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

[Ubik]

And linked to an article in which Godfrey is described as a "special snowflake", so just a touch condescending.

Most definitely. The demand for public proof of online abuse is also quite concerning.

So then, how many IS followers/activists are in this country (the UK)?

That does not constitute an invasion in any sense of the word.

 

[Shamwow]

So then, how many IS followers/activists are in this country (the UK)?

Why are you asking me? If you think there is an invasion then you should be able to provide the facts.

For what it's worth my answer would be "not even remotely close to near enough to constitute an invasion".

 

[Shamwow]

Corbyn is pretty much done. He was since day 1 and I don't think the situation can be fixed if people on both sides of the debate carry on the same trajectory.

Lessons learned so far for me:

The PLP needs to accept that it's core base of supporters is very much left-wing. Next time there is a leader election there shouldn't put in one token lefty for people to vote for and expect that candidate to not be voted for. If they want the party membership to move to the right, they can't do so by just going on about electibility and they especially can't do by undermining the elected leader of the party (this will only provide excuses to any of Corbyn's failings).

The left of Labour needs to accept the realities of today's political landscape. Corbyn was voted for because he represents many core beliefs of the Labour core. He was picked because he was the only candidate most Labour members saw as doing so, unfortunately Corbyn's shortfalls have been overlooked (although you could argue that this was by necessity considering the lack of choice).

Regardless of the leader, the party can't win an election until it is united and cohesive so both sides will need to work towards this and compromise.

 

[Drifter]

Good again from Corbyn. Cameron reverting to a weak joke about marx might go down well with his party but not the public.

 

[Untied]

Corbyn won that pretty comfortably again. Cameron's answers are pathetic.

Edit: Having said that I wish he was a bit sharper with his replies to Cameron's insults. Having a go at his appointment of Milne should have been met by a mention of Coulson. I'd rather Marxists in government than crooks.

 

[Shamwow]

Corbyn won that pretty comfortably again. Cameron's answers are pathetic.

Edit: Having said that I wish he was a bit sharper with his replies to Cameron's insults. Having a go at his appointment of Milne should have been met by a mention of Coulson. I'd rather Marxists in government than crooks.

That's not really Corbyn's style though.

 

[Smores]

Good again from Corbyn. Cameron reverting to a weak joke about marx might go down well with his party but not the public.

Corbyn is certainly starting to deliver what people expected of him in regards to PMQS, not sure about other areas yet.

Getting the PM to respond to serious questions with childish "well you're a marxist" answers certainly helps taint the Tory image. With so much scrutiny on Corbyn there's been more publicity around these exchanges as well.

 

[bishblaize]

Good again from Corbyn. Cameron reverting to a weak joke about marx might go down well with his party but not the public.

So so. To be honest this is going very much like it did 5 years ago, with Labour winning the battles but losing the war.

The central theme in politics for the last five years is that, since Labour caused the crash, all the Tories are doing is clearing up the mess. Labour can't argue with the second part unless they overturn the first part. It means that every time Labour complains about a cut it makes it look like they're in denial and can't be trusted with money. People may agree with Labour on a particular cut if it affects them personally, giving Labour plenty of opportunities for short term wins, but the general impression is that they're not fit to hold the purse strings.

Unless Corbyn can overturn that first premise (that Labour caused the crash) complaining about cuts may grab Labour a few populist votes, but will reinforce the general impression that they're profligate with money, which ultimately is a killer at the ballot box.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

The questions on tax credits were easier for Cameron to bat away this time, it being only a few weeks until the Autumn Statement (where we will hear what concessions the Chancellor has decided upon). And whilst he was right to raise the topic of the NHS, we'd be far better served if our political parties could work together on health policy.



By way of a follow-up to the Catherine West/STWC controversy from earlier in the week:

Stop the War refuse to listen to Syrians during debate…on Syria

The Stop the War Coalition (StWC) have been accused of preventing victims of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad from speaking at an anti-war event.

During a panel event on Monday evening to discuss the case against British military intervention in Syria, StWC included no Syrians on the speaker’s panel and reportedly refused to allow Syrians to speak from the floor.

The meeting was chaired by Labour MP Diane Abbott and featured chair of the Stop the War coalition Andrew Murray, former leader of the Green Party Caroline Lucas, Labour MP Catherine West, Tory MP Crispin Blunt MP and SNP MP Tommy Shephard.

According to human rights activist Peter Tatchell, who attended the event, no Syrians were included on the panel and the Syrian activists who turned up to the event were threatened with arrest.

Speaking to LFF, Tatchell said:

“Some Syrian victims of Assad’s brutalities turned up but were not allowed to speak. They eventually shouted out in frustration, turning the meeting into momentary chaos, as they were jeered by some of the audience and as StWC stewards tried to eject them – allegedly threatening that they’d be arrested. The police turned up soon afterwards.”

Tatchell went on: “Near the end of the meeting, I personally appealed to Diane Abbott to let the Syrians have their say, but she refused and closed the meeting.”

Tatchell’s comments mirrored those of Amr Salahi, an activist from the Syria Solidarity Movement who was also present at the meeting.

“Andrew Murray said absolutely nothing about the people being killed in Syria on a daily basis in Assad’s airstrikes,” Salahi said.

“Murray said that ISIS had to be defeated militarily, and the way to do that was not for the West to get involved but for the Iraqi army and the Syrian army (i.e. Assad’s army) to be helped to defeat ISIS.”

He added: “The [war] was not discussed in reference to the Syrian people in any way. The only focus was on British or American involvement. Not a single Syrian was on the panel. There were Syrians in the audience and at the first opportunity they raised their hands to speak.”

However after raising their disagreements with the StWC panel over the organisation’s views of conflict in Syria, Salahi said the Syrians were prevented from speaking again.

“The first [Syrian activist] to challenge the panel told the speakers they were only looking at ISIS, while Assad was killing dozens of people on a daily basis. [The Syrian] then compared Assad to Hitler, and I told the speakers they were like the Neville Chamberlains of today. [Panellist] Crispin Blunt MP, a supporter of the Iraq war, answered that people in Syria were now looking to Assad to protect them from Islamist extremists. He was unaware that Muzna had lived in regime controlled Damascus for more than three years since the start of the revolution,” Salahi said.

He added: “After this intervention, no other Syrians were permitted to speak. [The panel] kept opposing the possibility of Western intervention as if that was the only factor. Clara Connolly, an immigration lawyer and activist with Syria Solidarity UK, later told the StWC they were silent about Assad’s crimes but they didn’t care. I told the speakers they just wanted Assad to keep killing people. Clara kept trying to make the point to the speakers that they had nothing to say about what was happening on the ground. All she got in return was silence. Then some of the organisers went up to her and warned her that if she didn’t be quiet, she would be forced to leave.”

Peter Tatchell told LFF a similar story: “When it came to questions from the floor, other members of the audience were asked to speak but not the Syrians. Near the end of the meeting, I personally appealed to Diane Abbott to let the Syrians have their say but she refused and closed the meeting.”

Tatchell added that he was “shocked, surprised and saddened by Diane Abbott’s unwillingness to invite Assad’s victims to express their opinions”. He added that not listening to victims of Assad’s war crimes was “arrogant, insensitive and appalling. It has a whiff of ‘we know best’ and Syrian opinions ‘don’t count’”.

This is not the first time Syrians have been prevented from speaking at a StWC event on Syria. In September, in reply to a letter from Syria Solidarity UK asking StWC to include a Syrian in a separate panel event on Syria, StWC’s Lindsey German replied that it was “not appropriate” to hear from Syrians if they did not clearly oppose military intervention.

“Stop the War, which prides itself on being an anti-imperialist organisation, has an imperialist mind-set par excellence,” Salahi said. “Syrians are not allowed to have an opinion about their own country. Only Westerners are allowed to talk about Syria.”

http://leftfootforward.org/2015/11/stop-the-war-refuse-to-listen-to-syrians-during-debate-on-syria/

A nice bunch Corbyn used to be Chairman of.

 

[noodlehair]

Corbyn is pretty much done. He was since day 1 and I don't think the situation can be fixed if people on both sides of the debate carry on the same trajectory.

Lessons learned so far for me:

The PLP needs to accept that it's core base of supporters is very much left-wing. Next time there is a leader election there shouldn't put in one token lefty for people to vote for and expect that candidate to not be voted for. If they want the party membership to move to the right, they can't do so by just going on about electibility and they especially can't do by undermining the elected leader of the party (this will only provide excuses to any of Corbyn's failings).

The left of Labour needs to accept the realities of today's political landscape. Corbyn was voted for because he represents many core beliefs of the Labour core. He was picked because he was the only candidate most Labour members saw as doing so, unfortunately Corbyn's shortfalls have been overlooked (although you could argue that this was by necessity considering the lack of choice).

Regardless of the leader, the party can't win an election until it is united and cohesive so both sides will need to work towards this and compromise.

If Corbyn is outed I wont be voting Labour again unless his replacement is somewhere towards as left as he is.

There is less point voting for a party that doesn't listen to its supporters than there is voting for one who's supporters you don't agree with.

Labour as a whole embarassed itself with the whole leadership election and the abstaining stunt with the welfare vote. The reason Corbyn got in is precisely because of the sentence above. Yet they still show no signs of being aware of this, or are but just genuinely don't give a single ounce of shite about their own voters.

The main thing this has shown so far for me is how terrified the media are of an actual left wing party gaining any momentum.

 

[sun_tzu]

If Corbyn is outed I wont be voting Labour again unless his replacement is somewhere towards as left as he is.

There is less point voting for a party that doesn't listen to its supporters than there is voting for one who's supporters you don't agree with.

.

Just suppose though that there is an election for a new leader and a more centrist candidate wins...
corbyn got about 50% of first votes with the remaining split between three other candidates - on top of that over 20% of those eligable to vote didnt.
So if there was one more centrist candidate who the party coalesces around its quite conceivable that they could win - I personally think this is the most likely outcome at some point within the next 18 months.

 

[Shamwow]

Just suppose though that there is an election for a new leader and a more centrist candidate wins...
corbyn got about 50% of first votes with the remaining split between three other candidates - on top of that over 20% of those eligable to vote didnt.
So if there was one more centrist candidate who the party coalesces around its quite conceivable that they could win - I personally think this is the most likely outcome at some point within the next 18 months.

He got 60% of first votes.

 

[sun_tzu]

He got 60% of first votes.

sorry I should have said 50% of party members (he actually got 49.59% with 57.61% affilliated supporters and 83.76% of registered supporters (the pay £3 option))
I have a feeling that the next leadership election will be party members and affilliated supporters only - or at least a much earlier cut off for registered supporters as it was quite shambolic towards the end.
Turnout was 76% so potentially a lot of votes in the existing membership base for people to fight for there

 

[Ubik]

Membership =/= all of a party's support. There's a good chart (I think bishblaize posted it a few pages back) that shows how out of step Corbyn voters are with even the middling Labour voter. When Corbyn falls, the moderates need to stop feeling so entitled and put the effort in to getting those ordinary Labour voters signed up as supporters, something the Corbyn did exceptionally well with a smaller but far more active base. When you can actually alter the electorate to better your chances, that should be one of the main areas you put effort into.

 

[noodlehair]

Just suppose though that there is an election for a new leader and a more centrist candidate wins...
corbyn got about 50% of first votes with the remaining split between three other candidates - on top of that over 20% of those eligable to vote didnt.
So if there was one more centrist candidate who the party coalesces around its quite conceivable that they could win - I personally think this is the most likely outcome at some point within the next 18 months.

It would be a waste of time as they would turn themselves back in to what they were during the last election...a party that doesn't represent anyone.

I don't understand what labour (pre Corbyn) thought it was. It's like they wanted to appeal to this kind of, working but not quite well off class of people. I.e. someone like me...but from a selfish point of view it makes little difference to someone in my position who is in power. Either way I can afford to pay my bills but wont be buying a mansion any time soon. So people like me are more likely to vote based on ideals...and a centrist party does not appeal to any ideals. So who exactly are labour trying to look after or represent?

Corbyn at least has a purpose and can appeal to people. He is not spineless and meaningless like the rest of his party.

 

[Shamwow]

A lot of it comes back to the question of how much parties should chase the vote (i.e. react to the wishes of voters), or focus on building a platform and then persuading voters that it is the right platform.

Corbyn voters might currently be out of step with Labour voters in general but is that because those Labour voters will never agree with the policies that a Corbyn led Labour would put forward, or is it because the debate is still to be had? I would say it's somewhere in between the two and there is really only one way to find out exactly where.

But... Labour simply will not win unless it is united, not matter what the policies are or who the leader is.

 

[Cheesy]

Membership =/= all of a party's support. There's a good chart (I think bishblaize posted it a few pages back) that shows how out of step Corbyn voters are with even the middling Labour voter. When Corbyn falls, the moderates need to stop feeling so entitled and put the effort in to getting those ordinary Labour voters signed up as supporters, something the Corbyn did exceptionally well with a smaller but far more active base. When you can actually alter the electorate to better your chances, that should be one of the main areas you put effort into.

No, but it does largely represent a core support base. The ones you will do the campaigning, and who (you'd expect), remain loyal to the party and commit themselves to it. And, in that sense, a majority supported Corbyn. Certainly, a lot more supported Corbyn than any of the other candidates.

Convincing his supporters that a more moderate option is viable will largely depend on how he's ousted. If he steps down of his own accord, and gives his blessing to a more moderate replacement, then they'll maybe get away with it, and only receive a moderate trouncing in 2020. If not though, then a lot of his supporters will probably sense foul play from people who were ultimately unwilling to settle for the membership's voice, and rightfully tell the others to piss off.

Labour may have a massive voter base, but many of those voters will continue to vote Labour for as long as they believe it's their best option. It's the core support who are there to remain loyal to the party, and whose views you should be building a party around. If many of them start to abandon ship...

 

[Smores]

A lot of it comes back to the question of how much parties should chase the vote (i.e. react to the wishes of voters), or focus on building a platform and then persuading voters that it is the right platform.

Corbyn voters might currently be out of step with Labour voters in general but is that because those Labour voters will never agree with the policies that a Corbyn led Labour would put forward, or is it because the debate is still to be had? I would say it's somewhere in between the two and there is really only one way to find out exactly where.

But... Labour simply will not win unless it is united, not matter what the policies are or who the leader is.

I think that's as fair assessment as I've seen in this thread recently.

I don't think many who rallied behind Corbyn, including myself, would be adverse to a change in leadership down the line if someone with substance is available.

The hope for me is that Corbyn continues to make the Tories seem increasingly driven by a right wing ideological agenda, the Tory leadership hopefuls easily fall into those categories. The narrative needs changing right now rather than aligning with it.

If Corbyn isn't polling well 18 months down the line a leadership election whereby someone like Dan Jarvis takes over wouldn't be the worst thing. It just can't be more sock puppet centrists.

 

[Sir Matt]

If Corbyn is outed I wont be voting Labour again unless his replacement is somewhere towards as left as he is.

There is less point voting for a party that doesn't listen to its supporters than there is voting for one who's supporters you don't agree with.

Labour as a whole embarassed itself with the whole leadership election and the abstaining stunt with the welfare vote. The reason Corbyn got in is precisely because of the sentence above. Yet they still show no signs of being aware of this, or are but just genuinely don't give a single ounce of shite about their own voters.

The main thing this has shown so far for me is how terrified the media are of an actual left wing party gaining any momentum.

Given the mechanics of the leadership election, Labour has to be concerned with far more than those who voted in that election since it's a minuscule part of the electorate. Only 422k people voted in the leadership election. Parties have to appeal to the average voter to win, which means that being more moderate gets more votes. They can continue to get the vast majority of their members and lose every election by a landslide.

 

[noodlehair]

Given the mechanics of the leadership election, Labour has to be concerned with far more than those who voted in that election since it's a minuscule part of the electorate. Only 422k people voted in the leadership election. Parties have to appeal to the average voter to win, which means that being more moderate gets more votes. They can continue to get the vast majority of their members and lose every election by a landslide.

Yes but we've already seen that being more moderate doesn't get you more votes...it just makes you pointless and spineless.

Look at Labour compared to the SNP in the last election. Who were Labour appealling to? There was literally no one who stood to benefit in any real way with Labour, and no one who had any idealistic reason to vote for them, because a) they ignored their own voters, and b) they didn't really have any purpose or ideal anyway...most of their manifesto was literally just vague jibberish. The only votes they got were people like me who had voted for them historically and weren't given a viable alternative.

How can a party have any strength or make any decisions on anything when it doesn't even stand for anything or anyone? The abstaining stunt summmed them up perfectly...completely pointless.

 

[bishblaize]

Yes but we've already seen that being more moderate doesn't get you more votes...it just makes you pointless and spineless.

Look at Labour compared to the SNP in the last election. Who were Labour appealling to? There was literally no one who stood to benefit in any real way with Labour, and no one who had any idealistic reason to vote for them, because a) they ignored their own voters, and b) they didn't really have any purpose or ideal anyway...most of their manifesto was literally just vague jibberish. The only votes they got were people like me who had voted for them historically and weren't given a viable alternative.

How can a party have any strength or make any decisions on anything when it doesn't even stand for anything or anyone? The abstaining stunt summmed them up perfectly...completely pointless.

You're falsely conflating the failings of Ed Miliband as a leader with the politics of the centre ground.

 

[noodlehair]

You're falsely conflating the failings of Ed Miliband as a leader with the politics of the centre ground.

No I'm not. The sad fact is Ed Miliband was leader because the rest of them are even less capable...but that's besides the point. Even with a strong leader they still need to have a purpose that says something a better than "meh, we'll just sort of, not do anything really"

During the leadership election they genuinely came across as a bunch of unintelligent jibbering idiots. Corbyn was the only one doing anything. It was bizarre

 

[bishblaize]

No, but it does largely represent a core support base. The ones you will do the campaigning, and who (you'd expect), remain loyal to the party and commit themselves to it. And, in that sense, a majority supported Corbyn. Certainly, a lot more supported Corbyn than any of the other candidates.

Convincing his supporters that a more moderate option is viable will largely depend on how he's ousted. If he steps down of his own accord, and gives his blessing to a more moderate replacement, then they'll maybe get away with it, and only receive a moderate trouncing in 2020. If not though, then a lot of his supporters will probably sense foul play from people who were ultimately unwilling to settle for the membership's voice, and rightfully tell the others to piss off.

Labour may have a massive voter base, but many of those voters will continue to vote Labour for as long as they believe it's their best option. It's the core support who are there to remain loyal to the party, and whose views you should be building a party around. If many of them start to abandon ship...

Half of our members joined in the last 6 months, three quarters of them in the last 5 years. So we're not talking long term support here. As cool as that is I'd be very cautious about calling them our core support at the expense of others.

 

[Ubik]

No, but it does largely represent a core support base. The ones you will do the campaigning, and who (you'd expect), remain loyal to the party and commit themselves to it. And, in that sense, a majority supported Corbyn. Certainly, a lot more supported Corbyn than any of the other candidates.

Convincing his supporters that a more moderate option is viable will largely depend on how he's ousted. If he steps down of his own accord, and gives his blessing to a more moderate replacement, then they'll maybe get away with it, and only receive a moderate trouncing in 2020. If not though, then a lot of his supporters will probably sense foul play from people who were ultimately unwilling to settle for the membership's voice, and rightfully tell the others to piss off.

Labour may have a massive voter base, but many of those voters will continue to vote Labour for as long as they believe it's their best option. It's the core support who are there to remain loyal to the party, and whose views you should be building a party around. If many of them start to abandon ship...

Turn this argument around though and think in terms of the Tories. They basically mirrored this exact pattern after getting destroyed in 97, choosing the young, intelligent but awkward candidate who'd largely fail to make a dent in the Labour support, then going further to the right with a rebellious eurosceptic backbencher in the form of IDS, much closer to the views of the membership than someone like Ken Clarke. They mistakenly thought that only by being "true conservatives" could they once again appeal to the wider public. Obviously this is not what happened, the public liked them even less and they had to change leaders quickly. It's when the membership thinks only in terms of what they want, rather than what the country might want, that these kind of things happen. The moderates do need to radically refresh their ideas over the coming few years though to be ready when Corbyn does fall, because it's perfectly true that what they're currently saying is failing to cut through at all.

I think that's as fair assessment as I've seen in this thread recently.

I don't think many who rallied behind Corbyn, including myself, would be adverse to a change in leadership down the line if someone with substance is available.

The hope for me is that Corbyn continues to make the Tories seem increasingly driven by a right wing ideological agenda, the Tory leadership hopefuls easily fall into those categories. The narrative needs changing right now rather than aligning with it.

If Corbyn isn't polling well 18 months down the line a leadership election whereby someone like Dan Jarvis takes over wouldn't be the worst thing. It just can't be more sock puppet centrists.

Dan Jarvis is a centrist though, unless you just meant he's not your garden variety Oxbridge type one.

 

[bishblaize]

No I'm not. The sad fact is Ed Miliband was leader because the rest of them are even less capable...but that's besides the point. Even with a strong leader they still need to have a purpose that says something a better than "meh, we'll just sort of, not do anything really"

During the leadership election they genuinely came across as a bunch of unintelligent jibbering idiots. Corbyn was the only one doing anything. It was bizarre

Again, you're conflating people with politics. That Corbyn came over best in the summer is undeniable. But speaking as someone who grew up surrounded by radical socialism, his politics are like photocopies of photocopies and he speaks like someone reciting what he heard Benn say during the 81 election, but who doesn't really understand the words. There's no sense of resolving the inherent paradoxes of socialism, or identifying how on earth socialism can integrate with an obviously global capitalist system. There's nothing coherent or complete about Corbyn's politics. But he was kindly and nice and people were attracted to him as a person.

 

[Cheesy]

Half of our members joined in the last 6 months, three quarters of them in the last 5 years. So we're not talking long term support here. As cool as that is I'd be very cautious about calling them our core support at the expense of others.

Perhaps, but even then, the membership is still, mostly, the core support. The ones who have joined in the past 6 months may be new...but they're still a lot more likely to be out campaigning and canvassing in the streets than general voters who aren't registered with the party.

The fact that Corbyn was able to spark this reaction among voters, unlike any of the other candidates, should also be quite telling. Simply by saying, "Yeah, I'm interested.", he managed to have more of an effect on membership than the other three candidates combined.

 

[Cheesy]

Turn this argument around though and think in terms of the Tories. They basically mirrored this exact pattern after getting destroyed in 97, choosing the young, intelligent but awkward candidate who'd largely fail to make a dent in the Labour support, then going further to the right with a rebellious eurosceptic backbencher in the form of IDS, much closer to the views of the membership than someone like Ken Clarke. They mistakenly thought that only by being "true conservatives" could they once again appeal to the wider public. Obviously this is not what happened, the public liked them even less and they had to change leaders quickly. It's when the membership thinks only in terms of what they want, rather than what the country might want, that these kind of things happen. The moderates do need to radically refresh their ideas over the coming few years though to be ready when Corbyn does fall, because it's perfectly true that what they're currently saying is failing to cut through at all.

Good points, but attitudes surrounding Labour and the Tories, and how they're perceived, are massively different. Far-left politicians, while they're surrounded by controversy, are often still a bit more appealing than far-right ones. Not to mention that IDS is a fairly horrible person, while Corbyn - whilst against surrounded by controversy - is generally perceived as being a decent, moral person, if not to a fault.

I feel the part in bold is a bit off the mark though. Why shouldn't a membership think about what they want? Isn't that the whole point of being in a political party? Granted, you've often got to give some concessions and accept you won't always get what you want, but it's easy to see why Labour left voters have become alienated when the centrist element of the party is so far away from what they believe in, and hasn't really been all that successful anyway. Centrist Labour may arguably be thinking in terms of what the country want...but it doesn't matter all that much, because like left Labour, it's incredibly unlikely they're going to be anywhere near power for a good while.

 

[noodlehair]

Again, you're conflating people with politics. That Corbyn came over best in the summer is undeniable. But speaking as someone who grew up surrounded by radical socialism, his politics are like photocopies of photocopies and he speaks like someone reciting what he heard Benn say during the 81 election, but who doesn't really understand the words. There's no sense of resolving the inherent paradoxes of socialism, or identifying how on earth socialism can integrate with an obviously global capitalist system. There's nothing coherent or complete about Corbyn's politics. But he was kindly and nice and people were attracted to him as a person.

THey were attracted to what he was saying. The reason he is now flailing is because he isn't really a strong enough character to back it up, which is summmed up by what you've just said about how you view him...he's started getting shot at and so far isn't coming back with enough conviction.

Supposing Labour had a strong leader but the same ideals/manifesto during the last election. Give me a reason why it would have been in my interest to vote for them? What people were they attempting to represent oor look after? You just can't have a strong leader when there is nothing meaningful to lead. It'd be llike trying to organise a protest march without anyone, including yourself, knowing what it is you're protesting about.

 

[bishblaize]

Perhaps, but even then, the membership is still, mostly, the core support. The ones who have joined in the past 6 months may be new...but they're still a lot more likely to be out campaigning and canvassing in the streets than general voters who aren't registered with the party.

The fact that Corbyn was able to spark this reaction among voters, unlike any of the other candidates, should also be quite telling. Simply by saying, "Yeah, I'm interested.", he managed to have more of an effect on membership than the other three candidates combined.

When Ed moved the party to the left, 100,000 people left unhappy with Labour, and about the same number joined because they liked the change. The reality is that wherever the party is on the political spectrum it will attract members who are also at that point on the spectrum.

Why shouldn't a membership think about what they want? Isn't that the whole point of being in a political party?

No, that's the basic problem here. When you join a political party you join it to serve the people that the Labour Party is here to serve, not to get your voice listened to internally. What kind of system would it be where the Labour Party only listens to your view if you stump up £45 a year for the privilege? Where paying makes you more important than someone who doesn't? Membership shouldn't be a way to make you more important to the party, it should be a commitment to a political movement to better the country. Its the entire membership that should be listening, and its the entire electorate we should be listening to.

Which isnt to say that internal democracy shouldn't happen as well. But internal democracy will only work if the members act as a way of listening to a far greater number of people who are not members, not just being a closed network of the privileged few.

 

[bishblaize]

THey were attracted to what he was saying. The reason he is now flailing is because he isn't really a strong enough character to back it up, which is summmed up by what you've just said about how you view him...he's started getting shot at and so far isn't coming back with enough conviction.

Supposing Labour had a strong leader but the same ideals/manifesto during the last election. Give me a reason why it would have been in my interest to vote for them? What people were they attempting to represent oor look after? You just can't have a strong leader when there is nothing meaningful to lead. It'd be llike trying to organise a protest march without anyone, including yourself, knowing what it is you're protesting about.

A strong leader wouldn't have had the same manifesto as Ed. Ed's manifesto was incoherent because he lacked any conviction in his politics, and so offered retail policies rather than a coherent vision.

 

[Ubik]

Good points, but attitudes surrounding Labour and the Tories, and how they're perceived, are massively different. Far-left politicians, while they're surrounded by controversy, are often still a bit more appealing than far-right ones. Not to mention that IDS is a fairly horrible person, while Corbyn - whilst against surrounded by controversy - is generally perceived as being a decent, moral person, if not to a fault.

I feel the part in bold is a bit off the mark though. Why shouldn't a membership think about what they want? Isn't that the whole point of being in a political party? Granted, you've often got to give some concessions and accept you won't always get what you want, but it's easy to see why Labour left voters have become alienated when the centrist element of the party is so far away from what they believe in, and hasn't really been all that successful anyway. Centrist Labour may arguably be thinking in terms of what the country want...but it doesn't matter all that much, because like left Labour, it's incredibly unlikely they're going to be anywhere near power for a good while.

*Only* in terms of what they want. Obviously there needs to be a coherence between the views of the membership and the programme you're offering, but if it doesn't have any bearing on what the country at large would like, what's the point?

As to your first point, I'd imagine this largely depends on which side of the argument you're on. McDonnell's very easy to dislike, and when ordinary voters hear that advisers to Corbyn include one that advocated supporting the "Class War" party and a former apologist for Stalinism, they'll not be thinking of cuddly hippy lefties. The far left can be every bit as hateful and violent as the right.

 

[Untied]

It basically comes back to how shitty our democracy is that the balance of power is held by a few hundred thousand middle-aged, middle-class voters in swing constituencies. Politics becomes a competition between the two main parties to offer a program that appeals to the narrow set of views held by those voters so that you can win an election.

Labour under Corbyn has definitely turned away from appealing to those voters for better or worse.

 

[bishblaize]

It basically comes back to how shitty our democracy is that the balance of power is held by a few hundred thousand middle-aged, middle-class voters in swing constituencies. Politics becomes a competition between the two main parties to offer a program that appeals to the narrow set of views held by those voters so that you can win an election.

Labour under Corbyn has definitely turned away from appealing to those voters for better or worse.

That's true up to a point, but as electoral systems go, its not too terrible. Its not like the US where (as far as I can tell) it seems to boil down to about half a dozen swing states and the rest don't matter. Labour had 418 seats in 1997 and the Tories had 165. Since then Labour have lost nearly 190 to the Tories and SNP, so there's a fair bit of churn in there.

 

[Untied]

That's true up to a point, but as electoral systems go, its not too terrible. Its not like the US where (as far as I can tell) it seems to boil down to about half a dozen swing states and the rest don't matter. Labour had 418 seats in 1997 and the Tories had 165. Since then Labour have lost nearly 190 to the Tories and SNP, so there's a fair bit of churn in there.

Fair point. I wouldn't wish US politics on anyone.

In terms of Labour's situation, they have found themselves in a real bind that there is no easy escape from. If they keep to the centre, unless the Tories cock things up in the next 5 years/there is another crash, they will not be sufficiently trusted on the economy by ex-New Labour voters to win, plus they will flake votes to UKIP as they are seen to not represent the working classes, and they will flake votes to the Greens and the SNP for not being left-wing enough.

The route Corbyn is taking could be even worse. They will not be trusted on the economy, they will lose even more 'New Labour' voters, who are turned off by a genuinely left-wing party, Corbyn seems to be a love/hate figure with UKIP voters (their voters are a disparate bunch of right wingers and working class voters) but probably won't win enough back to win many seats, he will win votes from the Greens but this won't swing any seats in his favour, and I suspect that although SNP voters will like his policies they'd rather continue to vote for Scottish interests.

In both situations Labour will need a good slice of luck to win in 2020. Their best hope is that the Lib Dems can rebuild in the south-west (not unlikely), that the economy crashes in 18/19 (possible), and that the full force of further spending cuts over the course of this government sees public services begin to buckle (possible). Strangely it might also be in Labour's interests for Britain to vote to leave the EU. That should kill UKIP, lead to a second Scottish referendum and probably an independent Scotland, which would also kill the SNP threat ("You'll end up with an SNP coalition if you vote Labour")

 

[Cheesy]

When Ed moved the party to the left, 100,000 people left unhappy with Labour, and about the same number joined because they liked the change. The reality is that wherever the party is on the political spectrum it will attract members who are also at that point on the spectrum.

No, that's the basic problem here. When you join a political party you join it to serve the people that the Labour Party is here to serve, not to get your voice listened to internally. What kind of system would it be where the Labour Party only listens to your view if you stump up £45 a year for the privilege? Where paying makes you more important than someone who doesn't? Membership shouldn't be a way to make you more important to the party, it should be a commitment to a political movement to better the country. Its the entire membership that should be listening, and its the entire electorate we should be listening to.

Which isnt to say that internal democracy shouldn't happen as well. But internal democracy will only work if the members act as a way of listening to a far greater number of people who are not members, not just being a closed network of the privileged few.

But unlike Miliband prompting mixed reactions within the membership, Corbyn pre-election was able to create an enormous level of support to the point that thousands were willing to join just to vote for him; something that happened for none of the others. And Corbyn didn't even need to do much either: just continue to exist, and be left-wing.

And I'm not expecting Labour to always act exactly as their members want, but the basic principles and ideas of a party should be based around its core support. The Labour party has to forge out some principles and ideas which it can make which appeal to voters as a strong alternative to the Tories, but if they don't listen to their membership, they're going to struggle. It's quite clear at the moment that the views of the parties MP's/major figures/backers varies massively from the core membership. Whether or not they're new doesn't matter...they are still, mostly, Labour's core support, and have elected Corbyn as their leader. The party should listen to those people, and at least try to build something with him, as opposed to looking to criticise him at every turn when the current tax credits climate is the perfect one in which Labour can strike against the Tories.

 

[Cheesy]

*Only* in terms of what they want. Obviously there needs to be a coherence between the views of the membership and the programme you're offering, but if it doesn't have any bearing on what the country at large would like, what's the point?

As to your first point, I'd imagine this largely depends on which side of the argument you're on. McDonnell's very easy to dislike, and when ordinary voters hear that advisers to Corbyn include one that advocated supporting the "Class War" party and a former apologist for Stalinism, they'll not be thinking of cuddly hippy lefties. The far left can be every bit as hateful and violent as the right.

Because the whole point of a political party existing is that it should have a set of beliefs and views which it largely revolves around. Yes, you adapt and evolve, but if your core membership leans in one particular direction (left-wing), and your party was largely founded as a socialist, left-leaning one, then going to the centre round for the sake of just being electable essentially makes you a group which change their views on a whim...which is largely what Labour have been doing in recent times. It comes back to the argument from before: yes, you need to appeal to the general public, but that doesn't have to involve merely adapting everything you believe in because you didn't get voted in. Part of that should be trying to frame your views and ideas in a positive, convincing manner so that the public start to support them.

Once Labour begin to think, "What's the most likely way in which we can make the country better, in a manner that reflects our beliefs and vision?", as opposed to, "What's the quickest route to power?", they may begin to gain some traction. They've got a long way to go before that happens though, and if they continue on their current track, will probably end up growing more and more irrelevant.

And aye, I'll give you McDonnell being a dodgy figure. Certainly a poor choice from Corbyn to put him in such a senior position.

 

[ThierryHenry]

Again, you're conflating people with politics. That Corbyn came over best in the summer is undeniable. But speaking as someone who grew up surrounded by radical socialism, his politics are like photocopies of photocopies and he speaks like someone reciting what he heard Benn say during the 81 election, but who doesn't really understand the words. There's no sense of resolving the inherent paradoxes of socialism, or identifying how on earth socialism can integrate with an obviously global capitalist system. There's nothing coherent or complete about Corbyn's politics. But he was kindly and nice and people were attracted to him as a person.

The more I hear from Corbyn the more I believe this. He's not as intelligent as I thought/ hoped he was.

 

[Ubik]

Because the whole point of a political party existing is that it should have a set of beliefs and views which it largely revolves around. Yes, you adapt and evolve, but if your core membership leans in one particular direction (left-wing), and your party was largely founded as a socialist, left-leaning one, then going to the centre round for the sake of just being electable essentially makes you a group which change their views on a whim...which is largely what Labour have been doing in recent times. It comes back to the argument from before: yes, you need to appeal to the general public, but that doesn't have to involve merely adapting everything you believe in because you didn't get voted in. Part of that should be trying to frame your views and ideas in a positive, convincing manner so that the public start to support them.

Once Labour begin to think, "What's the most likely way in which we can make the country better, in a manner that reflects our beliefs and vision?", as opposed to, "What's the quickest route to power?", they may begin to gain some traction. They've got a long way to go before that happens though, and if they continue on their current track, will probably end up growing more and more irrelevant.

And aye, I'll give you McDonnell being a dodgy figure. Certainly a poor choice from Corbyn to put him in such a senior position.

I fundamentally disagree there, it's hard to describe the process that moved Labour centrally in the 80s - after the party nearly ceased to exist because of the narrow minded, self-centred myopia of certain CLPs and figures in the PLP- as whimsical. It was based on a hell of a lot of research, strategic thinking and creativity. It also worked, and resulted in far more good than would have been achieved had the Tories had untrammelled access to Downing Street.

 

[Red Dreams]

in the end you need to be where your beliefs are.

for example here I will vote for Bernie in the caucus. But if Hillary wins the nomination, I will vote for her.

The key is to vote.

 

[Cheesy]

I fundamentally disagree there, it's hard to describe the process that moved Labour centrally in the 80s - after the party nearly ceased to exist because of the narrow minded, self-centred myopia of certain CLPs and figures in the PLP- as whimsical. It was based on a hell of a lot of research, strategic thinking and creativity. It also worked, and resulted in far more good than would have been achieved had the Tories had untrammelled access to Downing Street.

To be fair, the party did have a sense of purpose in the Blair era...which is why they won three elections. In recent times though, they've been going through the motions. Backing down against the Tories on certain cuts because they feel it's what voters want was ridiculous, for example. Just completely and utterly backwards when you think about what Labour should be standing for.