Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

[Planigale]

i'd agree, but I'd argue that it'd be somewhat hard to make a case that the last time labour were in power they acted as a tory govt would. (less hard to make a case that they were arguably even worse)

I really don't understand why the left can't come up with a decent figurehead, on the right you need to be of the 'right' background and have money etc but the left should be able to pick anyone with the right combination of intelligence, decency and charisma and get behind them. even corbyn is a career politician (of sorts)

I am no defender of the conservatives but it really does no good to underestimate them. Heath was the son of a housemaid and carpenter., went to Oxford and was a colonel in the army. Thatcher the daughter of a grocer, and went to Cambridge and unusually studied a science, before qualifying as a barrister. John Major never went to university and came from a particularly poor inner city background. May is a vicar's daughter. The conservative prime ministers are from no better a background than the labour prime ministers. Wilson's father was a chemist and mother a teacher, he went to Oxford. Callaghan never went to university, but was a civil servant and royal naval officer. Blair's father was a law lecturer and he went to Oxford before becoming a barrister. Brown was a minister's son, went to Edinburgh and was a lecturer and journalist. Cameron is the only conservative prime minister who could be regarded as being from the 'right' background. Otherwise I am not sure there is much to choose. (Apart from the fact that women can't get to lead the labour party).

It also underestimates the conservatives to say they are only in it for themselves. There are a lot better ways to earn a living than being a British politician. The conservatives may be misguided but most think they know what is best for the country, and like all political parties there is a coalition of views across a spectrum from left to right.

Why is this important? If you just dismiss the conservatives as posh people from the right background in it for themselves you will fail to address the political arguments. The conservatives never underestimate the Labour party.

 

[Planigale]

From the same link and for those interested in completing their 1980's left wing bingo cards

Len McCluskey: MI5 behind ‘dark practices’ against Jeremy Corbyn

I just died when I heard him say this. If he really thinks that the security service has time or inclination to mount black ops against Corbyn he is clearly living in a fantasy world and missed all the terrorist events recently. The are probably more labour supporters in the security service than the conservatives. Who is the most 'gay friendly' employer in the UK?
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/top_100_employers_2016.pdf
This sort of nonsense just results in a loss of credibility.

From my limited contacts the issue with Corbyn is not the policies but the man. He just has no leadership skills. I think that the thought of him leading the country is just devastating to those who may have to work with him. There is an element of actually trying to do what is right for the country. A not unrelated issue is that if Corbyn is seen as being an unsafe pair of hands he will lose votes for his party.

 

[jimbob]

I just died when I heard him say this. If he really thinks that the security service has time or inclination to mount black ops against Corbyn he is clearly living in a fantasy world and missed all the terrorist events recently. The are probably more labour supporters in the security service than the conservatives. Who is the most 'gay friendly' employer in the UK?
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/top_100_employers_2016.pdf
This sort of nonsense just results in a loss of credibility.

From my limited contacts the issue with Corbyn is not the policies but the man. He just has no leadership skills. I think that the thought of him leading the country is just devastating to those who may have to work with him. There is an element of actually trying to do what is right for the country. A not unrelated issue is that if Corbyn is seen as being an unsafe pair of hands he will lose votes for his party.

Yes - just try to imagine saying "Prime Minister Corbyn showed decisive leadership".

I have had no contact with him and am willing to bet that he could be quite charming, but he has managed to severely piss off 81% of his colleagues. And not by being so devastatingly effective that he makes them look bad.

 

[dudalb]

Agreed; You can always walk back your stand on issues,but you can't walk back a total lack of leadership skills. I still maintain that some of the Labor Faithful here don't get how important those skills are to a party leader, let alone a national leader.

 

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post

The current Prime Minister has stated emphatically that she would use it. Do you have some reason to think she is lying?


Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post

If you are committed to not using Trident, fine. Lie about it.

Did you not understand your own argument?

Ye the saurian does (as do I)

The point is, you can't be certain whether she is lying or telling the honest truth.

 

[jimbob]

Ye the saurian does (as do I)

The point is, you can't be certain whether she is lying or telling the honest truth.

Hence my posting of Sir Humphrey's arguments on that subject upthread.

 

[Craig B]

Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest.

- Mark Twain: Education and Citizenship speech, 5/14/1908​

Another illustration of that principle has become visible in the Labour Party leadership election campaign.

Owen Smith has questioned Jeremy Corbyn's patriotism in the most direct attack of the Labour leadership contest so far. Mr Smith said that his rival had a "different perspective" on patriotism, contrasting Mr Corbyn's "rather more metropolitan" background as MP for Islington North with his own "more traditional Labour perspective" ... he’s certainly got a different perspective on some of those things, on patriotism if you like, and on security and on defence. I think I’ve got a more traditional Labour perspective on that… But that’s a big difference between us."

“I think Jeremy doesn’t really understand sometimes the way in which people have a very strong perhaps socially conservative, with a small ‘c’, sense of place, sense of where they’re from ... "​

 

[jimbob]

This rather sweary blogpost is about the US "Alternative" but I think it is relevant here too - just change the names.

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/07/19/24362128/dan-savage-on-jill-stein-just-no

Which is what you are going to do, I'm sorry to say, to circle back to the top of your call. You are essentially, if you're voting for Jill Stein, helping to potentially elect Donald J. Trump president of these United States. Which would be a catastrophe.

Which is what some people say that they want. People supported Ralph Nader in 2000 and said there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush, therefore we could all afford to throw our votes away, protest-style, on Ralph Nader, who had no hope of getting elected, because there was no difference between Bush and Gore.

These same people, at the same time, said that George Bush was so manifestly obviously terrible that he would bring the revolution if he got himself elected somehow. They didn’t say this about Gore, he wouldn’t bring the revolution. They’re exactly the same, exactly as awful, but one would bring the revolution and one wouldn’t. Which means they weren't exactly the same and they weren't equally awful.

 

[GlennB]

A Corbyn rally in Hull and a Smith rally in Liverpool:

 

[katy_did]

A picture of Michael Foot addressing a crowd of 40,000 before his crushing defeat in the 1983 election.

 

[GlennB]

A picture of Michael Foot addressing a crowd of 40,000 before his crushing defeat in the 1983 election.

The thread is about him being ousted as Labour leader.

 

[katy_did]

The thread is about him being ousted as Labour leader.

Oh, I thought you were saying there was some significance to Corbyn getting big crowds.

 

[GlennB]

Oh, I thought you were saying there was some significance to Corbyn getting big crowds.

Yes, that he'll kick Owen Smith's arse.

 

[Francesca R]

He will. Then at least the moderates (or red neo-Tories, whatever) will have tried all simple alternatives.

 

[katy_did]

Yes, that he'll kick Owen Smith's arse.

Well, that's an interesting one. Smith's been around for about two weeks, I guess, where Corbyn's been leader for ten months now, so in that sense we'd expect his audience to be bigger (even if the short length of time Smith's been known hasn't prevented him beating Corbyn 57%-43% as preferred Prime Minister with the general public). Smith's in the same position Corbyn was in early in last year's campaign, when he was also an unknown. Corbyn's preaching to the converted, where Smith's talking to potential new voters.

What I think, though, is that Corbyn's events are actually more valuable from a spin/PR perspective than than they are as an indication of how people are likely to vote - people posting comparison pics of the two rallies as a sort of "haha, look how small Smith's crowd is lol". It builds a sense of inevitability about Corbyn's victory - which, don't get me wrong, may very well happen, but not because 3000 people attended a rally. The same thing happened during the Democratic primaries in the States, when Sanders was attracting crowds of 28,000 to Clinton's 100 (see this article on the NY primary, for example).

I'd like to know the make-up of the crowds Corbyn attracts; I think that would give us more information. Are a sizeable percentage of them Corbyn fans who attend multiple rallies - perhaps with half an eye on the PR opportunities large crowds offer? Or are they local people flocking to hear him? This article I read the other day makes some interesting points in that respect, suggesting that often the "same faces" reappear at these kinds of events:

If big crowds meant big wins at the polls, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and former Texas Rep. Ron Paul would both be president. But election after election, crowd size has been an unreliable predictor of winning.

"The people at the rally are not a random or representative sample of the electorate," says Lynn Vavreck, a professor of political science and communication studies at University of California, Los Angeles. "These are strategic and well-planned events. This isn't just happening."

Rallies are designed to look like spontaneous displays of excitement for a candidate, but they are planned right down to picking a venue that will overflow rather than look half-empty.

Early on, when Sanders was only polling single digits and big crowds started showing up, they were seen as proof of the appeal of his insurgent message. Now that Sanders is well-known, the rallies give his supporters a feeling that they are part of a movement, something larger than themselves.[...]

Like The Grateful Dead or Phish

Howard Dean has endorsed Clinton rather than Sanders. But in 2004, he was the insurgent Democratic presidential candidate getting attention with big crowds. He ultimately came in third place in Iowa and his campaign fizzled.

Dean offers a couple of theories about what causes the disconnect. For one thing, when he was campaigning in Iowa back in 2003, he started to notice the same faces from event to event. He thinks that is happening with Sanders.

"Some of the crowd size is people who come because they love Bernie and they want to hear this message and it invigorates them and they keep doing it and they follow him around just like [fans of] the Grateful Dead or Phish."

'You Have To Build A Coalition'

Dean says there's a deeper issue than numbers. Eventually the insurgent candidate needs to go from playing the role of agitating outsider to someone voters of all stripes can see as president.

"And I couldn't change. And I knew I had to. But the crowd pulls you back," says Dean. "They're dying for you. They're bleeding for you. And it's very hard to do."

Ultimately it could very well be that the relatively small number of Labour members/supporters means Corbyn's rallies reflect an enthusiasm which does exist among those people and which will lead to him winning this (though the result amongst members is going to be especially relevant - he absolutely has to win a majority there). Obviously it would be a huge mistake, though, to assume that translates to popularity with the general public.

 

[Francesca R]

(even if the short length of time Smith's been known hasn't prevented him beating Corbyn 57%-43% as preferred Prime Minister with the general public).

The general public are a lot more rational than Labour party members.

 

[The Don]

The general public are a lot more rational than Labour party members.

Indeed if my 20 years experience of the local Labour Party is anything to go by, electability is actually an undesirable trait in a party leader for hardcore members

 

[Craig B]

Indeed if my 20 years experience of the local Labour Party is anything to go by, electability is actually an undesirable trait in a party leader for hardcore members

Are you sure you're in the right party?

 

[jimbob]

Indeed if my 20 years experience of the local Labour Party is anything to go by, electability is actually an undesirable trait in a party leader for hardcore members

Are you sure you're in the right party?

It sounds like it.

Regardless of the utter fiasco that is the Labour party at the moment - it is still the only option to the left of the Tories with a chance (however slim) of forming a government. It's perfectly reasonable to try to steer it into a direction that is reasonable.

 

[jimbob]

Meanwhile a former economic advisor isn't impressed with Corbyn's attitude

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...earn-fast--no-credible-plan-labour-leadership

The UK is in a major economic crisis, caused by the shock Brexit vote, that is being exacerbated by a political crisis. We have a newly appointed chancellor of the exchequer, and an opposition that has nothing to say on economic policy. What exactly would John McDonnell do if he was chancellor? He hasn’t told us. Sad to say, as one of his former economic advisers – I was on Labour’s economic advisory committee – I have no idea either. Labour does not seem to have a credible economic plan.

It pains me to say that a Labour party led by Jeremy Corbyn has no chance of winning a general election now, in 2020, or at any other time. Tory voters and independents like the members of my family are not going to suddenly say “Jeremy is our guy”.

Corbyn doesn’t seem to care about being a leader of an opposition party. He seems more interested in addressing crowds of supporters around the country. It doesn’t seem to matter to him – although it should – that three-quarters of his MPs, who doubt his leadership qualities, rightly passed an overwhelming vote of no confidence against him. He should have quit. He doesn’t have enough MPs who support him to be able to form a complete shadow cabinet. Incidentally, if there were even the slightest prospect that he could become prime minister, the bond and equity markets would eat him for lunch.

Even Owen Jones is losing faith

Let me put this in stark terms. As Jeremy Corbyn is surrounded by cheering crowds, Labour generally, and the left specifically, are teetering on the edge of looming calamity. I’m not apportioning blame: there are lots of factors at play. But that’s how I genuinely feel, and it would be as dishonest as it would be irresponsible for me to suppress my actual views to try and maintain popularity among the people who read my work. I would happily sacrifice all of that if it was helpful for the things I believe in. Saying things I do not believe to be true for personal gain would reduce me to the status of a conman. All the things I do are motivated by a desire — however misplaced or wrong-headed — to make a positive contribution to politics; I can’t facilitate something harmful, even if that means saying things the people reading my work do not wish to hear.

1. How can the disastrous polling be turned around?

2. Where is the clear vision?

3. How are the policies significantly different from the last general election?

4. What’s the media strategy?

5. What’s the strategy to win over the over-44s?

6. What’s the strategy to win over Scotland?

7. What’s the strategy to win over Conservative voters?

8. How would we deal with people’s concerns about immigration?

9. How can Labour’s mass membership be mobilised?

Conclusion

Labour faces an existential crisis. There will be those who prefer me to just to say: all the problems that exist are the fault of the mainstream media and the Parliamentary Labour Party, and to be whipped up with the passions generated by mass rallies across the country. But these are the facts as I see them, and the questions that have to be answered. There are some who seem to believe seeking power is somehow ‘Blairite’. It is Blairite to seek power to introduce Blairite policies. It is socialist to seek power to introduce socialist policies. As things stand, all the evidence suggests that Labour — and the left as a whole — is on the cusp of a total disaster. Many of you won’t thank me now. But what will you say when you see the exit poll at the next general election and Labour is set to be wiped out as a political force? What will you say when — whenever you mention anything vaguely left-wing, you’re mocked for the rest of your life, a throwback to the discredited Labour era of the 2010s? Will you just comfort yourself by blaming it on the mainstream media and the PLP? Will that get you through a lifetime of Tory rule? My questions may strike you as unhelpful or uncomfortable. I’m beyond caring. Call me a Blairite, Tory, Establishment stooge, careerist, sellout, whatever makes you feel better. The situation is extremely grave and unless satisfactory answers are offered, we are nothing but the accomplices of the very people we oppose.

Not that this matters to the true believers - see The Don's comment post #797.