• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

In contrast, among my friends, many of whom have been party members and have voted Labour for decades, Corbyn is derided for being dogmatic and a poor party leader.

I will be shocked if, under Corbyn, the Labour Party does any better than holding onto party loyalists and a few Momentum converts.


By way of further contrast, my conversations with a fairly broad spectrum of people would lead me to believe that Mr Corbyn will gain more votes for Labour than he will lose.

It's almost like the circles in which we move all have similar political points of view and there's no utility in trying to extrapolate our own echo chambers into any sort of accurate national picture.
 
Last edited:
I'm pleased that the Labour MPs failed in their attempt to get rid of him and that he now has a stronger mandate than before.

I'd like to think that those MPs would now do one of the following:

  • Support Corbyn wholeheartedly
  • Leave the party and join another
  • Leave the party and form a new one
  • Leave politics altogether
  • Stay within the party and try to reform it from the inside to more closely match their own ideals (as Corbyn himself did for decades). But they should not repeat the pathetic undemocratic and unconstitutional stunts they've tried over the last months - or any similar moves that will present a disunited party to the electorate.
Sadly I don't think that many of the old Blairites are capable of doing any of those things - so they will continue to behave in a way that makes Labour less electable, while hypocritically blaming Corbyn for that lack of electability.
 
I'm pleased that the Labour MPs failed in their attempt to get rid of him and that he now has a stronger mandate than before.

I'd like to think that those MPs would now do one of the following:

  • Support Corbyn wholeheartedly
  • Leave the party and join another
  • Leave the party and form a new one
  • Leave politics altogether
  • Stay within the party and try to reform it from the inside to more closely match their own ideals (as Corbyn himself did for decades). But they should not repeat the pathetic undemocratic and unconstitutional stunts they've tried over the last months - or any similar moves that will present a disunited party to the electorate.
Sadly I don't think that many of the old Blairites are capable of doing any of those things - so they will continue to behave in a way that makes Labour less electable, while hypocritically blaming Corbyn for that lack of electability.



But is Corbyn really the best person to inspire that behaviour? You say Corbyn stayed within the party to reform it, whereas this was closer to the truth:

96079769ad6ea7e93f4486ec2d869d7a.jpg


Hardly the guy to request that we unite around a democratically elected leader.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
And surprise surprise we're back where we were. The Labour Party wants Corbyn to be in charge even if the 'electorate' don't.

And Nicola remains the effective opposition.
 
And surprise surprise we're back where we were. The Labour Party wants Corbyn to be in charge even if the 'electorate' don't.

And Nicola remains the effective opposition.
It will be interesting to see what emerges if and when Article 50 is invoked, and the southern 'electorate' is forced to confront the effects of the decisions it has been beguiled and deceived into making for the country and the Union.
 
But is Corbyn really the best person to inspire that behaviour? You say Corbyn stayed within the party to reform it, whereas this was closer to the truth:

[qimg]http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160924/96079769ad6ea7e93f4486ec2d869d7a.jpg[/qimg]

Hardly the guy to request that we unite around a democratically elected leader.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's part of the problem with Corbyn, his rank hypocrisy. When he was a backbencher attacking the leadership it was 'for the good of the party'. Now when he's leader the same think is 'disloyalty'. And let not forget he put his own desires ahead of party policy when it came to the Brexit referendum. The only winner today was Theresa May.
 
No, but the Labour party's done for until at least the 2025 election

At least. The Tories will have such a majority next election, it will take more than two elections to erode it in my view.

Meanwhile members who voted for Corbyn can celebrate their moral purity and enjoy irrelevance.
 
At least. The Tories will have such a majority next election, it will take more than two elections to erode it in my view.

Meanwhile members who voted for Corbyn can celebrate their moral purity and enjoy irrelevance.
While celebrating your moral turpitude - if that's what you intend to do - for whom will you vote, and encourage others to vote?
 
Corbyn will NEVER lead the Labour Party to a General Election victory.

Why not? Well, start by setting aside all the misdirection about "principle", and "decency" and so on. And then put aside all policy-oriented argument (so beloved in the Westminster Bubble and among constituency activists). The rank-and-file electorate are genuinely too stupid and/or underinformed to understand nuanced policy arguments. I virtually guarantee that if you went to a large shopping mall in any city in the UK tomorrow and asked voter-age people there about detailed policy commitments of any of the major parties (let alone the differences between Corbynistas and Blairites within Labour...) you'd get a heady mixture of ignorant and incorrect.

No. There are two reasons why Corbyn will never lead Labour to GE victory. The first is that the vast majority of Labour MPs actively hate him (and the feeling is mutual). I know a few people within the Westminster bubble who tell me that there is a genuinely toxic environment within the PLP, where covert surveillance is taking place on both sides, and where virtually everyone is constantly looking over his/her shoulder. There is therefore zero chance that Corbyn's victory today will be the end of the matter in Westminster. Expect one of two things to almost certainly happen: either there will be another attempted coup (which will either succeed, or which will potentially tear the PLP totally apart in and of itself), or there will be a breakaway party consisting of the hundred or so Labour MPs who passionately hate Corbyn and McDonnell (which will probably trigger either a hundred or so by-elections or an early General Election).

And the second main reason why Corbyn will never lead Labour to GE victory is a much simpler one: he does not possess the visual or rhetorical attributes of a major international statesman. Do not underestimate this factor, especially with modern electorates who rarely watch the news and who are woefully under-informed on the issues. However "nice" and "decent" and "principled" Corbyn might (or might not) be, he simply is not someone who looks or acts like a leader of an important nation (in the eyes of voters).

There will, of course, be a cadre of life-long Labour voters who would vote Labour with practically anyone as party leader. All modern elections are about swing votes in key swing constituencies - that tiny minority of the voter population in a mere four-dozen or so (out of, currently, 650) constituencies who regularly switch their votes from party to party in general elections. And a significant proportion of those people simply won't cast their vote for Labour because they simply cannot envisage Corbyn as Prime Minister. Again, set aside all the complex and nuanced analysis of political issues and dogma etc. There are, in reality (for better or worse) a tiny relative number of people - probably not many more than 100,000 out of an electorate of some 40 million - who decide the outcome of UK General Elections. And those people (in part, by the very virtue of them being voters who, by definition, change their minds often) simply won't vote for a Labour party led by Corbyn in sufficient numbers to supply a Labour majority in the Commons.


(NB: all of this in in the context of the present constituency definitions and voter spreads. Come the 2020 GE, it is highly likely that boundary changes will have come into force, and the net outcome of those changes is likely to have a 20-30 MP relative reduction of Labour MPs (all else being equal). So, in all probability, Labour will require an enormous swing in order to gain a majority - this (IMO) simple will not be possible under Corbyn - for the reasons given above. It may not actually be possible for Labour under any leader in 2020, but that's another matter.....)
 
No, but the Labour party's done for until at least the 2025 election
Bold. I'm not projecting as much as a year ahead, let alone a decade.

The "true nature of the Labour Party" isn't the only question out there. The "true nature of the Tory Party" is another, and it's actually more dangerous to the Tories because they are going to be working it out while in power. Their shenanigans have consequences. What's more, they'll be doing it without the discipline imposed by a credible opposition threat.With the "most complex negotiations in history" pounding wedges into the cracks. And they're not really that popular to start with, just less unpopular than the rest (except the SNP).

May's Days : how numbered are they? OK, lets not get into that, but I think we should acknowledge that the question is there. Tory unity even in 2020 is not guaranteed. The Labour Party may even seem the more coherent party by then.
 
Last edited:
Corbyn will NEVER lead the Labour Party to a General Election victory.

Why not? Well, start by setting aside all the misdirection about "principle", and "decency" and so on. And then put aside all policy-oriented argument (so beloved in the Westminster Bubble and among constituency activists). The rank-and-file electorate are genuinely too stupid and/or underinformed to understand nuanced policy arguments. I virtually guarantee that if you went to a large shopping mall in any city in the UK tomorrow and asked voter-age people there about detailed policy commitments of any of the major parties (let alone the differences between Corbynistas and Blairites within Labour...) you'd get a heady mixture of ignorant and incorrect.

No. There are two reasons why Corbyn will never lead Labour to GE victory. The first is that the vast majority of Labour MPs actively hate him (and the feeling is mutual). I know a few people within the Westminster bubble who tell me that there is a genuinely toxic environment within the PLP, where covert surveillance is taking place on both sides, and where virtually everyone is constantly looking over his/her shoulder. There is therefore zero chance that Corbyn's victory today will be the end of the matter in Westminster. Expect one of two things to almost certainly happen: either there will be another attempted coup (which will either succeed, or which will potentially tear the PLP totally apart in and of itself), or there will be a breakaway party consisting of the hundred or so Labour MPs who passionately hate Corbyn and McDonnell (which will probably trigger either a hundred or so by-elections or an early General Election).

And the second main reason why Corbyn will never lead Labour to GE victory is a much simpler one: he does not possess the visual or rhetorical attributes of a major international statesman. Do not underestimate this factor, especially with modern electorates who rarely watch the news and who are woefully under-informed on the issues. However "nice" and "decent" and "principled" Corbyn might (or might not) be, he simply is not someone who looks or acts like a leader of an important nation (in the eyes of voters).
There will, of course, be a cadre of life-long Labour voters who would vote Labour with practically anyone as party leader. All modern elections are about swing votes in key swing constituencies - that tiny minority of the voter population in a mere four-dozen or so (out of, currently, 650) constituencies who regularly switch their votes from party to party in general elections. And a significant proportion of those people simply won't cast their vote for Labour because they simply cannot envisage Corbyn as Prime Minister. Again, set aside all the complex and nuanced analysis of political issues and dogma etc. There are, in reality (for better or worse) a tiny relative number of people - probably not many more than 100,000 out of an electorate of some 40 million - who decide the outcome of UK General Elections. And those people (in part, by the very virtue of them being voters who, by definition, change their minds often) simply won't vote for a Labour party led by Corbyn in sufficient numbers to supply a Labour majority in the Commons.


(NB: all of this in in the context of the present constituency definitions and voter spreads. Come the 2020 GE, it is highly likely that boundary changes will have come into force, and the net outcome of those changes is likely to have a 20-30 MP relative reduction of Labour MPs (all else being equal). So, in all probability, Labour will require an enormous swing in order to gain a majority - this (IMO) simple will not be possible under Corbyn - for the reasons given above. It may not actually be possible for Labour under any leader in 2020, but that's another matter.....)

Both true, but the second is only a symptom.

He is just not that bright - he went to a private A-level crammer with a good reputation, and managed two E-grades, and failed to get a degree. He would be completely outgunned by virtually any frontbench spokesperson form any major UK party in the last thirty years. Now, I suppose at least he has a chance to shine compared to the Shadow Health Secretary.

Even worse than being less bright than the other party leaders and most MPs is his intellectual rigidity. His ex-wife (who did vote for him in 2015) says that his politics haven't altered since the 1970s and that seems accurate. (Cuban solidarity is somewhat... irrelevant in 2016, with the US normalising relations, and it has never been a burning issue to the vast majority of UK voters).

He's spent most of his career in an echo chamber and has no idea how to convince people who don't already share his views, and it shows. I agree about the first one though.
 
The "true nature of the Tory Party" is another, and it's actually more dangerous to the Tories because they are going to be working it out while in power. Their shenanigans have consequences. What's more, they'll be doing it without the discipline imposed by a credible opposition threat.With the "most complex negotiations in history" pounding wedges into the cracks.

Yes, there is a theoretical possibility that the Conservatives could still split over Europe. However it would take something very unlikely for that to happen as they will back May in negotiations with the EU, where any problems can be simply blamed on Brussels.

The only circumstance where a split might happen would be if after the final terms are agreed the EU offers a choice between the agreed terms and the status quo ante, leading to a potential second UK referendum. This is ASB as I can't see 27 EU countries and the European Parliament agreeing to this after the drama of the negotiations.
 
Corbyn will NEVER lead the Labour Party to a General Election victory.

Why not? Well, start by setting aside all the misdirection about "principle", and "decency" and so on. And then put aside all policy-oriented argument (so beloved in the Westminster Bubble and among constituency activists). The rank-and-file electorate are genuinely too stupid and/or underinformed to understand nuanced policy arguments. I virtually guarantee that if you went to a large shopping mall in any city in the UK tomorrow and asked voter-age people there about detailed policy commitments of any of the major parties (let alone the differences between Corbynistas and Blairites within Labour...) you'd get a heady mixture of ignorant and incorrect.

No. There are two reasons why Corbyn will never lead Labour to GE victory. The first is that the vast majority of Labour MPs actively hate him (and the feeling is mutual). I know a few people within the Westminster bubble who tell me that there is a genuinely toxic environment within the PLP, where covert surveillance is taking place on both sides, and where virtually everyone is constantly looking over his/her shoulder. There is therefore zero chance that Corbyn's victory today will be the end of the matter in Westminster. Expect one of two things to almost certainly happen: either there will be another attempted coup (which will either succeed, or which will potentially tear the PLP totally apart in and of itself), or there will be a breakaway party consisting of the hundred or so Labour MPs who passionately hate Corbyn and McDonnell (which will probably trigger either a hundred or so by-elections or an early General Election).

And the second main reason why Corbyn will never lead Labour to GE victory is a much simpler one: he does not possess the visual or rhetorical attributes of a major international statesman. Do not underestimate this factor, especially with modern electorates who rarely watch the news and who are woefully under-informed on the issues. However "nice" and "decent" and "principled" Corbyn might (or might not) be, he simply is not someone who looks or acts like a leader of an important nation (in the eyes of voters).

There will, of course, be a cadre of life-long Labour voters who would vote Labour with practically anyone as party leader. All modern elections are about swing votes in key swing constituencies - that tiny minority of the voter population in a mere four-dozen or so (out of, currently, 650) constituencies who regularly switch their votes from party to party in general elections. And a significant proportion of those people simply won't cast their vote for Labour because they simply cannot envisage Corbyn as Prime Minister. Again, set aside all the complex and nuanced analysis of political issues and dogma etc. There are, in reality (for better or worse) a tiny relative number of people - probably not many more than 100,000 out of an electorate of some 40 million - who decide the outcome of UK General Elections. And those people (in part, by the very virtue of them being voters who, by definition, change their minds often) simply won't vote for a Labour party led by Corbyn in sufficient numbers to supply a Labour majority in the Commons.


(NB: all of this in in the context of the present constituency definitions and voter spreads. Come the 2020 GE, it is highly likely that boundary changes will have come into force, and the net outcome of those changes is likely to have a 20-30 MP relative reduction of Labour MPs (all else being equal). So, in all probability, Labour will require an enormous swing in order to gain a majority - this (IMO) simple will not be possible under Corbyn - for the reasons given above. It may not actually be possible for Labour under any leader in 2020, but that's another matter.....)


Deluded people who think the little Britain is an "important nation" vote Tory. These delusions may be hardwired into their brains.

Please provide evidence that "covert surveillance is taking place on both sides".
 
Last edited:
Yes, there is a theoretical possibility that the Conservatives could still split over Europe. However it would take something very unlikely for that to happen as they will back May in negotiations with the EU, where any problems can be simply blamed on Brussels.
As I say we shouldn't get into this here; I'll just say that Europe isn't everything. Economic policy, education, housing, industry, the regions, Laura Norder - everything's in play. Perception of disunity is all it takes, especially if there's a perception of unity in the Labour Party once the bodies have been dragged out and the blood mopped up.

Wishful thinking? Damn' straight, but not only that.

Now back to the Labour Party body-dump.
 
Deluded people who think the little Britain is an "important nation" vote Tory. These delusions may be hardwired into their brains.

Please provide evidence that "covert surveillance is taking place on both sides".

Please provie an argument where Corbyn becomes PM with the policies he espouses.
 
Please provie an argument where Corbyn becomes PM with the policies he espouses.
People decide they agree with him and vote for him. That is the argument. You were asked for evidence, and you respond by asking for an argument. They're not the same thing.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom