next labour leader
- Thread starter sun_tzu
- Start date
Quite. She's a hypocrite.
The white ones are too busy playing divide and rule at the school gates, natch.
Was great that her defence against being branded a hypocrite led to her being labelled a racist as well.
So, what you're telling me is that 31% of the public has bought into the "Labour won't win with Corbyn" line? That sounds low considering it's probably the most repeated line of the leadership election. Especially considering people vote with the economy, so Labour's out until the next crash anyway.
Kendall: Labour supporters should be called out over 'vitriolic' online abuse
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...uld-be-called-out-over-vitriolic-online-abuse
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...uld-be-called-out-over-vitriolic-online-abuse
Wow. It was only just then reading that he's planning to make John McDonnell shadow chancellor that this all finally became too real.
Yeah he definitely doesn't seem to be the sort who is interested in compromise so I suspect you're right. While Russia/Trident are things people may have an opinion on, neither are likely to be the forefront of voter's minds. Immigration is different.
Very good
Last edited:
Haven't you heard? Being popular = being very unpopular, duh.
The articles about Corbyn continue to multiply in quantity and nastiness -- tabloid smear is the order of the day.
On the other hand, he is somewhat hedging his bets with regard to the EU. It coudl be an almost farcical situation come 2017, with Cameron and most Labour backbenchers on one side, and Corbyn allied with a cohort of Tories.
I think Russia and Trident could be presented as supporting argument in a damaging pattern, but then i tend to to have an interest in such matters. A decade ago the potential impact would have been much diminished, only now we have the TV debates to consider. Of course many people though that Cameron bungled most of those (save for the QT one).
Farage is highly popular too in some quarters, but that doesn't mean he'd make a good prime minister.
Certainly there has been an increasing amount of pressure brought to bear, and over the past week in particular, but i'd doubt whether it equates to the brand of invective directed at Kendall.
I did see an article in which a Labour MP called Corbyn out for anti-Semitic rhetoric, however the company he keeps does leave him open to such...speculation.
@Nick 0208 Ldn Do you think Labour have a better chance of winning a general election with the other three candidates?
Liz Kendall would probably be liked amongst the Tory demographic, but why vote for Tory lite when you have an incumbent bread and butter Tory. Whereas everyone to the left of the party would likely despise her.
Yvette Cooper is Mrs Balls.
Andy Burnham can't even decide if he'd vote Andy Burnham.
So no, not a chance in hell either of them have a chance, despite what the centrists might preach.
Yvette Cooper is Mrs Balls.
Andy Burnham can't even decide if he'd vote Andy Burnham.
So no, not a chance in hell either of them have a chance, despite what the centrists might preach.
It's hard to say, there are some imponderables to consider. If the Tories opt for Boris 2020 oughtn't be a problem, whereas Osborne and May have the potential to present a hurdle or two. Morgan/Hammond could be influential however.
Whilst all of the other candidates have their weaknesses, Cooper's and Burnham's have en element of personality about them, which are likely easier to overcome than Corbyn's policy preferences.
And then there is the EU (a pet topic of mine it has to be said)...should the public vote to leave i reckon that Corbyn is the only prospective leader prepared for such an eventuality.
If i had to judge, i believe that Burnham would suffer a similar fate to Miliband. The comparison between IDS and Corbyn still holds true i believe. as does the solution. Though Cooper can unite more of the PLP than Kendall, it is worth noting reactions like those of @712 .
If you'll excuse me, i'm off to make another Singapore Sling.
Last edited:
I think Yvette Cooper would be the most likely to win a general election. Female vote, comes across well, will hold centrist ground.
But for me personally, as a non-labour voter. I don't care about labour winning, so I would like to see a Corbyn Labour merely to see him raise some interesting questions in opposition. Also to laugh at the chaos and media fervour. Corbyn will definitely be another Foot though.
But for me personally, as a non-labour voter. I don't care about labour winning, so I would like to see a Corbyn Labour merely to see him raise some interesting questions in opposition. Also to laugh at the chaos and media fervour. Corbyn will definitely be another Foot though.
If she wasn't Mrs ed balls I think she would have stood a much better chance
It's like our own poor imitation of bill and hilliary
The labour party has been absolutely obliterated already. None of those other 3 stooges are anywhere remotely near convincing anyone who stopped voting for Labour to vote for them again, maybe I'm wrong on that as it seems many of you seem to believe otherwise. You can criticise some of Corbyn's more 'extreme' views individually but he represents a much bigger core group of people than the rest of them. With any of them it'll be even worse still than it was under Miliband - you can forget about Scotland and remain completely decimated there. They simply cannot connect with the majority of the population and cannot even coherently talk about their own beliefs.
This "Labour are going to lose in 2020 anyway, may as well be true to Labour principles" line is bizarre. Anything can happen in 5 years, the current government aren't hugely popular and should have been defeated in May, and the first duty of the opposition is to present a credible and competent alternative to the government. If Labour actually managed to gain more trust from the public in their economic strategy (and in the current climate, that means being restrained with spending) and had as leader someone people can see as Prime Minister, they have a chance of winning again. Becoming a slightly larger version of the Lib Dems, protesting in the knowledge you'll never win, is not the answer and betrays fundamental reason for the party's formation. Guaranteeing Tory governments for another 15 years is not the way to make the country better.
I think the point is that it doesn't matter whether they represent a significant group of people or hold any credible beliefs. They'll merely morph the party into a place where it's least offensive to the majority of the voters in the hope they absorb voters through a polished campaign.
Like a really shit manufactured rock band, it's no longer about the music.
It won't work though at least not with Cooper or Burnham who will like Ed be fighting from a meek apologist platform.
I do think this kind of commentary completely misses the point that people are sick of this kind of politics and are crying out for a more honest dialogue.
When was the last time that plan actually worked at a time of economic prosperity?
Should've been defeated in May? Tory lite labour got destroyed in May. In 2020 the economy will be doing even better. If you want the tories, just vote for the fecking tories.
Last edited:
But also…
When the leadership election begun I was hoping for Dan Jarvis. A centrist ex-soldier seemed the only chance Labour had of winning back the Little Englanders. But as the leadership election has developed I do not believe any of the standing centrists are inspiring enough to win in 2020 either. In other words, I'm not against diluting principle to win, but I do not believe the dilution that is on offer can win. (See below)
Yes. I find it strange that the centre of the party, having lost two consecutive elections, are telling the left of the party that it can only win from the centre.
In 2005 Labour was defending a majority of 167, in 2001 a majority of 179, in 92 the Tories were defending one of 102, in 87 of 144, in 83 of 43 (which got a lot bigger, and history will repeat). The Conservatives currently have a majority of 12. Not exactly the huge electoral fortresses that Thatcher and Blair built, which even so tended to wither away despite economic successes. In the 60s and 70s these small majorities and minorities switched between Tories and Labour reasonably often.
And yeah, should've been defeated, they were there for the taking but turned out to be the first government in decades to increase their share of the vote and seat count.
So.. 60s and 70s. Or, a completely different electoral pool.
Now, let's consider 2020, a better economy, a EU referendum probably won by the tories and their pals in the media and, even more importantly, redrawn constituency boundaries to favour them. How is Labour going to win? In any guise whatsoever, left wing or otherwise.
Not even taking into consideration the mass exodus if labour actually goes ahead and fecks over the left wing one more time.
Yes, it's that bad, and you don't face up to that challenge by making yourself even more unelectable and the situation even worse for the party to win the following elections. You make yourself credible. If you aren't a genuine alternative to the government, the government can do pretty much as it pleases without fear of punishment at the ballot box. If Labour gets 50 seats from the Tories next time round, they level peg in seats. I'm amazed so many people would prefer a larger Tory majority to that situation.
Labour must be the first political party to be angry about record membership growth. Comparing it to the joy and excitement of the Green party at the start of the year you'd have to wonder who the nasty party is right now.
What is your preoccupation with Kendell? Every time someone points out that another national paper has run an evident smear against Corbyn, you retort with "Well, similar has been said about Kendell". Answer me this, when has Jeremy Corbyn said a single word which could be construed as a personal attack against Kendell? I'm going to guess never.
How are any of the empty suits going to win 50 seats? They're never going to win votes like me, and they need them.
Observing from a far (well, observing from across the North Sea anyhow) it seems to me that the establishment is doing a lot of scare mongering by frightening everybody off Corbyn. It seems to me that the establishment has actually been alarmed by the thought of Corbyn winning, they must be scared of something. Only more reason to want Corbyn to win.
Twice as many voters left Labour to vote Tory in May as left to vote Green. Four out of five extra votes Labour needs to win a majority voted Tory at the last election. So while its true to say that the party needs to reach out to all groups, capturing the Green vote is not a priority.
I agree. I think Labour loses the next election regardless, so it's really about providing credible opposition in the attempt to gain back a bit of ground. Five years of Burnham or Cooper would be hard to take, and neither would win.
People are saying the party might split, well, if the majority of party members agree with a certain candidate's view, and this is somehow an appalling notion, then perhaps it's time for a split.
I don't think you are at all accurate with that. The Tories and the right are hardly talking about him at all. The BBC went out asking folk about him in a Tory seat in Shropshire the other day and the people they asked had never even heard of him.
And what's the appeal of tory lite when there's good old fashioned tory already there?
Voters in Shropshire aren't the establishment.
And twice as many more will leave the party and flock to the Greens or even UKIP if Corbyn doesn't win. Now that there's a real sense of optimism and revived enthusiam surrounding the party, someone like Andy feckin Burnham winning will probaby serve as the death knell for whatever reluctant allegiance progressive labour voters have had for the party.
The establishment is not just the Tories. And the tory press, such as the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph, have daily been spending a lot of column space on the anti-Corbyn wagon.
This idea of "Tory-lite" is an entirely suicidal notion set up by the far left. All it tries to do is to poison the centre ground and make it impossible for the party to ever be there with the force of its rhetoric.
Of course, the message it sends to outsiders is clear - if you think Governments should be sensible and prudent, vote Tory, Labour's not for you. I can't think of a more ludicrous message to give people.
They haven't even got started yet. On balance, he's still the candidate they want to win, even if they acknowledge he's more of an unknown quantity. However you can bet your bottom dollar that they're raking up as much dirt as they can for when he wins.
Is that just your guess or is that evidenced?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...of-his-labour-leadership-rivals-10457055.html
Jeremy Corbyn warns his supporters that he will not tolerate personal abuse of his Labour leadership rivals
There you have it. Just a shame that his rivals are still more focused in slandering him instead of discussiong their own policies.