I disagree, I think Corbyn has been the subject of personal attacks in a way the other three haven't. They should attack the policy, not the candidate (at least publicly). That it will be chaos is opinion, not truth.
next labour leader
- Thread starter sun_tzu
- Start date
I don't think it will be easy maintaining unity - the Labour right have historically been traitorous backstabbers whenever the party has looked like moving to the left, all the way from Ramsay Macdonald to the SDP to Blair the other week declaring effectively that he would rather the Tories win power than for Labour to win on a traditional left-wing platform.
I don't personally think they would go ahead with a split just yet however.
I don't personally think they would go ahead with a split just yet however.
He hasn't been subjected to personal attacks, he's been subjected to people saying he'd be unelectable. That's not like his supporters calling Kendall a tory witch, and worse, it's looking at his policies and saying the public won't vote for them, based on historical precedent. Nothing Johnson said in his article is in any way harsh, and in fact represents a rather good debunking of the left's continually absurd assertions that Labour from '97 onwards were nothing but Tories.
You can say the chaos bit is opinion, yup, but the bit about it being more or less impossible to expect collective responsibility after continually rebelling for 3 decades is the truth, and the chaos part is the logical conclusion. Or do you think that large parts of the PLP defying the Labour leadership in 1 of every 4 votes (Corbyn's record between 2001 and 2010) will lead to a nice orderly party?
Honestly, I don't think it's too long before there's a split within Labour either, and it's probably necessary for the party in the long-term. People like Corbyn just don't seem compatible with the more centrist/right end of the party; Corbyn's gone against the grain so many times that it makes you wonder why he's even in a party that hardly seems to represent his views.
There'll be major splits eventually if Corbyn wins, which will probably be incredibly petty from the wing of the party that don't seem to get that the general Labour contingent disagrees with them, but even if Burnham pulls through, it's surely only so long before the socialist element of the party realise that they're never going to make that big an impact in a party that's far away from what they believe.
There'll be major splits eventually if Corbyn wins, which will probably be incredibly petty from the wing of the party that don't seem to get that the general Labour contingent disagrees with them, but even if Burnham pulls through, it's surely only so long before the socialist element of the party realise that they're never going to make that big an impact in a party that's far away from what they believe.
Why is he is a party that doesn't represent his views, it greatly increases his chances of getting a high paid and prestigious job that he wants perhaps? Or perhaps he has been biding his time on the sidelines for this moment.
From 97 onwards Labour have drifted right. It isn't the Tory party but New Labour is not the left wing party that Labour once was, thus it feels as if the alternative to the Tories has been quite similar for a long time.
Every single day it seems some Labour grandee is wheeled out to proclaim doom and gloom in the event of Corbyn winning, and it has been unnecessarily personal at times.
My guess is that he still holds hope that Labour can returns to its roots which he'll presumably feel represented him better. It's unlikely that'll happen in the long-term, though. I definitely think there'll be a split somewhere along the way.
It probably represented his views perfectly when he joined and has just continued to drift to the right over time. Still, as right as Labour has gone, it would be a better alternative to the Tories, so it represents any left winger better in that regard. It's not the socialist utopia party that some want, but (despite who wins) it isn't the Conservative party either.
There is the SWP, though you don't get elected, heard or paid with them
Well, there is an argument that it's better to try and advocate leftist policies from within a traditionally left wing party than to advocate them from without, where as you say, you will not be heard.
It did drift right, it also won three elections in a row and was able to enact a lot of progressive and redistributive stuff along the way. There is a balance to be struck. You have to tailor your offer to the electorate you're presented with, not the one you'd ideally like to have.
There is that argument, I agree. I am naturally cynical but at least Corbyn was a good boy with his expenses which is refreshing.
I have nothing against the man. I just worry about Tory rule for the next 10 - 15 years and I believe that he will help deliver that.
If Ed Militant's brand of socialism couldn't muster a win in austerity, then what the hell can Corbyn bring to the electorate when things can only get better economically over the next five years???
Though absent on holiday and otherwise busy, i have nonetheless attempted to keep abreast of events here. I now find myself wondering what happened to the conclusions reached in the earlier election post-mortem, where both activists and MPs recognised that the political challenge was more complex than whether to veer left or right. A response was required for several very distinct sections of the electorate.
Presumably Labour is seeking a leader who can make significant progress amongst the three target demographics (recent SNP converts, those who turned to either the Greens or UKIP, aspirational), and upon reflection i believe that Yvette Cooper represents the party's best option for 2020. Alan Johnson has confirmed his support for her campaign i saw this morning.
Jeremy Corbyn spoke to the masses, but I just saw a false prophet
Jeremy Corbyn's message looks great - but check the small print
What is the foundation of his economic policies? To what extent to his spending plans revolve around the use of QE and returns from further curbs on tax avoidance?
The Left of the party has become very enthused during this process, how they might react to the defeat of their preferred candidate so soon after the loss at the polls cold be very important, I know that some unions and Owen Jones have voiced increasing concerns about the EU as an institution, it might be that the referendum is used as a means of expressing broader dissatisfaction (particularly with mainstream Labour likely to side with Cameron).
From what i can gather some in this thread expect the Liberal Democrats and he Greens to be of little influence come 2020, yet why should that be the case? There are parts of the country where the former are the only alternative to the Government save for UKIP. And given a change in leader and more professional campaign, the Green Party can consolidate its position IMO.
Presumably Labour is seeking a leader who can make significant progress amongst the three target demographics (recent SNP converts, those who turned to either the Greens or UKIP, aspirational), and upon reflection i believe that Yvette Cooper represents the party's best option for 2020. Alan Johnson has confirmed his support for her campaign i saw this morning.
Jeremy Corbyn spoke to the masses, but I just saw a false prophet
Jeremy Corbyn's message looks great - but check the small print
What is the foundation of his economic policies? To what extent to his spending plans revolve around the use of QE and returns from further curbs on tax avoidance?
The Left of the party has become very enthused during this process, how they might react to the defeat of their preferred candidate so soon after the loss at the polls cold be very important, I know that some unions and Owen Jones have voiced increasing concerns about the EU as an institution, it might be that the referendum is used as a means of expressing broader dissatisfaction (particularly with mainstream Labour likely to side with Cameron).
From what i can gather some in this thread expect the Liberal Democrats and he Greens to be of little influence come 2020, yet why should that be the case? There are parts of the country where the former are the only alternative to the Government save for UKIP. And given a change in leader and more professional campaign, the Green Party can consolidate its position IMO.
His spending plans do not 'revolve' around either one of those, though he talks about both of them as potential sources of public investment. Corbyn is clear that he will borrow to invest, but you can't blame him for talking up alternatives besides that in this climate of outright fiction spun by the Tory machine that Britain will become a failed state unless it balances its budget by 2020.
Paul Krugman has just weighed in on this.
Full blog entry: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/corbyn-and-the-cringe-caucus/
If you want to take a look at the economists who advocate a different kind of quantitative easing, I'd encourage you to follow up on these links:
http://positivemoney.org/2015/03/prominent-economists-advocate-different-type-quantitative-easing/
Blairites like Chris Leslie will try to pull a fast one on the public by pretending that there is no support for any alternative economic strategy. Dan Hodges has no f*cking idea whatsoever.
Within this survey of macroeconomists by the Centre For Macroeconomics you will find a list of economists who were asked about the soundness of the coalition government's austerity policies; an overwhelming majority believe they were a failure. Read their individual contributions for further explanations.
http://cfmsurvey.org/surveys/importance-elections-uk-economic-activity
I'm fairly sure Corbyn's been borrowing from plans many of the economists in this survey have been putting out for the last couple of years, among other prominent writers around the world (Krugman, Stiglitz, Dean Baker, Steve Keen), least of all probably the most respected economics commentator in the English-speaking world Martin Wolf who has been hammering the austerity strategy in the FT for years.
Last edited:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/04/anti-austerity-voters-poll-jeremy-corbyn-labour
Interesting, and worrying article. Osborne has won the battle for Britain's minds.
Anti-austerity unpopular with voters, finds inquiry into Labour's election loss
Independent review shows abiding concern over economic deficit, and may fuel doubt about policies of Labour leadership frontrunner Jeremy Corbyn
Polling undertaken for an independent review being led by Jon Cruddas, the Labour MP and former coordinator of the party’s 2015 manifesto, shows Britain’s voters do not back an anti-austerity message but instead believe the country must live within its means and make cutting the deficit its top priority.
The findings, given to the Guardian, are likely to make difficult reading for those that say Labour’s path to electoral recovery lies in the party adopting a stronger anti-austerity stance than in the run-up to this year’s election.
The polling was commissioned before Jeremy Corbyn made his surprise surge to frontrunner in the race for Labour’s leadership, partly due to his anti-austerity policies. Its findings will fuel the debate between prospective party leaders about how to construct an economic policy with popular public appeal. There is common agreement on the fact that Labour’s plan for the economy failed to convince voters, but not on the reasons behind that failure.
Commenting on the findings, Cruddas, who is respected across the party, stressed the need to get voters back onside. “Labour is in the death zone,” he said. “We are currently fighting for our life. We need a no-ifs-and-no-buts explanation of why we lost and how we reconnect with voters.
“On the basis of this data, the public appear to think anti-austerity is a vote loser. We cannot ignore that. We can seek to change the views of the public, but it’s best not to ignore them.”
The independent inquiry involves a wide range of groups inside the party, including Compass, Progress, the Fabian Society, the Co-operative party, and the Labour group of the Local Government Association.
The polling shows that 56% of those surveyed agree, and just 16% disagree, with the statement: “We must live within our means, so cutting the deficit is the top priority.”
Of those surveyed who voted for the Conservatives at the 2015 election, 84% agreed with the statement and virtually none disagreed. Amongst Labour voters 32% agreed while 34% disagreed. Ukip and Liberal Democrat voters agreed in proportions of 63% and 58% respectively.
The finding has led Campaign Company, the polling firm undertaking the research for Cruddas, to conclude that, “the unpalatable truth for the left is that the Tories did not win despite austerity, but because of it”. Amongst working-class voters (NRS social grade C2 DE) 54% agree with the need to contain the deficit and 15% disagree.
Cruddas said: “Our task is to help Labour to reconnect with the electorate to win in 2020. It will mean accepting some difficult truths. The majority of voters in England and Wales supported the Tories’ austerity measures. Voters did not reject Labour because they saw it as austerity-lite. Voters rejected Labour because they perceived the party as anti-austerity lite.”
Cruddas continued: “We also asked people to agree or disagree with a number of other statements relating to the economy. 43% agree that: ‘I am most likely to vote for the political party that redistributes wealth from rich to poor’, against 22% who do not. And 44% agree – 37% amongst Labour voters – that: ‘ I am most likely to vote for the political party that puts my financial interests first’, against 17% – 27% amongst Labour voters – who do not.”
“The electorate in England and Wales is economically radical and financially conservative. But financial responsibility comes first,” Cruddas said.
The polling also confirms that English voters were put off by the suggestion that Labour would be dependent on the SNP, or of the possibility of an anti-austerity SNP-Labour alliance.
Of English and Welsh voters, 60% agree that they “would be very concerned if the SNP were ever in government”, compared with 15% who disagree. A majority of Conservative, Lib Dem and Ukip voters agree, as do a plurality of Labour voters.
The equivalent number amongst Tory voters is 86%. This presents a dilemma for Labour since it badly needs to win Conservative voters back to form a majority government, but unless it is performing so well that there is no risk of a Labour-SNP coalition, many voters will be wary of backing Labour. The continued strong presence of SNP MPs in Scotland could give the Conservatives the chance to play the SNP card at a second Westminster election in 2020.
Cruddas says: “The Tories won because voters believed they would cut the deficit, even though a majority understand that the economic system is unfair. The Tories’ message on the deficit was clear, Labour’s was not. The Tories were trusted to manage the country’s finances, Labour was not.”
“The response to the SNP amongst Welsh and English voters reflects the increasingly federal nature of the UK, and the growing salience of a politics of identity and belonging. 63% of voters say that their English or Welsh identity is important to them.”
Amongst all voters, 44% agreed that “Labour is a mess and needs a serious overhaul” and 31% believed that, with right leader, the party will be back in power relatively soon, suggesting that a new Labour leader emphasising continuity is less likely to be effective than someone who represents radical change. Of the party’s own voters, 24% believe Labour is “a mess”, although 71% believe the party can succeed under a new leader.
As part of the exercise, the polling firm asked voters to state their main reason they voted for their chosen party. The Campaign Company say the results show the extent to which the issue of the country’s economic deficit emerged unprompted. Responses included:
The polling also asked participants what they perceived to be the main message of each political party. With regard to Labour, some voters suggested:
- “I trust them [the Conservatives] more in terms of dealing with the economy and the deficit”
- “The economy and the deficit – I think that if we changed whilst progress was being made then it could set it all back again. I think the Conservatives needed more time to get the debt and economy back to its original ways. I didn’t trust Labour to get us out of it”
- “To prevent Labour from forming an alliance with the SNP if Labour won the election”
The polling is based on a survey of 3,000 English and Welsh people, representative of age, gender and socio-economic status, using the YouGov panel. It was conducted in early July.
- “[Labour] had no real message except ‘spend, spend, spend’, as they had done when last in power”
- “Free stuff! We’ll give you free stuff and somebody else will pay!”
- “Chaos, more public spending, more borrowing, more tax! Strong anti-business rhetoric”
- “We will bankrupt the UK again if we get back in”
- “Lots of schemes dreamed up on the back of a fag packet. Hit the people earning money and give it to people to spend on Sky TV packages”
Interesting, and worrying article. Osborne has won the battle for Britain's minds.
I'm still waiting for a party to actually start talking about paying back the debt... not just cutting the deficit!
It will be an interesting election though because whatever happens its going to be somewhat fractious and taking the party forward in a clear direction afterwards will be tricky.
I cant event picture who would be in a Corbyn shadow cabinet... Dianne Abbot possibly, Dennis Skinner (we can but hope... Id love to see him as a stand in on PMQ's...)
It's this sort of article that makes me really question the point of democracy. However the question on the deficit is outrageously leading.
As I've pointed out before the public is hilariously inconsistent as well. For example a sizeable majority want the welfare budget cut but they also don't want to see cuts to in-work benefits, family tax credits, pensions, disability benefits, etc. In other words they don't want the things that actually make up the welfare budget to be cut.
It's exactly why Corbyn is needed so the narrative can be changed, it's just not acceptable for Labour to give up on fighting against the Tory misinformation.
It's a poor article, people wanting the deficit cut does not equate to a vote for austerity which is just one means of doing so.
There's a lot of idiots out there who simply don't educate themselves enough to have an informed opinion. Should the aspiration really be to appease them?
If you want to win an election then quite possibly it should...
Most people who are interested in politics still don't have postgraduate degrees in macroeconomics nor are they qualified accountants who specialise in taxation - so perhaps even the people who are educated are not truly educated enough to give reasoned nuanced debate on economic policy? - let alone at the same time be equally proficient at understanding the myriad of other policies a government proposes.
Pitch your policies at the majority of people because if you think you are going to educate and engage with the vast majority of the UK electorate you are going to loose the next election... especially if you start from the viewpoint that they are idiots
Good grief, I expected the likes of the Telegraph & the Mail to publish 'Corbyn gives you Cancer'-type articles every day, but not the bloody Guardian.
What I love about the Guardian is how centrist they are in actuality. You'd think Corbyn would be a dream come through for the lefty folks at the Graun, but reading their articles you get the impression they'd prefer one of the more right wing candidates to win. So typical, they present the veneer of liberalism with articles on feminism, global warming, etc, but when it comes down to it, and they have a chance to support the first potential left wing leader of the party in a long time, they decide not to bother. The Guardian harps on about change but in reality its editors are far happier with the status quo than they'd have you believe.
I thought this, from the Comments section, was apt:
Well said.
But the real failure isn't on people for not educating themselves enough, it's on the media and journalists who have failed utterly and completely for 5 consecutive years at simply informing the public that the vast majority of economists are lined up against everything the Conservatives are saying on this. They have completely failed even at calling out bold-faced lies.
You'd hopefully have these qualifications in order to discern the facts in the first place but you don't need any of these to merely understand the facts. You do however need a media to do its job, particularly the BBC who we pay for exactly this, forget the newspapers.
Then why bother with the charade at all let's just vote directly on policies and let civil servants run the country with MPs more focused on local representation.
Surely parties are fundamentally tasked to fight for the principles they believe, it's there job to inform the public of their viewpoint and it's up to the public whether they agree. The Tories in this sense are serving parliament even if you can question the truth behind the message.
History tells us that the public at large aren't always correct and the only way that changes is through public debate not appeasement.
Perhaps that's all idealist nonsense or just plain nonsense but its undeniable that theres a widespread dissatisfaction with politics and that's mainly as they're not honest with their own values.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=twt_politics*gdnukpolitics
Speechless.
Speechless.
I'm beginning to actually want Corbyn to win now, I think it's the only way to put it to bed for another generation.
@Crono
You seem to willfully ignore that fact that a number of economists also advocate for austerity. You also seem to willfully ignore the fact that this is economic theory and not economic fact from the outset anyway.
What you want is the media to load up theories supporting your beliefs as facts. How does that make you the righteous one, or even any different to the perpetrators of disinformation that seem to make you so angry?
You can put the two thirds of your economists in the public arena and the Tories will still have the hard evidence of their economy that is performing very well in relative terms to slap you down with.
'Proof in the pudding' will win out, regardless if it illusory or not.
You seem to willfully ignore that fact that a number of economists also advocate for austerity. You also seem to willfully ignore the fact that this is economic theory and not economic fact from the outset anyway.
What you want is the media to load up theories supporting your beliefs as facts. How does that make you the righteous one, or even any different to the perpetrators of disinformation that seem to make you so angry?
You can put the two thirds of your economists in the public arena and the Tories will still have the hard evidence of their economy that is performing very well in relative terms to slap you down with.
'Proof in the pudding' will win out, regardless if it illusory or not.
Last edited:
Recent history suggests a staunchly left wing labour leader will mean certain defeat in a UK election, and the sole desire of politicians is to get in to power, and once there, stay there. Corbyn being elected to lead the party means they wont be winning the next election, period.
In fact, unless the Tories somehow screw the economy or there is some other unforeseen disaster, chances are the defeat would be even heavier than the last election.
Self interest is why they are so vocal against him, nothing else. When they start squawking like they are doing now, it means they are worried about losing their chance of power.
More nonsense. 'Vast majority' is what I said - what part of that sounds like 'every single one' to you? Furthermore it was theory before it was implemented and since then the economic evidence around the world has overwhelmingly borne out one conclusion.
What I want is the media to inform the public of the whole picture, particularly the public media as a matter of duty, instead of slavishly repeating pure propaganda. In the absence of their critique the Opposition should have taken it upon themselves to do this but they've straitjacketed themselves with their own pathetic PR efforts. This will be the real political challenge for a Corbyn-led Labour Party, not the election which he may not even stick around for.
You talk as if it is an undeniable fact. You can find good sources supporting austerity as well. Two thirds makes up a majority, not a vast majority.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2b8bf500-0f8a-11e5-94d1-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3hwvN3FXi
Like I say, ostensibly, the Tories are backed up by the hard evidence of our Economy performing very well in relative terms as well.
And do you really think that Jeremy Corbyn has the charisma to change the conversation anyway? Politics aside, do you even think he is a good leader? You have speculated that he doesn't even have the appetite for it anyway!
As a leader in pure presentation terms I don't see any great appeal, he lacks charisma and looks old and a bit scruffy. Like it or not these things influence the way that voters perceive candidates.
I just can't see on any level how he is electable as a Prime Minister of a G7 nation.
Last edited:
The sad thing is there are people who actually vote based on the perceived personality of their politicians (not you, but large parts of the public in general). Christ, it's all fecking sales pitch, content should be the only thing that counts. Politicians aren't supposed to be entertaining.
Gordon Brown vowed to play it straight and all about policy, it went down like a led balloon. As his popularity bombed he started scrambling and was appearing on things like The One Show trying to make everyone realise that he was in fact a human being by talking about his family and actually smiling. It was quite grim.
I know, and it's a very sad reality, because the personality people demand and vote for is carefully fabricated by a PR team.
It's all good and well complaining that they are all the same and bad as each other etc but we as a country don't really deserve good politicians at the moment do we?
It's a matter of weight of evidence. It's massively one-sided.
As for Corbyn's charisma/personal qualities; look, he's no Tony Benn or Nye Bevan, but that's not the comparison is it? Just pause for a second and take another look at Burnham, Cooper and Kendall. Three absolute non-entities. Burnham is unable to speak without pointing his f*cking thumbed fist at us. I'm really at a loss as to how anyone thinks Corbyn compares unfavourably here. I think he would make for a decent leader and I think he could wage a good election campaign; I just know he knows he has other challenges to face as a priority.
@Crono
I don't want to get to far into this but it isn't 'massively one sided' 33% is a credible minority in my eyes, especially in economics, a field that is infamous for arguing among itself, it is also a field that has never got to grips with itself either, in that no one actually knows how to control the economy.
Anything over 80/20 is 'massively one sided' IMO.
I don't want to get to far into this but it isn't 'massively one sided' 33% is a credible minority in my eyes, especially in economics, a field that is infamous for arguing among itself, it is also a field that has never got to grips with itself either, in that no one actually knows how to control the economy.
Anything over 80/20 is 'massively one sided' IMO.
Well, 33% in that survey includes those who refrained to make a judgement. Quote,
I grew up in an era when loads of Labour MPs were like Corbyn. The party spent its time arguing intensely about which particular strand of pure left socialism was suddenly going to convert the masses, confident that by merely telling the electorate they were selfish/ignorant/deluded/bigoted and pointing out how morally superior and pure Labour were, the electorate would come flocking back. They didn't.
You, and many others, see a man who is refreshingly different. For some people he's horribly familiar, an awful reminder of what happens when Labour resorts to political naval gazing & philosophical hairsplitting.