Ahhh, hug a hoodie
Socialism with an iPad is particularly bad though
Love that quoteJeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Ahhh, hug a hoodie
Socialism with an iPad is particularly bad though
Love that quoteHe and his supporters aren't responsible until post 2020
Sorry but that is a cop out. The Tories have a small majority, a strong united opposition could work to mitigate the damage but JC'c election has ruled that out. It's on him now and the people who voted for him. You don't get to play pretend politics where choices have no consequences.
Maybe if opposition was just a period of empty gesturing this would be true. But actually building support and pressuring the government into mistakes is what a good opposition does, which means choosing your battles and being responsible in the eyes of the public. The Tory majority is tiny but they have almost free reign for this 5 years, the only impediment really being the far more organised Labour lords, and relying on an unelected body for opposition to government is not good politics.
It's a nice try but to absolve Corbyn of blame for however long his shambles continues is not going to wash.
Jeremy Corbyn signals 'democratic revolution' in Labour Party
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...ocratic-revolution-in-labour-party/ar-BBnhwAQ
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...ocratic-revolution-in-labour-party/ar-BBnhwAQ
The centrists are absolving themselves of blame by pinning it on the Corbyn. Im frustrated with the silly errors the leadership is making but the centrists managed to lose the last election and their only response has been to say "we need to be more like Conservatives" which betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what made New Labour successful. NL felt exciting, and genuinely new. It was the combination of ideas palatable to a large amount of the electorate with a sense of excitement that lead to its success. Given the failure of the four-times reheated New Labour ideas the members went for "excitement".
The centrists need to build a new platform that can capture the imagination before they hold the left wing of the party responsible. Labour needs both excitement and palatable ideas/message to win. Neither wing is offering both at the moment.
Yeah there is a lot of hand wringing from the centrists in the Labour party and PLP. They think all this undermining and negative briefing is somehow justified because they can't see Corbyn winning an election but what they are doing is ensuring that he and the party will fail. They failed at the leadership election and are now acting like utter cnuts about it but unfortunately Corbyn hasn't helped matters either and the people he is entrusting aren't acquitting themselves well.
I could probably live with 70% of his ideas but the other 30% are so out there that it makes it difficult to take him seriously. Even if I bought completely into his ideas, he is not the right man to build them into practical policies and win an election. This is a left wing pipe dream or some sort of political hallucination. The left wing voted for him so this is entirely on them though allowing him into the process given what they knew about him is a dereliction of duty on all those involved in him getting on the ballot.
So far it looks like,
He is overwhelmed by the role.
He has ignited a press frenzy of opposition to him.
His message is always being taken to its most negative implication.
He can't explain his thinking clearly.
He doesn't understand how to come across well in the media.
His decision making is weak and he needs more time than he will ever be given to decide his position and get his point across.
The people around him are serial feck ups and wasters that everyone knows are pretty much useless.
He has no idea how to deal with the PLP who know him and their confidence in him is so low he would walk a limbo contest.
His voting record within parliament is so bad that it is impossible for him to call on party unity on anything people disagree with him about because he personally showed none of it in the past. Which makes him a massive hypocrite.
I don't see how a person in public life can have such a lack of self awareness that he would ever think it was a good idea to stand for leader. The guy is a joke and until he leaves that joke is damaging the Labour party and costing the people it is supposed to try and help.
Lastly Corbyn you could at least shave off that awful scruffy beard you unbelievable smelly looking cnut.
The people who voted for him did that, the foolish, selfish, self righteous hypocrites.
No. You can't give the centre of the party a pass for its behaviour since Corbyn got elected just because you think those that voted for Corbyn made the wrong decision. You can argue all you want that they put into motion that the party will fail but you are ignoring 2 crucial points: The first being that no one can honestly say that any of the other 3 candidates were convincing and would win in 2020, Burnham who came second certainly wasn't. The second being that a visibly fractured party will never succeed and that is being created by the day 0 resignations and anti-Corbyn media briefings from "senior MPs". That is what I mean by ensuring. They think that he fail and so many of them are doing their best to make sure it happens.
The fact is that practically no one in this situation has acquitted themselves well.
Merits a Kane clapping gif. He's basically the candidate you'd craft if you wanted to bring down a political party from the inside.
What should happen, but presumably will not, is a rethink of a process whereby the leader of the Labour Parliamentary Party is chosen by an electorate whose views are wildly unrepresentative of the PLP. If you do succeed in planting a knife in poor Jeremy's shrinking back, how will you ensure that his successor doesn't hold similar views?
That's the problem, and why any toppling would have to wait until the voting membership are well aware of how bad the choice was. Though even then, you can see the ground already being prepared for the "he was never given a chance by the moderates" counter-argument. Recently defeated parties seem to prefer reaching for the warm blanket that makes them feel better.
If I had to guess I'd say the next leader will be from the soft-left, a less weird version of Ed. Basically where Burnham was trying to pitch. Still probably not going to win a general election but the membership nowadays think Ed was on the right of the party so what else is there to hope for.
He was never given a chance by the "moderates".
Yeah, that's the moderates main problem. Corbyn's been a bit terrible, and it'll make sense for him to go eventually, but the argument that he's never really been given much of a chance is...well, correct. They've had it in for him from day one.
It'd have made a lot more sense if they'd just sat back, and let Corbyn fail by himself. As it stands though, they can argue that the moderates haven't given Corbyn a chance and you'd be hard pressed to dispute them.
It'd have made a lot more sense if they'd just sat back, and let Corbyn fail by himself. As it stands though, they can argue that the moderates haven't given Corbyn a chance and you'd be hard pressed to dispute them.
How would that have made sense? Make it look like there was no dissent among any in the party to any of the things that would be so unpopular with the public that his failure was inevitable? Thereby tying any future leadership to the toxic image of his tenure? Sitting back means allowing the party's platform to be transformed, allowing the management structures to be taken over, allowing Andrew Fisher and Seumas Milne to be the brains and mouthpiece of the party. The main reason he gets so much criticism is that he makes so many stupid decisions. Just the sort of person you want unquestioned control over the main political opposition...
The one way it would make sense would be that yeah, it would leave no doubt as to where the blame lay. That isn't very useful though if he'd wrecked the party to the extent it lost massive ground in 2020 and couldn't regain it for another 10 years. And to most observers, the blame will be clear anyway.
I agree there were no outstanding candidates but that isn't an excuse to pick the worst one is it? Besides as I said above the Tories don't hold a huge majority and there will be opportunities to turn the tables on them for the sake of people Labour is supposed to want to protect.
What right does a man like Corbyn have to claim the loyalty of the MP's. He can't complain about their actions when he carried on in exactly the same way for most of his political career. He was previously a noise off stage and enjoyed that role now he is on the stage he is going to have to get used to the racket because whereas nobody paid much attention to him, the people making the noise now are better politicians than him and they are likely to be correct in their thinking more often than he is.
Those who voted for Corbyn have clearly acquitted themselves poorest of all though. If Labours support collapses and that is looking at least a possible consequence of electing him as Labour leader then UKIP could be the biggest winner. Corbyn's supporters will be very proud of that I bet.
The echo chamber which convinced many that Labour were definitely going to win the general election has met its equal in the one spelling doom for Corbyn. The latter has already encountered the law of diminishing returns only months into Corbyn's leadership.
Has anyone brought up the recent Ipsos-MORI poll which suggests that Labour have attracted, rather than lost, support since May, with 5% more people saying they'd vote Labour tomorrow than actually voted Labour in the election?
Has anyone brought up the recent Ipsos-MORI poll which suggests that Labour have attracted, rather than lost, support since May, with 5% more people saying they'd vote Labour tomorrow than actually voted Labour in the election?
Or not nominated him in the first place...
That's the same poll that has the Tories on 41% of the vote, which is 5% more than they polled in the general election, so there's not much to be happy about that there either. (Labour increased by only 3% btw)
Besides that misses a key point, which is that the Labour Party almost always gets more popular between elections than it does at general elections themselves. This excellent blog post looks at it in detail, but in a nutshell, only once in history has the Labour Party done better in an election than they were doing at this point, six months into the term (that was Blair in 1997 when everything went right for Labour). On average they lose 6.1 points at the polls compared to this point. Thats when in opposition. If you include their times in Government, they lose 8.4 points.
The Government also gets less popular mid-term, but more popular towards a GE. On average among all the parties, the Government gains an average of 3 points as the election grows near. Its called the swing back tendency.
Its a bit like judging the final result based on the score midway though. If its 0-0 with 10 minutes gone, you can't draw any conclusions. But if you're 3-0 down with 20 minutes gone, you can assume the game is lost.
The fact is that, judging from the polls (and, frankly, from this observer's judgement) Labour are headed to their worst ever defeat in 2020 and sub-30% is very likely.
I'm not suggesting that they were supposed to stand by and allow him to do whatever he wanted to the party with no opposition whatsoever, but there have been many people undermining Corbyn's leadership from day one. Yeah, he's been shite, but it doesn't particularly help his case when people within his own party are even more eager to jump on his back than opposition parties. Due to that, claims that he's been undermined by his party if he goes will hold some legitimacy when they're inevitably made.
I agree that Labour are on a bit of a downward spiral right now and are headed for defeat in 2020, but it could also equally be argued that we're barely even into the post-election stage. It took place 6 months ago, and Corbyn's only been leader for about two. If he was to last to 2020, which he won't admittedly, then he's only about 5% of the way through his tenure. Again, I'd be surprised if there's a massive improvement from Labour, but there's still a very long way to go before we're anywhere near the 2020 election.
I know the word deselection puts everyone on edge, but can we please get rid of Danczuk
He's doing far more damage to the party than Fisher's tweet
He's doing far more damage to the party than Fisher's tweet
Oh and more proof of how poor Corbyn's start has been, and also that the British public are complete nutcases (Boris' numbers)
Only five percent behind Putin on the negative rating... Just think how hated he will be by 2020 if he carries onOh and more proof of how poor Corbyn's start has been, and also that the British public are complete nutcases (Boris' numbers)
Oh and more proof of how poor Corbyn's start has been, and also that the British public are complete nutcases (Boris' numbers)
Boris has in spades what Corbyn is the antithesis of - charisma.
Just one of the many reasons why Corbyn was always going to be a disaster.
I mean he is more unpopular than George Osbourne and he is a nailed on reptilian shape shifter FFS.
Literally more unpopular than a pig fu[K€r
He was probably equal with his fellow Labour candidates for charisma to be fair, which reflects the dire state the party is in.
Not sure about that. I'm anti-Corbyn, but I reckon his nice guy personality would actually tell in the long run. If weren't for the policies.
Corbyn's actions could hardly be described as those intended to bridge the divide, indeed some of his appointments might be better described as intentionally provocative. One wonders if the moderates serve any greater purpose than camouflage, in which case their wilfulness if somewhat understandable.
Some posters have criticised Corbyn's mere nomination, yet i don't recall any of us on here speculating that he might actually win the thing. Whilst not a Labour partisan i did voice the opinion that he could have been of benefit to the wider debate, and you have to remember that Burnham was sweeping all before him during those early weeks (even Cooper was a clear second IIRC).
The numbers would seem to be a fair a representation, Obama and Boris being the leading two on the list.Eccentric Johnson may well be, but he's not the buffoon some accuse him of being, and if the Tories are smart they'll recognise that he's a better choice than Osborne.
But if i can digress for just a moment, what have people here thought about Farron since assuming the leadership? If not for Corbyn's presence on the scene i think he'd be coming under greater and quite justifiable scrutiny. It will be interesting to see if the Lib Lib Dems make any headway at all in the upcoming Oldham by-election.
Some posters have criticised Corbyn's mere nomination, yet i don't recall any of us on here speculating that he might actually win the thing. Whilst not a Labour partisan i did voice the opinion that he could have been of benefit to the wider debate, and you have to remember that Burnham was sweeping all before him during those early weeks (even Cooper was a clear second IIRC).
Oh and more proof of how poor Corbyn's start has been, and also that the British public are complete nutcases (Boris' numbers)
The numbers would seem to be a fair a representation, Obama and Boris being the leading two on the list.Eccentric Johnson may well be, but he's not the buffoon some accuse him of being, and if the Tories are smart they'll recognise that he's a better choice than Osborne.
But if i can digress for just a moment, what have people here thought about Farron since assuming the leadership? If not for Corbyn's presence on the scene i think he'd be coming under greater and quite justifiable scrutiny. It will be interesting to see if the Lib Lib Dems make any headway at all in the upcoming Oldham by-election.
Last edited:
What in the name of Bejesus is this? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/23/labour-to-create-social-media-guidelines-for-members
It's socialism with an I pad
That may never get old.
I don't think he's a buffoon. I think he's a very smart politician who has some views I am fundamentally opposed to. He's a self-professed elitist, who believes in the spirit of envy and greed, and is a financial sector apologist. On the plus side he likes large scale ego boosting public projects which are sometimes great (new routemaster) and sometimes a shambles (garden bridge).
I really haven't seen enough of Farron to comment. Is the general view that he's doing badly or just that he has such a low profile it's too early to judge?
The Lib Dems should find rebuilding fairly straightforward as they have basically no one left from the coalition. Labour and Green voters in the constituencies they lost to the Conservatives will probably rally around in 2020 as well. I'd expect them to win back a fair few of those seats.
I was wondering about Farron myself, and the Liberals in general, as they just seem to have disappeared. They need to get themselves in the headlines again.
Classic. We actually get a mainstream representative at the forefront of politics who isn't a slick talking twat from Eton and people claim he lacks charisma. I don't want our leader to be anything like Boris Johnson. The less like him the better. We should be trying to move away from that kind of sham politician, not complain when someone different comes along. He's a well-spoken, well educated and experienced man. Give him a chance ffs. Everyone banging on about how useless he's been are perpetuating this society where instant gratification is the norm and nothing else is acceptable. It doesn't make sense and clearly isn't working.
Trouble is, if they still think he's doing a good job and have a clear majority, little hope of ousting him any time soon. Will even a mauling in local elections and Scotland change their minds? Are they led by evidence? Doesn't help to be fair that people like me left the party after he was elected.
There hardly positive numbers John.
And once again, the heart of this issue:
I don't think he's any of those things.