Jeremy Corbyn might actually win?

I didn't have a vote in the Labour leadership election, as I am not eligible.

Well, that was your decision. You could have joined and had your vote. Apparently few people were energized enough by the other candidates to do that which rather undercuts the argument that these "centrists" would have appealed to the wider electorate.
 
And I see the "Lost Tribe" theory of politics..that there is a vast,hidden,hard right or hard left vote out there that will be brough forth if a major party nominates a candidate radical enough ...is not confined to US politics.

I think that misses the point. Personally I don't consider myself in line with what Corbyn believes, but I have found people like him - on the left, and people like Salmond, Sturgeon and even Nigel Farage to be refreshing in that they actually state what they believe and have arguments to back up what they believe instead of wallowing in consensus.

Here's the right-wing Peter Hitchens who puts this quite well:

Mr Corbyn reminds mature people of the days when the big parties really differed. He impresses the young because he doesn’t patronise them, and obviously believes what he says. This desire for real politics isn’t just confined to the Left. Ken Livingstone is right to call Mr Corbyn Labour’s Nigel Farage. Ukip appeals to a similar impulse.

Millions are weary of being smarmed and lied to by people who actually are not that competent or impressive, and who have been picked because they look good on TV rather than because they have ideas or character.

Indeed, ideas or character are a disadvantage. Anything resembling a clear opinion is seized upon by the media’s inquisitors, and turned in to a ‘gaffe’ or an outrage.

Actually, I dislike many of Mr Corbyn’s opinions – his belief in egalitarianism and high taxation, his enthusiasm for comprehensive schools, his readiness to talk to terrorists and his support for the EU. Oddly enough, these are all policies he shares with the Tory Party.

But I like the honest way he states them, compared with the Tories’ slippery pretence of being what they’re not.

When UKIP were doing well and when the Scottish Nationalists almost looked like winning the Scottish Referendum, a lot of posters here were keen to smear Farage and Salmond and others as nutters and loonies and very seldom even bothered to make any kind of positive argument of their own. The only thing they could apparently come up with is "If you vote for them it will be a complete disaster!"

The same boring, knee-jerk wails are being made now about Jeremy Corbyn and I notice that those who are doing it don't even have two ideas of their own to rub together.
 
I notice the contempt for "Centrists" and the idea of consensus is a common p lace among the Corbyn supporters here.
That when the Center disappears in politics and consensus in a country becomes impossible Bad Things Inevitably Happen..very bad things...seems to be beyond them.

Irony is that Corbyn is getting support for a lot of the same reasons that Trump is getting support....he is seen to be anti establishment.
 
I notice the contempt for "Centrists" and the idea of consensus is a common p lace among the Corbyn supporters here.

If that's supposed to be some kind of response to what I wrote, then your reading comprehension is sorely lacking.

That when the Center disappears in politics and consensus in a country becomes impossible Bad Things Inevitably Happen..very bad things...seems to be beyond them.

Yes, I notice that this kind of Chicken Little response is all that is left in lieu of a proper argument.

Irony is that Corbyn is getting support for a lot of the same reasons that Trump is getting support....he is seen to be anti establishment.

What's ironic about it?
 
Oh please. I read the author and no more.

You mean ad hominem arguments work when it is Ken Livingstone?

I'm a Labo(u)r Party and simular supporter everywhere. Except when they decide failed ideology trumps any chance of being elected.

People keep saying that but have presented no evidence that anyone else was any better placed to win a future election.

Will you suggest who the Labour Party should have elected leader and give some explanation of what their policies should be? Tell us what a "winning ideology" looks like.
 
No. Livingstone is a relic with nothing important to say.

But that is an ad hominem attack. And an amusing one as well given that a lot of people here are saying that in order to get elected you have to be centrist or Blairite, yet Ken Livingstone - the left-wing relic with nothing important to say - was twice elected mayor of London.
 
Ken Livingstone - the left-wing relic with nothing important to say - was twice elected mayor of London.

I know that. So what? Krusty the Clown could be elected Mayor of London.

Livingstone and Corbyn's policies ensure they are unelectable when it comes to a national poll.
 
I know that. So what? Krusty the Clown could be elected Mayor of London.

Livingstone and Corbyn's policies ensure they are unelectable when it comes to a national poll.

I see you have declined responding to my questions below:

People keep saying that but have presented no evidence that anyone else was any better placed to win a future election.

Will you suggest who the Labour Party should have elected leader and give some explanation of what their policies should be? Tell us what a "winning ideology" looks like.
 
I just have opinions to offer. So do you. Let's see who's right.

But you don't even offer an alternative. I don't argue that Corbyn is a shoo-in for a general election victory; nobody can seriously claim to know who will win, but given that Corbyn has won the leadership election by a complete landslide and he has interested a number of younger voters who may otherwise not vote, who do you suggest can win instead? Your refusal to answer that is a cop-out.
 
Last edited:
But you don't even offer an alternative. I don't argue that Corbyn is a shoo-in for a general election victory; nobody can seriously claim to know who will win, but given that Corbyn has won the leadership election by a complete landslide and he has interested a number of younger voters who may otherwise not vote, who do you suggest can win instead? Your refusal to answer that is a cop-out.

Whoever the Tories put up will win. Krusty the Clown included. Corbyn cannot win because of the policies he will bring to the election. Socialism is dead, in the UK at least.
 
Whoever the Tories put up will win. Krusty the Clown included. Corbyn cannot win because of the policies he will bring to the election. Socialism is dead, in the UK at least.
It was alive under Blair and Brown? The Credit Bubble and the Iraq War were socialism?
 
Whoever the Tories put up will win. Krusty the Clown included. Corbyn cannot win because of the policies he will bring to the election. Socialism is dead, in the UK at least.

This is the type of analysis that would put Sarah Palin to shame:

Jeremy Corbyn = socialist; socialist = BAD
 
This is the type of analysis that would put Sarah Palin to shame:

Jeremy Corbyn = socialist; socialist = BAD

No. Socialist=unelectable. I can't see how this is beyond dispute.

Do you really think a socialist politician can win in the UK?
 

Back
Top Bottom