next labour leader

[Classical Mechanic]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I think the Tories have ulterior motives regarding austerity. Economists have been critical of austerity and said that the recovery would have picked up far sooner with more spending, not less, but for the Tories, the slower rate of expansion of the economy was a price worth paying in their mission to use the deficit as an excuse to cut down the state. That's what I mean when I say they know it doesn't work.

In that sense this election just gone was a big gamble for them, which paid off enormously. You can partially attribute that to Labour spending 5 years rolling over and getting behind austerity instead of challenging it, which in the eyes of the electorate was effectively an admission of their culpability for the economic situation. Kendall's continued commitment to 'balancing the books' through spending cuts is a continuation of that.

Do you really believe that Kendal intends to shrink the state long term like the Tories?

I tend to think that she is simply smart enough to know what sells in the current market and that's how you get elected. The electorate think the Tory financial policy is working, rightly or wrongly, but the economy is highly likely to continue growing for the foreseeable. Corbyn will be on the sidelines telling the country how the Tories successful fiscal plan is wrong! He and Labour will look like a right bunch of jokers.

It is starting to become clear to me that the left wing ideologues actually think that Kendal is a Tory in disguise rather than just being a pragmatic politician who recognises the need to play the game to get into power, the you can start to make the changes you want. See the Tories this time round for reference.

 

[Ubik]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I think the Tories have ulterior motives regarding austerity. Economists have been critical of austerity and said that the recovery would have picked up far sooner with more spending, not less, but for the Tories, the slower rate of expansion of the economy was a price worth paying in their mission to use the deficit as an excuse to cut down the state. That's what I mean when I say they know it doesn't work.

In that sense this election just gone was a big gamble for them, which paid off enormously. You can partially attribute that to Labour spending 5 years rolling over and getting behind austerity instead of challenging it, which in the eyes of the electorate was effectively an admission of their culpability for the economic situation. Kendall's continued commitment to 'balancing the books' through spending cuts is a continuation of that.

Eh? They voted against every measure put forward by the Tories and constantly denied they'd overspent in office, often championing higher infrastructure spending to boost growth and getting the taxes flowing. They said there'd need to be spending cuts, yeah, but so did the great "enemy of austerity" the SNP, whose proposals at the last election would've actually resulted in a longer period of it than anyone else. And yes, the Conservatives likely did use the deficit as a reason for cutting down the state, they are fiscally conservative after all, but Labour constantly went after that as well with the "ideological cuts that are too far and too fast" line that was repeated endlessly for the first few years. They reverted to the budgetary responsibility line only when it was made clear that the public thought they were still way too profligate, by which time it was too late to really change minds. I can't emphasise this enough, but Labour cannot win back power unless the public trusts them with its money. Championing spending boosts in the current climate doesn't seem a likely win on that front.

*snip*

It is starting to become clear to me that the left wing ideologues actually think that Kendal is a Tory in disguise rather than just being a pragmatic politician who recognises the need to play the game to get into power, the you can start to make the changes you want. See the Tories this time round for reference.

It's becoming similar to the US Republicans branding their moderate wing RINOs, Republicans in Name Only. Anyone in their party that shows an ability to reach out beyond the base rightwingers is hounded like anything. Unfortunately seems to be the left that do it here.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Do you really believe that Kendal intends to shrink the state long term like the Tories?

I tend to think that she is simply smart enough to know what sells in the current market and that's how you get elected.

Ed lost because he was perceived as too left wing, too anti business and not a strong leader. The final point probably came down to his appearance more than anything else.

It is starting to become clear to me that the left wing ideologues actually think that Kendal is a Tory in disguise rather than just being a pragmatic politician who recognises the need to play the game when you get into power, the you can start to make the changes you want. See the Tories this time round for reference.

No I don't think she does, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the Tories aren't going for austerity because it works the best, they're doing it because it serves a political purpose. Kendall parroting it to get a bit of power just shows she's exactly the sort of politician people in this country are absolutely sick of.

As I've said before in this thread, it's ridiculously oversimplistic to say Ed lost the election for being too left wing or whatever. That's an opinion, not a statement of fact.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Eh? They voted against every measure put forward by the Tories and constantly denied they'd overspent in office, often championing higher infrastructure spending to boost growth and getting the taxes flowing. They said there'd need to be spending cuts, yeah, but so did the great "enemy of austerity" the SNP, whose proposals at the last election would've actually resulted in a longer period of it than anyone else. And yes, the Conservatives likely did use the deficit as a reason for cutting down the state, they are fiscally conservative after all, but Labour constantly went after that as well with the "ideological cuts that are too far and too fast" line that was repeated endlessly for the first few years. They reverted to the budgetary responsibility line only when it was made clear that the public thought they were still way too profligate, by which time it was too late to really change minds. I can't emphasise this enough, but Labour cannot win back power unless the public trusts them with its money. Championing spending boosts in the current climate doesn't seem a likely win on that front.

They lost the middle ground because they didn't fight the 'Labour caused the crisis' line hard enough and they lost portions of the left and the working classes because they accepted austerity. The only way they were going to recover was to come out fighting and defend spending, whilst admitting to where mistakes were made (PFI, bureaucracy in the NHS etc.) The idea that they could beat the Tories by doing the same thing but a little less so was deluded.

If the economy is still the big issue by the next election Labour will have to convince people that their economic plan is better than the Tory one, they won't do that if they basically admit that the Tory economic strategy vis-a-vis spending cuts is fine in principle. If two parties are offering similar things the incumbent has a huge advantage.

 

[Ubik]

They lost the middle ground because they didn't fight the 'Labour caused the crisis' line hard enough and they lost portions of the left and the working classes because they accepted austerity. The only way they were going to recover was to come out fighting and defend spending, whilst admitting to where mistakes were made (PFI, bureaucracy in the NHS etc.) The idea that they could beat the Tories by doing the same thing but a little less so was deluded.

If the economy is still the big issue by the next election Labour will have to convince people that their economic plan is better than the Tory one, they won't do that if they basically admit that the Tory economic strategy vis-a-vis spending cuts is fine in principle. If two parties are offering similar things the incumbent has a huge advantage.

They didn't fight it enough, I agree, but that's different to the austerity argument. I've not seen many people argue that there should have been no cuts at all when borrowing was at over 10% of GDP, the question was how you balanced the cuts with tax rises, the speed with which you cut so as not to choke off growth and how much you put into infrastructure to prod things along. Labour's 2010 plan was pretty sensible. A lot of their problems throughout the last parliament actually came from predicting doom from the Osborne strategy (mass unemployment, no growth) that soon turned into egg of their faces (low unemployment, high growth). The arguments of "yeah but you could've got the growth sooner with us, and you'd have better jobs" might be sound in principle, but to the public it looks like you're disappointed the bad stuff didn't happen.

The "if you copy the Tories, the electorate will just pick the real thing" argument is a bit of a fallacy to me, because your programmes as a whole are still going to be fairly different. It's probably getting a bit boring that I keep mentioning this but once again think of Labour accepting the Tory budget plans from 97 onwards - did they still do the same things with the money and power that the Tories would've? Would the Tories have introduced the minimum wage, tax credits and ramped up health spending? Doubt it. You can still have a distinctive programme even if you both accept a need to balance spending. Go take a look at the levels of deficits and debt in Scandinavian countries and then tell me you can't be a social democrat and accept budgetary responsibility at the same time.

 

[bishblaize]

I read a recent Smith Institute report on the reasons that Labour lost. (Linked here). There's all sorts of issues to debate in that report, and food for thought for all sides of the party. On pages 30 & 31 there's an analysis of what Labour has to do, electorally speaking, at the next election, which is frightening. To summarise

• After boundary changes, the Labour Party will probably need to win over 100 seats at the next election to get an overall majority (106 estimated)
• 92 of those will need to come straight from the Conservative Party, many of which are not currently marginals
• In the 92 seats in question, the Lib Dem and Greens have a combined vote of less than 10% in 82 of them. UKIP presence varies.

I'd be interested to hear if anyone here thinks that such an achievement is even possible, and if so how.

If the economy is still the big issue by the next election Labour will have to convince people that their economic plan is better than the Tory one, they won't do that if they basically admit that the Tory economic strategy vis-a-vis spending cuts is fine in principle. If two parties are offering similar things the incumbent has a huge advantage.

Not sure I follow your logic here. The Tories are the most trusted party with the economy, and trust in Labour with the economy is low. If Labour takes a position that is diametrically opposite to the Tories in principle, why would people follow them and not stick with the Tories? Particularly in the kind of areas Labour needs to reach to win the next election.

It's becoming similar to the US Republicans branding their moderate wing RINOs, Republicans in Name Only. Anyone in their party that shows an ability to reach out beyond the base rightwingers is hounded like anything. Unfortunately seems to be the left that do it here.

Indeed. And what the Republicans found last time round was that there's such a disconnect between party activists and everyone else that to be accepted by the party means being unacceptable to the wider public.

 

[The Mitcher]

Would Corbyn, and I know this is hypothetical, but say he was elected in 2020 at the age of 70-71 would he be our oldest prime minister ever? Or are some of the victorian ones older?

 

[sun_tzu]

Would Corbyn, and I know this is hypothetical, but say he was elected in 2020 at the age of 70-71 would he be our oldest prime minister ever? Or are some of the victorian ones older?

I think Gladstone was 84 when he left office... So 80 at the start of his 4th term?

 

[The Mitcher]

I think Gladstone was 84 when he left office... So 80 at the start of his 4th term?

Thanks for that

 

[Classical Mechanic]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...my-Corbyns-rule-it-turned-me-into-a-Tory.html

Interesting article on Corbyn.

*awaits execution from the left wing warriors*

 

[Kaos]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...my-Corbyns-rule-it-turned-me-into-a-Tory.html

Interesting article on Corbyn.

*awaits execution from the left wing warriors*

A) Its the Torygraph

B) She's talking about her experience in the seventies. Let's not forget that in the 80s Thatcher and Cameron were pretty cool with the idea of South African apartheid.

Next.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

A) Its the Torygraph

B) She's talking about her experience in the seventies. Let's not forget that in the 80s Thatcher and Cameron were pretty cool with the idea of South African apartheid.

Next.

Ahhh, exactly the response that I was expecting!

It is interesting to me that the the failings of socialism played out on a microlevel in Britain (if the report is accurate). Though really the point of the article is that Corbyn is still a dyed in the wool socialist.

 

[Kaos]

Ahhh, exactly the response that I was expecting!

It is interesting to me that the the failings of socialism played out on a microlevel in Britain (if the report is accurate). Though really the point of the article is that Corbyn is still a dyed in the wool socialist.

Again, the article is referring to when a young and idealistic Jeremy Corbyn was a Councillor during a time where the class politics was substantially different. Corbyn can be a self-proclaimed socialist but that's not to mean the country will turn into a Trotskyist experiment if he were elected prime minister. If people took the time to read up on his contemporary policies they'd see that they're no where near as radical as the media and his rivals depict them to be.

Cameron was pro-Apartheid, yet obviously that view isn't manifested in his politics today.

 

[bishblaize]

A) Its the Torygraph

B) She's talking about her experience in the seventies. Let's not forget that in the 80s Thatcher and Cameron were pretty cool with the idea of South African apartheid.

Next.

There's actually some interesting bits you can pull out of that, if you choose not to dismiss it entirely.

• Its not an article aimed at Labour voters, its aimed at Tory voters. It shows how they're seeing him and/or portraying him.
• It reminds us that the late 70s and early 80s were an awful time for public service delivery. If Labour, particularly Corbyn, is going to win non-left people over, there cannot be a starting assumption that going back to 70s/80s style public services is desirable.

 

[Kaos]

There's actually some interesting bits you can pull out of that, if you choose not to dismiss it entirely.

• Its not an article aimed at Labour voters, its aimed at Tory voters. It shows how they're seeing him and/or portraying him.
• It reminds us that the late 70s and early 80s were an awful time for public service delivery. If Labour, particularly Corbyn, is going to win non-left people over, there cannot be a starting assumption that going back to 70s/80s style public services is desirable.

I'm not surprised about the article considering the paper its published on, I don't expect many Labour voters to read the Telegraph. In fact as far as the recent smearing has gone, its not nearly as nasty and dismissive as the attacks Corbyn is receiving from his own party members.

Regarding your second point - the 70s and 80s were and irrelevant measuring stick to forecast what Corbyn's performance would be like as leader of the opposition or even Prime Minister today. You have to take into account that in the 80s, the left had positioned itself somewhat radically to counter Thatcher's equally radical and somewhat devastating policies inflicted upon the working classes. Furthermore, even if Corbyn wanted to instill the most radical of 'leftist policies', it simply wouldn't be made possible considering the makeup of the Labour party today compared to what it was decades ago.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

There's actually some interesting bits you can pull out of that, if you choose not to dismiss it entirely.

• Its not an article aimed at Labour voters, its aimed at Tory voters. It shows how they're seeing him and/or portraying him.
• It reminds us that the late 70s and early 80s were an awful time for public service delivery. If Labour, particularly Corbyn, is going to win non-left people over, there cannot be a starting assumption that going back to 70s/80s style public services is desirable.

The second point is key. A lot of people who lived through the 70s and 80s (the age bracket with most voters) despise the idea of unions full stop, they caused havoc in that era and you only have to look over at France currently to see a reminder of the disruption that unions cause. A left wing Labour party with strong union influence is completely unelectable.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Bo Jo's take on Corbyn

WOO-HOO! This Jeremy Corbyn business is utterly wonderful, isn’t it?

We Tories are watching the slo-mo hara-kiri of the Labour Party and we can’t believe our eyes.

There are huge numbers of Labour supporters who genuinely want their party to be led by a 66-year-old, muesli-munching, sandal-wearing Dave Spart, a ban-the-bomb, eat-the-rich throwback to the 1970s, a pogonomaniacal version of dear old Red Ken Livingstone.

Have they all gone mad? Are we witnessing a kind of political Jonestown mass suicide?

Well, before we all bust our pants with laughter, I think we should look a bit closer at Mr Corbyn.

There is a lesson in the current Corbomania.

There is a reason he strikes such a chord with the electorate, and that reason can be summed up in one word: Authenticity.

Whatever you say about the veteran MP for Islington, he has thought about his positions. He cares. And he puts his principles into practice.

A colleague told me how he was once on a long train trip with Corbyn and it came round to lunchtime: “He produced these sandwiches in a Tupperware box. Without saying a word he took out a knife, cut them in half, and pushed across my share. He really means it.”

And if we look back at the past 32 years since he came into Parliament, can we really say he has been as eccentric as all that?

Yes, he was one of the early campaigners against apartheid. Quite right, too — these days Mandela is regarded as a kind of modern saint.

Yes, he was in favour of bringing the IRA to the negotiating table, a view treated as semi-treacherous at the time.

These days he looks prescient — Martin McGuinness meets the Queen and no one bats an eyelid. Yes, he abominated the Iraq war and rebelled countless times against the government of Tony Blair.

But these days you look at what is happening in Iraq and Syria — the almost daily bombings and massacres — and you have to respect his judgment.

Sure, he spent decades campaigning for higher minimum wages for workers — and yet that ambition is now at the heart of Tory government policy.

Of course, he won’t actually win this leadership election. His ideas would be economically ruinous and would impose huge new taxes on working people.

But the reason he is doing so well is that by comparison with the other Labour leadership candidates — a bunch of relatively anaemic, gelatinous and vacillating opportunists — Jeremy Corbyn looks passionate and principled.

And that has lessons for everyone in politics.

The sandwich story made me laugh out loud. I can't tell if he is trolling or not.

 

[Grinner]

You've clearly never had a British rail sandwich.

:shudder

 

[Kaos]

Bo Jo's take on Corbyn

WOO-HOO! This Jeremy Corbyn business is utterly wonderful, isn’t it?

We Tories are watching the slo-mo hara-kiri of the Labour Party and we can’t believe our eyes.

There are huge numbers of Labour supporters who genuinely want their party to be led by a 66-year-old, muesli-munching, sandal-wearing Dave Spart, a ban-the-bomb, eat-the-rich throwback to the 1970s, a pogonomaniacal version of dear old Red Ken Livingstone.

Have they all gone mad? Are we witnessing a kind of political Jonestown mass suicide?

Well, before we all bust our pants with laughter, I think we should look a bit closer at Mr Corbyn.

There is a lesson in the current Corbomania.

There is a reason he strikes such a chord with the electorate, and that reason can be summed up in one word: Authenticity.

Whatever you say about the veteran MP for Islington, he has thought about his positions. He cares. And he puts his principles into practice.

A colleague told me how he was once on a long train trip with Corbyn and it came round to lunchtime: “He produced these sandwiches in a Tupperware box. Without saying a word he took out a knife, cut them in half, and pushed across my share. He really means it.”

And if we look back at the past 32 years since he came into Parliament, can we really say he has been as eccentric as all that?

Yes, he was one of the early campaigners against apartheid. Quite right, too — these days Mandela is regarded as a kind of modern saint.

Yes, he was in favour of bringing the IRA to the negotiating table, a view treated as semi-treacherous at the time.

These days he looks prescient — Martin McGuinness meets the Queen and no one bats an eyelid. Yes, he abominated the Iraq war and rebelled countless times against the government of Tony Blair.

But these days you look at what is happening in Iraq and Syria — the almost daily bombings and massacres — and you have to respect his judgment.

Sure, he spent decades campaigning for higher minimum wages for workers — and yet that ambition is now at the heart of Tory government policy.

Of course, he won’t actually win this leadership election. His ideas would be economically ruinous and would impose huge new taxes on working people.

But the reason he is doing so well is that by comparison with the other Labour leadership candidates — a bunch of relatively anaemic, gelatinous and vacillating opportunists — Jeremy Corbyn looks passionate and principled.

And that has lessons for everyone in politics.

The sandwich story made me laugh out loud. I can't tell if he is trolling or not.

I can't stand Bojo the clown but that was a fairly dignified and dare I say - classy statement by him. Corbyn's supposed party comrades could learn a thing or two about class and decency from him, ironically.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

You've clearly never had a British rail sandwich.

:shudder

Don't worry the rail service has been privatised now so you can buy a 7/10 sandwich for about £10.

 

[bishblaize]

I'm not surprised about the article considering the paper its published on, I don't expect many Labour voters to read the Telegraph. In fact as far as the recent smearing has gone, its not nearly as nasty and dismissive as the attacks Corbyn is receiving from his own party members.

The Torygraph have been shit-stirring for weeks actually. But they're very relaxed in their attacks for no other reason than they see no threat there. Indeed they'd love Corbyn to win, but they cant go as far as actually pretending they like him (most of the time).

Regarding your second point - the 70s and 80s were and irrelevant measuring stick to forecast what Corbyn's performance would be like as leader of the opposition or even Prime Minister today. You have to take into account that in the 80s, the left had positioned itself somewhat radically to counter Thatcher's equally radical and somewhat devastating policies inflicted upon the working classes. Furthermore, even if Corbyn wanted to instill the most radical of 'leftist policies', it simply wouldn't be made possible considering the makeup of the Labour party today compared to what it was decades ago.

Labour's far left position in the 80s wasn't do with a reaction against Thatcher. The reason the party moved to the left was primarily due to the drag factor of the Unions & Militant in the mid to late 70s. The former had Callaghan over a barrel with his slim majority in the late 70s, Winter of Discontent an all that. The latter had been increasing their presence at the grassroots party level since the mid 70. After all the SDP split happened in 81, which was the point when the centre left elements of the party had had too much. It moved back towards the centre from 83 onwards with Kinnock.

 

[SteveJ]

He couches the stuff about minimum wages and the fight against apartheid in terms that suggest these were wacky ideas, FFS.

 

[soap]

He couches the stuff about minimum wages and the fight against apartheid in terms that suggest these were wacky ideas, FFS.

I think he's just saying they were considered a bit whacky at the time when Corbyn initially supported them

 

[Grinner]

I don't think being against apartheid was ever wacky.

 

[SteveJ]

Also noted the tone of bemused near-regret on mentioning that Mandela is considered to be a kind of saint.

 

[bishblaize]

Corbyn's supposed party comrades could learn a thing or two about class and decency from him, ironically.

didn't you call Kendall a "vile wench" last week?

 

[Kaos]

didn't you call Kendall a "vile wench" last week?

I did, but I'm not a labour candidate, just a bitter prosecco socialist . Not to mention that was in response to her petty smearing of Corbyn.

I'd expect class from his fellow candidates, instead its been a witch hunt.

 

[Ubik]

didn't you call Kendall a "vile wench" last week?

It's been symptomatic of the left's attacks on her, unfortunately. Was Burnham supporters initially, seem to have drifted over to Corbyn now.

As regards to that earlier article - I don't think the past needs to be dredged up to criticise Corbyn personally, plenty has changed since then and I've seen nothing to suggest he's anything but a decent and genuine bloke. I just think he'd be a disaster for the party.

 

[sun_tzu]

Renationalising the railways...
Oh dear I spat my coffee with laughter when I saw that.
I do a lot of work in the rail industry... Its a complete non starter

 

[Untied]

Renationalising the railways...
Oh dear I spat my coffee with laughter when I saw that.
I do a lot of work in the rail industry... Its a complete non starter

Yes. Much better to have foreign state owned companies running franchises for profit

 

[sun_tzu]

Yes. Much better to have foreign state owned companies running franchises for profit

As in you actually have enough qualified people to run it safely... Yes it is (I'm assuming you don't work in the industry right?)

 

[Untied]

As in you actually have enough qualified people to run it safely... Yes it is

So Britain doesn't have the expertise to run its own railways?

Edit: If so our education system is truly failing.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

The Tory attitude towards Corbyn is one I find interesting. They've clearly been told to treat him as deferentially as possible in order to give off the air that Corbyn is not a threat to their party -- and, in the short-term future, he almost certainly isn't. But I do believe five years of Corbyn will be very good for the Labour party (and Britain as a whole). It will reignite actual debate within parliament, about the most important issues. None of the other candidates, Labour though they are, will oppose Cameron as staunchly on so many topics as Corbyn will. Corbyn won't be prime minister, but he will be an excellent leader of the opposition. He'll leave the party in better shape for whoever comes after him.

 

[sun_tzu]

So Britain doesn't have the expertise to run its own railways?

100%
Not one of the consortia bidding for hs2 does not contain a major foreign contractor because we don't have the expertise and we have identified a massive delivery skills shortage that will need to be supplemented by their foreign subbies
Factor in most rail and design engineers are employed in private companies... Many like my own engineers work on rail as well as many more lucrative and interesting sectors and I cant see any leaving to work for a new network rail unless there are 25% payrise to be had... And even then you would only get a fraction of what you need... And when they came to us for extra resource we would charge accordingly
Similarly the plant needed for things such as electrification is super specialist... It costs a fortune and the only people who have it are the very major contractors... Again they would charge a fortune or switch it to jobs abroad
So yeah 100% we could not just renationalise and run a safe railway... And it would cost a lot of money

 

[bishblaize]

The Tory attitude towards Corbyn is one I find interesting. They've clearly been told to treat him as deferentially as possible in order to give off the air that Corbyn is not a threat to their party -- and, in the short-term future, he almost certainly isn't. But I do believe five years of Corbyn will be very good for the Labour party (and Britain as a whole). It will reignite actual debate within parliament, about the most important issues. None of the other candidates, Labour though they are, will oppose Cameron as staunchly on so many topics as Corbyn will. Corbyn won't be prime minister, but he will be an excellent leader of the opposition. He'll leave the party in better shape for whoever comes after him.

Corbyn has very little support from other Labour MPs. Which means that he will certainly not be good for the party in Parliament, because he won't have a unanimous voice behind him. You can't lead the debate in parliament without the party united behind you. And you certainly cant oppose the Government when your own party doesn't agree with you.

At best he'll have a quiet party who fail to relay his message. Very likely he'll have a divided party who will work against him behind the scenes. He'll probably have difficulty assembling a shadow cabinet, and there's an outside chance of facing defections, a coup or even a split. I doubt the last two personally but I doubt he'll have a united force behind him either. I suspect he'll leave the party how he found it, a party struggling to unite its members into a force capable of long term Government.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Corbyn has very little support from other Labour MPs. Which means that he will certainly not be good for the party in Parliament, because he won't have a unanimous voice behind him. You can't lead the debate in parliament without the party united behind you. And you certainly cant oppose the Government when your own party doesn't agree with you.

At best he'll have a quiet party who fail to relay his message. Very likely he'll have a divided party who will work against him behind the scenes. He'll probably have difficulty assembling a shadow cabinet, and there's an outside chance of facing defections, a coup or even a split. I doubt the last two personally but I doubt he'll have a united force behind him either. I suspect he'll leave the party how he found it, a party struggling to unite its members into a force capable of long term Government.

You're right in the sense that it would depend entirely on Corbyn's ability to command respect from the party. I think that if he were to actually win, then the rank and file of Labour would support him -- it's only natural that they're hesitant at this moment in time whilst they still have what they perceive as better options available to choose from. I also think Corbyn will acquiesce and move slightly to the right on most of his current positions -- he's not a fool and politics is all about compromise. If he wins (which I massively doubt) then he will compromise on certain issues in order to get his party members on side.

I think it's all academic anyway, Burnham will almost certainly win -- and that, in my opinion, will be very bad for the Labour party.

 

[DOTA]

You're right in the sense that it would depend entirely on Corbyn's ability to command respect from the party. I think that if he were to actually win, then the rank and file of Labour would support him -- it's only natural that they're hesitant at this moment in time whilst they still have what they perceive as better options available to choose from. I also think Corbyn will acquiesce and move slightly to the right on most of his current positions -- he's not a fool and politics is all about compromise. If he wins (which I massively doubt) then he will compromise on certain issues in order to get his party members on side.

I think it's all academic anyway, Burnham will almost certainly win -- and that, in my opinion, will be very bad for the Labour party.

Maybe Cooper but, yeah, Corbyn is still unlikely and Kendall looks out of it. Sadly, the only two who are really being talked about are Corbyn and Kendall. It's not much of a debate.

 

[sun_tzu]

Maybe Cooper but, yeah, Corbyn is still unlikely and Kendall looks out of it. Sadly, the only two who are really being talked about are Corbyn and Kendall. It's not much of a debate.

Av votes tend to end up with who people hate least which can be rather different from who they like most

 

[DOTA]

Av votes tend to end up with who people hate least which can be rather different from who they like most

I know. I want a bit more scrutiny of those two, so we can decide which of them we hate the least.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Maybe Cooper but, yeah, Corbyn is still unlikely and Kendall looks out of it. Sadly, the only two who are really being talked about are Corbyn and Kendall. It's not much of a debate.

A choice between Burnham and Cooper isn't much of a choice, but instinctively I'd be inclined to go with Cooper. Everything about Burnham is off-putting to me.