Jeremy Corbyn might actually win?

[Giz]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...win-Labour-leadership-shock-poll-reveals.html

" The latest polling, seen by the New Statesman, puts Mr Corbyn ahead once second preference votes have been taken into account.

Andy Burnham is said to be winning in first preferences on 39 per cent, Mr Corbyn would be second with 33 per cent, Ms Cooper third with 25 per cent and Ms Kendall trailing in a distant fourth with just four per cent.

But Labour’s preferential voting system would allow Mr Corbyn's popularity among second preferences to hand him victory. "


Wow. I'd assumed either Burnham or Cooper would be the winner. (Though being an economic realist, I thought Kendall would be best at the job.)

So, If JC does win, does that mean a happy base but a long spell in the wilderness of opposition? Seems kinda likely...

 

[Francesca R]

Jeremy Corbyn has the constituency next to mine and has had it for yonks and I think I would vote for him if I lived there. Not as leader though, ugh. Shame about Kendall, and probably "this won't work"

 

[MikeG]

Well, Corbyn would assign Labour to the wilderness for a decade. The electorate very clearly said what they thought about the direction Ed Milliband took the party, and Corbyn is way to the left of him. The bonus of such a leadership choice would be a big resurgence for the Lib Dems, as reasonable people seeking alternatives to the Tories would view a Corbyn-led Labour party as far too extreme.

 

[Rat]

Well, Corbyn would assign Labour to the wilderness for a decade. The electorate very clearly said what they thought about the direction Ed Milliband took the party, and Corbyn is way to the left of him. The bonus of such a leadership choice would be a big resurgence for the Lib Dems, as reasonable people seeking alternatives to the Tories would view a Corbyn-led Labour party as far too extreme.

As far as I can tell, they went from 8.6 million votes in 2010 to 9.3 milllion in 2015. Which direction should they have gone in?

 

[3point14]

Well, Corbyn would assign Labour to the wilderness for a decade. The electorate very clearly said what they thought about the direction Ed Milliband took the party, and Corbyn is way to the left of him. The bonus of such a leadership choice would be a big resurgence for the Lib Dems, as reasonable people seeking alternatives to the Tories would view a Corbyn-led Labour party as far too extreme.

I think the change in the political landscape is more complex than that, with the Liberals falling like flies and the SNP taking votes, it's not as simple as 'they didn't win, everyone hates their policies'

 

[MCel58]

I think the change in the political landscape is more complex than that, with the Liberals falling like flies and the SNP taking votes, it's not as simple as 'they didn't win, everyone hates their policies'

And actually it is likely that if Corbyn had been leader the SNP would not have done so well in Scotland.

 

[angrysoba]

And actually it is likely that if Corbyn had been leader the SNP would not have done so well in Scotland.

I think there is something to that. Although the Labour Party seem to want to position themselves in the centre or go after Comservative votes, they will likely fall between two stools. Harriet Harman is now saying she will support the government on some issues because, and this is her argument, if people voted Tory who is Labour to question the voters. But that is a pathetic argument for an opposition party given that it isn't for the party to agree with people who voted against them but rather those who voted for them.

Like the Lib Dems, Labour will end up making themselves irrelevant if they only stand for what they think is expedient from one minute to the next.

 

[Francesca R]

Although the Labour Party seem to want to position themselves in the centre [ . . . ]

Burnham or Corbyn leading is evidence of quite the reverse. It (still) looks like Labour thinks positioning for the centre is not what it wants to do. Perhaps it takes 2-3 terms of opposition to figure it out.

 

[angrysoba]

Burnham or Corbyn leading is evidence of quite the reverse. It (still) looks like Labour thinks positioning for the centre is not what it wants to do. Perhaps it takes 2-3 terms of opposition to figure it out.

That's true. Maybe I should have said that the "leaders" of the party such as the shadow ministers want Labour to move to the centre. The rank-and-file do not.

 

[Francesca R]

As far as I can tell, they went from 8.6 million votes in 2010 to 9.3 milllion in 2015. Which direction should they have gone in?

Indeed, Labour increased their number of votes and their share of the vote. Why ever did Miliband step down after that result?

 

[3point14]

Indeed, Labour increased their number of votes and their share of the vote. Why ever did Miliband step down after that result?

It's not the job one does that counts. It's the PR one does on the job that counts.

It was painted as a failure, nobody really noticed that the actual number of votes had gone up.

Expecting the electorate as a whole to understand this minutia would be like trying to teach a parrot algebra.

 

[Francesca R]

I actually never thought E Miliband was a bad Labour leader. But I thought Clegg was an even better (LibDem) one. Both views would be way on the wrong side of such PR.

 

[Craig B]

Indeed, Labour increased their number of votes and their share of the vote. Why ever did Miliband step down after that result?

I actually never thought E Miliband was a bad Labour leader. But I thought Clegg was an even better (LibDem) one. Both views would be way on the wrong side of such PR.

Your praise of Miliband is uttered because he increased Labour's share of the vote. But Clegg was an "even better" leader, you say

I assume then that he increased the number and share of LibDem votes. Mmm. Let's see. The LibDems lost 49 of 57 seats, and their share of the vote fell by 15.2%. Evidently you are using different criteria of judgement when you decide that Miliband was not bad, but Clegg was even better. Perhaps the attraction is that Clegg entered coalition with the Tories. Do you think that Labour should now offer to do so? Perhaps you do.

 

[Francesca R]

Your praise of Miliband is uttered because he increased Labour's share of the vote.

No it isn't that's your interpretation.

And the tories don't need a coalition partner but I am on record here as saying previously that a Lab-Con grand coalition would have been better than pretty much all imagined alternatives before the election.

 

[Craig B]

No it isn't that's your interpretation.

I'm not saying it's my interpretation. I'm saying it's your interpretation. Thus:

Indeed, Labour increased their number of votes and their share of the vote. Why ever did Miliband step down after that result?

And the tories don't need a coalition partner but I am on record here as saying previously that a Lab-Con grand coalition would have been better than pretty much all imagined alternatives before the election.

Yes, you are on record as stating that. Now, since it was Clegg's policy to do that, but he presided over a collapse of the LD vote and share of seats, I assume your praise of him results from your approval of his coalition with the Tories.

 

[angrysoba]

I think that the problems of Miliband and Clegg were of a completely different kind.

For Miliband, whatever his policies, his main drawback was PR. To be fair he didn't look like a convincing leader, and I think that even his own party started to diss him.

On the other hand, Clegg was the Lib Dem equivalent of Cameron in the sense that the best way to recognize his party allegiance was the colour of his tie. In a certain way, both of them had adopted PR in the same way that Tony Blair had, so Clegg's undoing was more to do with betrayal of Lib Dem policies.

I think from that we can see that while PR is obviously important the voting public still vote on issues to a large extent. This is surprising to me, as a cynical and bitter person, but also quite an optimistic analysis for those who may actually have ideas and conviction in those ideas. It is partly this that makes me think that Labour will be better served by someone who is more in touch with their base and speaks with conviction rather than those politicians who are too dominated in their thinking by what focus groups say.

I think that the SNP and UKIP have also shown that when there are clear policies and clear policy differences, then they people will trust them.

 

[Francesca R]

I'm not saying it's my interpretation. I'm saying it's your interpretation

Well it isn't. I can hardly have been saying Miliband was an OK leader because he increased Labour's vote / vote share before anyone knew this would be the case.

Now, since it was Clegg's policy to do that, but he presided over a collapse of the LD vote and share of seats, I assume your praise of him results from your approval of his coalition with the Tories.

I think the coalition was the correct move yes, though on balance this was very unpopular. But my approval stems mainly from Clegg being a centrist non-firebrand politician. Some Clegg policies I disagreed with (like some Miliband ones), one of those being zero university fees, and I approved of the LibDems reneging on that (though on balance, again, this was very unpopular with their supporters). More LibDem policies I agreed with, such as pro-immigration (or more realistically less anti) I also think Sturgeon is an excellent leader despite disagreeing with some SNP policies.

 

[Craig B]

More LibDem policies I agreed with, such as pro-immigration (or more realistically less anti)

That reminds me: I have already asked you what your support for immigration is based on. Unfortunately you haven't responded to this query. Can you do so now? I have no motive in this except curiosity.

 

[Francesca R]

Pretty much for the same reasons as this.

 

[Craig B]

Pretty much for the same reasons as this.

Thank you.