Jeremy Corbyn secured enough in the nick of time, he's now on the ballot. At the very least, debates will be interesting.
next labour leader
- Thread starter sun_tzu
- Start date
I don't buy the idea that Corbyn would be unelectable. He's the antithesis of the power-hungry politician who betray their principles to further their own careers. I can see the fact that he's got a record of constantly defying party whips chiming with a lot of the people with whom Farage struck a chord with his anti-establishment rhetoric - people forget that in the Labour-Tory marginals UKIP consistently took 10-20% of the vote.
Also, whilst both Miliband and Balls were Labour hierarchy in the Brown years, Corbyn wasn't and so he's not open to the same level of attack on the grounds of 'you messed it up last time'. Ed alienated a lot of undecided voters because he wouldn't criticise the decisions Labour made under Brown (largely because doing so would be undermining both himself and his shadow-chancellor). Corbyn is legitimately a clean break from that administration.
Oh and also he comes across very well when he's speaking. He's clearly passionate, but he comes across very calm and intelligent.
Also, whilst both Miliband and Balls were Labour hierarchy in the Brown years, Corbyn wasn't and so he's not open to the same level of attack on the grounds of 'you messed it up last time'. Ed alienated a lot of undecided voters because he wouldn't criticise the decisions Labour made under Brown (largely because doing so would be undermining both himself and his shadow-chancellor). Corbyn is legitimately a clean break from that administration.
Oh and also he comes across very well when he's speaking. He's clearly passionate, but he comes across very calm and intelligent.
Good. It's hard to care who wins (as long as it's not Kendall), but at least there's a properly left wing voice in the debate.
Yada yada Islington Socialist yada yada Wants to bankrupt your children yada yada Long term Economic Plan.
Yada yada Islington Socialist yada yada Wants to bankrupt your children yada yada Long term Economic Plan.
I mean that's clearly the line the Mail and the Sun would come out with - but they did that with Miliband as well. The difference is Corbyn'll turn round and fight back, and do it convincingly.
Frankly the thing he said on newsnight to the effect of 'if you want good services people need to accept paying more tax' is a bit of common sense that Labour has been terrified to say for years. Part of the reason people don't trust them on spending is because they always say they'll spend but never say where the money'll come from.
We can hope. He's pretty much the only possibility of winning back significant SNP and Green votes in 2020, which is an interesting way of looking at it.
Not a total shock if he wins with the new voting system either - the current odds are ridiculous, might be worth a cheap bet (even for the purpose of cashing out down the road).
I quite like the look of Corbyn. He seems a bit more honest, and clear in his views.
He'd have a chance of winning some of those seats, but would lose countless more tory marginals.
Corbyn is the closest to myself in political views, but there is no chance I'll be voting for him. I really don't want Labour to be out of power for the next generation.
And here's an interesting chart:
Tempted to pay the membership fee just to vote for Corbyn.
Only £3 to vote.
@jeff_goldblum
@Stretford End Phil
Think it was you two who I spoke to about that essay I was doing? Here it is - in the end I didn't bother tidying it up much at all so there's probably a lot of flaws in it, figured you chaps would be as good as any to suggest changes! You'll notice the bit I aped from you, Jeff.
@Stretford End Phil
Think it was you two who I spoke to about that essay I was doing? Here it is - in the end I didn't bother tidying it up much at all so there's probably a lot of flaws in it, figured you chaps would be as good as any to suggest changes! You'll notice the bit I aped from you, Jeff.
Speaking to the BBC Sunday Politics show, UKIP's only MP, Douglas Carswell said: "Ukip's future lies in replacing a corporatist Labour Party. It is significant we came second in 120 seats, many of those seats in the north of England.
"The disaffection people in Scotland clearly feel towards the Labour Party doesn't stop at the border. It continues all the way down into the old Labour heartland."
Pretend you have no knowledge of who UKIP are and read that again. Does that to you sound as though UKIP should be a party who are arguably even more neo-liberal in their economic policy that the Conservative party? A party who's leader, ex-Tory Nigel Farage, is an avowed Thatcherite?
However, that is the reality. UKIP had a very strong showing in the north of England. Scotland have indeed rejected a corporatist Labour party, and have done so, overwhelmingly, in favour of the SNP. The north of England, the other part of Labour's traditional heartland, has also shown signs of doing the same. Ukip's vote share rose in Yorkshire by 13.8 per cent, by far the highest increase in vote share in the region.
Up until this point, I think Carswell is spot on. He then continues, “I think there is a tremendous future for Ukip in displacing the Labour Party with a sort of radical popular capitalism".
Douglas Carswell is known to play down the issue of immigration. Still, I doubt he believes the reason for UKIP success in the north of England is not their tough stance on immigration (and to an extent Britain's relationship with the EU as whole), and is instead due to their endorsement of even more extreme free market capitalism than seen under Thatcher.
If it's true that the same disaffection evidently felt in Scotland is also being felt in the north of England, why did aggrieved Scottish Labour and Lib Dem voters not also turn to UKIP? One obvious answer is they had the option of the centre-left SNP.
However, it would be ridiculous to conclude that the SNP's sweeping success north of the border would have been replicated in northern England, if only they had a viable equivalent. While the two regions are both traditional Labour strongholds, there are obviously big differences too. Even if we are to ignore the issue of Scottish independence, an equally obvious answer to the above question, is that Scotland has not been nearly as affected by immigration.
Immigration is a very important issue to a lot of English voters, particularly in working class areas, andis no small piece in the jigsaw that is hatred of Westminster. Surely, then, there is far greater room in these constituencies for a party who represent their socialist tendencies without being seen as part of the establishment, who are seen to gloss over the issue of immigration? Unfortunately their is also a widespread belief that "lefties let the door open for uncontrolled mass immigration". Not enough - in fact, nothing - is done in the mainstream political sphere to dispel this myth. The main points to do so are:
- Tony Blair opened the door to mass immigration. His policies were decidedly not those of a socialist.
- It is big business that benefit from mass immigration due to a surplus of labour driving wages down. Workers, particularly low-skilled ones, suffer from this.
- People on the left of the political spectrum tend to advise people not to blame immigrants who are just looking for a better life, but rather the politicians who've created such a climate. Those on the left are often more keen to against more unsavoury aspects of anti immigration rhetoric, so its easy for right wing media outlets to spin that as "PC gone mad liberals want open door immigration".
When did you last hear this being discussed on Question Time or Newsnight?
For Labour to reach out to working class voters in this way, they would need to admit how far their party had veered to the right. So they have instead ignore, and try to brush the issue under the carpet, further enranging voters. Their attempt this time inevitably came off as muddled, the infamous and much derided "Controls on Immigration" mug being a testament to that.
Tories can happily skirt around it as "the mess left by Labour" while their corporate paymasters benefit. Cameron missed all of his immigration targets massively. Its only really the SNP who brought mainstream attention to the idea of New Labour being "Tories in Red", despite the majority of the clued up electorate being well aware of this. The biggest party in England that can attack Labour from the left is the Green Party.
The 1.1m votes they gained in the general election still don't make them feel like much more than a fringe party. Granted, will likely try to legitimise themselves and not advocate some of their more radical policies. Still, I can't see them being the party to challenge for seats in the north. Dyed in the wool Labour types who lived through the miners strikes do not like being preached to about socialism by middle class southerners, which is what the Greens are seen as. Just the name, "Green", makes people think of GreenPeace, and that the party is only interested in environmental responsibility.
While the Greens rightly try to point out that tax-dodging and political corruption are just some of a myriad of things we should be worried about more than immigration, it is also worth noting that they are in no position to attack Labour over immigration from the left because, being idealists, they actually do support open borders.
There appears to be a gaping chasm between Labour and the Green Party. A chasm waiting to be filled.
"The disaffection people in Scotland clearly feel towards the Labour Party doesn't stop at the border. It continues all the way down into the old Labour heartland."
Pretend you have no knowledge of who UKIP are and read that again. Does that to you sound as though UKIP should be a party who are arguably even more neo-liberal in their economic policy that the Conservative party? A party who's leader, ex-Tory Nigel Farage, is an avowed Thatcherite?
However, that is the reality. UKIP had a very strong showing in the north of England. Scotland have indeed rejected a corporatist Labour party, and have done so, overwhelmingly, in favour of the SNP. The north of England, the other part of Labour's traditional heartland, has also shown signs of doing the same. Ukip's vote share rose in Yorkshire by 13.8 per cent, by far the highest increase in vote share in the region.
Up until this point, I think Carswell is spot on. He then continues, “I think there is a tremendous future for Ukip in displacing the Labour Party with a sort of radical popular capitalism".
Douglas Carswell is known to play down the issue of immigration. Still, I doubt he believes the reason for UKIP success in the north of England is not their tough stance on immigration (and to an extent Britain's relationship with the EU as whole), and is instead due to their endorsement of even more extreme free market capitalism than seen under Thatcher.
If it's true that the same disaffection evidently felt in Scotland is also being felt in the north of England, why did aggrieved Scottish Labour and Lib Dem voters not also turn to UKIP? One obvious answer is they had the option of the centre-left SNP.
However, it would be ridiculous to conclude that the SNP's sweeping success north of the border would have been replicated in northern England, if only they had a viable equivalent. While the two regions are both traditional Labour strongholds, there are obviously big differences too. Even if we are to ignore the issue of Scottish independence, an equally obvious answer to the above question, is that Scotland has not been nearly as affected by immigration.
Immigration is a very important issue to a lot of English voters, particularly in working class areas, andis no small piece in the jigsaw that is hatred of Westminster. Surely, then, there is far greater room in these constituencies for a party who represent their socialist tendencies without being seen as part of the establishment, who are seen to gloss over the issue of immigration? Unfortunately their is also a widespread belief that "lefties let the door open for uncontrolled mass immigration". Not enough - in fact, nothing - is done in the mainstream political sphere to dispel this myth. The main points to do so are:
- Tony Blair opened the door to mass immigration. His policies were decidedly not those of a socialist.
- It is big business that benefit from mass immigration due to a surplus of labour driving wages down. Workers, particularly low-skilled ones, suffer from this.
- People on the left of the political spectrum tend to advise people not to blame immigrants who are just looking for a better life, but rather the politicians who've created such a climate. Those on the left are often more keen to against more unsavoury aspects of anti immigration rhetoric, so its easy for right wing media outlets to spin that as "PC gone mad liberals want open door immigration".
When did you last hear this being discussed on Question Time or Newsnight?
For Labour to reach out to working class voters in this way, they would need to admit how far their party had veered to the right. So they have instead ignore, and try to brush the issue under the carpet, further enranging voters. Their attempt this time inevitably came off as muddled, the infamous and much derided "Controls on Immigration" mug being a testament to that.
Tories can happily skirt around it as "the mess left by Labour" while their corporate paymasters benefit. Cameron missed all of his immigration targets massively. Its only really the SNP who brought mainstream attention to the idea of New Labour being "Tories in Red", despite the majority of the clued up electorate being well aware of this. The biggest party in England that can attack Labour from the left is the Green Party.
The 1.1m votes they gained in the general election still don't make them feel like much more than a fringe party. Granted, will likely try to legitimise themselves and not advocate some of their more radical policies. Still, I can't see them being the party to challenge for seats in the north. Dyed in the wool Labour types who lived through the miners strikes do not like being preached to about socialism by middle class southerners, which is what the Greens are seen as. Just the name, "Green", makes people think of GreenPeace, and that the party is only interested in environmental responsibility.
While the Greens rightly try to point out that tax-dodging and political corruption are just some of a myriad of things we should be worried about more than immigration, it is also worth noting that they are in no position to attack Labour over immigration from the left because, being idealists, they actually do support open borders.
There appears to be a gaping chasm between Labour and the Green Party. A chasm waiting to be filled.
@soap - that looks good. The one thing I would say is that I think you need to qualify your statements about immigration being a big topic for working class voters. The reason it's a big topic amongst the working classes is because of issues like unemployment, long hours, low pay and high house/rent prices. Farage has targeted people affected by these things and in doing so harnessed a dissatisfaction which long pre-dates the Lisbon Treaty, helped in no small way by the fact that Labour left a lot of them behind in their shift to the right.
I'm kinda tempted to as well since Corbyn seems excellent...but then since I've been so against Labour recently I'd feel like a cheat for doing so.
Yeah I knew that as the area most in need of expansion. I'm not advocating taking UKIP's stance on immigration at all, which someone could probably contort those words to mean. Tried to add that in somewhere and couldnt get it to fit
The problem stems from a UK (main parties) politics position, it's no longer about what politicians and parties stand for, it's entirely about what they need to do to get elected. Labour look desperate at the moment to 'grab' voters that were lost to SNP, UKIP etc, ffs just be real, what do you really represent?
Yup and the left wing nuts are the reason I didn't vote labour this election, and the rate they're going the reason i'll vote conservative again the next election.
Labour didn't lose because they weren't left wing enough. The lost because they were too left wing.
What exactly was too left wing about them for you? I'm not saying you're wrong in thinking that's why they lost, although I personally think the main reason was Ed Miliband's awkwardness..
Having just read through some of Corbyn's Wiki, these three areas leapt out as candidates for media fodder:
- Corbyn is amenable to handing over the Falkland Islands to Argentina.
- Vice-Chair of the CND
- Columnist for the Morning Star.
-
- Corbyn is amenable to handing over the Falkland Islands to Argentina.
- Vice-Chair of the CND
- Columnist for the Morning Star.
-
Last edited:
That's probably how the right wing press will try to spin it but that's not his position. He's not in favour of handing the islands over, or for Falklanders to lose British nationality. He's called for discussion of the issue between British and the Argentinians, with the aim of preventing conflict and improving relations with Latin America. Regardless of whether anything comes out of it, having a dialogue open doesn't hurt anyone.
Unless he has moderated his position since 2013, i think you are being by far too generous in your summary of his intentions. An interview i have seen, suggests that Corbyn would push for shared sovereignty if not outright British withdrawal from the islands. This wouldn't be a left or right issue, even the Mirror would struggle to back a Labour PM with such an agenda.
I think I've seen the same interview. He never really suggests his preferred way forward. He mentions dual-administration as one of a few examples of how similar issues have been dealt with before and says that there should be discussions. One of the examples he cites is Gibraltar, which personally I'd think would be the best precedent.
You have to remember that his basic stance is anti-war and so his argument stems from that. Basically his view is that ruling out any discussion outright is more likely to lead to hostility than not giving it a go. If we open a 3-way dialogue between our government, the Falklanders and the Argentinians and the Argentinians don't want to hear about it then that's their prerogative. Similarly if the Falklanders follow suit with Gibraltar and use those talks to stone-wall any talk of dual-sovereignty or administration then that's fair enough too. Whilst people are talking they aren't fighting and all that.
He also made reference to Hong Kong. There exist channels for dialogue and cooperation at present, and the inhabitants have made their feelings pretty clear, so where does the need for this concession arise?
Given the both the political and electoral culture in the UK, foreign policy would be a negative for him. Admittedly it's not a particular strength for Cameron either, but then he won't be a candidate in 2020.
Last edited:
Is Cameron definitely not going to be a candidate?
So what does that make the SNP? Other than trident they are exactly the same.
More reading I'm afraid - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/07/nicola-sturgeon-right-about-retirement
I think he, quite cleverly imo, gives enough of an impression of an opinion while not actually giving much of a personal viewpoint because he can hide behind wit humorous lines in generalisations and observations.
He's always been like that, I remember he used to routinely denounce tabloids yet had a column in the sun, and now he's this lefty Scottish nationalist. He wishes he was Jerry Sadowitz crossed with George Carlin. He is neither. He's not been funny since he left Mock the Week, and hasn't been relevant for as long either. In my humble opinion of course.
What is there to discuss with Argentina on the subject? Or is he advocating a pointless discussion that wastes everyone's time? Surely wasting everyone's time on a pointless discussion won't be good for relations with Latin America? I assume you mean Argentina rather than Latin America, as Brazil for example absolutely do not give a feck about the Falkland Islands, or any discussion about it.
Its only really Argentina that cares isn't it. But at the same time I don't think a Prime Minister who is not averse to giving an island away who are British subjects and want to continue to be British subjects to a country that invaded them only 33 years ago, that is very recent memory. He might be unelectable on that, especially if the conservatives use that spin that they pulled on Milliband.
Yep agree with this.
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks he's a hack
Deputy race is shaping up to be even more of a clusterfeck than the leadership, 4 candidates outside the main two with over 20 nominations but there's a decent chance none of them will get on the ballot. MP nomination threshold is a load of shite.
Thatcher's popularity soared on the Falklands War, it invoked national sentiment at a period of economic challenge. To give away the Falklands or even open up that discussion I can only see as being political suicide.
Tbf there is evidence that it made her popular but she was going to win the election anyway.
Nah, her government was the most unpopular ever pre-Falklands. More so even than Heath's (who I had a sneaking respect for, just to show my own unpopularity).
I'm going off topic butGlad I'm not the only one who thinks he's a hack
The strange is I think he has some talent and I'd love his weirder parts (Ice fishing robot)on Mock The Week but as he got more popularity he just turned into a massive cnut or as you said a shite Jerry Sadowitz. Marcus Brigstocke put it nicely by saying clearly a agent got into Frankie's ear and convinced him that he was the most dangerous man on the planet. Where in reailty he was just doing jokes about disabled kids.
As politics he s a bit like Brand in that he doesn't really have any or the ones he does only seems to be workable in some weird science fiction utopia.(Although it's funny/awful listening to talk him about rebelling against system, knowing that he was working for The Sun).
But with all that said he is at least interesting. If you got an hour spare I would recommend watching this interview between Frankie and Richard Osman(Of Pointless)
They were still far more popular than Labour, who were suffering from the same problems the current lot are.
Yeah he really did become a cnut he became the act. To be honest I can't stand him, so I probably won't watch it
I dislike nationalists in general but at the moment the SNP are really getting on my tits. They've turned Scotland into tumblr They were still far more popular than Labour, who were suffering from the same problems the current lot are.
Yeah he really did become a cnut he became the act. To be honest I can't stand him, so I probably won't watch it
Fair enough.