Why can't Corbyn connect with public?

[The Don]

(Labour.)

And of course, making Labour viable is the over-riding criteria against which Corbyn should be judged. Succeed at that then all his other failings can be overlooked to an extent. Fail, and he's got to go, and that judgement will be made in 4 weeks time.

That rather depends on the what the long term objectives of the party are. If the objective of the party is to be a party capable of forming a government or being the senior party in a coalition then IMO you are absolutely correct.

OTOH, if the objective is to recast the Labour Party as an ideologically pure 1970's style Socialist party and then hope that either they will be able to persuade the electorate that they should vote Labour or that, as a result of the policies of four decades of "right wing" Conservative, Blairite and coalition governments, the electorate will decide that they need 1970's style Socialism then establishing and adhering to a new ideological purity is the key criterion against which he should be judged.

I personally think the Labour Party should be doing the former, the majority of the current Labour Party membership seem to be doing the latter.

 

[MikeG]

.......OTOH, if the objective is to recast the Labour Party as an ideologically pure 1970's style Socialist party and then hope that either they will be able to persuade the electorate that they should vote Labour or that, as a result of the policies of four decades of "right wing" Conservative, Blairite and coalition governments, the electorate will decide that they need 1970's style Socialism then establishing and adhering to a new ideological purity is the key criterion against which he should be judged...........

We have always agreed on this. I just highlight a couple of phrases which simply show that the second choice you posit is actually the same as the first, eventually. It is just a question of how long the experiment with 70s socialism is allowed to run before either being proven right by being voted into office, or gets dumped because it is defeated at the ballot box.

The third alternative is of course the Socialist Workers Party route. Labour turns itself into an ideologically pure 70s Socialist movement, thereby eschewing any attempt at gaining power, happily accepts a role in public life equivalent to that of the Socialist Workers Party (ie an utter irrelevance), and another left of centre party eventually emerges to fill the void. I don't think Momentum/ Militant Tendency (whatever they are calling themselves these days) would be too upset by this.

 

[Craig B]

... proven right by being voted into office ...

So Blair was right because he was repeatedly voted into office? Le Pen would have been right if she had been voted into office? Thatcher was right because she too was voted into office? Are you sure you have a valid understanding of the word "right"? I think you mean that parties exist to get voted into office, so if they do that they are fulfilling their function, apart all other considerations. But that is not a definition of "right". It is a definition of "currently successful in gaining power".

I don't think the Brexiteers are right, even though they won. I think their victory will have adverse results unintended by them. Just so has Blair's victory had adverse results, like the Iraq war, which is a continuing catastrophe. But by your definition, he won elections and that's that. He was right. I don't agree with that view.

 

[angrysoba]

So one of the following is a "terrorist lover", and the other is "soppy".

"he played an indispensable role in bringing the Republican movement away from violence to peaceful and democratic means and to building a better Northern Ireland."

"Martin McGuinness played a huge role in bringing about peace in Northern Ireland"​

Ah, but which?

Now, let's stop trying to kid one another. Corbyn is being slandered and abused by the right. And we've seen these "lovers" before, haven't we? In the USA mainly. Back in the McCarthy days there were "commie lovers", and in the Deep South there were "lovers", the name of the object of whose affections would be auto censored in this forum.

This doesn't address the question you were asked though. It just reasserts 'facts' without providing evidence.

Funnily enough, the bit I highlighted was the personal stuff that showed an obvious fondness for Martin McGuinness as a person and not just as a politician who renounced violence later.

Why you slice off the bits I highlighted, I don't know. No wait, I do know. It is so you can blatantly miss the point and squawk about double standards. After all, any fair minded person can see that Theresa May was just as much as fond of Martin McGuinness as Corbyn was, right?

Uh, no, and nobody believes that. You can sling around the faint smear of likening it to the words ******-lover all you want, because I'm not moved by this transparent tactic. And while you may point out that Paisley was celebrated after giving up terrorism, I don't feel any need to do the same, and besides, Corbyn supported McGuinness and the IRA before they gave up terrorism.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...rbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Funnily enough, the bit I highlighted was the personal stuff that showed an obvious fondness for Martin McGuinness as a person and not just as a politician who renounced violence later.

Why you slice off the bits I highlighted, I don't know. No wait, I do know. It is so you can blatantly miss the point and squawk about double standards. After all, any fair minded person can see that Theresa May was just as much as fond of Martin McGuinness as Corbyn was, right?

Uh, no, and nobody believes that. You can sling around the faint smear of likening it to the words ******-lover all you want, because I'm not moved by this transparent tactic. And while you may point out that Paisley was celebrated after giving up terrorism, I don't feel any need to do the same, and besides, Corbyn supported McGuinness and the IRA before they gave up terrorism.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...rbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Not sure if you quoted me by accident it I didn't cut anything from anywhere. I asked you which bit of the quote you disagreed with. Apparently it was the family man bit? I have no idea how mcguinness was with his family to be honest. Do you?

You then seem to go on to insist that you can just tell the difference without apparently needing to look at what they say. But that's not really how supporting your position with evidence works.

I mean if we look at what people say about he dead and apply the same criteria Milliband was a thatcher lover.

 

[MikeG]

So Blair was right because he was repeatedly voted into office? Le Pen would have been right if she had been voted into office? Thatcher was right because she too was voted into office? Are you sure you have a valid understanding of the word "right"? I think you mean that parties exist to get voted into office, so if they do that they are fulfilling their function, apart all other considerations. But that is not a definition of "right". It is a definition of "currently successful in gaining power".

I don't think the Brexiteers are right, even though they won. I think their victory will have adverse results unintended by them. Just so has Blair's victory had adverse results, like the Iraq war, which is a continuing catastrophe. But by your definition, he won elections and that's that. He was right. I don't agree with that view.

No. Not what I said. It would be good one day if you could respond to what I actually say, rather than twist words around. Right choice electorally is categorically a different thing from everything X does in office is right. One might have expected you to understand this without it needing explaining.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That rather depends on the what the long term objectives of the party are. If the objective of the party is to be a party capable of forming a government or being the senior party in a coalition then IMO you are absolutely correct.

OTOH, if the objective is to recast the Labour Party as an ideologically pure 1970's style Socialist party and then hope that either they will be able to persuade the electorate that they should vote Labour or that, as a result of the policies of four decades of "right wing" Conservative, Blairite and coalition governments, the electorate will decide that they need 1970's style Socialism then establishing and adhering to a new ideological purity is the key criterion against which he should be judged.

I personally think the Labour Party should be doing the former, the majority of the current Labour Party membership seem to be doing the latter.

It's amazing that those who complain about ideological purity want Corbyn ousted from the party for daring to have unpopular views or being too hard left. The politically correct right wing ideology is the purity that is being sought. The electorate must never be challenged with any views on anything. Merely pandered to to win their votes.

Hunt the foxes. Shoot the poor. Hang the Muslims. Whatever it takes to get that vote. That's all that matters.

 

[Craig B]

No. Not what I said. It would be good one day if you could respond to what I actually say, rather than twist words around. Right choice electorally is categorically a different thing from everything X does in office is right. One might have expected you to understand this without it needing explaining.

What you do need to explain is your original words, which are different from your later exegesis of them.

It is just a question of how long the experiment with 70s socialism is allowed to run before either being proven right by being voted into office, or gets dumped because it is defeated at the ballot box.​

Where's the bit about how you can get voted into power, but turn out to be wrong because you're a disaster in office? My argument with you is that "right" must not mean "being voted into office" as you say it does. It must mean "producing beneficial results corresponding to its stated goals". If your only goal is to be voted into office, then of course that is the only "right".

I don't agree. Blair was a complete catastrophe. He was never "right". A snake oil merchant has one goal, to get you to buy scam products. Selling these is "right" even though they cure no diseases. His patter is "proved right", if it succeeds in selling the product. Just like your "proven right by being voted into office".

 

[angrysoba]

Not sure if you quoted me by accident it I didn't cut anything from anywhere. I asked you which bit of the quote you disagreed with. Apparently it was the family man bit? I have no idea how mcguinness was with his family to be honest. Do you?

No, of course I have no idea. I don't disagree with what Corbyn says, because that wasn't the issue, but if he says Martin McGuinness was a family man, then I guess that he would know because he obviously had enough contact with McGuinness as a family friend. That's the issue.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, of course I have no idea. I don't disagree with what Corbyn says, because that wasn't the issue, but if he says Martin McGuinness was a family man, then I guess that he would know because he obviously had enough contact with McGuinness as a family friend. That's the issue.

Was he a family friend?

What do make of Alastair Campbell's comments on mcguinness being a great guy?

 

[MikeG]

What you do need to explain is your original words, which are different from your later exegesis of them.

It is just a question of how long the experiment with 70s socialism is allowed to run before either being proven right by being voted into office, or gets dumped because it is defeated at the ballot box.​

Where's the bit about how you can get voted into power, but turn out to be wrong because you're a disaster in office? My argument with you is that "right" must not mean "being voted into office" as you say it does. It must mean "producing beneficial results corresponding to its stated goals". If your only goal is to be voted into office, then of course that is the only "right". .....

I really don't know why I bother responding to stuff like this, but let's give it one more go.

Experiment (70's socialism)........experiment results (win or lose).......analysis (was 70's socialism the right or wrong direction to take the party)..........method of analysis (election results).

Don't bother coming back to me for further explanation of something a 7 year old could understand. I have far more important things to do than play your silly games.

 

[Craig B]

I really don't know why I bother responding to stuff like this, but let's give it one more go.

Experiment (70's socialism)........experiment results (win or lose).......analysis (was 70's socialism the right or wrong direction to take the party)..........method of analysis (election results).

Don't bother coming back to me for further explanation of something a 7 year old could understand. I have far more important things to do than play your silly games.

I have been seeking explanations from you, only of the contradictions and obscurities that I perceive in your posts. But you are under no obligation to respond, if other activities are more important to you. That doesn't prevent me from noting these contradictions, as and when I observe them.

 

[The Don]

It's amazing that those who complain about ideological purity want Corbyn ousted from the party for daring to have unpopular views or being too hard left.

Are there calls for him being ousted from the party ? As far as I understand it, "moderate" Labour members are perfectly happy for him to be in the party, they'd just much rather that he and his acolytes are not leading it.

The politically correct right wing ideology is the purity that is being sought. The electorate must never be challenged with any views on anything. Merely pandered to to win their votes.

IMO, one of the major achievements of the Blairite Labour Governments was that they managed to get quite a lot of socially democratic policies implemented like major investments in education, the NHS, increasing support for the less well off, increasing taxes for the most wealthy whilst not being a frightening far left wing party.

I suppose that it is possible that the electorate will change their views and welcome back 1970's socialism with open arms but if that's going to happen, you're going to need someone charismatic and persuasive to make the case for it. Jeremy Corbyn is not that person and therefore it's likely that the Conservatives will continue to be able to do whatever they like because of a lack of a viable opposition - at least in England and Wales.

The most likely outcome IMO is that the Labour Party will become increasingly irrelevant electorally. The base to whom they are attempting to appeal is shrinking in size as people become better off and/or less community minded and their choice of leader means that new converts from outside that base will be difficult to find.

Hunt the foxes. Shoot the poor. Hang the Muslims. Whatever it takes to get that vote. That's all that matters.

That's your view but IMO you created a false dichotomy between no compromise at all and complete capitulation. If the Labour Party wants to be in a position to implement its policies then it needs to be in government. It cannot be in government if it can only get 20%-25% of people to support it.

 

[The Don]

We have always agreed on this. I just highlight a couple of phrases which simply show that the second choice you posit is actually the same as the first, eventually.

True, but I was trying (and failing) to actively distinguish between a Labour Party which was actively able to influence public opinion its favour and a Labour Party which just happened to have the right policies to appeal to an electorate which has had a major shift in priorities due to external factors.

IMO the former is very unlikely but could possibly occur if a really engaging and charismatic individual was leading the party. OTOH the latter would IMO require the almost complete collapse of the economy and even then may not be possible because if circumstances were that bad we'd be under martial law

 

[Tolls]

I have been seeking explanations from you, only of the contradictions and obscurities that I perceive in your posts. But you are under no obligation to respond, if other activities are more important to you. That doesn't prevent me from noting these contradictions, as and when I observe them.

I don't see the contradiction either.

Mike's comments follow on from The Don's, where he suggests:

... if the objective is to recast the Labour Party as an ideologically pure 1970's style Socialist party and then hope that either they will be able to persuade the electorate that they should vote Labour or that, as a result of the policies of four decades of "right wing" Conservative, Blairite and coalition governments, the electorate will decide that they need 1970's style Socialism then establishing and adhering to a new ideological purity is the key criterion against which he should be judged.

To which Mike notes that:

It is just a question of how long the experiment with 70s socialism is allowed to run before either being proven right by being voted into office, or gets dumped because it is defeated at the ballot box.

This is all entirely around The Don's idea above, that this maybe some odd plan...

 

[MikeG]

True, but I was trying (and failing) to actively distinguish between a Labour Party which was actively able to influence public opinion its favour and a Labour Party which just happened to have the right policies to appeal to an electorate which has had a major shift in priorities due to external factors.

Oh, I see.

IMO the former is very unlikely but could possibly occur if a really engaging and charismatic individual was leading the party. OTOH the latter would IMO require the almost complete collapse of the economy and even then may not be possible because if circumstances were that bad we'd be under martial law

I think the former can and does happen to an extent. I suspect it vanishingly unlikely that even the most charismatic and persuasive leader could persuade the electorate to adopt 70s style socialism, however. The latter of your scenarios, however, seems quite unlikely. I mean, if we had an economic collapse the chances of anyone being daft enough to vote for spend, spend, spend seems pretty remote.

 

[MikeG]

....... If the Labour Party wants to be in a position to implement its policies then it needs to be in government. It cannot be in government if it can only get 20%-25% of people to support it.

That's the nub of the entire conversation, right there.

If the Labour party want to remain ideologically pure to some socialist doctrine, hankering after a Marxist nirvana, then the consequence is that the country gets a Conservative government for a generation. How would that help the people that Labour claim to represent?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Are there calls for him being ousted from the party ? As far as I understand it, "moderate" Labour members are perfectly happy for him to be in the party, they'd just much rather that he and his acolytes are not leading it.



IMO, one of the major achievements of the Blairite Labour Governments was that they managed to get quite a lot of socially democratic policies implemented like major investments in education, the NHS, increasing support for the less well off, increasing taxes for the most wealthy whilst not being a frightening far left wing party.

I suppose that it is possible that the electorate will change their views and welcome back 1970's socialism with open arms but if that's going to happen, you're going to need someone charismatic and persuasive to make the case for it. Jeremy Corbyn is not that person and therefore it's likely that the Conservatives will continue to be able to do whatever they like because of a lack of a viable opposition - at least in England and Wales.

The most likely outcome IMO is that the Labour Party will become increasingly irrelevant electorally. The base to whom they are attempting to appeal is shrinking in size as people become better off and/or less community minded and their choice of leader means that new converts from outside that base will be difficult to find.



That's your view but IMO you created a false dichotomy between no compromise at all and complete capitulation. If the Labour Party wants to be in a position to implement its policies then it needs to be in government. It cannot be in government if it can only get 20%-25% of people to supporting there it.

As I have said from the start if there is a better left of centre option to come forward then I'll be hugely pleased. But Milliband wasn't it either. Nor is there anyone obvious being overlooked. And it certainly isn't Theresa May as many of these lost voters seem to think.

The idea that Corbyn is frighteningly far left is a nonsense that stems from the incredibly narrow spectrum of allowable politically correct opinion in the uk these days. You cannot be in favour of anything remotely socially progressive without being a commie. We have adopted the us view of thee world it seems and if corbyn is the only person willing to step outside that then he will just have to do for now. Whatever the telegraph and daily mail think. Or even sadly the electorate.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't see the contradiction either.

Mike's comments follow on from The Don's, where he suggests:


To which Mike notes that:


This is all entirely around The Don's idea above, that this maybe some odd plan...

But from what I can see the quotes Mike has based his argument on the premise that winning elections makes you right. That's nonsense. It makes you successful or popular. Not right. The idea that winning makes you right is a dangerous idiocy which seems to be increasingly prevalent in debate nowadays

 

[jimbob]

But apart from that...?

He's also pretty lazy and not very bright