next labour leader

[soap]

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.

He did? I read it more like he just doesn't agree with Corbyn

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.

Hardly surprising given that Labour didn't even attempt to make any arguments to the contrary under Miliband. Really hope Corbyn comes out in favour of PR of he wins, not just because I agree with it, it could also be a big vote winner

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

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.

You can however, blame Corbyn if he is spinning his own piece of fiction and creating a misleading impression for potential voters.

Whilst "revolve" might have been a poor use of language on my part, Corbyn's statementss do suggest that he would view business/the private sector as a resource which government could be squeezing more out of. Sure, most of the electorate would like to see Amazon and Starbucks contribute more in taxes, but how attainable are his aims in a globalised world? Likely, his army of tax farmers will end up pursuing sole traders and low to middle earners.

And if it were as simple as printing more money (or rather QE) i am sure that even Osborne would be considering it. Heck, he could go fetch 8bn for the government's pledge on the NHS tomorrow. Many voters are seeding neither a radical shift to the left or the right, fairly competent administrators whose sums add up for at least half of the time would probably suffice in this climate. The financial crisis needn't have happened at all to question Labour's record in that regard, for many billions were wasted during the boom years.

Looking back at the recent past, policies such as ID Cards and pre-charge detention demonstrated the value of a good and healthy opposition, so ultimately the country is served ill by a Labour Party consumed with internal political wrangling.

 

[Red Dreams]

saying the economy is doing well does not equate to the average wage earner doing well.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

@Nick 0208 Ldn

Call me cynical but surely the Tories preference for austerity is just a convenient excuse to pursue their ideological belief of shrinking the state and expanding the private sector long term?

 

[Crono]

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.

I was clearly talking about his personal qualities and comparing them with Burnham's/Cooper's/Kendall's personal qualities, or rather the lack thereof.

What part of Corbyn's platform has involved him telling the electorate they are selfish, ignorant, deluded or bigoted? His has been the only platform to actually consist of (original) ideas rather than the piss-weak rhetoric being offered up by the others, whether it's miserable apologies for "not getting it" or hackneyed moaning about "out of touch" Tories.

He did? I read it more like he just doesn't agree with Corbyn



Hardly surprising given that Labour didn't even attempt to make any arguments to the contrary under Miliband. Really hope Corbyn comes out in favour of PR of he wins, not just because I agree with it, it could also be a big vote winner

Tony Blair says he wouldn’t want a left-wing Labour party to win an election

“Let me make my position clear: I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.”

“Even if you did [win] it wouldn’t be right because it wouldn’t take the country forward, it would take it backwards. That’s why it’s not the right thing to do.”

 

[soap]

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.

I get the impression these people represent a far higher percentage of voters than us lot realise. And by "us" I mean people whom care enough to be discussing politics on an internet forum. It's impossible to underestimate how many people make their decision based on what is essentially gut feeling - which of the two blokes they like more or which one they think makes better arguments. That's partly why I'm not as keen to look at the results of the last election as a clear sign that Labour were too left wing last time - they had Ed fecking Miliband in charge! Corbyn is no Obama by any means but he'd be a massive improvement, and would actually have a coherent message unlike Ed.

@Crono I read that as him saying HE wouldn't want to win by being left wing, as he couldn't be leader of such a party, rather than he'd prefer the Tories to beat Labour. Maybe not, could be interpreted either way. Blair's a cnut and all that, obviously, but if he genuinely prefers this Tory party to Corbyn I doubt he'd have joined the Labour party in the first place.

 

[DOTA]

That does sound like Blair saying he thinks the country is better served by Labour losing than winning as lefties.

Not hugely surprising. He's a lot closer, politically, to Cameron than he is to Corbyn.

 

[bishblaize]

I was clearly talking about his personal qualities and comparing them with Burnham's/Cooper's/Kendall's personal qualities, or rather the lack thereof.
...What part of Corbyn's platform has involved him telling the electorate they are selfish, ignorant, deluded or bigoted?

You wanted to know why I feel so uninspired by his personal qualities as a politician, that's why. His qualities have been shown to be inadequate for making the party work together. You perhaps see him as simple, consensual and principled. I just see a man whose policies are already dividing the party, but who lacks the strength and personality to unite it again. That's a potentially toxic combination.

When I said MPs like Corbyn resulted in the the party being so irrelevant, it wasn't because was had too many Skinners, the archetypal bombastic far lefties. Its because we had too few Kinnocks, people with the strength to actually unite a party that is fractious and broad at the best of times. The party ended up with well meaning but weak figures who bent over backwards to appease the Unions & the far left, and in doing so, they excluded everyone else, including the voting public and the traditional soft left. What remained was a narrow party with a message of 'we're right, you're wrong'.

I doubt that Corbyn personally would feel that the electorate was deluded/etc, he seems very consensual. However, if you doubt that the section of the party he's empowering has such beliefs, you need look no further than the comments in this thread.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Labour leadership: 100 Green Party candidates have joined party in latest evidence of 'entryism' - Independent

@Nick 0208 Ldn

Call me cynical but surely the Tories preference for austerity is just a convenient excuse to pursue their ideological belief of shrinking the state and expanding the private sector long term?

I would not be at all surprised if there are some government departments where the need for efficiencies has been pressed home with, shall we say unnecessary vigour (the DWP). It may not in each and every case be an act of calculation though mind, but rather a welcome supporting argument (local government and the BBC perhaps).

However, there are also cases where austerity for austerity's sake is no friend at all to a Tory government. Take Defence for example: the 2010 SDSR has been shown to be in error on numerous occasions during the intervening years. And whilst Osborne (reluctantly i suspect) has committed to the 2% spending threshold for this budgetary period, i would place no reliance upon a repeat next time around. Revolt looms large in that quarter.

 

[sun_tzu]

And whilst Osborne (reluctantly i suspect) has committed to the 2% spending threshold for this budgetary period, i would place no reliance upon a repeat next time around. Revolt looms large in that quarter.

when they renew trident wont that count towards the defence spending as well so they could in theory still spend under 2% on the normal day to day ops with the remainder coming from trident renewal - which actually should be soon i think - will be interesting to see if a corbyn lead labour votes against that one.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

when they renew trident wont that count towards the defence spending as well so they could in theory still spend under 2% on the normal day to day ops with the remainder coming from trident renewal - which actually should be soon i think - will be interesting to see if a corbyn lead labour votes against that one.

Too much fudge for one Parliament i suspect, what with the way Cameron will hope to dress up his EU negotiations to appear grander than they actually are.


Back to matters Labour...

Jeremy Corbyn refuses three times to condemn IRA for terrorist atrocities

Though unsurprising given his known position on the matter, it is the sort of opinion that would prove damaging in a TV debate or election campaign. The interview was apparently conducted by Stephen Nolan, who can be very unforgiving when he senses that a politician is attempting to dodge a question (at least from my experience of him on BBC 5Live). Perhaps some of our resident NI members heard it at the time?

 

[Sweet Square]

Back to matters Labour...

Jeremy Corbyn refuses three times to condemn IRA for terrorist atrocities

Though unsurprising given his known position on the matter, it is the sort of opinion that would prove damaging in a TV debate or election campaign. The interview was apparently conducted by Stephen Nolan, who can be very unforgiving when he senses that a politician is attempting to dodge a question (at least from my experience of him on BBC 5Live). Perhaps some of our resident NI members heard it at the time?

Found the interview here - https://audioboom.com/boos/3439229-...llenges-cameron-on-stormont-welfare-stalemate

It's really not that bad and to no one's surprise the telegraph(It really is a shite paper) have missed giant parts of the interview and twisted it.

 

[Crono]

You wanted to know why I feel so uninspired by his personal qualities as a politician, that's why. His qualities have been shown to be inadequate for making the party work together. You perhaps see him as simple, consensual and principled. I just see a man whose policies are already dividing the party, but who lacks the strength and personality to unite it again. That's a potentially toxic combination.

When I said MPs like Corbyn resulted in the the party being so irrelevant, it wasn't because was had too many Skinners, the archetypal bombastic far lefties. Its because we had too few Kinnocks, people with the strength to actually unite a party that is fractious and broad at the best of times. The party ended up with well meaning but weak figures who bent over backwards to appease the Unions & the far left, and in doing so, they excluded everyone else, including the voting public and the traditional soft left. What remained was a narrow party with a message of 'we're right, you're wrong'.

I doubt that Corbyn personally would feel that the electorate was deluded/etc, he seems very consensual. However, if you doubt that the section of the party he's empowering has such beliefs, you need look no further than the comments in this thread.

It's telling that for some in Labour, adopting left-wing policies 'divides the party' but adopting right-wing policies doesn't. I think Corbyn is being very conciliatory to the right who are chucking their toys out of the pram because the membership are daring to have their own opinions, and have been pettily hurling insults at him ever since.

For what it's worth I agree with you about sections of the far-left (not many in the Labour Party though) not respecting the electorate and I have no time for that sort of politics.

You can however, blame Corbyn if he is spinning his own piece of fiction and creating a misleading impression for potential voters.

Whilst "revolve" might have been a poor use of language on my part, Corbyn's statementss do suggest that he would view business/the private sector as a resource which government could be squeezing more out of. Sure, most of the electorate would like to see Amazon and Starbucks contribute more in taxes, but how attainable are his aims in a globalised world? Likely, his army of tax farmers will end up pursuing sole traders and low to middle earners.

And if it were as simple as printing more money (or rather QE) i am sure that even Osborne would be considering it. Heck, he could go fetch 8bn for the government's pledge on the NHS tomorrow. Many voters are seeding neither a radical shift to the left or the right, fairly competent administrators whose sums add up for at least half of the time would probably suffice in this climate. The financial crisis needn't have happened at all to question Labour's record in that regard, for many billions were wasted during the boom years.

Looking back at the recent past, policies such as ID Cards and pre-charge detention demonstrated the value of a good and healthy opposition, so ultimately the country is served ill by a Labour Party consumed with internal political wrangling.

I wouldn't know why the Tories are not considering it, but you should be considering the idea on its own merits. Have a read of this in the FT today.


Corbyn’s “People’s QE” could actually be a decent idea

If Jeremy Corbyn becomes leader of the UK Labour Party, one positive consequence will be the ensuing discussion of the monetary policy transmission mechanism.

It all started with his presentation on “The Economy in 2020” given on July 22:

The ‘rebalancing’ I have talked about here today means rebalancing away from finance towards the high-growth, sustainable sectors of the future. How do we do this? One option would be for the Bank of England to be given a new mandate to upgrade our economy to invest in new large scale housing, energy, transport and digital projects: Quantitative easing for people instead of banks. Richard Murphy has been one of many economists making that case.

That passage seems to have been mostly ignored until August 3, when Chris Leslie, Labour’s shadow chancellor, attacked the policy, which in turn led to a detailed response from the aforementioned Richard Murphy (see also here and here), at which point what seems like the bulk of the British economics commentariat erupted. Just search the internet for “Corbynomics” if you don’t believe us.

Much of the commentary has been negative — former Bank of England economist Tony Yates concluded, for example, that “People’s QE” would be “the first step along the road to undermining the social usefulness of money” — although Chris Dillow gave an intelligent defense.

We don’t understand the negativity. Some of the specific arguments justifying the proposal may be flawed, but the core idea is sound and possesses an impressive intellectual pedigree. In fact, it could help solve one of the most troublesome questions in central banking: how policymakers can accomplish their objectives using the tools at their disposal, without producing too many unpleasant side effects.

Another a good write-up on it here.

 

[Jippy]

Too much fudge for one Parliament i suspect, what with the way Cameron will hope to dress up his EU negotiations to appear grander than they actually are.


Back to matters Labour...

Jeremy Corbyn refuses three times to condemn IRA for terrorist atrocities

Though unsurprising given his known position on the matter, it is the sort of opinion that would prove damaging in a TV debate or election campaign. The interview was apparently conducted by Stephen Nolan, who can be very unforgiving when he senses that a politician is attempting to dodge a question (at least from my experience of him on BBC 5Live). Perhaps some of our resident NI members heard it at the time?

Not seen you in a bit Nick. I nearly put my foot through my laptop when I read this...or maybe not. The right wing press's stance on Corbyn seems to be somewhat contradictory. This article (which is still leading their website at 10pm) is clearly designed to outrage, but plenty of others have been crowing about his lead in the polls, seeing it as a free Tory pass for 2020.

 

[Jippy]

It's telling that for some in Labour, adopting left-wing policies 'divides the party' but adopting right-wing policies doesn't. I think Corbyn is being very conciliatory to the right who are chucking their toys out of the pram because the membership are daring to have their own opinions, and have been pettily hurling insults at him ever since.

For what it's worth I agree with you about sections of the far-left (not many in the Labour Party though) not respecting the electorate and I have no time for that sort of politics.



I wouldn't know why the Tories are not considering it, but you should be considering the idea on its own merits. Have a read of this in the FT today.


Corbyn’s “People’s QE” could actually be a decent idea



Another a good write-up on it here.

There are aspects of his idea that have some merit, but ultimately, they'll be stifled by regulation and lack of return for the private sector. I'd dispute whether energy and transport can be classed as high growth sectors, for example. Both are heavily price-regulated and energy companies just lost their green subsidies in the Budget. Drax's share price fell by over 25% on the news in a single session- it was a nuclear company that migrated to biomass, but has been stung.

Housing obviously raises issues around planning laws, which is a touchy subject, and the increased need to incorporate an element of social housing within new developments does reduce their attractiveness to house builders.
Unless Corbyn is suggesting a near-nationalisation of these industries, he would have to throw some breaks to the private sector if he wants them to participate and that won't sit well with his core leftist support base.

 

[bishblaize]

It's telling that for some in Labour, adopting left-wing policies 'divides the party' but adopting right-wing policies doesn't.

I don't think that's entirely true. I posted myself earlier in the thread that while I would like Kendall as leader, I doubt she can unite the party.

 

[Ubik]

I don't think that's entirely true. I posted myself earlier in the thread that while I would like Kendall as leader, I doubt she can unite the party.

That's probably the best argument against her, but for me the negatives of the others still outweigh it. Either way she's not going to win so I'm just hoping the seriousness of the situation dawns upon people in a few years time.

 

[Crono]

I don't think that's entirely true. I posted myself earlier in the thread that while I would like Kendall as leader, I doubt she can unite the party.

Firstly I'm not just talking about you, I've heard the 'divisive' criticism levelled at the left countless times, and it's almost never levelled at the right though logically it can just as easily be applied to them.

Secondly, you didn't exactly say she was being divisive did you, it's more like you're criticising the membership for being too immature to get behind her. And interestingly you plan to vote for her anyway, whilst criticising the left for voting for a 'toxic/divisive' figure in Corbyn.

There are aspects of his idea that have some merit, but ultimately, they'll be stifled by regulation and lack of return for the private sector. I'd dispute whether energy and transport can be classed as high growth sectors, for example. Both are heavily price-regulated and energy companies just lost their green subsidies in the Budget. Drax's share price fell by over 25% on the news in a single session- it was a nuclear company that migrated to biomass, but has been stung.

Housing obviously raises issues around planning laws, which is a touchy subject, and the increased need to incorporate an element of social housing within new developments does reduce their attractiveness to house builders.
Unless Corbyn is suggesting a near-nationalisation of these industries, he would have to throw some breaks to the private sector if he wants them to participate and that won't sit well with his core leftist support base.

He is.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f72d0ee6-3c4f-11e5-bbd1-b37bc06f590c.html#axzz3hx6yxxWN

August 7, 2015 12:01 am

Jeremy Corbyn backs nationalising ‘big six’ energy suppliers


Labour would start buying up shares in the “big six” energy companies under a Jeremy Corbyn government until it owned a controlling stake, the party’s leftwing leadership contender has said.

Mr Corbyn, whose support has surged during the campaign and is now narrowly the second favourite to win, wants to nationalise British Gas, SSE, Eon, RWE Npower, Scottish Power and EDF, as well as the National Grid.


Speaking to the charity Greenpeace, he said: “I would want the public ownership of the gas and the National Grid . . . [and] I would personally wish that the big six were under public control, or public ownership in some form.”

Going into detail about how this could be achieved, he said: “You can do it by majority shareholding; you can do it by increased share sales, which are then bought by the government in order to give a controlling interest.”

http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/priorities/employment/

Transport

It is essential that modern transport is both affordable to everybody and low in emissions.

I have been a consistent supporter of a publicly owned integrated transport system that is run in the interests of users. This would include an emphasis on low carbon public transport; nationalised railways; encouraging cycling which is both healthy and carbon free; low fares so that everybody can access these essential services; and good pay and conditions for the staff that make using all forms of transport possible.

 

[Ubik]

Bit random to want to emphasise low carbon transport whilst also pledging to re-open coal mines.

 

[Crono]

Bit random to want to emphasise low carbon transport whilst also pledging to re-open coal mines.

He hasn't done anything of the sort. He's talked about the potential for there being a case for extracting coal from the open-cast mines if coal prices were to go up enough in future and if it could be carbon-neutral.



From 6m:15s.

 

[bishblaize]

Firstly I'm not just talking about you, I've heard the 'divisive' criticism levelled at the left countless times, and it's almost never levelled at the right though logically it can just as easily be applied to them.

Secondly, you didn't exactly say she was being divisive did you, it's more like you're criticising the membership for being too immature to get behind her. And intelrestingly you plan to vote for her anyway, whilst criticising the left for voting for a 'toxic/divisive' figure in Corbyn.

I actually said I'll wait and see, but anyway we have an AV system and she's not going to win, so I can vote for her symbolically.

 

[Ubik]

He hasn't done anything of the sort. He's talked about the potential for there being a case for extracting coal from the open-cast mines if coal prices were to go up enough in future and if it could be carbon-neutral.



From 6m:15s.

Not sure how you can ensure it's carbon neutral when you're exporting it to the rest of the world. It should be a dead technology.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Not seen you in a bit Nick. I nearly put my foot through my laptop when I read this...or maybe not. The right wing press's stance on Corbyn seems to be somewhat contradictory. This article (which is still leading their website at 10pm) is clearly designed to outrage, but plenty of others have been crowing about his lead in the polls, seeing it as a free Tory pass for 2020.

Yeah, i've been away for a little bit, partly due to a Baltic cruise in July (are you still going on a cruise yourself this year?).

Regarding the press' response to Corbyn: I suppose it is possible to recognise in his candidacy some of the mistakes which the Tories made when appointing IDS, a leader pleasing to a niche audience and one who is likely to find it difficult to win over wider support. There are some obvious flashpoints in terms of policy of course, indeed i imagine that they're quite repulsed by his approach to foreign affair for instance. In short, their wry amusement can't sufficiently conceal their dislike.

From 6m:15s.

How does he propose to fund such widespread re-nationalisation? What better things could be achieved with those billions right now?

I do actually find common ground with him as regards devolved energy production and solar usage on commercial/residential property, but the positives inherent to those initiatives would be outweighed by the consequences of his ideologically driven proposals.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Jeremy Corbyn: Here are the four most common misconceptions about me and my campaign – and the truth

I can't decide if Corbyn is being intentionally obtuse or demonstrating a degree of naivety with some of his responses here.


Liz Kendall has accused her Labour leaderships rivals of spreading "smears" and false rumours after she was forced to deny suggestions she is in a relationship with her campaign manager.


Personally, i don't see why it should matter even if she were. Both the tone, and personal nature of the attacks against Kendall, could find fair companionship with the worst of Fleet Street.

 

[DOTA]

Personally, i don't see why it should matter even if she were. Both the tone, and personal nature of the attacks against Kendall, could find fair companionship with the worst of Fleet Street.

She's female. She isn't allowed any romance at all, until marriage. I think that's the rules.

She has been treated appallingly. I don't remotely agree with her politics and I don't see why she's even in the Labour party, given her views, but... yeah.

 

[Jippy]

Yeah, i've been away for a little bit, partly due to a Baltic cruise in July (are you still going on a cruise yourself this year?).

Regarding the press' response to Corbyn: I suppose it is possible to recognise in his candidacy some of the mistakes which the Tories made when appointing IDS, a leader pleasing to a niche audience and one who is likely to find it difficult to win over wider support. There are some obvious flashpoints in terms of policy of course, indeed i imagine that they're quite repulsed by his approach to foreign affair for instance. In short, their wry amusement can't sufficiently conceal their dislike.




How does he propose to fund such widespread re-nationalisation? What better things could be achieved with those billions right now?

I do actually find common ground with him as regards devolved energy production and solar usage on commercial/residential property, but the positives inherent to those initiatives would be outweighed by consequences of his ideologically driven proposals.

Hope the Baltics were good. Did you cruise the fjords? Our cruise for my father-in-law's 70th seems to have hit the buffers, to mix metaphors.
It was then going to be a trip to Sri Lanka but now looks likes being in Maritius again. Heyho.
Agree on Corbyn and feel my points on the economics are sound. I couldn't figure out how much of his plan is state-funded versus private sector given Labour's proud PPI record...

 

[Jippy]

Firstly I'm not just talking about you, I've heard the 'divisive' criticism levelled at the left countless times, and it's almost never levelled at the right though logically it can just as easily be applied to them.

Secondly, you didn't exactly say she was being divisive did you, it's more like you're criticising the membership for being too immature to get behind her. And interestingly you plan to vote for her anyway, whilst criticising the left for voting for a 'toxic/divisive' figure in Corbyn.



He is.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f72d0ee6-3c4f-11e5-bbd1-b37bc06f590c.html#axzz3hx6yxxWN



http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/priorities/employment/

OK, he is unelectable. Is he really extolling a policy of expropriating a listed German company's assets?

 

[surf]

The unelectability jibe against Corbyn is desperation from the Labour establishment. In what parallel universe is their preferred candidate Burnham more electable?

 

[Member 55443]

Apparently being popular = not electable.

 

[DOTA]

The unelectability jibe against Corbyn is desperation from the Labour establishment. In what parallel universe is their preferred candidate Burnham more electable?

He isn't as scary to to the middle classes. I want Corbyn to win but I think Burnham would probably get more votes.

 

[Untied]

Corbyn beer mat:

 

[Ubik]

Funny how David Miliband never got the kind of attacks Kendall gets, despite saying the exact same things.

Apparently being popular = not electable.

Popular among the Labour membership doesn't equal popular among the general electorate, that should be plainly obvious.

 

[sun_tzu]

He isn't as scary to to the middle classes. I want Corbyn to win but I think Burnham would probably get more votes.

The problem burnham will have is holding the party together as a bit like ed he will be seen as a compromise candidate that neither the left or right want (d milliband and balls before)... Only this time I forsee open internal rebellion rather than a mostly united front

 

[Untied]

Funny how David Miliband never got the kind of attacks Kendall gets, despite saying the exact same things.

Meh I thought it was funny. It is a bit bizarre how the membership has gone from supporting Milibands to supporting Corbyn but 5 years is a long time.

 

[Raees]

I have been disillusioned with politics for years, not knowing where I fall on the political spectrum but this guy is a vote winner for me.. much of what he says makes sense and he comes across very genuine. Burnham is an odious cnut, Kendall is an annoying bitch and Yvette Cooper would get torn to shreds by the Conservatives, she has zero charisma.

 

[Member 55443]

Funny how David Miliband never got the kind of attacks Kendall gets, despite saying the exact same things.

Popular among the Labour membership doesn't equal popular among the general electorate, that should be plainly obvious.

Well I disagree with the notion then, seems like some kind of scare tactic or something. The media focus too much on this ridiculous "left and right" scale like thats a real thing amd the only or main thing people vote over. Corbyn comes across as having 10x the credibility, knowledge, charm, character, understanding and anything else that people want to see in a politician than the likes of Miliband or *insert any other mainstream politician* and if that comes across at this early stage of leadership contest then I don't see why it wont come across in five or so years to the general population who might just be sick of a Tory government by then too.

 

[Crono]

I have been disillusioned with politics for years, not knowing where I fall on the political spectrum but this guy is a vote winner for me.. much of what he says makes sense and he comes across very genuine. Burnham is an odious cnut, Kendall is an annoying bitch and Yvette Cooper would get torn to shreds by the Conservatives, she has zero charisma.

tell us how you really feel!

 

[sun_tzu]

Imagine corbyn and Trump somehow became pm and president...
That special relationship would end in a quicki divorce

 

[Ubik]

Well I disagree with the notion then, seems like some kind of scare tactic or something. The media focus too much on this ridiculous "left and right" scale like thats a real thing amd the only or main thing people vote over. Corbyn comes across as having 10x the credibility, knowledge, charm, character, understanding and anything else that people want to see in a politician than the likes of Miliband or *insert any other mainstream politician* and if that comes across at this early stage of leadership contest then I don't see why it wont come across in five or so years to the general population who might just be sick of a Tory government by then too.

Left and right is shorthand, based on the policies someone espouses. Stuff like mass nationalisation and unilateral disarmament are unquestionably leftish ideas. People vote based on whether they like the sound of someone's ideas, and whilst the Labour membership (and entrists from various organisations both left and right, for differing reasons) may enjoy the sound of Corbyn's politics, the country as a whole is a lot different. It's not like this is just something journos have made up to fill column inches, it's based on academic research into the voting population over the years. Some leftwing stuff is popular, some isn't. You wrap the popular stuff in an overall centrist message that large parts of a small c conservative nation will swallow if you want to win. If you dogmatically pursue purity than you let the other guys do what they want until you wise up.

 

[Crono]

OK, he is unelectable. Is he really extolling a policy of expropriating a listed German company's assets?

Why are you equating nationalisation with expropriation?

And why are you so sure nationalisation policies would make him unelectable? Even a majority of Tory voters have expressed support for nationalising the energy and railway companies. Let's have another butchers.

Left and right is shorthand, based on the policies someone espouses. Stuff like mass nationalisation and unilateral disarmament are unquestionably leftish ideas. People vote based on whether they like the sound of someone's ideas, and whilst the Labour membership (and entrists from various organisations both left and right, for differing reasons) may enjoy the sound of Corbyn's politics, the country as a whole is a lot different. It's not like this is just something journos have made up to fill column inches, it's based on academic research into the voting population over the years. Some leftwing stuff is popular, some isn't. You wrap the popular stuff in an overall centrist message that large parts of a small c conservative nation will swallow if you want to win. If you dogmatically pursue purity than you let the other guys do what they want until you wise up.

Could you expand on this? What exactly are you claiming this academic research has concluded, and can you share it with us?