Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

[Lothian]

She has voted for both (not in the same election since that's not allowed) but she's never been a member of either.

Meh, Lothian hates people who talk about themselves in the third person.

 

[Francesca R]

It's a slightly better perspective from which to admire myself, I find. I mean, she finds. (She means: she finds)

 

[Craig B]

We are to blame Blair for Corbyn? Quite Zen-like. I understand the argument. But it does still mean the imperative today is not so much to blame Blair as to eradicate the poison that is Jezza

Jezza is "poison".

Blair, OK he was a crook, but what the hell? He's gone away now.

However, being believed unlikely to win the next election is "poison".

My suggestion was in no way Zen like, but yours is psychologically revealing in the highest degree.

 

[jimbob]

What you see as "personal or party rivalry for the fruits of office" I see as an effective check on power. I think you belittle it to the most socially unuseful terms. An "unelectable" opposition is not so effective.

Yes, compare Tge Labour performance in opposition in 1996,where they acted and looked like "a government in waiting". They managed to influence the agenda.

If I recall correctly he took over after what has been described as a rather disastrous general election (for Labour).

And Miliband's performance in the council elections was far better than Corbyn's.

As for the comments about ideological purity being desirable, elsewhere on this board, some people are arguing that they won't vote for Clinton because she isn't as radical as Sanders. In my view, that's missing the point - you need to consider the alternatives that you have, not what is ideal.

If Corbyn can't lead his parliamentary party, he's not going to be able to lead the country.

His foreign policy ideas are also... distasteful to me, and I suspect a fair proportion of the UK electorate.

 

[3point14]

If the goal is electability and electability only, why would the party in opposition not adopt the manifesto of the party in power, a manifesto which demonstrably achieves the stated goal?

 

[jimbob]

If the goal is electability and electability only, why would the party in opposition not adopt the manifesto of the party in power, a manifesto which demonstrably achieves the stated goal?

Who is saying that the goal is nothing but electability?

I think that the goal is getting one's key policy aims enacted, rather than trying for all of them when holding tight to certain policies would mean that none would get enacted.

 

[3point14]

Who is saying that the goal is nothing but electability?

That's the impression I get from some in the thread, that an opposition that's not electable is useless and that the opposition should move it's policy base wholesale to be more like the elected party.

I admit, I may be under a misapprehension.

I think that the goal is getting one's key policy aims enacted, rather than trying for all of them when holding tight to certain policies would mean that none would get enacted.

The opposition is very seldom in a position to have any of it's policy aims enacted. Indeed, in order to form a government, the system requires the ruling party to be in a position to push through it's policy with no help from anyone not in government.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes, compare Tge Labour performance in opposition in 1996,where they acted and looked like "a government in waiting". They managed to influence the agenda.



And Miliband's performance in the council elections was far better than Corbyn's.

As for the comments about ideological purity being desirable, elsewhere on this board, some people are arguing that they won't vote for Clinton because she isn't as radical as Sanders. In my view, that's missing the point - you need to consider the alternatives that you have, not what is ideal.

If Corbyn can't lead his parliamentary party, he's not going to be able to lead the country.

His foreign policy ideas are also... distasteful to me, and I suspect a fair proportion of the UK electorate.

Why was New Labour looking like a government in waiting? Because the media were feeding that line to the public. Because they adopted tory policy or worse as their own. Because they got into bed with Murdoch. Etc etc .

All you need to do as labour leader to get elected is abandon the principles of the party. And in some cases even that isn't enough.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Agree.
You don't half sound like you're from Citizens United. As above I believe the Labour party in the UK is a quasi public institution not only a private members' club and it has civic duties wider than obligations to its members and which should rank above obligations to its members. Obviously this is not an enforceable position and it evidently does not carry the day but I find your counters to it very weak. I am surprised you hold them really particularly this idea of paying for influence.

I suspect they do not. I think that is short sighted and self serving of them but that is an opinion.

That's odd because I think that's just what they did.

Your beliefs about what the labour party should be don't square with the reality of what they are. That might be your issue here.

 

[3point14]

Why was New Labour looking like a government in waiting? Because the media were feeding that line to the public. Because they adopted tory policy or worse as their own. Because they got into bed with Murdoch. Etc etc .

All you need to do as labour leader to get elected is abandon the principles of the party. And in some cases even that isn't enough.

And cosy up to Murdoch, as you mention - it was, as they boasted so loudly, the sun what won it...

 

[p0lka]

Corbyn is unelectable, yet he has had so many labour members votes.

The media is crapping its pants.

 

[Francesca R]

If the goal is electability and electability only,

Strawlady is still made of straw.

 

[MikeG]

I think it hilarious that people ascribe Corbyn's unpopularity to the press, and not to experience of him during his 33 years as an MP, or to his bizarre views and skewed priorities.

 

[dudalb]

Not much point getting elected to enact things you don't agree with.

We know the Tory Party manifesto is electable so presumably the Labour Party could just adopt that?

Public opinion is fickle. No point chasing it like a crisp packet in the wind. That's what got Labour to where it is now.

I don't agree with Corbyn on a great many things but it's not for me to decide what Labour should and shouldn't stand for.

You just don't get that the probem with Corbyn is so much his policies as his management skills.

 

[Francesca R]

I think it hilarious that people ascribe Corbyn's unpopularity to the press

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.

 

[jimbob]

You just don't get that the probem with Corbyn is so much his policies as his management skills.

True, but to be fair, he's trying to promote deservedly-unpopular policies as well.

Venezuela is not a beacon of good governance.

Russia is the aggressor in the Crimea and the rest of Ukraine.

Communist Cuba might be better than Batista's Cuba, but that's quite a low bar.

Suggesting joint sovereignty over the Falkland Islands is not going to be popular, and is against the wishes of almost all the inhabitants. Given the history, I see no reason why Argentina should have a claim. The islands were uninhabited when colonised.

But, yes, he's demonstrated an inability to lead or to effectively oppose.

His mediocre intellect and ideological rigidity don't help.

 

[dudalb]

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.

 

[Francesca R]

Your beliefs about what the labour party should be don't square with [ . . . ]

. . . With what a politically bankrupt small group is trying to bend it into. Yes I am aware.

I suspect the Corbyn project will end in due course. The problem will be the five years or so it will have wasted and the damage the episode will have done.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

. . . With what a politically bankrupt small group is trying to bend it into. Yes I am aware.

I suspect the Corbyn project will end in due course. The problem will be the five years or so it will have wasted and the damage the episode will have done.

No nothing to do with that. It is and always has been a vehicle to promote it's members interests. Not those sniping from the sidelines. You want to change it? Join and vote and accept the democratic result. You don't like it vote for someone else.

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?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.