Jeremy Corbyn

[DeanoL]

41 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

You Corbynites present a false dichotomy. That what we have to choose from is either Corbyn or "more of the same". Really Labour have a few potential leaders (Jarvis, Starmer..maybe Umuna but to be honest he's too Tory for my tastes too) all of whom would have a different vision and different style of leading the party. Politics is a spectrum, not a binary choice. 

We had a leadership election six months ago. None of them ran. It's not a false dichotomy - it was a choice between four people, that was the exact choice presented to the Labour party. I don't disagree that there are better people, but they didn't run. Stephen Fry could probably lead Labour to the biggest electoral victory ever but in common with Jarvis, Starmer and Umuna, he's not interested in doing that.

As much as Corbyn's views reflect my own, I wouldn't have backed him had a credible candidate been standing against him.

[arcade fireman]

14 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

We had a leadership election six months ago. None of them ran. It's not a false dichotomy - it was a choice between four people, that was the exact choice presented to the Labour party. I don't disagree that there are better people, but they didn't run. Stephen Fry could probably lead Labour to the biggest electoral victory ever but in common with Jarvis, Starmer and Umuna, he's not interested in doing that.

As much as Corbyn's views reflect my own, I wouldn't have backed him had a credible candidate been standing against him.

Cooper and Burnham may have had strong links to New Labour but they arguably would have had the Tories a lot more worried - particularly Cooper. And as much as any of us on the left may loathe many aspects of New Labour, they were still part of a Government this country voted for time and time again. I can guarantee the floating voters that decide elections would have seen them as more credible than Corbyn.

In any event this debate isn't about the leadership election that happened last year, it's about the Labour Party going forward. And it's plainly clear that Corbyn is taking Labour's chances in 2020 backwards, not forwards. Things are going exactly the way the naysayers expected it to. You may say Corbyn was the best choice for you at the time, but after seeing how things have gone in last 5 months, it's hard to still say he's fit to lead the party. 

To be honest I would think making a move to get rid of Corbyn right now would be in itself too damaging - there are too many people who just haven't got it yet. They don't see just how damaging an effect having Corbyn in charge is proving to be. The infighting and splits would be a real problem. 

However May 2017 for me would be the deadline - I would expect it very likely that Labour would have had two quite disastrous sets of council election results by then. Unless something significant changes in a big way, that is what is highly likely to happen. By then there will be reams upon reams of evidence that keeping Corbyn would be political suicide. Whether the Corbynites choose to see it however is another matter. 

The one saving grace however may be Cameron giving way. A new Labour leader up against Osborne, with half a Parliament left to go could actually put Labour in with a much better chance come 2020. 

 

Edited February 3, 2016 by arcade fireman

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

We had a leadership election six months ago. None of them ran. It's not a false dichotomy - it was a choice between four people, that was the exact choice presented to the Labour party. I don't disagree that there are better people, but they didn't run. Stephen Fry could probably lead Labour to the biggest electoral victory ever but in common with Jarvis, Starmer and Umuna, he's not interested in doing that.

This is true, but it leaves Labour in the most dreadful position for getting elected - which, let's not forget, is the very purpose of their existence.

Which means there's a choice. Carry on as things are and fail to be elected and fail to do anything for anyone.

Or get a different leader with a message and manner, and give Labour a chance of victory with a more-moderate message that more people can relate to.

I don't want to compromise on a very-left policy platform (my own would be hugely more-left than Corbyn's), but I know that has to be done to have a policy platform that actually improves people's lives and isn't an irrelevance thru failure.

 

12 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

As much as Corbyn's views reflect my own, I wouldn't have backed him had a credible candidate been standing against him.

which only gets to say that you know Corbyn isn't credible, even tho you're on the same side.
(which is much the same as me).

So how exactly do you think he's going down with people who have less sympathies in that direction than you or I?

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

The one saving grace however may be Cameron giving way. A new Labour leader up against Osborne, with half a Parliament left to go could actually put Labour in with a much better chance come 2020. 

Hmmm. I'd say that risks being just another version of "let's keep our fingers crossed and hope the Tories get to be more shit than even Corbyn is".

Fact is, while Osborne isn't personally popular (most people see him as a slimeball), he's still very politically popular. In general his budgets have been well-received (tho there's been errors amongst them), and if things keep on going the same way then he's a shoe-in for Tory leader and victory over Corbyn.

But if there's a major disaster with the economy between now and sometime after summer 2019, then Osborne won't get to be leader, and instead they'll be someone else who'll beat Corbyn.

The one window of hope against another tory victory while Corbyn is leader is a huge fuck-up between Osborne becoming leader and the next election. It might happen, but it's back to the idea of the public loving Corbyn if the tories can be even more shit than Corbyn is.

It's an idiotic way to aim for victory.

[arcade fireman]

Just now, eFestivals said:

Hmmm. I'd say that risks being just another version of "let's keep our fingers crossed and hope the Tories get to be more shit than even Corbyn is".

Fact is, while Osborne isn't personally popular (most people see him as a slimeball), he's still very politically popular. In general his budgets have been well-received (tho there's been errors amongst them), and if things keep on going the same way then he's a shoe-in for Tory leader and victory over Corbyn.

But if there's a major disaster with the economy between now and sometime after summer 2019, then Osborne won't get to be leader, and instead they'll be someone else who'll beat Corbyn.

The one window of hope against another tory victory while Corbyn is leader is a huge fuck-up between Osborne becoming leader and the next election. It might happen, but it's back to the idea of the public loving Corbyn if the tories can be even more shit than Corbyn is.

It's an idiotic way to aim for victory.

Oh I'm not saying Corbyn should stay until the next election. I just think until a year and a bit, once we've had two sets of council elections. Although Labour could be 15 points behind, have lost scores of councils and people like our penguin friend above might still insist Corbyn will sweep to victory, I would hope enough Corbynites would grudgingly accept a change was reasonable. Right now, any coup to unseat Corbyn would likely be unsuccessful and then we really would be stuck with him until 2020. 

I think as long as he wants it (and there's a lot of talk he would next time), Labour has someone who could potentially be an election winner - Dan Jarvis. He's the guy the Tories fear the most. That wouldn't be a Miliband style appointment, or (had they been picked) even a Cooper/Burnham scenario of least worst option. Keir Starmer also would have a certain gravitas to him and I suspect is a little more to the left of Jarvis. 

I would give Corbyn a less than 5% chance of winning an election. That's being generous. 

[eFestivals]

Just now, thatcrazypenguin said:

so apparently now corbyn only won because there were no other credible candidates? that's funny because those candidates represented a pretty diverse selection of views and corbyn still won with a huge majority...it wasn't even a contest in the end, not as if he won with a slight lead now was it?

he won, he won well.

but he won with the endorsement of *just* Labour members (plus some three quid tories voting for him for a laugh), who were denigating the others as "red tories" to suit their confirmation bias.

Being popular amongst those you're popular with is meaningless in the wider sense.

 

Just now, thatcrazypenguin said:

and efests please dont claim to be on the same side as corbyn when youve spent 90% of this thread attacking the man and the other 10% making up statements other posters have said to `perpetuate` your attacks on the man. Last thing I saw you post you were actually sympathizing with the tories it seemed:

Get back to me when you've been voting Labour exclusively for over 30 years on the basis of class solidarity, and aren't a jonny-come-lately tourist who'll be off to another party as soon as it shows you shiny things.

I was a moron at 18 for my first election in 1983, sounding very similar to how you sound now. Then I grew up, and recognised there's others in the world too, who don't necessarily arrive at the same conclusions as me.

 

Just now, thatcrazypenguin said:

People want jobs, and there's jobs. People want housing, and there's housing. People want the opportunity to go to Uni, and there's the opportunity to go to Uni. People want to be able to buy the things they want, and most are able to get themselves the latest gadget they want. Etc, etc, etc.

Those things might not be configured in the way you or I might want them to be, but that's not how everyone sees it.

And even plenty of those who want what you want might see the tories as better-delivering those things than Corbyn might manage.`

`after all they've created jobs mate haven't they....jobs! never mind the fact they include slave labour exercises like zero hour positions and workfare schemes in the total figures to pad them out eh? and all this housing theyve given us! never mind the fact there idea of an affordable home is something that costs almost half a million quid eh?  and uni uni! never mind the fact theyve pretty much made it so you can only go to uni if your from a wealthy enough background to afford to pay back the massive stonking loan...never mind the fact that theyve sold a lot of the student loan book to private debt collection companies......I could go on and on in this vein!...but apparently their not all bad! 

so yeah cut the crap, your as left wing as ian duncan smith and im calling that.

you have a tiny tiny tiny mind but a very big mirror, and all you can see is yourself.

Shouting me-me-me is the biggest Thatcherite trait there is, mate. That's you that is.

[Spindles]

What is worse?  One side calling their opponents red tories or the other calling everyone who disagrees with them a moron?

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Spindles said:

What is worse?  One side calling their opponents red tories or the other calling everyone who disagrees with them a moron?

Who's done that?

I've called 18 year old me in 1983 a moron, no one else.

Have you been taking reading lessons from inside a self-confirming box or something?

[arcade fireman]

7 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

but this is madness. There are people like yourself, who say they like him, but they don't think he's a credible leader. It's an insane situation, being driven by the media, and other Labour members and MPs.... It's like no-one will actually vote for who they honestly agree with, because of some undisclosed consequences!?!

 

A Labour leadership election and a general election are two very different things. Any party leadership election is a much smaller sample and not remotely representative of what would happen at a GE. 

Picking a leader for your party should take into account electability as well as whether you agree with their policies. 

After all, what is the chance of those policies you agree with being enacted if, as is happening now, he is thought of poorly by the wider electorate? 

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

that type of generalisation just renders everything you say as meaningless. My daughter became a paid up member for the first time in her life. It wasn't for a laugh. So did her boyfriend. And friends of theirs

So they voted for him and weren't members or three-quidders, then, and I was wrong?

And yes, some three quid tories DID vote for him. Your reaction to me suggesting they were all tories says more about you than the words do me, I think.

 

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

but this is madness. There are people like yourself, who say they like him, but they don't think he's a credible leader. It's an insane situation, being driven by the media, and other Labour members and MPs.... It's like no-one will actually vote for who they honestly agree with, because of some undisclosed consequences!?!

 

you wouldn't vote for Miliband because of how he eats a sandwich. You banged on and on about how weird he was.

The criticisms about Corbyn are based on the fact of his extremely shit leadership, where he spends his time making the biggest issue of a policy he ways he knows he'll lose, and where him and his supporters are united in support of a 2020 failure.

FFS.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, tonyblair said:

If I did, it wasn't the reason I didn't vote for him

You're more concerned with his style than his content. How progressive.

No, his shit leadership.

The clue for anyone with more than the single brain cell was when I talked about his shit leadership.

Do keep up, eh?

 

Edited February 3, 2016 by eFestivals

[arcade fireman]

8 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

I get that, but how many people are saying he's the wrong leader, but he's the one they agree with the most? 
As for the accuracy of polls.... we're seeing similar 'unexpected' results in America, as has occurred here. 
 

Polling is used globally and accurate far more times than it is inaccurate. Even here, the times when it's been inaccurate it has overestimated the Labour vote significantly, not underestimated it. And it's not just voting intention, his approval ratings are disastrous. Even if there were some sampling errors against him there's no way the overall picture would be much different as the margins are so large.

You're looking at the results in the primaries/caucuses which are quite odd forms of voting (especially the Democratic nominations). The last US election however was predicted by polling almost identically, there was a website called five thirty eight which called all but one state correctly based on the polling. 

And it's entirely reasonable to say you agree with someone's policies but you think their leadership skills are very poor. If the last election was decided on policies Miliband would have been our PM - numerous polls showed Labour's policies were more popular. 

Oh and most of us criticising Corbyn would vote for him were a General Election held tomorrow. But most of us criticising him here would also never vote Tory. The point is that's not representative of the public at large. 

Edited February 3, 2016 by arcade fireman

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

If it was a reasoned debate about his leadership abilities, I'd agree. It's the unprecedented witch hunt type of criticism that I find odd. There are times when these forums make the Daily Mail seem normal

it's been debate about the things he's said and done, the policies he's chosen to give a high profile to (to the detriment of other policies), and what the only available indicators suggest for how he's going down with the wider public.

It's been nothing but reasoned debate.

FFS, what have you been reading? Or have you been making it up in your head?

Edited February 3, 2016 by eFestivals

[Winslow Leach]

7 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

If it was a reasoned debate about his leadership abilities, I'd agree. It's the unprecedented witch hunt type of criticism that I find odd. There are times when these forums make the Daily Mail seem normal

Love the way you maintained the pretence of relative neutrality while also clearly framing those critical of Corbyn as being the unreasonable side of the debate. Top marks, 10/10.

[arcade fireman]

14 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

If it was a reasoned debate about his leadership abilities, I'd agree. It's the unprecedented witch hunt type of criticism that I find odd. There are times when these forums make the Daily Mail seem normal

Where has there been a "witch hunt" style of criticism in these forums?! No one here is claiming Corbyn is a Britain-hating, Stalinesque danger to the country. Just a terrible leader who doing poorly on every objective measure out there. 

I agree there has been a witch hunt on Corbyn in the media, but alas, plus ça change. It was obvious even before he got elected that he'd be subjected to smears that would have made Ed Miliband look like Murdoch's dearest son. Unfortunately though, he makes it all too easy for them. 

[grumpyhack]

I'd be fascinated to see a cycle race between Boris and Jeremy.  Maybe it should be around the Leftfield and followed by a debate.  Hopefully they'll both be too out of breath to just churn out a lot of hot air.

[5co77ie]

1 hour ago, tonyblair said:

that type of generalisation just renders everything you say as meaningless. My daughter became a paid up member for the first time in her life. It wasn't for a laugh. So did her boyfriend. And friends of theirs

yeah and they're the ones ruining the Labour club for us old timers, making it all popular and adding things like wine and Savanah Cider (WTF!!! is that shit???!!! cider with an effin slice of lemon - i ruddy blame Corbyn for that)  on offer in addition to my box of OLD Rosie cider.

I couldn't even get in there last night and ended up having to be at home with the Mrs watching the enemy.

I just hugged my Andy Burnham poster and cried, and dreamt of what might have been.

Edited February 3, 2016 by 5co77ie

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

but I do have an opinion on condescending egotists who spend half their time deliberately taking things out of context to try and make someone look more extreme then they really are and the other half talking down to people as if theirs is the `only` opinion anyone should listen to.

Now, I know I'm guilty of this.

But you should spend less time telling yourserlf how beautiful you are when you look in the mirror.

 

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

This is true, but it leaves Labour in the most dreadful position for getting elected - which, let's not forget, is the very purpose of their existence.

Which means there's a choice. Carry on as things are and fail to be elected and fail to do anything for anyone.

Or get a different leader with a message and manner, and give Labour a chance of victory with a more-moderate message that more people can relate to.

If Labour can avoid fucking it up though, and transition to a new leader without kicking seven shades out of each other, you then have a Labour party that has fired up younger voters (to some extent), and increased membership hugely - if they can keep those people onside and engaged, long term maybe it's a good thing.

But no, I don't think Corbyn is likely to win a general election. But the fact that the Tories had a majority of five and Labour couldn't find a single person to put up and for everyone to go "right, that's it, we have 2020 sewn up then" is a bloody travesty. I mean, that was the response to even Milliband.

And herein is the rub for me: if we are looking at a Tory victory in 2020, I want an opposition leader who challenges the very fundamentals of Tory policy. I do think Corbyn is pulling the debate to the left, and as such he's pulling the Tories to the left. The problem with electing a leader who moves to the right is you force the Tories even further right. Which is okay as long as you win. But if you don't it's a disaster. It's bad enough at the moment that it's easy to forget that Cameron is a moderate.

So yeah, give me someone who is a shoe-in for beating the Tories and I'm with them 100%. But give me a bunch of people that we're not sure can overturn that majority of five and yes, I'm also thinking about preparing to lose.

But that all said... I also don't think a Corbyn win is impossible. I think something is happening. I don't think the polling issues was a glitch, I don't think Oldham was a one-off, I think something is fundamentally changing in politics, both here and elsewhere. We've had 'shock' results in quite a few places the last few years. Not necessarily in favour of the Left. But things that people are not seeing coming. I think we're in a state of flux enough that I'm not sure how the next election will shake out.

I would not be surprised to see Corbyn crash and burn in May. But I also wouldn't be surprised to see him make huge gains. I just don't know. And I'm suspicious of anyone who claims to know, especially when those people thought Ed Milliband was going to win.

Yeah, maybe I'm delusional. Maybe it is just business as usual and I want to think it isn't. All I know is I consider myself fairly politically engaged, and the past I've felt I had a good grip on what people thought. And I don't. I didn't see the SNP white-wash, I didn't see the Milliband defeat, I didn't see the strong NO in Scotland, and I didn't see Corbyn becoming leader of the Labour party. Neither did most other people. I'm just willing to admit I know sod-all anymore and wait and see what happens until May at least before declaring Corbyn unelectable.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

If you knew anything about corbyn and his supporters youd know the majority support the man because he is the only one offering a change in treatment for all.....that is far from a `me me me` attitude if I was interested in that id back the tories because that is all that particular bunch of c**ts is about.

Every politician offers their policies to all those that come under their power if PM. He's nothing special with that part.

What counts for a politician's success is how many he can get to follow those policies with that person leading them.

And yes, he's offering change, but what he's not offering is beneficial change for all. Some will be the victims of his policies in order for others to benefit (that's how it always works for all politicians).

All he needs to do now is convince enough people that they won't be his victims. Good luck with that.

You're either not prepared to consider where the weight of opinion is in order for him to get the support he needs, or you don't care that he hasn't and won't get that support. Instead you scream how important it is to stick to everything how it is (that's repelling the people he needs to attract), and don't care what other people think and where their opinions are. Because it's all about what you want, and not what the majority of the public might want (as would be shown by their support).

Ho hum. 

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

I might have exaggerated a bit.... 

But isn't it true, that there are people here, who would support his aims, but mainly criticise him, because of his style?

No.

Read the thread, instead of posting your out-of-body fantasies.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

If Labour can avoid fucking it up though, and transition to a new leader without kicking seven shades out of each other, you then have a Labour party that has fired up younger voters (to some extent), and increased membership hugely - if they can keep those people onside and engaged, long term maybe it's a good thing.

But no, I don't think Corbyn is likely to win a general election. But the fact that the Tories had a majority of five and Labour couldn't find a single person to put up and for everyone to go "right, that's it, we have 2020 sewn up then" is a bloody travesty. I mean, that was the response to even Milliband.

And herein is the rub for me: if we are looking at a Tory victory in 2020, I want an opposition leader who challenges the very fundamentals of Tory policy. I do think Corbyn is pulling the debate to the left, and as such he's pulling the Tories to the left. The problem with electing a leader who moves to the right is you force the Tories even further right. Which is okay as long as you win. But if you don't it's a disaster. It's bad enough at the moment that it's easy to forget that Cameron is a moderate.

So yeah, give me someone who is a shoe-in for beating the Tories and I'm with them 100%. But give me a bunch of people that we're not sure can overturn that majority of five and yes, I'm also thinking about preparing to lose.

But that all said... I also don't think a Corbyn win is impossible. I think something is happening. I don't think the polling issues was a glitch, I don't think Oldham was a one-off, I think something is fundamentally changing in politics, both here and elsewhere. We've had 'shock' results in quite a few places the last few years. Not necessarily in favour of the Left. But things that people are not seeing coming. I think we're in a state of flux enough that I'm not sure how the next election will shake out.

I would not be surprised to see Corbyn crash and burn in May. But I also wouldn't be surprised to see him make huge gains. I just don't know. And I'm suspicious of anyone who claims to know, especially when those people thought Ed Milliband was going to win.

Yeah, maybe I'm delusional. Maybe it is just business as usual and I want to think it isn't. All I know is I consider myself fairly politically engaged, and the past I've felt I had a good grip on what people thought. And I don't. I didn't see the SNP white-wash, I didn't see the Milliband defeat, I didn't see the strong NO in Scotland, and I didn't see Corbyn becoming leader of the Labour party. Neither did most other people. I'm just willing to admit I know sod-all anymore and wait and see what happens until May at least before declaring Corbyn unelectable.

the problem with all that is, because of where people's thinking is, we will have political fragmentation after 2020. The Labour party will be fucked forever.

They have to look like they might win next time else they're fucked forever. People now pick and mix parties as suits them, and it will never again suit enough of them to all vote Labour at the same time.

This is how I think it plays out if things go on as they are for too much longer. While I think swifter action would be preferable, Labour have until about summer 2017 to sort it out, else they'll be fucked forever.

I hope it doesn't go like that, but it doesn't stop me thinking that's where it leads.

 

 

 

[DeanoL]

No harm waiting until May then is there?

If Corbyn loses ground then I'll concede he has to go. What worries me is that if he makes gains, we will get the same excuses as for Oldham and the knives will still be out. 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

No harm waiting until May then is there?

If Corbyn loses ground then I'll concede he has to go. What worries me is that if he makes gains, we will get the same excuses as for Oldham and the knives will still be out. 

I dunno.

After all, some are claiming massive new support, so surely if there's around the same support and not massive new support he should go?