The Labour Thread

[Jockney]

He never had any business running for the leadership in the first place. He did not expect to win and he clearly does not want to work to the New Labour rubric. If he was the answer, he wouldn't continue to associate himself with that party (or even party politics, in general). It's not fit for purpose. So many other principled Labour MPs departed during the Blair years, but he did not. That speaks volumes.

 

[Dave-Vale]

If he's on the ballot then he will win any leadership election (I dare say he would get an even bigger share of the vote). A quick scan of social media shows that there is a lot of support for him and a lot of people saying they will be withdrawing membership should he not be on the ballot.

 

[Destruction]

I like Corbyn, I would vote for him and I think he is exactly the sort of PM this country needs.

But it's not people like me that he needs to win over and I don't think those think he needs will turn out for him at a General Election.

 

[Laker]

The daft thing is, Corbyn represents the party's members and voters far more than the majority of the rest of the parliamentary Labour MPs do. They are misjudging where support truly lies from their membership.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Alright now, you've got your Brexit. No need for gloating.

Nah, no gloating. I like Jeremy Corbyn. Deep down he's probably as EU-sceptic as I am. If we'd had the EU referendum 2-3 years ago, he'd have probably campaigned for Leave.

Just genuinely incredulous that he's still clinging on. Not saying he shouldn't, BTW. On democratic grounds, his stance is very admirable. But still... A vote of no confidence. 40+ resignation letters on his desk. Never seen anything like it.

P.S. I haven't got my Brexit. Still haven't triggered Article 50...

 

[Pliny Harris]

PLP extremely hostile. Huge problem. Near insurmountable. Am I glad he's showing resolve though? Fuck yeah. Blair was up to his eyelids with sleeping pills under a tenth of the pressure. Man recognises the sorts of ridiculous hurdles one has to jump for socialism. The biggest but admittedly far-flung prize is the potential of reselecting a PLP much more receptive to democratic socialism. The sorts of people voting the likes of Hunt and Eagle in I confidently believe are voting for the party more than the person. It's great to see some people sympathise. The one major question hanging over is that these MPs watch him operate day-to-day, and therefore have insider knowledge us Jacorbyns perhaps don't. It's a very legitimate challenge. However, I have naturally lacked confidence in most of these people for a long time, and it still doesn't hold that they never seemed to back him enthusiastically in the first place, often screaming whenever he had a good chance to capitalise, and leaking damaging info weekly.

Analogy. Corbyn was a "75% confident" Remainer. His MPs were never fully confident in him either. But could they have possibly done as much for him as he did for Remain?

A planned coup, as evidenced in that June 13th Telegraph leak, and at such a formidably inopportune time as well. The fact so many resignation letters allude to Boris Johnson being the next Conservatives leader sez a lot. They're so pre-scripted that they don't seem to take into account the turmoil and uncertainty over the next Tory leader either.

Lots of Corbyn well-wishers are backing off but as dispiriting as a lot of this is I also find it very galvanising. There's an opportunity there to establish some parliamentary support for socialism. I wouldn't even turn down some efforts to unite with the SNP and Greens for certain causes. Remember this is an anti-austerity ticket, it's a ticket in which the members are canvassed more than ever, and it's a ticket for Labour to forge its own future and come up with its own ideas without self-consciously watching what the Tories and others get up to, and looking to weave a centre-right "alternative" out of that, always making the second move. There are so many top Labour heads that are in direct opposition to much of that, especially the anti-austerity bid. Simply put, when it comes to economic recovery Corbyn is pulling in the x direction, and most of the PLP in the -x direction. Those forces cannot benefit each other. All of those shad cab resignations came from MPs who abstained from the Child Welfare Bill that Corbyn's voting against did so much to boost his standing amongst Labour voters.

Last but not least, they still lack a leader to rally around. It's possibly the most foolish of all that they have no replacement in mind. In fact it seems rather suicidal. I'm sure more consensus will be achieved once a few put their names forward than this current time's slew of 0–5% support for yer Eagles, Benns, Jarvises, but can they get over 100,000 silent centrists impassioned enough to join the party and vote them in? Staggering lack of plan.

Remember the Miliband term and how, even with a Labour establishment consensus, watered down policy/personality and near-100% party backing, voters were completely uninspired.

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

If Corbyn gets re-elected as leader, can you see many of the 176 stand down and leave the Party en-masse?

As as far as I can see, they will have little choice but either to put up and shut up, or stand down themselves?

 

[smat]

A quick scan of social media shows that there is a lot of support for him

This made me facepalm so hard I broke my fucking head.

 

[The Jovial Forester]

He's right to hang on. It's a fight between the unions and membership versus the failed Westminster bubble managerialism of the PLP and it needs to be won by the former if we're going to have a Labour Party worth electing. I also think the result would be a party more likely to win.

 

[.V.]

http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/fresh-leadership-may-make-labour-electable/

 

[SUTSS]

I think Labour are in a really tight spot here. If they make a wrong move I could easily see them becoming irrelevent and losing ground everywhere. They have a tough job both solidifying London and metropolitan areas which will be looking for a pro-EU left wing party, taking the Tory/Lab marginals by establishing themselves as economically credible and stopping the UKIP rise in the North which will go against the metropolitan areas. I don't see how Labour can do any of that with Corbyn in charge.

 

[Alty]

I think Labour are in a really tight spot here. If they make a wrong move I could easily see them becoming irrelevent and losing ground everywhere. They have a tough job both solidifying London and metropolitan areas which will be looking for a pro-EU left wing party, taking the Tory/Lab marginals by establishing themselves as economically credible and stopping the UKIP rise in the North which will go against the metropolitan areas. I don't see how Labour can do any of that with Corbyn in charge.

I'm starting to wonder whether the long-standing tensions between competing sections of the party are now just too great. Labour (and the Conservatives, actually, to a lesser extent) attempt to represent too large a body of people. An uneasy coalition of down on their luck families from former industrial towns, trade unionists, minority groups and city-dwelling young radicals just doesn't appear to be a viable, electable, political party.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

I'm starting to wonder whether the long-standing tensions between competing sections of the party are now just too great. Labour (and the Conservatives, actually, to a lesser extent) attempt to represent too large a body of people. An uneasy coalition of down on their luck families from former industrial towns, trade unionists, minority groups and city-dwelling young radicals just doesn't appear to be a viable, electable, political party.

But, whilst FPTP is in place there can not be a split...

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

I don't really have many qualms with Corbyn's beliefs, I'd back him on most things and was happy he became leader ahead of the others. Rather than him being too 'crazy', he's the opposite, he is too meek. I appreciate the sentiment of making politics 'nicer' but he needs to be more aggressive, I wouldn't mind seeing McDonnell stick around as he always deals with questions and interviews well, comes across as strong and can take the Tories on verbally

If/When Corbyn goes it can't be a Blairite who takes over. There needs to be olive branches extended to both sides of the party now. It's all or nothing for Labour now, either unite and take the chance to recover the working-class vote or divide and face a split with two parties who will struggle.

 

[Abertawe]

So it seems the PLP have got themselves into a mess as they're expecting the Chilcot findings to be damning, they're now desperately trying to find a viable candidate who didn't vote for the action in Iraq, oops. Corbyn tipped to go on the attack and demand for Blair to be tried as a war criminal, further strengthening his hand with members.

 

[Bobbin']

Angela Eagle to challenge Corbyn.

Christ almighty, surely no-one will vote for her?

 

[blade1889]

She seems quite strong whenever I've heard her on PMQ's tbf. Labour would benefit from a strong leader, as Farage has shown seemingly being 'strong' goes a long way.

 

[Abertawe]

Angela Eagle ain't strong bro, she's as wet a lettuce as you're ever likely to find.

 

[TheMinsterman]

Angela Eagle to challenge Corbyn.

Christ almighty, surely no-one will vote for her?

She sounds ace.

 

[TheMinsterman]

The number one job of the Labour leader is to make Labour electable. Corbyn's current approval rating (when polled on the general public) is about -22. For context, after the same amount of time as leader, Kinnock was about neutral, and Miliband was -8. Whether or not you think the reporting on Corbyn has been right, he needs to be more popular.

I think honestly even his supporters know he's not up to it: http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016...don-t-think-jeremy-corbyn-can-win-but-they-st

Time after time, if you ask voters, they will tell you, they don't trust him: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-the-issues-that-really-matter-10505992.html

And like or not, Labour needs to win more voters over, not just convince Corbyn fans.

Obvious potential Labour voters just do not rate him: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...eone-who-got-lost-from-the-tour-a7019811.html

I never thought anyone could win Scotland back quickly, but Labour are actively going backwards in Scotland. Holding steady in Wales in the polls, but I don't think Corbyn is winning back any swing voters who voted Tory in 2015, or any of the Northern UKIP voters who have always voted Labour in the past.

You knew Corbyn was Remain (technically), and so did I. But we were apparently in the minority. It has now emerged that he refused to send anyone to the weekly Stronger In meetings, cancelled campaign events for the EU referendum, and won't even clarify if he voted to Remain. If he's a Eurosceptic, that's fine, but I am fed up of hearing 'Straight Talking, Honest Politics' from Corbyn fans.

It has been nine months, rather than six. You're right, some people have always been against him, but we don't have 3-4 years. If there is a general election, he cannot win, and this can't be allowed to continue. Labour never sack their leaders, they just let them go on and on (Foot, Miliband, Kinnock) regardless of what the facts are saying. There is no point in being sentimental about this. Doing 'no worse than Ed Miliband' is not something to aspire to. We need someone who is ambitious to win a general election.

It's not about lacking principles. It's about using some common sense. If Jeremy Corbyn's main tactics are to think it's beneath him to attack the government, then that's not OK. I don't care if he doesn't sing the national anthem - I really don't - but you have to have the political nous to know that it will be a story if you don't. Why bleat on about the media being mean to you if you can easily prevent it? His U-turn on shoot-to-kill policy, explaining how we need to have negotiations about the Falklands - his priorities on issues that matter to people are wrong.

You can be a loveable rogue of a left-wing MP who doesn't care about public opinion. Or you can lead a credible opposition to the government. You can't do both, and Lord love him, he really has tried.

Apologies Max, 1FF wouldn't let me on for a few days bar my phone.

I'm happy to concede to some of your points there, but for myself, the crux is that this isn't so much about Corbyn, it's about the message Labour are sending to their voters and their prospective members. We're told time and time again they want to us to engage in politics, people did, en masse, to elect Jeremy Corbyn to lead the Labour Party, yet from day one, the PLP wanted none of it. some were happy to "give it a go", but many started the wheels of resistance from the off, concluding with this orchestrated vote of no confidence. Now, you can say what you want about Corbyn, I'm not a blind acolyte of his by any stretch, but what this says to me is, effectively, we want you to engage.... but we don't want you to have too much power.

Elect somebody we don't like? We'll force him out, inside a year, when the Tories are laying there, their throat torn out, begging to be finished off, we'll re-focus ALL the focus onto us instead, for all the wrong reasons. They oust Corbyn they're the party who reject the memberships overwhelming choice inside a calendar year with constant objection to him being there, that sends a very, very, very clear message to people about what the Labour Party think about the electorate.

Maybe Corbyn is useless, maybe he's really a victim, to me it's what he symbolises. He was the overwhelming choice of members, he was ALWAYS working against rejection inside the PLP, that he grown and grown and grown, they can keep trotting out the soundbites but what that says to me, and many people I've spoken to, it that it just shows we don't really get to have a say, we pick somebody, he's hounded out in under a year. Essentially it says you can elect somebody, but he needs to fit these specifics to be satisfactory to us or else we'll bin him.

It resoundingly says you get who we want, and you can like it or lump it.

Power to the people? Reconnecting with the electorate? Seem's like further disconnection to me, I'd say the same of any party doing it.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Quite. I like Corbyn but I don't necessarily find some of the criticism difficult to accept. I recognise that he may not possess the requisite leadership qualities, I can acknowledge that he may not be communicating effectively with the PLP (could you honestly blame him if there was some element of distrust here?) but I can't accept that he's been treated remotely fairly by his party and that's something that's only going to stiffen the resolve of his supporters. Does anyone actually believe that the PLP have a semblance of a coherent plan here (something which amounts to more than "anyone but Jez")? Is Angela Eagle going to lead Labour to electoral success? Corbyn is, by all accounts, a thoroughly decent man, so why are they treating him like this? I find the whole episode utterly bewildering.

 

[GodsGift]

I think the biggest issue is the £3 membership fee which seems to have given those activists who signed up after the election last year a great deal of self-entitlement. How many actually signed up? 200,000? An impressive figure, but in reality it counts for little when very few of them have actually been out on the doorstep campaigning for Labour. They're very active on social media and all circulate in the same sort of networks, giving them the impression that there's a great deal of support for Corbyn - which beyond their group and the metropolitan areas of north London, is just not true at all. If you don't believe me, go to a traditional Labour "heartland" and talk to the people there (trust me, I work in Grimsby where they've had a Labour MP since 1945), and you'll soon see there's no affection for Corbyn whatsoever. The same can be said for many areas of the north.

As I've said since he was first elected as party leader, he's a very decent and principled man who should stick to what he's good at - which is campaigning from the backbenches - but he'll never make a competent leader and he'll certainly come no where near winning a general election. In that regard, despite the messy actions of the PLP, he was doomed from the very start.

 

[Abertawe]

If Corbyn is ousted then the left movement of Labour dies. I feel sorry for him that he's carrying the hopes of millions on his shoulders in the face of such vitriol by the influential minority.

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

Apologies Max, 1FF wouldn't let me on for a few days bar my phone.

I'm happy to concede to some of your points there, but for myself, the crux is that this isn't so much about Corbyn, it's about the message Labour are sending to their voters and their prospective members. We're told time and time again they want to us to engage in politics, people did, en masse, to elect Jeremy Corbyn to lead the Labour Party, yet from day one, the PLP wanted none of it. some were happy to "give it a go", but many started the wheels of resistance from the off, concluding with this orchestrated vote of no confidence. Now, you can say what you want about Corbyn, I'm not a blind acolyte of his by any stretch, but what this says to me is, effectively, we want you to engage.... but we don't want you to have too much power.

Elect somebody we don't like? We'll force him out, inside a year, when the Tories are laying there, their throat torn out, begging to be finished off, we'll re-focus ALL the focus onto us instead, for all the wrong reasons. They oust Corbyn they're the party who reject the memberships overwhelming choice inside a calendar year with constant objection to him being there, that sends a very, very, very clear message to people about what the Labour Party think about the electorate.

Maybe Corbyn is useless, maybe he's really a victim, to me it's what he symbolises. He was the overwhelming choice of members, he was ALWAYS working against rejection inside the PLP, that he grown and grown and grown, they can keep trotting out the soundbites but what that says to me, and many people I've spoken to, it that it just shows we don't really get to have a say, we pick somebody, he's hounded out in under a year. Essentially it says you can elect somebody, but he needs to fit these specifics to be satisfactory to us or else we'll bin him.

It resoundingly says you get who we want, and you can like it or lump it.

Power to the people? Reconnecting with the electorate? Seem's like further disconnection to me, I'd say the same of any party doing it.

Lets turn the clock back to the 1990s shall we.

At that time, the Tory Part gained the reputation as the nasty parter. New Labour and Blair came about. Labour knew that their die hard supporters and members would vote Labour even if a Monkey was standing in those boroughs. However, in order to defeat the Tories, they had to also appeal fed up Tory voters. This resulted in 3 Labour governments. Over many years, those standing for election mostly stood for New Labour values, hence staying in power for so long. Remember that during this period, Blair promised an EU Referendum that never happened.

Fast forward to the Iraq scandal. This forced Blair out and an unpopular Brown to take over. Damage was already done, and those voters on the fence moved back to the Tories and Lib Dems. Also the recession happened, and the Tory Policy of cuts appealed to former Tory voters worries about their future

The Coalition Government then happened. The economy improved, Lib Dem's couldn't get their policies through, so became unpopular. UKIP was on the rise and people were taking notice. The Tories backed a referendum which tipped the balance for a Majority Government. At this point, Labour were suffering.

Come 2015, Labour members wanted change. They knew appealing to voters who were on the fence wasn't working anymore and the old die hards in favour of leaving the EU voted UKIP, split the vote and let the Tories in. Labour members and backers had a tough call to make. Problem being their membership surge didn't reflect the fogotton die hard supporters of the north

The problem now is the majority of the Labour MPs are from the New Labour era, against the grain of the membership

Sadly, if the membership want change and it to appeal to them, their committee come the next GE, will have to draught candidates according to what their membership wants, membership votes on them while the current New Labour era MPs lose the ballot to stand.

The way I see it, if they want to win back their old die hard support, they go anti EU by having candidates appeal to those voters, or they go back to New Labour Values. They can't be both and can't rely on the old die hards as they are against immigration on the whole and many now support UKIP, so unless the Tories totally fuck up renegotiations, then Labour are finished.

On that basis, I think a split maybe the only way forward now for the Party

 

[Max]

Apologies Max, 1FF wouldn't let me on for a few days bar my phone.

I'm happy to concede to some of your points there, but for myself, the crux is that this isn't so much about Corbyn, it's about the message Labour are sending to their voters and their prospective members. We're told time and time again they want to us to engage in politics, people did, en masse, to elect Jeremy Corbyn to lead the Labour Party, yet from day one, the PLP wanted none of it. some were happy to "give it a go", but many started the wheels of resistance from the off, concluding with this orchestrated vote of no confidence. Now, you can say what you want about Corbyn, I'm not a blind acolyte of his by any stretch, but what this says to me is, effectively, we want you to engage.... but we don't want you to have too much power.

Elect somebody we don't like? We'll force him out, inside a year, when the Tories are laying there, their throat torn out, begging to be finished off, we'll re-focus ALL the focus onto us instead, for all the wrong reasons. They oust Corbyn they're the party who reject the memberships overwhelming choice inside a calendar year with constant objection to him being there, that sends a very, very, very clear message to people about what the Labour Party think about the electorate.

Maybe Corbyn is useless, maybe he's really a victim, to me it's what he symbolises. He was the overwhelming choice of members, he was ALWAYS working against rejection inside the PLP, that he grown and grown and grown, they can keep trotting out the soundbites but what that says to me, and many people I've spoken to, it that it just shows we don't really get to have a say, we pick somebody, he's hounded out in under a year. Essentially it says you can elect somebody, but he needs to fit these specifics to be satisfactory to us or else we'll bin him.

It resoundingly says you get who we want, and you can like it or lump it.

Power to the people? Reconnecting with the electorate? Seem's like further disconnection to me, I'd say the same of any party doing it.

The election contest was a double-edged sword, being the first one where it was one-member, one-vote, and it was made too easy to join the party. Old-school left wing socialists have always wanted the Labour Party to be a left-wing socialist party, rather than a centre-left social democratic one. However, the Labour Party already had this battle throughout the 80s, and the country always rejected this version of Labour. The huge new membership to the Labour Party was celebrated at the time, but this was not previously unpolitical people joining the party to try to energise it. It was, largely, Socialist Worker Party voters, Morning Star readers, people who lost the argument about Labour's future in the past etc. and who the public at large would regard as being a bit too far to the left. It seems odd to me that a lot of new Labour members never joined Labour before because they didn't like 90% of the party, and so they joined to support the 10% represented by Jeremy Corbyn, and are now complaining because nobody likes them.

With that in mind, it is very frustrating to see people who have been in the Labour Party for 9 months insulting and castigating people who have been in it for 40 years and saying that THEY are the real party etc etc.

Obviously MPs can't say that members have too much power, but that is the situation now. The old system was a balance of MPs, members and trade unions, which represented lots of viewpoints and a balance that elected quite good Labour leaders. It also reflected the working class, middle class and anywhere in between of Labour and its interests.

Some MPs wouldn't serve with him, which I thought was petulant, but I think it's worth remembering that some of them have worked with him for 20 years, during which time he has never been remotely loyal to any leader, any party idea, or anything other than his own ideas. That's fine - principle is respected - but it's a bit rich to demand loyalty in return.

I've seen Angela Eagle get slagged off for supporting him and then turning on him, which proves that MPs cannot win. They get abuse for not supporting him. They get abuse for trying to make it work. The only way they avoid abuse is to blindly follow Jeremy towards electoral oblivion. The left wing of politics has always been its worst enemy. Labour councillors, MPs and MEPs have been pretty open about their beliefs to get selected. It's how you get selected to run for a seat. It really should not come as any surprise that a lot of them can't work with Jeremy. It's not a grand betrayal, it's just common sense. It's as if 100,000 people joined the Green Party, elected Nigel Farage, and then complained when it didn't go well.

When I read your post, your mention the word 'electorate', and you, in that instance, seem to use it as a synonym for the people that voted for Jeremy. Most of the general public have very little interest in the internal workings of the parties, and have no interest in electing a party leader, but would like to see a good PM and a good leader of the opposition. MPs are working against Corbyn because they don't think he is effective, don't think the public trust him and don't think he can win a general election. In this quest, they are grossly offending around 200,000 people, most of whom hated the PLP before anyway. They're doing this to try to win over millions of people in future elections.

Lets turn the clock back to the 1990s shall we.

At that time, the Tory Part gained the reputation as the nasty parter. New Labour and Blair came about. Labour knew that their die hard supporters and members would vote Labour even if a Monkey was standing in those boroughs. However, in order to defeat the Tories, they had to also appeal fed up Tory voters. This resulted in 3 Labour governments. Over many years, those standing for election mostly stood for New Labour values, hence staying in power for so long. Remember that during this period, Blair promised an EU Referendum that never happened.

Fast forward to the Iraq scandal. This forced Blair out and an unpopular Brown to take over. Damage was already done, and those voters on the fence moved back to the Tories and Lib Dems. Also the recession happened, and the Tory Policy of cuts appealed to former Tory voters worries about their future

The Coalition Government then happened. The economy improved, Lib Dem's couldn't get their policies through, so became unpopular. UKIP was on the rise and people were taking notice. The Tories backed a referendum which tipped the balance for a Majority Government. At this point, Labour were suffering.

Come 2015, Labour members wanted change. They knew appealing to voters who were on the fence wasn't working anymore and the old die hards in favour of leaving the EU voted UKIP, split the vote and let the Tories in. Labour members and backers had a tough call to make. Problem being their membership surge didn't reflect the fogotton die hard supporters of the north

The problem now is the majority of the Labour MPs are from the New Labour era, against the grain of the membership

Sadly, if the membership want change and it to appeal to them, their committee come the next GE, will have to draught candidates according to what their membership wants, membership votes on them while the current New Labour era MPs lose the ballot to stand.

The way I see it, if they want to win back their old die hard support, they go anti EU by having candidates appeal to those voters, or they go back to New Labour Values. They can't be both and can't rely on the old die hards as they are against immigration on the whole and many now support UKIP, so unless the Tories totally fuck up renegotiations, then Labour are finished.

On that basis, I think a split maybe the only way forward now for the Party

To take issue with a couple of things, the Iraq War did not force Tony Blair out. The war started in 2003. There was then the Hutton Enquiry in September of that year, and Blair won a third general election in 2005. When he announced he was standing down in September 2006, his approval rate was actually higher than when the Hutton Enquiry was published. Though I would agree the Lim Dems were the major benefactors of Labour's decline in popularity, this was in 2005, rather than in 2010.

What the membership wants is not the same as what the country wants. The die-hard Northern support areas are indeed at risk from UKIP, but here are the key marginals from 2015 that Labour needed to win:

Warwickshire North
Thurrock
Hendon
Cardiff North
Sherwood
Norwich South
Stockton South

To elaborate further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_target_seats_in_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015

I would agree the task is difficult, because Labour has to appeal to both working class voters and to middle class voters, but the Tories have long had reasonable success in lots of working class areas, so it can be done.

 

[Aber gas]

I think the biggest issue is the £3 membership fee which seems to have given those activists who signed up after the election last year a great deal of self-entitlement. How many actually signed up? 200,000? An impressive figure, but in reality it counts for little when very few of them have actually been out on the doorstep campaigning for Labour. They're very active on social media and all circulate in the same sort of networks, giving them the impression that there's a great deal of support for Corbyn - which beyond their group and the metropolitan areas of north London, is just not true at all. If you don't believe me, go to a traditional Labour "heartland" and talk to the people there (trust me, I work in Grimsby where they've had a Labour MP since 1945), and you'll soon see there's no affection for Corbyn whatsoever. The same can be said for many areas of the north.

As I've said since he was first elected as party leader, he's a very decent and principled man who should stick to what he's good at - which is campaigning from the backbenches - but he'll never make a competent leader and he'll certainly come no where near winning a general election. In that regard, despite the messy actions of the PLP, he was doomed from the very start.

Here we go, the dismissal of Corbyn supporters as "metropolitan elite" / new members/ not active / out of touch. Delete as applicable. It's just lazy assumptions, for example I've been a labour member for the best part of twenty years and certainly don't fit into any of your neat little stereotypes.
So your assumption that Corbyn is unpopular in the "north " is based on a few chats you have had with people. Not really exhaustive research is it ? Despite actual election results showing Labour increasing their vote we'll base everything we know about the views of the entire North of England on some conversations in Grimsby. Ok, good work, I'm convinced.Corbyn out.

 

[GodsGift]

Here we go, the dismissal of Corbyn supporters as "metropolitan elite" / new members/ not active / out of touch. Delete as applicable. It's just lazy assumptions, for example I've been a labour member for the best part of twenty years and certainly don't fit into any of your neat little stereotypes.
So your assumption that Corbyn is unpopular in the "north " is based on a few chats you have had with people. Not really exhaustive research is it ? Despite actual election results showing Labour increasing their vote we'll base everything we know about the views of the entire North of England on some conversations in Grimsby. Ok, good work, I'm convinced.Corbyn out.

Do you seriously think I'm just basing that assertion from "some conversations" in Grimsby? Look at Max's post above - are you seriously denying Labour has lost support in the north? And don't quote the by-elections wins, as they were all in Labour-held seats. To win an election Labour need to make huge gains in the north as well as Scotland - is that going to happen under Corbyn?

Corbyn is startlingly unpopular with the country at large. He was the first politician, upon appointment to opposition leader, to receive a negative net approval rate (-8%), which has now plundered to -22%. What makes the voice of those 200,000 more important than the general public? If there was a general election next month, do you honestly think Corbyn would come anywhere near winning? And this is against a Tory party in turmoil...

 

[smat]

trust me, I work in Grimsby.

Jesus.

Puts it all into perspective.

 

[Aber gas]

Do you seriously think I'm just basing that assertion from "some conversations" in Grimsby? Look at Max's post above - are you seriously denying Labour has lost support in the north?

Corbyn is startlingly unpopular with the country at large. He was the first politician, upon appointment to opposition leader, to receive a negative net approval rate (-8%), which has now plundered to -22%. What makes the voice of those 200,000 more important than the general public? If there was a general election next month, do you honestly think Corbyn would come anywhere near winning? And this is against a Tory party in turmoil...

If it was next month with a PLP in open revolt then no, of course not. We will have a leadership contest and its up to those who have voted no confidence in Corbyn to put up a credible alternative but dismissing the people who voted for Corbyn in the arrogant and uninformed manner of your first post is just plain wrong.

 

[GodsGift]

If it was next month with a PLP in open revolt then no, of course not. We will have a leadership contest and its up to those who have voted no confidence in Corbyn to put up a credible alternative but dismissing the people who voted for Corbyn in the arrogant and uninformed manner of your first post is just plain wrong.

I didn't dismiss them at all, I just said it's not enough to win a general election. I completely understand why they wanted Labour to return to it's left-wing roots after years of Blair and Brown rule.

In what way was my post arrogant and uninformed?