Jeremy Corbyn might actually win?

[Craig B]

What has that got to do with anything at all, Craig? It certainly bears no relation to the suggestion that if you aren't hard left you are Tory-lite.

There is no requirement that one is either a Tory clone or hard left. Unfortunately there is a Blairite reaction in the Labour Party at the moment, and that is indeed almost indistinguishable from the Tories. The current acting leader seems reluctant, as a matter of principle, to oppose Tory measures. There's quite a lot of space on the left of Harman, before you reach the Trotskyite or anarchist fringes of the Labour movement.

 

[MikeG]

There is no requirement that one is either a Tory clone or hard left..........

Oh good, because this (below) made it sound as though it was only a choice of hard left or Tory clone:

Which means that Labour has to turn itself into a clone of the Tories to win........

Unfortunately there is a Blairite reaction in the Labour Party at the moment, and that is indeed almost indistinguishable from the Tories...........

Indistinguishable in the sense of being completely different, you mean?

Look, the basic question here is obviously what section of the population Labour have to attract if they are to win an election. There just isn't a big enough fraction of the voting population who are left wingers to make it possible for the so called core vote to get Labour into power. So, given that there are many more people to the right of the Labour position on every subject than there are to the left, what on earth do you expect that they have to do to win an election? Only the intellectually challenged suggest that they should become more left wing, for the reason I have just given, and because there are clues in history. Remember Michael Foot?

 

[Craig B]

Look, the basic question here is obviously what section of the population Labour have to attract if they are to win an election. There just isn't a big enough fraction of the voting population who are left wingers to make it possible for the so called core vote to get Labour into power. So, given that there are many more people to the right of the Labour position on every subject than there are to the left, what on earth do you expect that they have to do to win an election? Only the intellectually challenged suggest that they should become more left wing, for the reason I have just given, and because there are clues in history. Remember Michael Foot?

This is a joke, isn't it? You're pretending that no other position than unprincipled opportunism is even thinkable. You're having a laugh. Tell me you are, please.

 

[MikeG]

No, I am completely serious. There is nothing whatsoever unprincipled about having a set of policies which are aimed at a larger section of the populace than the left wing, however much you personally despise anything which isn't left wing.The fact is, your view is in the minority (as demonstrated every time Labour go to the polls with a left wing agenda), but you demand that they represent your minority viewpoint rather than try to appeal to, and work for, a more representative sample of the British public. Fine. As someone said.......Corbyn wins and the Tories are in power for a generation. It's clearly very important to you that a left wing agenda is represented in opposition, and that's exactly what will happen.

In contrast, I deplore the lack of a viable opposition. I think it really important that the governing party is held accountable, and that there is an oven-ready alternative sitting waiting for the opportunity to take their place. Although I voted Tory this time (for the first time), I would hate to think of any party being in power for more than 2 terms, because they always get lazy, do stupid things, and start fighting with each other, whoever they are. So, unlike you, I welcome an electable alternative. You just want someone to say things you agree with, whereas I want a viable opposition, and then a competent government when their turn comes.

 

[angrysoba]

This is a joke, isn't it? You're pretending that no other position than unprincipled opportunism is even thinkable. You're having a laugh. Tell me you are, please.

Funnily enough, Harman actually argued that voting against the Tory reforms was knee-jerk oppositionalism. Maybe Labour's new slogan could be "opportunism not oppositionalism".

 

[angrysoba]

No, I am completely serious. There is nothing whatsoever unprincipled about having a set of policies which are aimed at a larger section of the populace than the left wing, however much you personally despise anything which isn't left wing.The fact is, your view is in the minority (as demonstrated every time Labour go to the polls with a left wing agenda), but you demand that they represent your minority viewpoint rather than try to appeal to, and work for, a more representative sample of the British public. Fine. As someone said.......Corbyn wins and the Tories are in power for a generation. It's clearly very important to you that a left wing agenda is represented in opposition, and that's exactly what will happen.

In contrast, I deplore the lack of a viable opposition. I think it really important that the governing party is held accountable, and that there is an oven-ready alternative sitting waiting for the opportunity to take their place. Although I voted Tory this time (for the first time), I would hate to think of any party being in power for more than 2 terms, because they always get lazy, do stupid things, and start fighting with each other, whoever they are. So, unlike you, I welcome an electable alternative. You just want someone to say things you agree with, whereas I want a viable opposition, and then a competent government when their turn comes.

I think the strategy you are advocating means that the "viable opposition" wear red ties instead of blue ones. There is another possibility which is that moving rightwards may result in haemmoraging votes to the Greens, the SNP or even UKIP by voters convinced that immigrant workers depress wages. If more voters simply give up on the Labour Party's claims to stand up for their interests (which the Labour Partu ought to do as the party of the unions), then those votes could be lost forever - and justifiably so. The party would then be a victim of its own naked grasping. At present it is the opposition party and was voted for by millions. It should represent those voters.

 

[MikeG]

I think the strategy you are advocating means that the "viable opposition" wear red ties instead of blue ones. There is another possibility which is that moving rightwards may result in haemmoraging votes to the Greens, the SNP or even UKIP by voters convinced that immigrant workers depress wages. If more voters simply give up on the Labour Party's claims to stand up for their interests (which the Labour Partu ought to do as the party of the unions), then those votes could be lost forever - and justifiably so. The party would then be a victim of its own naked grasping. At present it is the opposition party and was voted for by millions. It should represent those voters.

This doesn't follow from what I suggested. Labour would be representing more people, not fewer. Oh, and Labour ought not to be the party of the unions: that's one of its fundamental problems. I find it truly bizarre, indeed, incomprehensible, that any move to make the party more centrist, more representative, is characterised as opportunistic and "naked grasping".

 

[angrysoba]

This doesn't follow from what I suggested. Labour would be representing more people, not fewer. Oh, and Labour ought not to be the party of the unions: that's one of its fundamental problems. I find it truly bizarre, indeed, incomprehensible, that any move to make the party more centrist, more representative, is characterised as opportunistic and "naked grasping".

I think it is easier said than done to simply advocate getting more votes as a campaign strategy.

 

[Rat]

So if there's a centrist position that the vast majority of the population seem to support, then all parties, no matter their roots or their founding principles, should adopt those policies as their own, and you find it incomprehensible that anyone could think otherwise. Rule of so, I know, but that does appear to be what you're saying.

 

[MikeG]

That's a mischaracterisation. Accepting that there is no absolute centrist position, and that political viewpoints could be represented with a classic bell curve, it is blindingly obvious that if you plant your flag way off to the left or the right, you will be attractive to fewer people. The left wing parties would be well advised to plant their flag to the left of the right wing parties, and possibly to the left of the centre of the bell curve, but away from the extremities.

 

[MikeG]

I think it is easier said than done to simply advocate getting more votes as a campaign strategy.

Agreed. Who was suggesting that?

 

[Rat]

Aye, but pace Francesca R, it is widely perceived that Labour moved slightly to the left between 2010 and 2015. It is also undeniable that their vote increased measurably in the same position, despite their collapse to the SNP in Scotland. So I find it just weird, and indeed feel an incomprehension at least comparable to yours, that Blair and others say that it would therefore be wrong to go left because of the disastrous pummelling in the election, when in fact they did better than previously and lost to a Tory party that had around a third of the vote.

I am far from a fan of the Labour party, and neither would I categorize myself as 'hard left', but it seems utterly disingenuous to misrepresent facts that way, if that's not a tautology, which it is. They did OK moving slightly to the left, and no one is seriously suggesting that they now move to the extremities.

 

[MikeG]

........They did OK moving slightly to the left, and no one is seriously suggesting that they now move to the extremities.

They are indeed suggesting exactly that. That is entirely Corbyn's stance......and that after all is the subject of this thread.

To say that they increased their vote and therefore did OK is to miss the fact that the Lib Dems, unfortunately, collapsed, and this benefited Labour, gifting them many votes they wouldn't otherwise have got. If you don't think that Labour got a thrashing, and are now having paroxysms over the future of the party, then I respectfully suggest you aren't paying close enough attention.

 

[Rat]

I don't actually think that getting 9.3 million votes compared to 11.3 is getting a thrashing, whether I am paying attention or not; they gained some Lib Dem votes, and lost some SNP votes.

But as to the subject of the thread, I don't support Corbyn, but I don't see his position as "hard left" or "extreme", so I suppose this is where we are actually disagreeing.

 

[angrysoba]

Three more reasons to vote for Corbyn?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...d-lose-frontbenchers-if-elected-labour-leader

 

[angrysoba]

Agreed. Who was suggesting that?

You were in saying that Labour would represent more voters, but that's an assumption. Why would people who vote Tory now choose to switch to Labour just because Labour are positioning themselves nearer the centre? And what becomes of traditional Labour voters such as union members?

 

[Giz]

I think the strategy you are advocating means that the "viable opposition" wear red ties instead of blue ones. .

I think that a center-left 'new' labour is going to be noticeably different to the Tories. Even when not full left. (Unless you characterize Blair and Osborne as indistinguishable ... Which is a stretch).

 

[Giz]

You were in saying that Labour would represent more voters, but that's an assumption. Why would people who vote Tory now choose to switch to Labour just because Labour are positioning themselves nearer the centre? And what becomes of traditional Labour voters such as union members?

Do they want a government that does a bit for union members. Or an opposition that would like to do a lot for them ( but can't).

 

[Craig B]

I think that a center-left 'new' labour is going to be noticeably different to the Tories. Even when not full left. (Unless you characterize Blair and Osborne as indistinguishable ... Which is a stretch).

That's not what MikeG is talking about. He's saying, go towards the Right as far as you need to in order to win an election. In fact Mike G can't imagine any reasoning person doing anything else.

So, given that there are many more people to the right of the Labour position on every subject than there are to the left, what on earth do you expect that they have to do to win an election?

 

[MikeG]

That's not what MikeG is talking about. He's saying, go towards the Right as far as you need to in order to win an election. In fact Mike G can't imagine any reasoning person doing anything else.

Yes, but your fertile imagination, and your distrust of anyone to the right of Karl Marx, has led you to think that this involves a great shift in Labour's stance. Of course, it does nothing of the sort. Furthermore, you dress it up as going to the right, whereas I would characterise it as moving further towards the centreground of political opinion. Hell, staying exactly where Miliband left the party would be far better for Labour's chances than following Corbyn's lead.