next labour leader

Silva said:
What difference was it going to make at the ballot box when there was the other guys would have done the same?
Click to expand...

Still don't get what you're arguing. My post simply stated that Labour did a lot of good under Blair and haven't been elected since they moved further and further to the left.
 
Silva said:
I wasn't debating that. I was pointing out why the Iraq war didn't cost them the next election.
Click to expand...

I said in the post they WON the election after the Iraq war. Are you drunk or something?

Blair (who appeared to be more centre left), did a lot of good things without being too far left (or at least pretending not to be too far left), since he resigned and Brown took over (much more left) they've the following two elections.

I'm pointing out Labour and left wingers attitudes towards Blair are negative because THEY don't forgive him for the Iraq war. Everyone else couldn't care less anymore.
 
IrishLegend said:
I said in the post they WON the election after the Iraq war. Are you drunk or something?

Blair (who appeared to be more centre left), did a lot of good things without being too far left (or at least pretending not to be too far left), since he resigned and Brown took over (much more left) they've the following two elections.

I'm pointing out Labour and left wingers attitudes towards Blair are negative because THEY don't forgive him for the Iraq war. Everyone else couldn't care less anymore.
Click to expand...
Maybe you're drunk, because I'm not disputing any of the things you seem to think I'm disputing.

Brown would have won if he wasn't too much of a pussy to have the election pre-2008 when there was some pressure for him to have it. But he didn't, and he got kicked out for the economy crashing on his watch.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
In which specific policy areas can you see Corbyn drawing back from his presently stated positions?
Click to expand...
Privitasiation of energy companies
Train companies are on a franchise so at the end of the franchise it would cost nothing
185bn to buy controlling interest in power companies... And how you would buy EDF I have no idea but I think you would have to change the law in France.
 
Brown clearly didn't lose the election for being 'too far left'. That's such a simplistic way of looking at elections, they're not fought on straight lines.
 
Monbiot's take on it expresses my thinking pretty well. Worth a read.

George Monbiot said:
Jeremy Corbyn is the curator of the future. His rivals are chasing an impossible dream

On one point I agree with his opponents: Jeremy Corbyn has little chance of winning the 2020 general election. But the same applies to the other three candidates. Either Labour must win back the seats it once held in Scotland (surely impossible without veering to the left) or it must beat the Conservatives by 12 points in England and Wales to form an overall majority. The impending boundary changes could mean that it has to win back 106 seats. If you think that is likely, I respectfully suggest that you are living in a dreamworld.

In fact, in this contest of improbabilities, Corbyn might stand the better chance. Only a disruptive political movement, that can ignite, mesmerise and mobilise, that can raise an army of volunteers – as the SNP did in Scotland – could smash the political concrete.

To imagine that Labour could overcome such odds by becoming bland, blurred and craven is to succumb to thinking that is simultaneously magical and despairing. Such dreamers argue that Labour has to recapture the middle ground. But there is no such place; no fixed political geography. The middle ground is a magic mountain that retreats as you approach. The more you chase it from the left, the further to the right it moves.

From one of the summer’s big gatherings of the left, the Tolpuddle festival, to the streets of marginal Bedford and a big campaign rally in Luton, John Harris charts the rise of Jeremy Corbyn and his effect on politics.
As the social *********** Karl Polanyi pointed out towards the end of the second world war, when politics offers little choice and little prospect of solving their problems, people seek extreme solutions. Labour’s inability to provide a loud and proud alternative to Conservative policies explains why so much of its base switched to Ukip at the last election. Corbyn’s political clarity explains why the same people are flocking back to him.

Are they returning because he has tailored his policies to appeal to the hard right? Certainly not. They are returning because he stands for something, something that could help them, something that was not devised by a row of spadbot mannikins in suits, consulting their clipboards on Douglas Alexander’s sofa.

Nothing was more politically inept than Labour’s attempt before the election to win back Ukip supporters by hardening its stance on immigration. Why vote for the echo when you can vote for the shout? What is attractive about a party prepared to abandon its core values for the prospect of electoral gain? What is inspiring about a party that grovels, offering itself as a political doormat for any powerful interest or passing fad to wipe its feet on?

In an openDemocracy article, Ian Sinclair compares Labour’s attempts to stop Corbyn with those by the Tories in 1974-75 to stop Margaret Thatcher. Divisive, hated by the press, seen by her own party as an extremist, she was widely dismissed as unelectable. The Tory establishment, convinced that the party could win only from the centre, did everything it could to stop her.

Across three decades New Labour strategists have overlooked a crucial reality: politicians reinforce the values they espouse. The harder you try to win by adopting your opponents’ values, the more you legitimise and promote them, making your task – and that of your successors – more difficult. Tony Blair won three elections, but in doing so he made future Labour victories less likely. By adopting conservative values, conservative framing and conservative language, he shifted the nation to the right, even when he pursued leftwing policies such as the minimum wage, tax credits and freedom of information. You can sustain policies without values for a while but then, like plants without soil, the movement wilts and dies.

The Labour mainstream likes to pretend that Blair’s only breach of faith was the Iraq war. The marketisation of the NHS, the private finance initiative, the criminalisation of peaceful protest, collusion in the kidnap and torture of dissidents from other nations, the collapse of social housing – I could fill this page with a list of such capitulations to greed and tyranny. Blair’s purges, stripping all but courtiers from the lists of potential candidates, explain why the party now struggles to find anyone under 50 who looks like a leader.

The capitulations continued under Ed Miliband, who allowed the Conservative obsession with the deficit and austerity to frame Labour politics. As Paul Krugman explains, austerity is a con that does nothing but harm to the wealth of this nation. It has been discredited everywhere else: only in Britain do we cling to the myth. Yet Miliband walked willingly into the trap. His manifestopromised to “cut the deficit every year” and to adopt such cruel Tory policies as the household benefits cap.

You can choose, if you wish, to believe that this clapped-out, alienating politics – compounded by such gobsmacking acts of cowardice as the failure to oppose the welfare bill – can capture the mood of the nation, reverse Labour’s decline and secure an extra hundred seats. But please stop calling yourself a realist.

Because Labour’s immediate prospects are so remote, regardless of who wins this contest, the successful candidate is likely to be a caretaker, a curator of the future. His or her task must be to breathe life back into politics, to recharge democracy with choice, to ignite the hope that will make Labour electable again. Only one candidate proposes to do that.
Click to expand...
 
Untied said:
Monbiot's take on it expresses my thinking pretty well. Worth a read.
Click to expand...
I disagree that 2020 should be written off so readily.
With Europe potentially fracturing the perceived unity of the conservative party and likely tough succession battle between Boris and Giddeon - as well as Cameron having the difficult "lame duck period" post European referendum till he actually quits I wouldn't sacrifice 2020 just yet.
If there has not been another Scottish referendum by then Labour could put that in their manifesto and all of a sudden there would be a real shot (provided you could win the votes in England - which would probably require some more centrist policies than left imo)
Once in power the boundary changes can be looked at as "independently" as they have been this time round.
To write off 2020 just seems so defeatist - especially with the seemingly inevitable divisions the European referendum will pose to a conservative party that will struggle not to look dis-united... the only way Labour will look dis-united if if Corbyn decides he wants to campain for an out whilst the vast majority of his MP's will want to campaign for in (ironically probably the opposite of the conservatives)
 
sun_tzu said:
I disagree that 2020 should be written off so readily.
With Europe potentially fracturing the perceived unity of the conservative party and likely tough succession battle between Boris and Giddeon - as well as Cameron having the difficult "lame duck period" post European referendum till he actually quits I wouldn't sacrifice 2020 just yet.
If there has not been another Scottish referendum by then Labour could put that in their manifesto and all of a sudden there would be a real shot (provided you could win the votes in England - which would probably require some more centrist policies than left imo)
Once in power the boundary changes can be looked at as "independently" as they have been this time round.
To write off 2020 just seems so defeatist - especially with the seemingly inevitable divisions the European referendum will pose to a conservative party that will struggle not to look ***-united... the only way Labour will look ***-united if if Corbyn decides he wants to campain for an out whilst the vast majority of his MP's will want to campaign for in (ironically probably the opposite of the conservatives)
Click to expand...

Well put. I would add don't forget the unknown unknowns. Brown's campaign turned on one stupid remark made when he didn't realise he was being recorded. Let's say, for instance, the tories became perceived as racist, they would lose London almost in entirety.
 
Untied said:
Monbiot's take on it expresses my thinking pretty well. Worth a read.
Click to expand...
A lot to take issue with in that. The Thatcher comparison was made about Ed too, but she won the votes of over 100 MPS on the first ballot, Corbyn didn't even get close to the 35 nominations he needed without help. As to Blair having moved the country right I don't see that as having any factual basis whatsoever, the Tories had to completely overhaul their image on public service delivery, they moved from opposing the minimum wage to championing a faster rate of increase than Labour, they introduced gay marriage and they prioritised foreign aid spending. They've clamped down heavily on benefits, true, but it's very difficult to argue that Labour’s increase in welfare spending has deliberately moved the country right on the issue. Ditto their championing of multiculturalism with regards to immigration. Civil liberties is the one area where the argument has traction.
 
The whole EU referendum is going to shake things up as well. We could have the kind of odd situation, of having Cameron, leading the main Eurosceptic party, campaigning to keep us in, and Corbyn, leading a party mainly comprised of Europhiles, campaigning for us to come out. What impact that would have on the respective parties is hard to predict. Once the whole process is out of the way I think things will look quite different, not least because we may well vote to leave the EU which would be huge.
 
Adebesi said:
The whole EU referendum is going to shake things up as well. We could have the kind of odd situation, of having Cameron, leading the main Eurosceptic party, campaigning to keep us in, and Corbyn, leading a party mainly comprised of Europhiles, campaigning for us to come out. What impact that would have on the respective parties is hard to predict. Once the whole process is out of the way I think things will look quite different, not least because we may well vote to leave the EU which would be huge.
Click to expand...
I think ultimatley it will have to be a non party issue for MP's - but how much damage that does to the respective parties is anybodys guess.
I think for Cameron if he wins he can wrap up whenever he wants and consider it job done... if he looses he goes and a more eurosceptic leader takes over as PM dressed up as the conservatives listening to the voice of the people.
For the labour party I think anything other than being largely unified behind an in vote leaves them looking very fragmented (though I suspect people are already secretly looking to it as a potential way to oust corbyn if (when) he wins the leadership
 
sun_tzu said:
For the labour party I think anything other than being largely unified behind an in vote leaves them looking very fragmented (though I suspect people are already secretly looking to it as a potential way to oust corbyn if (when) he wins the leadership
Click to expand...
They're not exactly all buddy buddy as it stands.
 
Silva said:
They're not exactly all buddy buddy as it stands.
Click to expand...
true... but imagine corbyn and farrage being the only major leaders calling for an out vote - the rest of the labour mp's plus blair, brown, kinnock, milliband and pretty much anybody else you can drag a quote out of will be ripping into him (and as you only need 47 labour MP's to call a leadership motion it would be a prime opportunity to frame Corbyn on the opposite side of the main issue (at the time) as probably 90% of the party membership)
 
ThierryHenry said:
Brown clearly didn't lose the election for being 'too far left'. That's such a simplistic way of looking at elections, they're not fought on straight lines.
Click to expand...

All mention of 'left right scale' should be banned, it's so lazy and wrong.
 
I've just seen that Corbyn was on Radio 4 at lunchtime, did anyone here listen to it?


Adebesi said:
The whole EU referendum is going to shake things up as well. We could have the kind of odd situation, of having Cameron, leading the main Eurosceptic party, campaigning to keep us in, and Corbyn, leading a party mainly comprised of Europhiles, campaigning for us to come out. What impact that would have on the respective parties is hard to predict. Once the whole process is out of the way I think things will look quite different, not least because we may well vote to leave the EU which would be huge.
Click to expand...

A few of the unions have also modified their position on the EU. The RMT has already decided to campaign in favour of Brexit, and Unite is wavering too i read a little while back. It's not just the rank and file of the Tories but members of the Cabinet too, although that ingredient does remove one area of contention from the succession process.

Broadly speaking i agree with @sun_tzu point here, however Corbyn doesn't strike you as a likely beneficiary. If the Conservative situation becomes the least bit chaotic, i would expect the allies of Chukka and Jarvis to begin scouting the ground shall we say.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Broadly speaking i agree with @sun_tzu point here, however Corbyn doesn't strike you as a likely beneficiary. If the Conservative situation becomes the least bit chaotic, i would expect the allies of Chukka and Jarvis to begin scouting the ground shall we say.
Click to expand...

Jarvis would have walked this election i think - and should he throw his hat into the ring (or suggest he will) I think there will be moves to make it happen before you can say "electable war veteran in the house!"
 
I don't know much about Jarvis - is the 'hype' around him only because he isn't posh, and was successful in the military?
Adebesi said:
The whole EU referendum is going to shake things up as well. We could have the kind of odd situation, of having Cameron, leading the main Eurosceptic party, campaigning to keep us in, and Corbyn, leading a party mainly comprised of Europhiles, campaigning for us to come out. What impact that would have on the respective parties is hard to predict. Once the whole process is out of the way I think things will look quite different, not least because we may well vote to leave the EU which would be huge.
Click to expand...
I don't think there's any chance that the Labour Party supports a Brexit next year. Corbyn has expressed dissatisfaction with the EU but that's a long way from campaigning to leave it.
 
ThierryHenry said:
I don't think there's any chance that the Labour Party supports a Brexit next year. Corbyn has expressed dissatisfaction with the EU but that's a long way from campaigning to leave it.
Click to expand...

Not sure its a simple issue. Cameron's trying to get an EU opt-out on employment rights. Unite are debating the issue next year, but if Cameron is successful, they claim they might switch to an Out campaign. And where Unite go, other trade unions will follow.

Which would lead us to the prospect of the trade unions and the working class left campaigning to leave the EU, and the Tories campaigning to stay in it. Which would be strange.

But even if we don't see that oddity, the EU could still end up being a headache for Labour too.
 
Well, we all know what happened to the last Labour leader this man gave his support to:


He even wore a vest in solidarity with Jeremy.


sun_tzu said:
Jarvis would have walked this election i think - and should he throw his hat into the ring (or suggest he will) I think there will be moves to make it happen before you can say "electable war veteran in the house!"
Click to expand...

:D

I nominate Tristram Hunt to yell that out, able assisted by a siren going off.
 
Jarvis made a good speech to the first hustings at Progress, showed a solid grasp of where the party needed to go to win again. Will have to start raising his profile a bit over the next few years, but he'd certainly appeal to people across the party.
 
Jarvis gave his backing to Burnham didn't he?

I recall that some here on the Caf thought him to be a Blairite at heart, so had he been involved in this contest a military veteran probably equates to a Ukipper.



ETA:

Has Corbyn been caught out in a lie with this Dyab Abou Jahjah issue? Seems bloody daft if so, what with these reports that he wrote to the Home Secretary on his behalf.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Jarvis gave his backing to Burnham didn't he?

I recall that some here on the Caf thought him to be a Blairite at heart, so had he been involved in this contest a military veteran probably equates to a Ukipper.



ETA:

Has Corbyn been caught out in a lie with this Dyab Abou Jahjah issue? Seems bloody daft if so, what with these reports that he wrote to the Home Secretary on his behalf.
Click to expand...
He did, Burnham used to be considered a Blairite too back when it was all the rage, but he flip flops so often these days he could be anywhere.
 
Ubik said:
He did, Burnham used to be considered a Blairite too back when it was all the rage, but he flip flops so often these days he could be anywhere.
Click to expand...

So true. At least with Liz Kendall I know where she stands, regardless of my personal disagreement with her politics. When you're looking for someone to captain a ship you don't choose a person who has no idea where they're going. You might not like the destination a Kendall or a Corbyn is taking you to but it's better than having someone like Burnham who'd just blindly sail with the wind with no thought as to where you'd end up.
 
He's run a pathetic bid. Cooper's been disappointing, as well. Seemingly hoping to say as little as possible and take second preferences.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Jarvis gave his backing to Burnham didn't he?

I recall that some here on the Caf thought him to be a Blairite at heart, so had he been involved in this contest a military veteran probably equates to a Ukipper.



ETA:

Has Corbyn been caught out in a lie with this Dyab Abou Jahjah issue? Seems bloody daft if so, what with these reports that he wrote to the Home Secretary on his behalf.
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...over-claim-he-had-never-met-lebanese-activist

If his memory is so fuzzy about this, what else has he "forgotten" relating to his associations with groups like the IRA, Hamas, and Hezbollah? That was only 6 years ago. Who knows what happened when he was meeting with IRA bombers back in the 80s? Maybe he went and visited a few pubs in Boston where some IRA members would be fundraising and gave them a few coins but didn't realize they were terrorists at the time.
 
Sir Matt said:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...over-claim-he-had-never-met-lebanese-activist

If his memory is so fuzzy about this, what else has he "forgotten" relating to his associations with groups like the IRA, Hamas, and Hezbollah? That was only 6 years ago. Who knows what happened when he was meeting with IRA bombers back in the 80s? Maybe he went and visited a few pubs in Boston where some IRA members would be fundraising and gave them a few coins but didn't realize they were terrorists at the time.
Click to expand...
What exactly is your point here, with regards to the IRA?
 
I'd rather have a leader willing to talk to people on all sides than one who doesn't give a shit. All these stories of him talking to the IRA, or Hamas or whoever are just making me like him more.
 
Last edited:
Silva said:
I'd rather have a leader willing to talk to people on all sides than one who doesn't give a shit. All these stories of him talking to the IRA, or Hama or whoever are just making me like him more.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I like the idea of discussion over an assumption that these folks are evil so feck 'em. The latter, I think is a fair description of many folk's views, and has a terribly religious sound to it, despite often being born without organised faith.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
What exactly is your point here, with regards to the IRA?
Click to expand...

That perhaps he's not an ideal leader given he's been a cheerleader and advocate for terrorist organizations for over 30 years. He, allegedly, doesn't agree with their methods but he's fully behind their goals. At least with Gerry Adams he has the excuse of "oh, he's not an IRA member ;) ;)" but he brought other convicted bombers to London for meetings and events.

Silva said:
I'd rather have a leader willing to talk to people on all sides than one who doesn't give a shit. All these stories of him talking to the IRA, or Hamas or whoever are just making me like him more.
Click to expand...

When does Corbyn host al-Baghdadi for discussions and singing Kumbaya?
 
Sir Matt said:
That perhaps he's not an ideal leader given he's been a cheerleader and advocate for terrorist organizations for over 30 years. He, allegedly, doesn't agree with their methods but he's fully behind their goals. At least with Gerry Adams he has the excuse of "oh, he's not an IRA member ;) ;)" but he brought other convicted bombers to London for meetings and events.
Click to expand...
Yeah... I resisted accusing you of such before but you are displaying all the words of an American who is fantastically ignorant as to the realities of the conflict.
 
Sir Matt said:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...over-claim-he-had-never-met-lebanese-activist

If his memory is so fuzzy about this, what else has he "forgotten" relating to his associations with groups like the IRA, Hamas, and Hezbollah? That was only 6 years ago. Who knows what happened when he was meeting with IRA bombers back in the 80s? Maybe he went and visited a few pubs in Boston where some IRA members would be fundraising and gave them a few coins but didn't realize they were terrorists at the time.
Click to expand...
History proved Corbyn right with the IRA... diplomacy should always be preferable to bloodshed.
 
Out of interest, have any caf members signed up to vote and been rejected? I signed up ages ago (before the leadership race was even announced) so I'm safe, but judging on social media a lot of traditional Labour supporters who jumped ship during the Blair/Brown years are having problems getting back in. Given that about 100,000 members and 5,000,000 voters left Labour during that period it seems a bit stupid to make it difficult for them to return to the fold. Obviously Tories and their ilk need to be weeded out, but from the profiles of the majority of people who are getting rejected it seems like a pretty clear move to undermine Corbyn rather than any real concern for the legitimacy of the race or the party.

I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any experiences, anecdotes etc. of people from the right being shut out as many on the left have been. For example quite a few high profile donors pulled their support when Miliband was voted in - is Labour not going to allow them back into the fold or does the rule only hold for people who support Corbyn?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.