class liberals, the difference between the centrist Labour government and a Tory government seem academic. Anyway, a Tory government creates a righteous fire in our bellies and each protest we’ll plan for their fall. Of course we hate their cuts, but they won’t actually ruin our lives. So here we are, the Labour Party is becoming a minority party of sectional interests of a liberal middle class.
We’ll share righteous memes, and lament Jeremy Hunt, stage measly marches in the name of ‘the people’. We’ll have twitterstorm after twitterstorm and we’ll feel like we’re making a difference. But we won’t be. The Labour Party is sleep-walking to electoral oblivion, but hey, at least we’ll be feeling good about ourselves.
The self-righteousness of the metropolitan left combined with the cultism of the far-left has created a toxic cocktail of absolutism and puritanism within the Labour Party. If you are a Labour member and speak out against this ‘New Politics’ you will be confronted with a wall of vitriol or worse.
Labour’s results in regional elections earlier this month were what was expected. Labour have gone backwards since last May. Since 1988, there has always been movement towards the main opposition after one year of a parliament. Since 1974 and excluding general election years, opposition parties have always gained seats in local elections — with the exceptions of 1982, 1985 and now 2016.
Labour’s lead from this election result was 1%, which matches the movement from Blair’s landslide in 1997 to Hague’s Conservatives in 1998. While Hague was battling a Blair government, post landslide, enjoying his honeymoon period; Corbyn’s Labour were up against a Tory government that has had a shambolic year and has been split down the middle by the EU referendum. A credible opposition would have crushed the Tories this month. Ipsos-Mori have said that given Labour’s collapse in Scotland, they would need to win the 2020 election by 13% to form a government.
The ‘alternative Media’ will promote self-serving half-truths without a care in the world. Lonely op-eds in the liberal press will attempt to spin a pleasant web of delusion. But the truth is Corbyn’s politics cannot reach beyond his base. Labour’s few successes in the last elections came in places with a large middle class graduate or public sector base. As Stephen Bush of the New Statesman put it: “places where people put wind chimes in their front door”.
A middle class liberal cannot understand a working class individual voting for the Tories (because surely it would be against their economic interests, no?). The liberal middle class cannot understand working class voters, so they are instead treated with a gentle distain. Just look that how the Labour Party now talks about immigration. Simply repeating that freedom of movement is “generally good thing” and “migration is a plus to our economy”, is patronising and paternalistic towards socially conservative voters. We can’t just tell working class people what is good for them and expect their vote.
Studies have shown that socially conservative Settlers were more likely than other values groups to mention immigration, toughness on welfare, standing up for our country, Europe (either a referendum or pulling out) and fiscal responsibility. All the things Corbyn is weak on. The Labour Party has given up fighting for its working class base.
Jeremy Corbyn’s brand of old-school socialism attracted “high-status city dwellers” in the summer and they still like what they hear from him. Even after a woeful 9 months in which Corbyn’s leadership has looked rudderless and ineffective. Even when Labour look on course to suffer a defeat in 2020 even worse than under Ed Miliband. Labour members would still overwhelmingly vote for Mr Corbyn if a leadership ballot was triggered.
To the middle-class liberals, the difference between the centrist Labour government and a Tory government seem academic. Anyway, a Tory government creates a righteous fire in our bellies and each protest we’ll plan for their fall. Of course we hate their cuts, but they won’t actually ruin our lives. So here we are, the Labour Party is becoming a minority party of sectional interests of a liberal middle class.
We’ll share righteous memes, and lament Jeremy Hunt, stage measly marches in the name of ‘the people’. We’ll have twitterstorm after twitterstorm and we’ll feel like we’re making a difference. But we won’t be. The Labour Party is sleep-walking to electoral oblivion, but hey, at least we’ll be feeling good about ourselves.
true... the party is probably finished either wayAs opposed to the magnificent, dominant political force it'll become if Angela Eagle takes charge?
better 150 or so mp's quit and form a new new labour party with the snp and libs in a pro europe coalition and becomes the official opposition and fights for the centre whilst UKIP and the Corbynistas shout nasty stuff at each others from the sidelines and the adults (try to) play politics
Would keep away from the SNP, toxic in England.
possibly... but then again in a pro European type alliance it would be difficult to exclude them completely at least in an informal type arrangement
I still love this assertion that it's the Corbynites who are all completely naive and wishful, while the centre ground is somehow a place of competence and electability within the Labour party.
The pathetic, insipid coup shows that the Labour party as a whole is massively incompetent from top to bottom. The fecking coup made Corbyn himself look like some kind of scheming political mastermind in comparison considering just how badly executed it was. The Corbynistas may not be the adults playing politics, but neither is the inept, equally incompetent centre-ground of the Labour party.
I still love this assertion that it's the Corbynites who are all completely naive and wishful, while the centre ground is somehow a place of competence and electability within the Labour party.
The pathetic, insipid coup shows that the Labour party as a whole is massively incompetent from top to bottom. The fecking coup made Corbyn himself look like some kind of scheming political mastermind in comparison considering just how badly executed it was. The Corbynistas may not be the adults playing politics, but neither is the inept, equally incompetent centre-ground of the Labour party.
We should just bring back blair - he probably is still the best chance of getting anything left of the conservatives elected
I think one of the lines of attack that was so successful for the Tories last GE was painting a labour government as needing the SNP for support and therefore allowing them to dictate things and possibly call a second referendum.
When ironically its the conservatives (who said the scots had to vote to remain in the UK to stay in the EU) and the EU referendum that is probably going to drive a second Scottish referendum.
I half expect the conservatives to back Scottish independence next time round just because the election Maths in a UK without Scotland favours them so much
Blairtire scrum is a bit much but
If it looks like a Tory, sounds like a Tory, and quacks like a Tory, then it probably is a Tory.
Don't know if his parole officer will give him enough time off.
If you read the whole thing (and the link to the actual report I posted a page or so ago), it's quite clear that many were long time Labour voters. A hell of a lot of seats that won't be won unless they're voting Labour.
Excellent article. I think 'we' are going to have to learn this lesson the hard way though, it's hard to see how Jeremy is going to go from the current situation.
If you have to misrepresent the facts to make your argument then your argument is probably quite weak.
Any article that tries to blame the situation on one particular group of people is shit. The entire thing is one person's oversized ego shat out in text form. "Look how right I am". Shut up.
The anti-austerity part in particular shows this person's lack of understanding in my opinion. Yes Labour lost the argument on austerity but that's because they didn't make the argument very well. They basically said "yeah, we fecked up and there's no money left but we oppose austerity". There was no credibility in that argument and it was entirely due to the fact that the Labour party lacked any sort of backbone. Add to that the note that Cameron was able to wave around with glee in that debate "sorry there's no money left" or whatever it said.
It doesn't mean that the public can't be persuaded to oppose austerity, something which I think will become especially true over the next few years. But when the people making the argument are also making the argument against themselves, they aren't going to win are they?
Last edited:
I still love this assertion that it's the Corbynites who are all completely naive and wishful, while the centre ground is somehow a place of competence and electability within the Labour party.
The pathetic, insipid coup shows that the Labour party as a whole is massively incompetent from top to bottom. The fecking coup made Corbyn himself look like some kind of scheming political mastermind in comparison considering just how badly executed it was. The Corbynistas may not be the adults playing politics, but neither is the inept, equally incompetent centre-ground of the Labour party.
So true
There's a general lack of policy discussion from those against Corbyn, just insults and the usual buzz words.
If you want Labour to focus on being electable and being in synch with voters beyond the member base how much are you willing to compromise because there has to be a line?
The public want Brexit should we compromise on that and champion no freedom of movement? How about more austerity since its apparently popular? How about further cuts to benefits?
Or do you just mean Labour should once again treat the electorate as children and pretend to be in agreement whilst saying the right things? That'll work, they definetely haven't seen through that already
Last edited:
I'll give it a read when I've got some time(It's 50 pages isn't it)but I was replying(in a somewhat poking fun way)to how the article attacks Corbyn. He's not ''weak'' on things such migration, welfare, standing up for our country(Whats this shite about) or even Europe, he just believe's that there a different way to tackle these problems.
But let's say it's true that hitting people on welfare, being mildly xenophobic and nationalist wins votes I argue it's the duty of the opposition(And the Left)to challenge this ideas and present an alternative. Is Corbyn doing a good job at this - mostly likely not (Although The membership growing, the polling numbers are pretty bad)but I'd rather try to convince people of an alternative than simple agreeing with bigotry on the bases it will win votes.
Well I completely agree with your argument of needing to make a credible argument against austerity, it's almost exactly why I voted for Corbyn last year.
But I now don't agree that Jeremy is the person to do that at all - the more I see of his leadership of the party, the man himself, and his handling of the media, I find the idea that he'll be able to prepare a competent argument and opposition laughable. He's making the Labour party a joke to those outside of his bubble (the article defines them as 'those comfortable in metropolitan modernity' - I think that sums the group up pretty well), while increasing the fervour of those in it against the rest. That's only going to end in increasing disaster for the Labour party and movement.
I want a competent Labour party leader who provides a clear opposition to the Tories with a well communicated message. Personally, I think that leader should embrace PR, campaign to the EU to allow a more controlled immigration policy, and argue that large levels of public investment are needed around the UK to help those who have been left behind by the successful cities (mostly London). Feck knows if that will win us the next election, probably not.
A message like that seems fairly sensible and probably would win an election. The problem, of course, is that it requires both a competent leader and a competent Labour party. And neither exist at the moment - there are no remotely credible alternatives to Corbyn, and the party as a whole is shambolic.
Maybe he can run the country from jail...a bit like ODB in the Gravel Pit video.
I agree. We need a credible opposition not Conservative Lite. What's the point in voting if both major parties standing are pushing the same manifesto?
Bizarre argument. For a very obvious place to start, we'd still be in the EU if Labour had won the last election.
Corbyn might not be charismatic, and he may be a bit weird (as Neil Kinnock would put it) but he has the advantage of not having to contradict his past self all the time. That's the biggest reason that Labour lost the argument last time and it's the biggest reason why Remain lost last month.
And you can feck right off if you're going to go around telling people who they are if they support Corbyn.
what a bizzarre argument. We would still be in the EU if Cameron had not miscalculated and held a referandum for political gain.
correct.
Left or right are simply labels.
If Labour offered a manifesto that appealed to the avearge person, they will get the votes.
Err yeah. And that was in his manifesto, and not Labour's, which is the point I was making.
how about missing the point?
He wanted to remain. Labour lost because they offered Tory Lite btw.
I disagree that that's the main reason we lost the last two elections.
And I'm not calling any one individual anything, but I think it's fair to say that the types of people who strongly support Corbyn are quite a narrow group. The good is that it includes Green and SWP voters, but I don't see where else he's going to pick up lost votes.
The key point is that any leader/party that offers something the voter can identify with will come out to vote.
Really not sure what you're arguing here. I was disagreeing with the suggestion that the two manifestos were indistinguishable.
Did you think anything of the article africanspur posted on the last page? Here.
@Shamwow, if you were in US, you would be a Bernie bro.