Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

[The Don]

Corbyn won with those who joined the Labour Party post Ed.
He lost with those who had been in the Labour Party for years.

He is also polling badly and has been pretty much since he got the job.

Yes, he can get the support of people who joined the Labour Party to vote for him. Where is the surprise in that?

^ this

No,he keeps winning in a small demographic whilst alienating far more of the wider electorate and the people who have to work with him.

His policy ideas could be wonderful (most are not) but he's incompetent and will not be able to implement any.

^ and this

Three of the five members of Wyld Bird Seed have been members of The Labour Party (two rejoined for the last leadership election) and between us we have more than 50 years of membership.

None of us are currently considering voting Labour at the next election but we're exactly the sort of people who Corbyn needs to tempt back into the fold - it's a lot easier than trying to persuade a Tory or UKIPer - but to date he seems to be doing the opposite and pushing us out.

 

[p0lka]

^ this



^ and this

Three of the five members of Wyld Bird Seed have been members of The Labour Party (two rejoined for the last leadership election) and between us we have more than 50 years of membership.

None of us are currently considering voting Labour at the next election but we're exactly the sort of people who Corbyn needs to tempt back into the fold - it's a lot easier than trying to persuade a Tory or UKIPer - but to date he seems to be doing the opposite and pushing us out.

50 years of membership is cool.
If you swing your vote, to where might it be going?
where would your 'labour' vote go?

 

[lionking]

People will probably be debating the electability of Corbyn even if Labour wins.

He has as much chance of taking Labour to victory as me.

 

[The Don]

50 years of membership is cool.
If you swing your vote, to where might it be going?
where would your 'labour' vote go?

In my case Plaid, LibDem or spoiled ballot depending on party manifesto.

 

[Aber]

In my case Plaid, LibDem or spoiled ballot depending on party manifesto.

But surely in a Corbyn lead party you're a 'Red Tory'?

 

[The Don]

But surely in a Corbyn lead party you're a 'Red Tory'?

Yes, absolutely.

OTOH if the plan is to divest themselves of "red tories" then they'll need to replace them, and attract the several million additional votes required for them to secure a majority from somewhere. In the same way that Trump is chasing a mythical "tribe" of angry white men, I think Corbyn and his supporters are mistaken in their view that there are millions of people out there for whom the other political parties (including Labour in the last election) are far too right wing to secure their vote.

No doubt that there are some people out there who are like that (including some anarchists) but from what I see it's very much a niche view.

 

[3point14]

Yes, absolutely.

OTOH if the plan is to divest themselves of "red tories" then they'll need to replace them, and attract the several million additional votes required for them to secure a majority from somewhere. In the same way that Trump is chasing a mythical "tribe" of angry white men, I think Corbyn and his supporters are mistaken in their view that there are millions of people out there for whom the other political parties (including Labour in the last election) are far too right wing to secure their vote.

No doubt that there are some people out there who are like that (including some anarchists) but from what I see it's very much a niche view.

Where are you looking to see this? Which left leaning party has been hemorrhaging votes in any recent elections?

Do you think the massive swing towards a left wing SNP might indicate a left leaning trend in the populace?

 

[funk de fino]

Scottish Labour learnt a very harsh lesson about what it is to be seen as Red Tories.

I'm by no means a Labour or Blair hater. I think that during my lifetime Blair gave me the most stable period of economic stability and also introduced things that made life easier for the poorer in society. He made a few massive mistakes that tainted his legacy immeasurably and has turned him into a hate figure where some of his achievements have been overshadowed.

1. Iraq war and too close to Dubya
2. Handing over to Gordon Brown
3. Not forcing through tougher regulation of financial sector

What I see is winning by any means necessary instead of sticking to the party principles. Corbyn may be a weak leader but he is closer to Labour values which, at the end of the day, is what it should be all about.

 

[The Don]

Where are you looking to see this? Which left leaning party has been hemorrhaging votes in any recent elections?

Depends on what you mean by haemorrhaging, left leaning and recent.

If the Corbynites drive away the "Red Tories" like me then they face a double challenge:

• To replace the votes that they have driven away AND
• To secure enough additional votes to actually form a future government

Labour didn't haemorrhage votes in the last council elections but then again they were starting from a low base and would have been expected to make significant progress against the party in government instead of barely holding position. Their share of the vote was down 4% which is not the sort of progress that they need at this stage.

Assuming that Scotland will remain staunchly SNP (which IMO is likely unless the Labour Party assumes a pro-independence position), Labour will need ot increase their share of the vote to something approaching 40% in England and Wales which is a net gain of close to 3 million votes.

I'm not aware of large pockets of left-wing people who are not already voting Labour (or some other left-wing party). For sure Labour could try and woo some of those in places like South Wales and the North East who have moved from Labour to UKIP but that would have them adopting an anti-immigration stance which may drive away even more of their current supporters.

Do you think the massive swing towards a left wing SNP might indicate a left leaning trend in the populace?

I don't know enough about Scottish politics to comment authoritatively but my understanding of the switch in support from Labour to SNP in Scotland was more to do with Labour's position with respect to the independence referendum (and the perception of toadying support for The Conservatives in the process) than it was a general comment on Labour policies as a whole.

 

[3point14]

We're both just speculating here, I think.

A couple of things:

- Where all the 'Red Tories' going to go? Or are they going to not vote at all?

- The only viable option that held a firmly left wing position in the last election made massive gains (Unfortunately there are massive confounding factors that make this very tricky to interpret)

 

[lionking]

Corbyn may be a weak leader but he is closer to Labour values which, at the end of the day, is what it should be all about.

It's also about decades in opposition.

Socialism has a warm, comfortable but impotent feeling

 

[The Don]

We're both just speculating here, I think.

A couple of things:

- Where all the 'Red Tories' going to go? Or are they going to not vote at all?

I don't think that there's any one answer.

In my constituency it's likely that they'll either stay put through inertia or a perceived lack of an alternative or vote Plaid Cymru or LibDem. There may be some constituencies where there is a left-wing Conservative candidate who may attract some votes - IMO David Davies is not one of those. depending on what's in the LibDem and Plaid manifestos, it is possible that I may spoil my ballot paper for the first time.

- The only viable option that held a firmly left wing position in the last election made massive gains (Unfortunately there are massive confounding factors that make this very tricky to interpret)

I think that Labour's lacklustre performance in the local elections and their poor showing in the opinion polls is an indication that Corbyn hasn't managed to excite the voting public enough to make the gains necessary to form a government (even if the Scottish vote turns out to be a one-off) much less make up the shortfall of "red tories" who I suspect are the core of the Labour support in many Southern constituencies (or at least that's what the membership was like at the constituency parties).

 

[The Don]

What I see is winning by any means necessary instead of sticking to the party principles. Corbyn may be a weak leader but he is closer to Labour values which, at the end of the day, is what it should be all about.

Perhaps the "Labour values" that Corbyn is sicking to are now horribly out of date. One of the reasons that the Conservative Party has managed to stay at the forefront of British politics for 150+ years is that although they have a core mission of being reactionary, they've been able to modulate their "values" over the period.

The "Labour values" that Corbyn is extolling seem to be those that I first encountered in the early 80s which were themselves based on the founding values at the turn of the 20th century. The world has moved on considerably since then but Labour seems to be moving backwards instead of forwards. Even as a young left-wing firebrand back in the day. I thought clause 4 was horribly out of date and yet this is exactly the kind of value that Corbyn and his ilk want to take us back to.

You don't solve the problems faced by people in the early 21st century my employing the tools, techniques and messages of the early 20th century.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Depends on what you mean by haemorrhaging, left leaning and recent.

If the Corbynites drive away the "Red Tories" like me then they face a double challenge:

• To replace the votes that they have driven away AND
• To secure enough additional votes to actually form a future government

Labour didn't haemorrhage votes in the last council elections but then again they were starting from a low base and would have been expected to make significant progress against the party in government instead of barely holding position. Their share of the vote was down 4% which is not the sort of progress that they need at this stage.

Assuming that Scotland will remain staunchly SNP (which IMO is likely unless the Labour Party assumes a pro-independence position), Labour will need ot increase their share of the vote to something approaching 40% in England and Wales which is a net gain of close to 3 million votes.

I'm not aware of large pockets of left-wing people who are not already voting Labour (or some other left-wing party). For sure Labour could try and woo some of those in places like South Wales and the North East who have moved from Labour to UKIP but that would have them adopting an anti-immigration stance which may drive away even more of their current supporters.



I don't know enough about Scottish politics to comment authoritatively but my understanding of the switch in support from Labour to SNP in Scotland was more to do with Labour's position with respect to the independence referendum (and the perception of toadying support for The Conservatives in the process) than it was a general comment on Labour policies as a whole.

Couple of things:

1. I don't think the support for the SNP in Scotland has as much to do with independence as it is to do with presenting a genuine alternative to Tory policies and the idea that they can develop policy that is fit for Scotland without having to align it with a London parent. So Nicola can quite happily come out and be pro-immigration or pro-Europe or pro-whatever without being vetoed by a London party that has to pander to Middle England. That plus Scottish Labour seems to be filled with people of very little intellect and even less integrity.

2. Its interesting that you paint everything as having to offer policy that is attractive enough to woo voters rather than to offer the right policies and try to win the argument. I think this is where Labour has and is going wrong. They should not be peddling a mild wishy-washy anti-immigration line to appease voters if they don't really believe it. They should adopt a strong position and then go convince people of their case. This is what the likes of the SNP have done and even UKIP. The Brexit vote has shown that vast swathes of the population are disenchanted with the entire political situation and want to stick it to the establishment by whatever means. I think we are seeing a bit of a splintering of politics in some ways and it might be that Labour is losing ground because their supporters are realigning across different battle lines. I'm not convinced that trying to compete with the Tories as slightly less establishment but still establishment really is a serious political position that anyone can be energised by. Perhaps the party does need to split and reinvent itself?

 

[The Don]

Couple of things:

1. I don't think the support for the SNP in Scotland has as much to do with independence as it is to do with presenting a genuine alternative to Tory policies and the idea that they can develop policy that is fit for Scotland without having to align it with a London parent. So Nicola can quite happily come out and be pro-immigration or pro-Europe or pro-whatever without being vetoed by a London party that has to pander to Middle England. That plus Scottish Labour seems to be filled with people of very little intellect and even less integrity.

I'll bow to your superior knowledge but it sounds that, as the Labour Party is a national party and not one that can focus on Scotland alone then it will face a significant uphill battle to win seats there.

2. Its interesting that you paint everything as having to offer policy that is attractive enough to woo voters rather than to offer the right policies and try to win the argument. I think this is where Labour has and is going wrong. They should not be peddling a mild wishy-washy anti-immigration line to appease voters if they don't really believe it. They should adopt a strong position and then go convince people of their case. This is what the likes of the SNP have done and even UKIP. The Brexit vote has shown that vast swathes of the population are disenchanted with the entire political situation and want to stick it to the establishment by whatever means. I think we are seeing a bit of a splintering of politics in some ways and it might be that Labour is losing ground because their supporters are realigning across different battle lines. I'm not convinced that trying to compete with the Tories as slightly less establishment but still establishment really is a serious political position that anyone can be energised by. Perhaps the party does need to split and reinvent itself?

However you paint it, if the Labour Party is to be the (or a) party of government, it needs to get several million more votes than they did last time around.

I used the term "woo" with respect to voters deliberately. It's true that you can either adopt policies which already appeal to voters or you can attempt to persuade voters that the policies you have adopted are the right ones but in either case it's a wooing process IMO.

If the Labour Party under Corbyn attempts to do the latter, as it appears is the case, then they really are facing an uphill battle. People are difficult to persuade and it helps a great deal if the person or people doing the persuading are engaging, inspiring and charismatic - Jeremy Corbyn is none of those things. He may be principled and ethical but without the ability to persuade others he'll continue to preach to the choir and not be able to attract people like me - former Labour Party members who are unimpressed with the man, what he stands for and many of his policies.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'll bow to your superior knowledge but it sounds that, as the Labour Party is a national party and not one that can focus on Scotland alone then it will face a significant uphill battle to win seats there.



However you paint it, if the Labour Party is to be the (or a) party of government, it needs to get several million more votes than they did last time around.

I used the term "woo" with respect to voters deliberately. It's true that you can either adopt policies which already appeal to voters or you can attempt to persuade voters that the policies you have adopted are the right ones but in either case it's a wooing process IMO.

If the Labour Party under Corbyn attempts to do the latter, as it appears is the case, then they really are facing an uphill battle. People are difficult to persuade and it helps a great deal if the person or people doing the persuading are engaging, inspiring and charismatic - Jeremy Corbyn is none of those things. He may be principled and ethical but without the ability to persuade others he'll continue to preach to the choir and not be able to attract people like me - former Labour Party members who are unimpressed with the man, what he stands for and many of his policies.

The question on the first one is whether the people of Sunderland, Newcastle, Liverpool, Birmingham are different from the people of Glasgow or Edinburgh in what they are looking for or is it merely Labour's failure to put daylight between themselves and the Tories that is the issue?

Labour have largely ignored their traditional base in an attempt to win the middle but there's only so long you can ignore people before they look for alternatives. There does need to be a period of re-engaging the core I think whether its by Corbyn or someone else. The sense that all politicians are just the same and don't listen now pervades.

For all Corbyn's faults he has clearly got some people engaged in the process and fired up. That's got to be worth something. As for whether he gets them elected - I think its unlikely but it could be we are at the start of a process that changes things for the better.

I get the feeling something has to change in politics. Brexit was the first major crack but people are just disenchanted with the whole shebang and looking for change. Someone has to offer them something. That's what Farage did.

 

[The Don]

The question on the first one is whether the people of Sunderland, Newcastle, Liverpool, Birmingham are different from the people of Glasgow or Edinburgh in what they are looking for or is it merely Labour's failure to put daylight between themselves and the Tories that is the issue?

They're sufficiently different to each other.

Look at the way in which the Brexit vote went in Sunderland and compare it to the way it went in Scotland. IMO it's clear that there are fundamental differences in principle between a city that votes 70% to Leave and a country largely in favour of remaining,

In any case, the cities you mention are already largely safe Labour areas (barring some affluent Tory or LibDem strongholds) and so, barring mass defection to UKIP, they should continue to be safe.

If Labour wants to form a government then they have to beat the Conservatives in England and that means capturing large areas of middle-England.

Labour have largely ignored their traditional base in an attempt to win the middle but there's only so long you can ignore people before they look for alternatives. There does need to be a period of re-engaging the core I think whether its by Corbyn or someone else. The sense that all politicians are just the same and don't listen now pervades.

What am I, chopped liver ?

By any objective measure, I should be the core. I was raised in a Labour household and was a third generation Labour activist. I was a party member for over 20 years and was thrilled when the final repealing of historic nonsense like Clause 4 paved the way to modernising the party.

Corbyn and his supporters are driving people like me out of the party.

For all Corbyn's faults he has clearly got some people engaged in the process and fired up. That's got to be worth something.

Not if the result is to the detriment of both the party (which IMO it is) and the country as a whole (which IMO his abject failure as leader of the opposition will be).

As for whether he gets them elected - I think its unlikely but it could be we are at the start of a process that changes things for the better.

I'm not clear why a return to both the policies and the rhetoric of the 1970s is progress. I agree that there is a need for a counterbalance to the Conservative party and their policies which seem to want to increase inequality and reduce opportunity but IMO Corbyn isn't the man to design these policies - he's 40 years out of date - and he absolutely lacks the qualities to sell these policies to the British public.

I get the feeling something has to change in politics. Brexit was the first major crack but people are just disenchanted with the whole shebang and looking for change. Someone has to offer them something. That's what Farage did.

Farage offered people a group to to blame - immigrants. If the Labour Party sinks to those kinds of depths then a pox on the lot of them.

If Labour want to offer a "hope and change" manifesto then Corbyn is not the man to try and sell it.

 

[Aber]

I'm not clear why a return to both the policies and the rhetoric of the 1970s is progress. I agree that there is a need for a counterbalance to the Conservative party and their policies which seem to want to increase inequality and reduce opportunity but IMO Corbyn isn't the man to design these policies - he's 40 years out of date - and he absolutely lacks the qualities to sell these policies to the British public.

A key issue is taxation.

Any substantial increase in public spending will need increased tax revenues, as income at current rates is not enough. The increased revenue will not come from chasing tax evaders, or increasing top rates of tax - it will need a much broader increase in tax. Selling this is not impossible, but it will not be easy.

 

[Garrison]

So we're to have no taxation of the rich, production of armaments instead of useful consumer goods, no employment rights or environmental protection, and weapons sales to any despot with the money to buy them. And you "hate" Corbyn and Foot. Let me ask, are you in favour of Brexit too?

Sorry I can't see your point past all the strawmen. Foot was symbolic of a party so concerned with ideological purity it handed two elections to Thatcher, I despise Corbyn for being a hypocrite who is going to cost Labour the next election. Some of you really need to try and get this through your heads, I detest Corby because I want more socialism. I want to see more social justice, the City reined in and the NHS protected. Corbyn as leader guarantees a Tory government and 10 years more damage done at a minimum. Labour supporters like myself who has voted for the party for 30 damn years had to live with the catastrophe of the Foot leadership, I personally could live without the remake.

No,he keeps winning in a small demographic whilst alienating far more of the wider electorate and the people who have to work with him.

His policy ideas could be wonderful (most are not) but he's incompetent and will not be able to implement any.

This is part of the reason I made the allusion to Trump earlier. Corbyn is also throwing out sound bite ideas to rev up a narrow base and much like Trump it's worked at the narrow level of becoming the leader/candidate. Others have already pointed out why 'tax the rich' is every bit as ineffective a solution to serious problems as 'build a wall'.

Quoting Aber as he sums it up nicely:

A key issue is taxation.

Any substantial increase in public spending will need increased tax revenues, as income at current rates is not enough. The increased revenue will not come from chasing tax evaders, or increasing top rates of tax - it will need a much broader increase in tax. Selling this is not impossible, but it will not be easy.

Corbyn is playing to his narrow base. If he believes what he's saying he's a fool, if he doesn't, then he's a worse hypocrite than I thought.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

They're sufficiently different to each other.

Look at the way in which the Brexit vote went in Sunderland and compare it to the way it went in Scotland. IMO it's clear that there are fundamental differences in principle between a city that votes 70% to Leave and a country largely in favour of remaining,

Yes but I think you might be missing the point. The point for many wasn't necessarily In or Out (for a lot it didn't really matter) but rather what way do I vote to kick the establishment in the nuts. In Scotland voting Remain was a way to do that.

In any case, the cities you mention are already largely safe Labour areas (barring some affluent Tory or LibDem strongholds) and so, barring mass defection to UKIP, they should continue to be safe.

If Labour wants to form a government then they have to beat the Conservatives in England and that means capturing large areas of middle-England.

And we're back to this debate again. You cannot claim to represent one group while spending all your time courting and pandering to others.

If this is the strategy it will fail. Perhaps better indeed then to split the party and hope for government by coalition?

What am I, chopped liver ?

By any objective measure, I should be the core. I was raised in a Labour household and was a third generation Labour activist. I was a party member for over 20 years and was thrilled when the final repealing of historic nonsense like Clause 4 paved the way to modernising the party.

Corbyn and his supporters are driving people like me out of the party.

By all accounts you are fairly comfortably off, a professional person, even involved in international business.

You may consider yourself a Labour voter but you also should probably acknowledge that the establishment and status quo would be fairly OK for you. I don't think you fall into the disenchanted category I am talking about.

Not if the result is to the detriment of both the party (which IMO it is) and the country as a whole (which IMO his abject failure as leader of the opposition will be).

Getting anyone engaged and involved has to be a positive surely? I think you are refusing to give him any credit for anything now and seems a bit churlish.

I'm not clear why a return to both the policies and the rhetoric of the 1970s is progress. I agree that there is a need for a counterbalance to the Conservative party and their policies which seem to want to increase inequality and reduce opportunity but IMO Corbyn isn't the man to design these policies - he's 40 years out of date - and he absolutely lacks the qualities to sell these policies to the British public.

Well equally a return to the 90s/00s isn't progress either. Being 20 years out of date isn't any better than being 40 years out of date.

Farage offered people a group to to blame - immigrants. If the Labour Party sinks to those kinds of depths then a pox on the lot of them.

If Labour want to offer a "hope and change" manifesto then Corbyn is not the man to try and sell it.

It's not the policies of the UKIP but the fact that they provided a channel for the protest vote. Is Farage the man to sell change? He somehow managed it anyway.

For large swathes of people politics is a waste of time because nothing changes and 'a bit better' or 'a bit worse' is still fairly crappy either way.

Still I can join you on the not voting list at the next election now I no longer have an SNP candidate. It's back to not being worth going out of the house to cast a vote.