Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

[jimbob]

Or making compromises and being useless as a party and morally bankrupt. Labour were useless long before Corbyn a fact that his detractors conveniently forget.

You say that they were useless, but it was a close election result with a wafer thin majority. I don't accept that they were.

ETA Miliband gained council seats, Corbyn lost council seats.

However bad they were before, at least the parliamentary party accepted Miliband's leadership. Corbyn's far worse.

 

[jimbob]

Look,you have a choice between sticking to ideological purity and being useless as a party, or making some..gasp,horror, comprimises,...getting into power and actually accomplishing something. Maybe not everything you want, but something.
Politics is the art of the possible.

I meant to reply to this earlier but the phone ate it.

It's hardly a novel or complex concept, but does need restating.

It's interesting that the GMB union has balloted its members and came back 60:40 against Corbyn.

You need to look at the alternatives that you have, not what you would prefer to have.

Elsewhere on this board, there are similar discussions with Sanders supporters saying that as Clinton isn't as radical as Sanders, they can't bring themselves to vote for Clinton.

In other words, they don't care about the vast differences between Trump and Clinton.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You say that they were useless, but it was a close election result with a wafer thin majority. I don't accept that they were.

ETA Miliband gained council seats, Corbyn lost council seats.

However bad they were before, at least the parliamentary party accepted Miliband's leadership. Corbyn's far worse.

Minivans managed to lose Scotland almost entirely to the SNP. It takes a special kind of useless to make Labour damn near unelectable in Scotland.

Nb my tablet autocorrected the name there but I actually quite like it.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I meant to reply to this earlier but the phone ate it.

It's hardly a novel or complex concept, but does need restating.

It's interesting that the GMB union has balloted its members and came back 60:40 against Corbyn.

You need to look at the alternatives that you have, not what you would prefer to have.

Elsewhere on this board, there are similar discussions with Sanders supporters saying that as Clinton isn't as radical as Sanders, they can't bring themselves to vote for Clinton.

In other words, they don't care about the vast differences between Trump and Clinton.

Presumably the 40% who approve of Corbyn should now try to oust the GMB leadership and replace them with someone who better reflects their view? Or do we accept that democratic vote when it gives the result we want?

Incidentally I'm not sure what parallels you are drawing between the us and UK but presumably Corbyn is Hillary in this analogy since he actually won the contest?

 

[Francesca R]

It is and always has been a vehicle to promote it's members interests.

Disagreed as above. "Her Majesty's Opposition" is a bigger role than that. That you wish to confine or revert Labour to the little role is a negative thing IMO

You want to change it? Join and vote and accept the democratic result.

Away you go again with pay up or shut up. What if I pay double can I get two says? Or if I pay x 100?

Perhaps focus your energies on persuading May to become a human being? She actually has power after all so could be a more productive use of your time?

Perhaps. This isn't a Theresa May thread though. It's a Corbyn one.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Disagreed as above. "Her Majesty's Opposition" is a bigger role than that. That you wish to confine or revert Labour to the little role is a negative thing IMO

Away you go again with pay up or shut up. What if I pay double can I get two says? Or if I pay x 100?

Perhaps. This isn't a Theresa May thread though. It's a Corbyn one.

If you want to continue complaining about a club you are not a member of then knock yourself out. Just don't expect the members to listen to you.

 

[Francesca R]

You may scoff, I expect major changes shortly after they've read my posts.

 

[3point14]

Strawlady is still made of straw.

Not really, no, it's more my intention to explore the concept. I realise that it's as ridiculous a proposition as it appears on the face of it, but how far away does one have to be to be different enough to be different while still being close enough to be elected?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think it is rather wrong-headed that some here want to neuter the press from attacking politicians.("Because Murdoch!!") They could always move to Turkey right now or any number of more despotic places.

I actually want the press to provide objective analysis of politicians not partisan heckling. Attack away but base it on reality and in depth understanding. Not parroting sound bites and opinion polls.

 

[angrysoba]

Hurrrr, this is good, if I understand it.

 

[Francesca R]

I actually want the press to provide objective analysis of politicians not partisan heckling. Attack away but base it on reality and in depth understanding. Not parroting sound bites and opinion polls.

Whatever you want the press to do, even "objective analysis" (by whose subjective standard--yours?) any desire to restrict their ability to report on politicians essentially marks you out as illiberal in some way or another.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Whatever you want the press to do, even "objective analysis" (by whose subjective standard--yours?) any desire to restrict their ability to report on politicians essentially marks you out as illiberal in some way or another.

Where did I suggest any restriction? Seeing things again?

 

[Antony]

Look,you have a choice between sticking to ideological purity and being useless as a party, or making some..gasp,horror, comprimises,...getting into power and actually accomplishing something. Maybe not everything you want, but something.
Politics is the art of the possible.

Or making compromises and being useless as a party and morally bankrupt. Labour were useless long before Corbyn a fact that his detractors conveniently forget.

Quite so, Archie. It amazes me that some talk as though the obstacles to a Labour election victory will magically disappear if they just elect a different (unspecified) leader and make (unspecified) "compromises".

It didn't happen in 2010, it didn't happen in 2015 and there is no prospect of it happening in the foreseeable future. The fact that it appears to have happened between 1997 and 2005 is because of the weakness of the Tories at the time, not particularly because of Blair's alleged universal appeal. The Labour victories were down to Major, Hague and Howard, not Blair. And that 13-year interruption in Tory rule achieved very little to correct the march of neo-liberal ideology. We have lost publicly-owned public services, we have lost free higher education, and we are on the way to losing a universal health service. They were 13 wasted years.

Not only that, but 20+ years of top-down stifling of alternative ideas has led to a party with no talent, whose only election strategy is to present themselves as the Tory B-team. There is no current figure among the MPs who has any chance of leading Labour to victory in 2020. Far better to regroup alongside real political challenge to the current elitist consensus and change the political narrative. It may not succeed in the short term, but it has a far better chance of medium and long-term success than the bankrupt dead-end politics that was on offer before Corbyn came on the scene.

Meanwhile Corbyn has, pretty much single-handedly, brought 300,000+ new members into the party. Do the elitist faction really want to throw those gains away? Those 300,000 not only provide a basis for changing the political narrative so that Labour values become vote-winners again, they will also undoubtedly contain the future leaders Labour so desperately needs.

 

[The Don]

Meanwhile Corbyn has, pretty much single-handedly, brought 300,000+ new members into the party. Do the elitist faction really want to throw those gains away? Those 300,000 not only provide a basis for changing the political narrative so that Labour values become vote-winners again, they will also undoubtedly contain the future leaders Labour so desperately needs.

It depends. If in order to attract the 300,000 new members, the Labour Party takes a lurch to the left and in the process loses 3 million potential voters then there is no gain.

It gives me no pleasure to say this, I was an active Labour Party member for over 20 years, but the party is a mess and Corbyn, through a combination of his political dogma and deficit of personal charisma, is making it worse. Here in comfortably off rural South East Wales there aren't too many Labour voters but I number about a dozen or so among friends and acquaintances. Most will not vote Labour at the next election unless there is a fundamental change in party direction and leadership.

The real issue/challenge is to appeal again to Scottish voters - I don't see Corbyn doing that either.

 

[Darat]

It depends. If in order to attract the 300,000 new members, the Labour Party takes a lurch to the left and in the process loses 3 million potential voters then there is no gain.
...snip..

Any evidence for this?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The real issue/challenge is to appeal again to Scottish voters - I don't see Corbyn doing that either.

I don't think that is the real issue in terms of electability but Corbyn has more chance of doing that than any of the alternatives proposed so far. Of course you might also have to find a few people in Scottish Labour capable of tying their own shoelaces to actually win seats.

 

[The Don]

Any evidence for this?

The "lurch to the left" is an informed guess based on the stated views of Corbyn and his supporters and 20 years of experience of local Labour policies. The membership through the 90's and early 2000's was an uncomfortable alliance between "new" and "old" Labour with "new" having the whip hand when it came to setting party policy. Now the "old" and "new-new" Labour factions are taking back control and so I suspect that policy will follow their views.

The 3 million was a rhetorical device being 10 times the 300,000 new members BUT I note that the Labour Party was polling around 33% when Corbyn took over and around 28% now so 3 million is an exaggeration when the number at the moment would appear to be around 2 million (5% of 44 million).

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The "lurch to the left" is an informed guess based on the stated views of Corbyn and his supporters and 20 years of experience of local Labour policies. The membership through the 90's and early 2000's was an uncomfortable alliance between "new" and "old" Labour with "new" having the whip hand when it came to setting party policy. Now the "old" and "new-new" Labour factions are taking back control and so I suspect that policy will follow their views.

The 3 million was a rhetorical device being 10 times the 300,000 new members BUT I note that the Labour Party was polling around 33% when Corbyn took over and around 28% now so 3 million is an exaggeration when the number at the moment would appear to be around 2 million (5% of 44 million).

Think you need to cut that 44m down to about 30 to count actual voters. But more importantly that 5% is not all down to Corbyn and changing a leader isn't going to magically win it back.

Even more importantly the idea that a 5% swing in opinion polls should mean that a long-term strategy is jettisoned is a poor one. There needs to be a period where these ideas are communicated and we see if the public is convinced. That's what politics should be about.

 

[The Don]

Think you need to cut that 44m down to about 30 to count actual voters. But more importantly that 5% is not all down to Corbyn and changing a leader isn't going to magically win it back.

To be honest, it depends on the leader. Under Corbyn's leadership Labour party support has sagged from an already low level to something frankly embarrassing. Polling less than 30% when there's a comparatively unpopular Conservative government smarting from a damaging Brexit vote is very poor.

IMO regardless of his policies, Corbyn lacks the charisma to build a support base. Someone with some star quality, charisma and a vision could, again IMO, get the Labour Party back to the mid to low 30's percent.

Even more importantly the idea that a 5% swing in opinion polls should mean that a long-term strategy is jettisoned is a poor one. There needs to be a period where these ideas are communicated and we see if the public is convinced. That's what politics should be about.

Corbyn isn't the one to communicate his vision. His halfquarter-hearted support for the Remain campaign is an excellent example of this wet blanket in operation. For sure there are some who relish a nice dry debate over policy but far more want to be swept along on a tide of enthusiasm.

Not only will Corbyn damage the Labour Party but IMO his continued failure to provide effective opposition to the government will significantly increase the risks over the Brexit period.

 

[Antony]

The "lurch to the left" is an informed guess based on the stated views of Corbyn and his supporters and 20 years of experience of local Labour policies.

All that tells me is that you've pre-judged him based on your own perceptions; and that when you talk about the "stated views of Corbyn" you mean those stated by others, not by the man himself - unless misrepresented and/or seriously out of context.

The membership through the 90's and early 2000's was an uncomfortable alliance between "new" and "old" Labour with "new" having the whip hand when it came to setting party policy. Now the "old" and "new-new" Labour factions are taking back control and so I suspect that policy will follow their views.

So you agree with Blair's New Labour and not with traditional Labour, and not with the newcomers. You're entitled to your opinion, of course; but you're not entitled to state it as fact and expect others automatically to accept it as "authoritative".

For all Corbyn's alleged "hard-left" politics, we now have the paradox that his challenger as leader is espousing very much the same, and the duck-and-dive strategy of the anti-Corbyn faction has shifted to attacking his personal qualities. It doesn't inspire confidence in their objectivity.

Let's remember that Corbyn was right about apartheid; he was right about holding talks with the IRA; he was right about the Iraq invasion. Yet security policy is somehow made out to be one of his "weaknesses".

The 3 million was a rhetorical device being 10 times the 300,000 new members BUT I note that the Labour Party was polling around 33% when Corbyn took over and around 28% now so 3 million is an exaggeration when the number at the moment would appear to be around 2 million (5% of 44 million).

The opinion polls have little to do with Corbyn and everything to do with the dishonest campaign against him conducted by the elitist faction among Labour MPs. Yet despite all of that Labour has passed all of the electoral tests it has faced under his leadership - and, yes, I include the local elections in May, when Labour was defending an exceptionally strong result from 2012 with little scope for making further gains.