next labour leader

[Kaos]

The greatest delusion of the far left is to think they're the only ones that care.

Its not so much about 'caring' as it is about principles and authenticity.

I wouldn't describe myself as far-left at all, I actually consider myself a centre-left eurosceptic with fluctuating views on certain issues. I also happen to think Corbyn is the only candidate who upholds any dignity or value and who's leadership would actually constitute as genuine 'opposition' as opposed to offering mild variations of the Tory government's views and policies. I know quite a few moderates who share this view.

 

[finneh]

Its not so much about 'caring' as it is about principles and authenticity.

I wouldn't describe myself as far-left at all, I actually consider myself a centre-left eurosceptic with fluctuating views on certain issues. I also happen to think Corbyn is the only candidate who upholds any dignity or value and who's leadership would actually constitute as genuine 'opposition' as opposed to offering mild variations of the Tory government's views and policies. I know quite a few moderates who share this view.

That's true. However the Country as a whole has no appetite to vehemently oppose what the Tories are doing. You have several factions from the SNP, Lib Dems, Greens etc who want something ranging from completely different to mildly different. Unless all these factions find a common ground which is very unlikely then having a party who drastically opposes what's currently happening is as pointless as the Green Party.

If you want something majorly different to what the Tories have offered and are implementing then you're living in the wrong Country. Nothing majorly different has won an election in decades, and almost certainly won't for decades. If you want something slightly different with a realistic chance of winning then pick a realistic candidate. If you want something majorly different then move abroad, because your co-inhabitants don't want the same.

If Labour want a chance, pick a somewhat moderate candidate who you prefer to the Tories. That and prey for some kind of economic meltdown.

 

[Fearless]

The greatest delusion of the far left is to think they're the only ones that care.

Absolutely true. The left's messianic ego is as sickening as their hypocrisy.

Jeremy Corbyn went to grammar school and left his wife cause she insisted that their child enjoyed the same standard of education.

Can't even run a family without cutting down the tulips.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

The Tories come up smelling of roses in the eyes of the majority of the electorate after today's economic report. Labour are going to look like right monkeys if Corbyn gets in and starts shouting that they are doing the economics wrong, further emphasising the belief that Labour are clueless on that front.

 

[Fearless]

Its not so much about 'caring' as it is about principles and authenticity.

I wouldn't describe myself as far-left at all, I actually consider myself a centre-left eurosceptic with fluctuating views on certain issues. I also happen to think Corbyn is the only candidate who upholds any dignity or value and who's leadership would actually constitute as genuine 'opposition' as opposed to offering mild variations of the Tory government's views and policies. I know quite a few moderates who share this view.

There's no dignity in sharing the same platform as racists.

 

[Crono]

That's true. However the Country as a whole has no appetite to vehemently oppose what the Tories are doing. You have several factions from the SNP, Lib Dems, Greens etc who want something ranging from completely different to mildly different. Unless all these factions find a common ground which is very unlikely then having a party who drastically opposes what's currently happening is as pointless as the Green Party.

If you want something majorly different to what the Tories have offered and are implementing then you're living in the wrong Country. Nothing majorly different has won an election in decades, and almost certainly won't for decades. If you want something slightly different with a realistic chance of winning then pick a realistic candidate. If you want something majorly different then move abroad, because your co-inhabitants don't want the same.

If Labour want a chance, pick a somewhat moderate candidate who you prefer to the Tories. That and prey for some kind of economic meltdown.

You are absolutely wrong that there is no appetite in this country for something significantly different from what the Tories are offering. Many studies into public opinion can prove that clearly. You obviously missed this article in the Independent last week:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...most-people-actually-agree-with-10407148.html

You are using fallacious logic and drawing the wrong conclusion by only considering votes in general elections as markers of public opinion.

 

[finneh]

You are absolutely wrong that there is no appetite in this country for something significantly different from what the Tories are offering. Many studies into public opinion can prove that clearly. You obviously missed this article in the Independent last week:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...most-people-actually-agree-with-10407148.html

You are using fallacious logic and drawing the wrong conclusion by only considering votes in general elections as markers of public opinion.

Of course people agree with some of the policies. If someone said to me "do you agree that we should spend more on the NHS", I'd say "hell yes". "What about education", "definitely". "Defense?", "fantastic". If someone said "do you agree that anyone earning significantly more than you should pay more tax". I'd say "yea why not". If someone said "do you want rent controls", I'd say "why not?". If someone asked me "do you support a £10 minimum living wage", I'd say "brilliant".

The problem is that overall people aren't idiots. People realise that these questions can't be answered in isolation, if someone said to me "do you support a £10b increase in NHS funding paid for by a 75% tax on earnings over £1m", I'd instantly say "that's flawed", despite in theory it being a great idea. Obviously their would be incredible public support for it (in theory), but that doesn't mean it's a workable policy that could or would generate more tax revenue. The mansion tax was a prime example of this; people realised that it would be completely unworkable, impossible to police and would generally cost more to implement than it would be worth. Naturally the Tories saw a great opportunity to create a more progressive SDLT levy and boom Labour's flagship policy became redundant. Likewise people weigh things up against each other "Corbyn wants to spend an extra £50b over the next Parliament... Where's he getting that money from..." That's when the Tories will have a simple rebuttal: same old Labour trying to spend, borrow and tax. People will believe them as we've already seen. Whether some people like it or not the public has an appetite for the current policy of "austerity" (otherwise known as not substantially increasing spending year on year); hell they voted for it.

Yes there are a large faction of people way to the left of centre and yes there are a faction of people way to the right. However these aren't the voters who decide elections. Most support for Corbyn in terms of current MP's comes from constituencies where they already had a comfortable majority. Whereas most support for Cameron comes from everywhere except London, the NE and Wales. The latter aren't places that decide elections; Nuneaton is, Henden is, Harrow East is, Sherwood is, Bolton West is, Keighley is. These aren't areas that have an appetite for something radical.

 

[Crono]

Of course people agree with some of the policies. If someone said to me "do you agree that we should spend more on the NHS", I'd say "hell yes". "What about education", "definitely". "Defense?", "fantastic". If someone said "do you agree that anyone earning significantly more than you should pay more tax". I'd say "yea why not". If someone said "do you want rent controls", I'd say "why not?". If someone asked me "do you support a £10 minimum living wage", I'd say "brilliant".

The problem is that overall people aren't idiots. People realise that these questions can't be answered in isolation, if someone said to me "do you support a £10b increase in NHS funding paid for by a 75% tax on earnings over £1m", I'd instantly say "that's flawed", despite in theory it being a great idea. Obviously their would be incredible public support for it (in theory), but that doesn't mean it's a workable policy that could or would generate more tax revenue. The mansion tax was a prime example of this; people realised that it would be completely unworkable, impossible to police and would generally cost more to implement than it would be worth. Naturally the Tories saw a great opportunity to create a more progressive SDLT levy and boom Labour's flagship policy became redundant. Likewise people weigh things up against each other "Corbyn wants to spend an extra £50b over the next Parliament... Where's he getting that money from..." That's when the Tories will have a simple rebuttal: same old Labour trying to spend, borrow and tax. People will believe them as we've already seen. Whether some people like it or not the public has an appetite for the current policy of "austerity" (otherwise known as not substantially increasing spending year on year); hell they voted for it.

Yes there are a large faction of people way to the left of centre and yes there are a faction of people way to the right. However these aren't the voters who decide elections. Most support for Corbyn in terms of current MP's comes from constituencies where they already had a comfortable majority. Whereas most support for Cameron comes from everywhere except London, the NE and Wales. The latter aren't places that decide elections; Nuneaton is, Henden is, Harrow East is, Sherwood is, Bolton West is, Keighley is. These aren't areas that have an appetite for something radical.

I don't like it but I'm not in denial of the fact that there is a widespread acceptance amongst the public of the Tory/Lib-Dem line that cutting government expenditure right now to balance the books is economically sound. What I do dispute is your assertion that there's no appetite for anything radically different to the Tory agenda and I think public polling data (though imperfect) such as (but not limited to) that referred to in The Independent, is good evidence to the contrary of that. Some of the majorities on those issues that are at complete odds with Tory policy are very substantial indeed. I think you are failing to consider some of the obvious reasons why people don't vote the way they poll so to speak, and why there is a chasm of difference electorally between a Labour leader suggesting X, Y or Z progressive policy and a Green leader suggesting the same.

 

[finneh]

I don't like it but I'm not in denial of the fact that there is a widespread acceptance amongst the public of the Tory/Lib-Dem line that cutting government expenditure right now to balance the books is economically sound. What I do dispute is your assertion that there's no appetite for anything radically different to the Tory agenda and I think public polling data (though imperfect) such as (but not limited to) that referred to in The Independent, is good evidence to the contrary of that. Some of the majorities on those issues that are at complete odds with Tory policy are very substantial indeed. I think you are failing to consider some of the obvious reasons why people don't vote the way they poll so to speak, and why there is a chasm of difference electorally between a Labour leader suggesting X, Y or Z progressive policy and a Green leader suggesting the same.

Again I think the fact that in the modern era the only parties who have been elected are those who have put forward a centrist manifesto.

If Labour go the Jeremy Corbyn route on the principle that they weren't left wing enough under Miliband then they are assuming several things. Firstly, that the majority of SNP voters would return to them and they'd reclaim c. 45 seats. Secondly the majority of Green voters would vote for Labour, giving them a further 10-15 seats. Thirdly that a large portion of UKIP supporters would bypass the several parties in the middle to vote for Labour, resulting in maybe 40 seats.

I wouldn't bet a penny on a single one of those things happening, let alone all three. Primarily because a lot of the arguments that Corbyn has been making will be redundant by 2020 anyway. He will be fighting a party who have increased the minimum wage to £9, increased NHS spending significantly & sanctioned relatively generous public sector pay rises in the last year or 2 of the Parliament. This against a backdrop of significantly more people in work, with pay increasing faster than inflation. I can't imagine a single group of people who aren't already staunch Labour backers that won't personally be much better off in 2019 vs 2010.

There's only really two ways to fight the Tories at the next election: on a purely ideological basis, which unless there's a huge change in the economical stability on the Country is going to very simple to counter-argue. Or from a centrist point of view that agrees with the Tory policies that the vast majority of the Country have accepted as having worked; evidenced by job creation/deficit reduction/GDP etc, but disagrees on fundamentally unpopular policies.

To be fair it's probably redundant anyway. If Liz Kendall won the Labour leadership election, she'd lose the 2020 election and the party would probably move left in appointing her successor; who actually has a chance in 2025. If they appoint Corbyn they'll lose more catastrophically and will probably appoint a Blairite successor who will have a chance in 2025. So ironically which ever way people vote this time round is probably condemning their own views to roughly 15 years of no political representation.

 

[soap]

To be fair it's probably redundant anyway. If Liz Kendall won the Labour leadership election, she'd lose the 2020 election and the party would probably move left in appointing her successor; who actually has a chance in 2025. If they appoint Corbyn they'll lose more catastrophically and will probably appoint a Blairite successor who will have a chance in 2025. So ironically which ever way people vote this time round is probably condemning their own views to roughly 15 years of no political representation.

Yeah good point. I kind of thought this myself. Seeing as Labour will probably lose no matter who the leader is it might not be such a bad thing for people on the left of the spectrum if a Blairite was in charge. Maybe. I dunno.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-lead-in-labour-leadership-race-10422523.html

Stormin' Corbyn. Still can't help feeling it won't happen.

 

[bishblaize]

CWU supporting Corbyn.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...on-backs-corbyn-as-antidote-to-blairite-virus

Hoping to rid Labour of the "virus" of Blair apparently.

 

[Smores]

CWU supporting Corbyn.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...on-backs-corbyn-as-antidote-to-blairite-virus

Hoping to rid Labour of the "virus" of Blair apparently.

Aye it's a nasty one the Blair virus, like a bad case of syphilis.

Momentum really is with Corbyn right now but If the election told me anything it's media hype does not necessarily mean votes. Albeit the press including thr Guardisn are hounding him so perhaps that's not really applicable.

They're all predictably quiet on Calais at the moment, it'll be another opportunity to rebrand as reasonably tough missed.

 

[Crono]

That's CWU and UNISON that have come out for Corbyn in the last couple of days.

Again I think the fact that in the modern era the only parties who have been elected are those who have put forward a centrist manifesto.

If Labour go the Jeremy Corbyn route on the principle that they weren't left wing enough under Miliband then they are assuming several things. Firstly, that the majority of SNP voters would return to them and they'd reclaim c. 45 seats. Secondly the majority of Green voters would vote for Labour, giving them a further 10-15 seats. Thirdly that a large portion of UKIP supporters would bypass the several parties in the middle to vote for Labour, resulting in maybe 40 seats.

I wouldn't bet a penny on a single one of those things happening, let alone all three. Primarily because a lot of the arguments that Corbyn has been making will be redundant by 2020 anyway. He will be fighting a party who have increased the minimum wage to £9, increased NHS spending significantly & sanctioned relatively generous public sector pay rises in the last year or 2 of the Parliament. This against a backdrop of significantly more people in work, with pay increasing faster than inflation. I can't imagine a single group of people who aren't already staunch Labour backers that won't personally be much better off in 2019 vs 2010.

There's only really two ways to fight the Tories at the next election: on a purely ideological basis, which unless there's a huge change in the economical stability on the Country is going to very simple to counter-argue. Or from a centrist point of view that agrees with the Tory policies that the vast majority of the Country have accepted as having worked; evidenced by job creation/deficit reduction/GDP etc, but disagrees on fundamentally unpopular policies.

To be fair it's probably redundant anyway. If Liz Kendall won the Labour leadership election, she'd lose the 2020 election and the party would probably move left in appointing her successor; who actually has a chance in 2025. If they appoint Corbyn they'll lose more catastrophically and will probably appoint a Blairite successor who will have a chance in 2025. So ironically which ever way people vote this time round is probably condemning their own views to roughly 15 years of no political representation.

I'm not clear on exactly what you mean by the modern era, but since no party other than Labour or Conservative has any realistic potential to win an election under FPTP, left-wing manifestos put forward by any other parties are irrelevant anyway. Since Kinnock was elected leader the PLP has moved rightwards year after year. How many left-wing manifestos have even been offered by the Labour Party in the 'modern era'? We know they've both won and lost with more centrist manifestos than leftist manifestos because that's all they put forward but I'm not seeing how any of this is good evidence for any meaningful conclusion to be drawn about the electoral viability of a left-wing led Labour Party.

I would bet a left-wing Labour Party would win a lot of Green and SNP voters over but there's no question they'd have to significantly increase voter turnout to win, and I don't see why this is out of the question. I would strongly disagree with your judgment that the Tories have moved far enough to the centre to make a left-wing Labour manifesto redundant.

 

[Crono]

Listen to this f*cking Blairite c*nt.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...labour-leader-who-cares-about-the-grassroots/

John McTernan: if Corbyn wins the Labour leadership, he should be deposed immediately


John McTernan is a Blairite who is not afraid to speak his mind. On this week’s View from 22 podcast, the former Labour special advisor discusses the state of Labour’s leadership contest with Isabel and me. He believes the right of the party is struggling as it failed to put forward a suitably experienced candidate ‘because David Miliband left the Commons in the last Parliament’:

‘If David had stayed and served in Ed’s shadow cabinet, David would have been the candidate wouldn’t he? There wouldn’t have really been a contest and I think the vagaries of people’s personal career choices has a big impact on where we are.’

McTernan describes the nomination of Jeremy Corbyn by Labour MPs as ‘self-indulgent’ and still doesn’t think he will win. But if Corbyn is victorious, McTernan says he should be removed immediately:

‘I can’t see any case for letting him have two minutes in office, let alone two years in office because I think the damage that will be done to the Labour party in that period makes it incredibly hard to recover … it just beggars belief that there isn’t something that, in the unlikely event Corbyn wins, there is something is done swiftly and quickly to restore the party to its sense.’

‘How the Labour party in the twenty first century, at a time when Putin is at his most aggressive, can consider electing a leader who would take us out of Nato I have no idea, genuinely no idea —somebody who cannot fund his promises; doesn’t even pretend to fund his promises. Why is that acceptable for the Labour party and why party members of all sorts think that is acceptable to the electorate I have no idea.’

But what if the party’s grassroots were unhappy at this? McTernan doesn’t think they matter:

‘Yeah but who cares about the grassroots? The leader is one who determines the saleability of the Labour party. Nobody is voting for Tumbleweed CLP. They are all voting for the leader, they are voting for a potential Prime Minister and a leader who can’t control the party, can’t control conference isn’t fit to run the party yet alone the country, but obviously if you get a strong leader, it doesn’t really matter what the grassroots say.

‘And the majority of party members do like being in power. They like in power at local levels, they like being in power in devolved administrations, they like being in power in central government.’

McTernan describes Corbyn’s popularity as a ‘strange psychological emotional spasm’, which he believes is grief-related because ‘so many people believed Labour were going to win this election’. As well as this, he says the party’s previous two leaders have to shoulder some of the blame for the current splits:

‘The terrible disservice that Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband and other people in leadership positions did to the Labour party was that they trashed the reputation of a Labour government that lasted from 1997 – 2010. They not only trashed it by refusing to defend it, they disowned it.’

 

[bishblaize]

I would bet a left-wing Labour Party would win a lot of Green and SNP voters over but there's no question they'd have to significantly increase voter turnout to win, and I don't see why this is out of the question.

Do you personally think thats enough to put Labour into Government?

 

[finneh]

I'm not clear on exactly what you mean by the modern era, but since no party other than Labour or Conservative has any realistic potential to win an election under FPTP, left-wing manifestos put forward by any other parties are irrelevant anyway. Since Kinnock was elected leader the PLP has moved rightwards year after year. How many left-wing manifestos have even been offered by the Labour Party in the 'modern era'? We know they've both won and lost with more centrist manifestos than leftist manifestos because that's all they put forward but I'm not seeing how any of this is good evidence for any meaningful conclusion to be drawn about the electoral viability of a left-wing led Labour Party.

I would bet a left-wing Labour Party would win a lot of Green and SNP voters over but there's no question they'd have to significantly increase voter turnout to win, and I don't see why this is out of the question. I would strongly disagree with your judgment that the Tories have moved far enough to the centre to make a left-wing Labour manifesto redundant.

Of course left wing manifestos aren't irrelevant. If the Country has an appetite for it they'll get copious amounts of votes; see the SNP in Scotland (a Country that does have an appetite for left wing policies) and to a lesser extent UKIP (in terms of votes, not seats). The reason manifestos have gotten less and less extreme (left & right) is because politicians actually want to get elected.

Would a left wing Labour party win a lot of Green/SNP votes? Of course. But would it also lose a lot of centrist Labour supporters, as well as centrist Lib Dem supporters that voted for them after the Nick Clegg debacle? Also yes. Likewise it is unlikely to win many UKIP supporters back of which there were more of than the SNP and the Greens combined. Plus the areas that Labour need to win in order to actually hold Government aren't hanging in the balance of Green/SNP votes. The are mostly middle England who have an appetite for nothing more than any improvement on their families economic stability (of which they'll get over the next five years).

Labour under a Corbyn led Government are essentially praying that not only do a huge % of none voters (clue is in the name) turn out and vote for them (as well as the aforementioned Green/SNP/LD etc); but also a % of none voters who dislike radical policies continue to stay at home. My view is that for every none voter inspired into voting for Corbyn, there'd be a none voter inspired to vote against him for fear of him completely screwing up a growing economy.

 

[Cheesy]

Listen to this f*cking Blairite c*nt.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...labour-leader-who-cares-about-the-grassroots/

McTernan's a bit of a joke tbf.

 

[Drifter]

Backing from Unison, Unite and now TSSA .Can Corbyn be stopped.

 

[ThierryHenry]

Guy I know in the Cooper campaign thinks she'll drop out at some point to back Burnham, all but guaranteeing him the election. Makes a lot of sense, can definitely see it happening.

 

[soap]

Guy I know in the Cooper campaign thinks she'll drop out at some point to back Burnham, all but guaranteeing him the election. Makes a lot of sense, can definitely see it happening.

Too late, perhaps? The registration is still open for a while, and I'd guess most of those who will jump on the bandwagon late will be Corbyn supporters.

 

[Ubik]

Wouldn't make a huge amount of sense either given it's a preferential voting system, endorsements always ring kind of hollow when you drop out late on as well. And she had that outburst at Falconer regarding 'leaving it to the boys'. Have to say all these machinations rumoured against Corbyn are highly annoying, if he wins then he wins, fairly and squarely, and it should be respected. I think he would be a disaster, but talk of deposing him before he's even won is exactly the kind of reason people are so put off with Labour that they're voting for him.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Backing from Unison, Unite and now TSSA .Can Corbyn be stopped.

Maybe not from getting into power within Labour but as far as him becoming a significant political force in the UK, I don't even think he can get started.

 

[Cheesy]

Wouldn't make a huge amount of sense either given it's a preferential voting system, endorsements always ring kind of hollow when you drop out late on as well. And she had that outburst at Falconer regarding 'leaving it to the boys'. Have to say all these machinations rumoured against Corbyn are highly annoying, if he wins then he wins, fairly and squarely, and it should be respected. I think he would be a disaster, but talk of deposing him before he's even won is exactly the kind of reason people are so put off with Labour that they're voting for him.

Aye, Cooper suddenly dropping out to endorse Burnham would come across as very shallow and hollow when she's been trying to get the position he wants for the last few months.

As you say, immediately deposing Corbyn would be a bit of a joke. It would be further evidence that the higher echelons of Labour have a complete disconnect from the average voter within the party who hypothetically may go for Corbyn.

 

[Crono]

Do you personally think thats enough to put Labour into Government?

Personally - no I wouldn't bet it will be enough to put Labour into the next government, but I don't think any of the Blairites will get in either. I do think a leftist Labour Party has the potential to win a majority though. Corbyn's election will be important for other reasons.

Of course left wing manifestos aren't irrelevant. If the Country has an appetite for it they'll get copious amounts of votes; see the SNP in Scotland (a Country that does have an appetite for left wing policies) and to a lesser extent UKIP (in terms of votes, not seats). The reason manifestos have gotten less and less extreme (left & right) is because politicians actually want to get elected.

Would a left wing Labour party win a lot of Green/SNP votes? Of course. But would it also lose a lot of centrist Labour supporters, as well as centrist Lib Dem supporters that voted for them after the Nick Clegg debacle? Also yes. Likewise it is unlikely to win many UKIP supporters back of which there were more of than the SNP and the Greens combined. Plus the areas that Labour need to win in order to actually hold Government aren't hanging in the balance of Green/SNP votes. The are mostly middle England who have an appetite for nothing more than any improvement on their families economic stability (of which they'll get over the next five years).

Labour under a Corbyn led Government are essentially praying that not only do a huge % of none voters (clue is in the name) turn out and vote for them (as well as the aforementioned Green/SNP/LD etc); but also a % of none voters who dislike radical policies continue to stay at home. My view is that for every none voter inspired into voting for Corbyn, there'd be a none voter inspired to vote against him for fear of him completely screwing up a growing economy.

We're not talking about unprecedented turnouts. It was under Blair that turnout fell to under 60% for the first time since the working-class had the vote. We're at 66% as of the latest election, the average before 2001 was 76.3%.

 

[finneh]

We're not talking about unprecedented turnouts. It was under Blair that turnout fell to under 60% for the first time since the working-class had the vote. We're at 66% as of the latest election, the average before 2001 was 76.3%.

The point remains though: why would the majority of these people who clearly aren't too bothered about politics suddenly turn out to vote for what is widely recognised to be radical policies? Surely if all these people were left wing enough to vote for Corbyn, they'd have voted against the Tories at the last election (either green or labour).

It's far more likely that if another million people voted at the next election, there'd be at least as many voting Tory to avoid Corbyn as voting Labour for him.

 

[bishblaize]

I do think a leftist Labour Party has the potential to win a majority though.

What's your reason for thinking that?

 

[Crono]

The point remains though: why would the majority of these people who clearly aren't too bothered about politics suddenly turn out to vote for what is widely recognised to be radical policies? Surely if all these people were left wing enough to vote for Corbyn, they'd have voted against the Tories at the last election (either green or labour).

It's far more likely that if another million people voted at the next election, there'd be at least as many voting Tory to avoid Corbyn as voting Labour for him.

Basically because I think public opinion reflected in polling data demonstrates popularity for left-wing policies; and that is even as the arguments for them are not part of the public discourse, except to ridicule them. It's perfectly consistent for people with these views to not bother voting in general elections because the Labour Party doesn't advocate for them and the Green Party has not a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

What's your reason for thinking that?

As above, because social-democratic ideas are already popular with the public and can be made more popular if for example a left-wing Labour Party argues for them in public.

 

[finneh]

Basically because I think public opinion reflected in polling data demonstrates popularity for left-wing policies; and that is even as the arguments for them are not part of the public discourse, except to ridicule them. It's perfectly consistent for people with these views to not bother voting in general elections because the Labour Party doesn't advocate for them and the Green Party has not a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

I think that's pretty naive. If you're interested in left wing policies you don't necessarily vote for Ed Miliband because you see him as the answer, you vote for him (or the greens) because you hate David Cameron and the Tories.

No one that would get inspired by Corbyn's policies wouldn't have voted against the Tories at the last election. Would they agree with Corbyn much more than Miliband? Absolutely. But these people have already been inspired to vote against someone, so they don't need inspiring for someone else.

Plus there is a large group of people in middle England that voted for the Tories this election with great guilt (see the ridiculously wrong polling - the shy Tory). That is the person Labour need to target - the person whose heart wants to vote Labour but mind tells them to vote Tory (these are 6 pointers to use the football analogy - every one gained is one lost by your rival).

 

[Attila]

This is too funny. Kay Burley has no brain

 

[Crono]

I think that's pretty naive. If you're interested in left wing policies you don't necessarily vote for Ed Miliband because you see him as the answer, you vote for him (or the greens) because you hate David Cameron and the Tories.

No one that would get inspired by Corbyn's policies wouldn't have voted against the Tories at the last election. Would they agree with Corbyn much more than Miliband? Absolutely. But these people have already been inspired to vote against someone, so they don't need inspiring for someone else.

Plus there is a large group of people in middle England that voted for the Tories this election with great guilt (see the ridiculously wrong polling - the shy Tory). That is the person Labour need to target - the person whose heart wants to vote Labour but mind tells them to vote Tory (these are 6 pointers to use the football analogy - every one gained is one lost by your rival).

I'm surprised you genuinely find it hard to believe that people who hold (or who are open to) socialist ideas don't vote Labour/Green. I know for a fact you are wrong about this but I can't force you to believe what you don't want to.

The football analogy doesn't work very well because with every Tory voter you win over you're selling someone else out even if you retain their vote.

 

[11101]

As above, because social-democratic ideas are already popular with the public and can be made more popular if for example a left-wing Labour Party argues for them in public.

The people expressing those opinions loudly may support them, but that doesn't mean the general public does. We saw in the general election that the average voter has withdrawn from sharing their views publicly.

Plus there is a large group of people in middle England that voted for the Tories this election with great guilt (see the ridiculously wrong polling - the shy Tory). That is the person Labour need to target - the person whose heart wants to vote Labour but mind tells them to vote Tory (these are 6 pointers to use the football analogy - every one gained is one lost by your rival).

It's wrong to label them as shy Tory voters whose heart wanted them to vote Labour but whose minds told them otherwise. With the aggressive campaigning and pigeonholing (from Russell Brand to people on Facebook) many just simply stopped sharing their opinions and waited for the election to come around. They weren't in a half way house deciding which side to fall to. They just didn't want to be called a Tory pig for voting a particular way in a free election.

Labour has to round up all those who voted against the Tories, but it will still not be enough. They need to steal voters directly from them, and the only way to do that is to introduce policies they can agree with. Moving further to the Left will not do that.

 

[711]

The people expressing those opinions loudly may support them, but that doesn't mean the general public does. We saw in the general election that the average voter has withdrawn from sharing their views publicly.



It's wrong to label them as shy Tory voters whose heart wanted them to vote Labour but whose minds told them otherwise. With the aggressive campaigning and pigeonholing (from Russell Brand to people on Facebook) many just simply stopped sharing their opinions and waited for the election to come around. They weren't in a half way house deciding which side to fall to. They just didn't want to be called a Tory pig for voting a particular way in a free election.

Labour has to round up all those who voted against the Tories, but it will still not be enough. They need to steal voters directly from them, and the only way to do that is to introduce policies they can agree with. Moving further to the Left will not do that.

You're effectively saying nothing will ever change, which is just displaying a lack of imagination and thought. I personally don't want to move to the left but a few seconds thought can conjure up scenarios where the country might vote for that. Your first assumption is that the Tories will remain relatively in the centre, as they were obliged to in coalition. They could easily move sharply to the right, and maybe they are already doing so. The two-party choice then would not be between left-wing labour and centrist tory, as you the only future you can see, but left-wing labour and right-wing tory. And after a few years of 'right-wing tory' then, as with any extreme, the call would be for change and correction. That's just one possibility, events change opinions, look at Blair.

Incidentally Corbyn is speaking just a couple of hundred yards from where I'm sitting, supported by 'at least 100 activists'. We obviously need political activists, but good company they are not.

 

[11101]

You're effectively saying nothing will ever change, which is just displaying a lack of imagination and thought. I personally don't want to move to the left but a few seconds thought can conjure up scenarios where the country might vote for that. Your first assumption is that the Tories will remain relatively in the centre, as they were obliged to in coalition. They could easily move sharply to the right, and maybe they are already doing so. The two-party choice then would not be between left-wing labour and centrist tory, as you the only future you can see, but left-wing labour and right-wing tory. And after a few years of 'right-wing tory' then, as with any extreme, the call would be for change and correction. That's just one possibility, events change opinions, look at Blair.

Incidentally Corbyn is speaking just a couple of hundred yards from where I'm sitting, supported by 'at least 100 activists'. We obviously need political activists, but good company they are not.

Do you think anything will ever change? I very much doubt it, at least for the next generation or two.

The country always falls centre or centre right and has done for decades. No mainstream party in the UK will ever get close to the extremes of either side, so there will never be anything more than a moderate right party, and that will always be preferable by most people to an equivalent moderate left party. The only challenge to that would be a centrist party with left wing elements, which is exactly what Blair's New Labour was. It might be a nice idea for some to have a proper left party, but not realistic. If Labour go that way they wont get back in power for many years, if ever, and with Corbyn it looks like they might.

 

[Kaos]

Do you think anything will ever change? I very much doubt it, at least for the next generation or two.

The country always falls centre or centre right and has done for decades. No mainstream party in the UK will ever get close to the extremes of either side, so there will never be anything more than a moderate right party, and that will always be preferable by most people to an equivalent moderate left party. The only challenge to that would be a centrist party with left wing elements, which is exactly what Blair's New Labour was. It might be a nice idea for some to have a proper left party, but not realistic. If Labour go that way they wont get back in power for many years, if ever, and with Corbyn it looks like they might.

Blair was centre-right.

 

[Shamwow]

This 2 dimensional line by which we seem to define all politicians is a big part of the problem.

 

[711]

Do you think anything will ever change? I very much doubt it, at least for the next generation or two.

The country always falls centre or centre right and has done for decades. No mainstream party in the UK will ever get close to the extremes of either side, so there will never be anything more than a moderate right party, and that will always be preferable by most people to an equivalent moderate left party. The only challenge to that would be a centrist party with left wing elements, which is exactly what Blair's New Labour was. It might be a nice idea for some to have a proper left party, but not realistic. If Labour go that way they wont get back in power for many years, if ever, and with Corbyn it looks like they might.

It might be a nice idea for some to have a proper right party - and maybe we have, it will just take a while for it to become apparent.
Will things change? Of course they will, things always change. However, if you want to go on making unprovable predictions you will find it very easy to do so, because they are, unprovable.

 

[CircusMonkey]

I am very conservative on some things , and very liberal on others, I am almost right wing on a few subjects, whilst I could be described as a hippy on a few. Where in the line do I need to stand? Its confusing.

I like Corbyn, I used to get on the same bus as him, he's a cheerful soul

 

[soap]

I am very conservative on some things , and very liberal on others, I am almost right wing on a few subjects, whilst I could be described as a hippy on a few. Where in the line do I need to stand? Its confusing.

I like Corbyn, I used to get on the same bus as him, he's a cheerful soul

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Shoukd give a rough idea even if its not perfect by any means.

 

[11101]

Blair was centre-right.

Blair believed in using certain stripped down capitalist policies to achieve socialist aims such as big government and socialist welfare policies. He marketed it as centre right to attract middle ground voters, especially in the early days, but he was not centre right in truth.

Where you view him from largely dictates what you thought he was, though.

 

[CircusMonkey]

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Shoukd give a rough idea even if its not perfect by any means.

Thanks, I am in line with Gandhi