The Labour Thread

[Red]

tbf she does spill some ideas on her website.


Courting the Corbyn voters with the equality schtick? Kendall has LURCHED to the LEFT. Condemnation of the Conservatives' swingeing cuts to welfare is conspicuous by its absence, tho.

Yeah, she missed out the 'but if you're on benefits get fucked I'm not interested ' part. I'm starting to think Corbyn could win now, but whatever the outcome I'm relieved that Kendall is lagging behind in 4th place.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

The closer it gets, the more people come out asking for the election to be delayed and the race re-started. Is it because there really is a number of non-labour registering in order to vote Corbyn, or is it just because Corbyn isn't the leader those people want?

 

[Gashead]

The closer it gets, the more people come out asking for the election to be delayed and the race re-started. Is it because there really is a number of non-labour registering in order to vote Corbyn, or is it just because Corbyn isn't the leader those people want?

Undoubtedly the latter.

With all due respect, if Corbyn is actually attracting previously non-Labour voters, why should they be stopped? Maybe the man is offering something different to the table, and therefore it's not surprising that he's getting people interested in Labour who haven't been for 20 years. If Labour doesn't attract anybody new over the next five years, they'll lose again - pretty simple stuff. So why stop people newly engaging with the party?

'Democracy' seems to merely be a theoretical buzzword, the Blairites can't have mere mortals (a.k.a the general public) actually democratically deciding what they'd like.

 

[blade1889]

This is such a farce and amusing, Labour shitting themselves that Corbyn might be elected and seem to be trying everything to stop him...what a strange way to run a leadership campaign, try and stop the favourite from winning, eh!? Perversly I think this may make Corbyn's stock rise further anyway. Think they're shooting themselves in the foot by not allowing some green/TUSC party members to vote, they're quite likely to vote Labour if Corbyn wins so whats the issue? Fair play on banning the Tory voters though, pathetic from them but made me chuckle.

 

[Red]

Undoubtedly the latter.

With all due respect, if Corbyn is actually attracting previously non-Labour voters, why should they be stopped? Maybe the man is offering something different to the table, and therefore it's not surprising that he's getting people interested in Labour who haven't been for 20 years. If Labour doesn't attract anybody new over the next five years, they'll lose again - pretty simple stuff. So why stop people newly engaging with the party?

'Democracy' seems to merely be a theoretical buzzword, the Blairites can't have mere mortals (a.k.a the general public) actually democratically deciding what they'd like.

A bloody good post is that.

 

[blade1889]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33896414

If Blair seriously doesn't want Corbyn elected he'd do more damage to his campaign by pretending he supports him. Otherwise STFU Blair.

 

[smat]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33896414

If Blair seriously doesn't want Corbyn elected he'd do more damage to his campaign by pretending he supports him. Otherwise STFU Blair.

I wonder if there's any evidence of this sort of intervention having any effect.

 

[Pliny Harris]

I think the behaviour of the red-tied Tories in this leadership election has been the most childish behaviour I've seen from representatives outside the US Republican party.

They're doing everything in their will to prevent a very likely outcome that doesn't favour them. The first port of call in blocking votes from suspicious elements has banned the likes of my neighbour from voting, who was out there doorstepping for Labour prior to May 7th, and has always been a Labourite afaik. What if Corbyn still has a good share of the votes? Not to worry, they'll oust him, and oust him on the first day if need be. Screw you democracy, the big men are talking.

I know there are a hell of a lot of Labour MPs out there who will be compromising when Corbyn's back in, but the man himself has worked restlessly and often against the whip for 32 years, and it will've also been compromising. Welcome to adult life. Work alongside somebody you often disagree with to make your country better, or forget the electorate ever gave you this ticket. How lost can you possibly be in the does-nothing, sez-nothing world of New Labour to get so ruffled by one candidate? I thought this lot were meant to be media savvy and more capable of running exciting campaigns. I thought the right-wing were meant to be more mature and grown up (well I didn't really, but they do love to think they've got at least that going for them). But nah, instead the Labour right's campaign is again based on negativity, based on the reassurance that they're not Corbyn. A "Vote (New) Labour" plea is so often done on the grounds of "we're not the other lot" that it seems to dominate any other reason to vote for them. And that's the impression you get again with this election, so negative. Then come the personal attacks, and the firm statement that your views and activism are not welcome in the party. Sorry lads, I was already lost.

Labour briefly throwing its toys out over Jeremy Corbyn might be its last hurrah in the 21st century. If the man does get in and gets Blair tried for war crimes before the ex-PM bites it, then it'll all have been worth it.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

This is such a farce and amusing, Labour shitting themselves that Corbyn might be elected and seem to be trying everything to stop him...what a strange way to run a leadership campaign, try and stop the favourite from winning, eh!? Perversly I think this may make Corbyn's stock rise further anyway. Think they're shooting themselves in the foot by not allowing some green party members to vote, they're quite likely to vote Labour if Corbyn wins so whats the issue? Fair play on banning the Tory voters though, pathetic from them but made me chuckle.

I am a Green Party member. I would vote for Labour if Corbyn got in. I would not go anywhere near them if it was Burnham, Cooper or Kendall.

 

[Red]

I am a Green Party member. I would vote for Labour if Corbyn got in. I would not go anywhere near them if it was Burnham, Cooper or Kendall.

Do you know if other members of the party and supporters would switch to Labour if Corbyn gets in? I'm just wondering how it might. affect The Greens.
If Corbyn wins it might affect them adversely, but if he loses ot could benefit them. Corbyn's momentum has been encouraging for me and I'm sure it has for many others. As a lifelong Labour voter they're in the last chance saloon for me now. If other people feel the same way and decide to wash t h e i r hands of labour and move to Green it could benefit the Greens

 

[Techno Natch]

I voted Green and would consider voting for Corbyn. Same for other people I know.

 

[blade1889]

I am a Green Party member. I would vote for Labour if Corbyn got in. I would not go anywhere near them if it was Burnham, Cooper or Kendall.

Exactly which is why they're being stupid with not allowing former labour voters/green supporters to register to vote. Essentially alienating a lot of potential votes. Having said that though have the greens been taking votes from labour to the extent that labour have lost seats as a result? Bar the one seat the greens have its my understanding that popular green areas are in labours safe seats anyway?

 

[Pliny Harris]

If Corbyn gets in and is allowed to get on with it, I'll see if I've the funds to become a member and I'll wave the Labour flag for them.

If Corbyn gets in and is quickly ousted by mardy right-wingers who can't deal with their own irrelevance, they can forget any support and vote from me indefinitely.

If another candidate gets in (fairly), then they'll remain a pretty unappetising party to me as they were last term.

I can understand why Green party members wouldn't be allowed to join in on the vote, I can see the logic behind that even though it's obvious there are as many people who jump across parties according to what matches their taste than party faithful. It's a shame, but I also believe this chap is attracting first-time or returning voters and will benefit from them.

 

[Tilbury]

Exactly which is why they're being stupid with not allowing former labour voters/green supporters to register to vote. Essentially alienating a lot of potential votes. Having said that though have the greens been taking votes from labour to the extent that labour have lost seats as a result? Bar the one seat the greens have its my understanding that popular green areas are in labours safe seats anyway?

Pretty much or lib dem areas.

 

[Gashead]

So in the last 24 hours we've had Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall, Gordon Brown and now Steve Coogan tell us why Jeremy Corbyn isn't right for Labour. I feel like they're running out of people to tell us what to do.

I await the views of Dave Benson-Phillips and Barbara Windsor tomorrow with great anticipation.

 

[Martino Knockavelli]

And Robert Webb!

 

[Pliny Harris]

Wishing the Telegraph website didn't 404 on me when looking at Robert Webb's profile on there, but considering he's written columns for them that sweet-talk the Tory party, I wouldn't be too put off by his "fucking awful" summation.

 

[Alty]

I'm in the slightly odd position of thinking Burnham, Cooper and especially Kendall are too right-wing, while Corbyn is too left-wing (and has some ropey foreign policy ideas). So I'm not particularly invested in any of them. But I do find a couple of things about all this quite odd.

People claiming a Corbyn victory will be a nightmare because it lessens Labour's chances of winning...are they not aware that we all experienced 13 years of Labour Government and a large part of the party's traditional support felt they got little if anything more than they would under a Tory Government?

Say you're a left-wing party member...Does it make more sense to back Kendall, which would offer a 40% chance of General Election victory but a political programme about which you'd feel pretty unenthusiastic, or to go for Corbyn, who might offer only a 20% chance of winning the General Election but would genuinely seek to build the kind of society of which you want to be a part?

Secondly, on the issue of electoral chances...you could make a case to say that 1983 was different because some Labour heavyweights broke away to create the SDP and took a chunk of the vote with them. I know theoretically that electoral option still exists in the form of the Lib Dems, but they're still in recovery from a terrible hammering and a period in bed with the Tories. I mean, if you're a soft-left voter and you come to the General Election needing to choose between Jeremy Corbyn and George Osborne, what are you going to do? Sure Corbyn mightn't be your favourite, but is he really going to make you vote for the Tories?

I could imagine Corbyn being a decent leader if he's modified to a certain extent by some of his cabinet colleagues. If I was betting now I'd still back the Tories to win in 2020, but I think their glee about certain victory against Corbyn is premature. Things can change and change quickly. It's also true to say that Labour really need to do something radical to reverse the slide in Scotland. Corbyn probably has a better chance than, say, Yvette Cooper.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

I normally try and stay out of political discussions on the internet as it invariably turns into a 'lol fuk immigrants' v 'lul u raceist!' debate which is far too much hassle to get involved with, but for this thread I will make an exception!

Do you know if other members of the party and supporters would switch to Labour if Corbyn gets in? I'm just wondering how it might. affect The Greens.

Genuinely have no idea. I'd imagine there would be some change over, but it always surprises me how people back parties just because they've 'always voted that way'. I don't agree with everything in the Green manifesto, nor do I agree with everything that Corbyn is saying. If Corbyn becomes Labour leader then common sense dictates that people on the left ought to abandon whichever party they would vote for in order to back the candidate most likely to win at a general election. Let's be honest, Greens will never win or come anywhere near likely to win. Caroline Lucas is the only MP affiliated to the party, that's about one more MP than I would expect under FPTP.

Ideological purity vs. electability. Labour almost resembles the current state of the Republican party right now.

I have found the Corbyn phobia in the media quite strange though, as if anyone that strays from the centre ground of politics is some maverick that must be stopped at all costs. Nobody wants to see extremists in power obviously, but I think it would be great to have some principled (and dare I say divisive) leaders like Corbyn or Farage in House of Commons.

Democracy in the UK would surely benefit from having a diverse range of opinions in Parliament?

Corbynphobia is perfectly understandable, I would be shocked if it wasn't happening. I find this post interesting, particularly the last sentence.

In 1979 Thatcher became Prime Minister and in 1981 Reagan became President which started the era of neo-liberalism and the wide spread acceptance and adherence to neo-liberal theories and policies. Blair/ New Labour and their 'third way' is a result of this acceptance, he brought the party in line with neo-liberalism. This is a trend that can be seen across pretty much every country in the western world.

We are in the 'post-political'. Society is organised around the market. Policy is around the attraction of capital rather than the welfare of citizens, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets is a fantastic example of this. Governance is based around a technocratic and consensus based approach by an elite group that includes politicians, NGOs, corporate executives, policy-makers etc. Thus views that are not from the elite group are sidelined, every day needs of citizens are neglected. People are displaced out of the political arena. As a result we also have the 'post-democracy'.

Corbyn goes against neo-liberal politics. I've seen him described as 'extreme left' in many places. He isn't in the traditional sense, but he goes against the established status quo, that in itself makes him extreme, this is where the Corbynphobia stems from. I'm willing to bet that Corbyn will not be leader of Labour when the 2020 election comes around, presuming he is elected.

 

[smat]

I'm willing to bet that if Corbyn will not be leader of Labour when the 2020 election comes around, presuming he is elected.

Yeah no, me neither. Those within the Labour Party who are against him have a massive problem though. If the PLP oust him (which Simon Danczuk said would happen "on day one if not before") and replace him with Burnham or Cooper or someone, then who among the Corbynites would ever vote Labour again?

 

[Captain Scumbag]

It's easier to stay and moan than break away and start something new , so there will always be disgruntled elements in any large political party. There will always be folk in Labour – students, greenies, Millie Tants, unreconstructed Marxists, thickos in the trade unions, etc. – who get annoyed at the PLP for not being as devoutly left-wing as they are. Always.

Part of the problem now is that social media allows these people to exist in some kind of online left-wing echo chamber, which gives rise to them thinking they are greater in number (and therefore electorally more powerful) than they actually are. By no means is this something specific to Labour. The 'eurosceptic' right has the same problem. So did the Scottish Nationalists before the independence referendum.

Corbyn can easily win this leadership race. He probably deserves to, actually, since he's the only one of the four who's run anything remotely resembling a competent and positive campaign. But Labour isn't just voting for a leader; it's voting for a potential Prime Minister.

The basic Blairite contention is that an old, beardy Bennite like Corbyn will never win enough votes among the English middle classes to win a General Election. It's a cynical and rather pessimistic outlook (as one would expect from that horrid gaggle of twats), but it is backed by about 3-4 decades of psesphological data, meaning they probably have a point.

Another decade of Tory government? Not sure I would remain nice, conciliatory and passive if that were my outlook.

From my actual outlook, it's all just really funny.

 

[Red]

It's easier to stay and moan than break away and start something new , so there will always be disgruntled elements in any large political party. There will always be folk in Labour – students, greenies, Millie Tants, unreconstructed Marxists, thickos in the trade unions, etc. – who get annoyed at the PLP for not being as devoutly left-wing as they are. Always.

Part of the problem now is that social media allows these people to exist in some kind of online left-wing echo chamber, which gives rise to them thinking they are greater in number (and therefore more electorally important) than they actually are. By no means is this something specific to Labour. The 'eurosceptic' right has the same problem. So did the Scottish Nationalists before the independence referendum.

Corbyn can easily win this leadership race. He probably deserves to, actually, since he's the only one of the four who's run anything remotely resembling a competent and positive campaign. But Labour isn't just voting for a leader; it's voting for a potential Prime Minister.

The basic Blairite contention is that an old, beardy Bennite like Corbyn will never win enough votes among the English middle classes to win a General Election. It's a cynical and rather pessimistic outlook (as one would expect from that horrid gaggle of twats), but it is backed by about 3-4 decades of psesphological data, meaning they probably have a point.

Another decade of Tory government? Not sure I would remain nice, conciliatory and passive if that were my outlook.

From my actual outlook, it's all just really funny.

I'm one of the people you mention in that first paragraph. Of course you can criticise us but we're fed up of Labour being a neo liberal party that is barely different from the Tories. Right wing Labour or the Tories? It makes no difference to me. Win at all costs? No thanks, had enough of that.

I totally get where you're coming from though CS. What Labour would gain in terms of voters if Corbyn got in would more than probably be offset by the floating voters who would be put off.

I think what this tells us is that a lot of people are tired of the current state of affairs in terms of the lack of difference between Labour and the Tories and at least if Corbyn doesn't win I would hope Labour take on board that his success thus far needs to be sensibly evaluated in terms of the direction the party takes. Not that they'll be getting my vote if the spineless Cooper or Burnham win.

 

[Alty]

I'm one of the people you mention in that first paragraph. Of course you can criticise us but we're fed up of Labour being a neo liberal party that is barely different from the Tories. Right wing Labour or the Tories? It makes no difference to me. Win at all costs? No thanks, had enough of that.

I totally get where you're coming from though CS. What Labour would gain in terms of voters if Corbyn got in would more than probably be offset by the floating voters who would be put off.

I think what this tells us is that a lot of people are tired of the current state of affairs in terms of the lack of difference between Labour and the Tories and at least if Corbyn doesn't win I would hope Labour take on board that his success thus far needs to be sensibly evaluated in terms of the direction the party takes. Not that they'll be getting my vote if the spineless Cooper or Burnham win.

What Corbyn's popularity and the hysterical reaction to it actually tells us is that both main parties attempt to represent too large a body of people because our electoral system is a century out of date.

 

[Abertawe]

The media tell people who to vote for. Ain't nobody tighter with the media than the Tories at this point. Labour can't win the media if they elect someone who isn't on their side. That's why sadly, you need a Blair. None of the would be's carry the influence of Blair though. Corbyn is a Don, of course he can't win an election, but neither can the others. Corbyn in. You can guarantee he'll unleash an all out tirade on the powers that be. Damage limitation at this stage.

 

[Red]

The media tell people who to vote for. Ain't nobody tighter with the media than the Tories at this point. Labour can't win the media if they elect someone who isn't on their side. That's why sadly, you need a Blair. None of the would be's carry the influence of Blair though. Corbyn is a Don, of course he can't win an election, but neither can the others. Corbyn in. You can guarantee he'll unleash an all out tirade on the powers that be. Damage limitation at this stage.

I agree with both what you an Alty say. Corbyn's success though is symbolic of the dissatisfaction a lot of people have with where Labour has been on the political spectrum since Bliar, not just left wing people either. The best I can hope for is that there's some recognition of this and the PLP change accordingly. There's a glimmer of hope with Burnham saying he'd re-nationalise the rail system.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Everything about Labour just seems so utterly confused at the moment. It looks as though the election result knocked them for six and now they're completely unsure as to how they ought to respond (beyond, apparently, some vague notion of having to be more aspirational). The welfare bill was a pretty inauspicious start - not just the vote, but the run up to it, in which Harman seemed to think that Labour couldn't possibly oppose the changes because the party "can't tell the public they were wrong". In other words, the opposition shouldn't, y'know, behave like an opposition but should instead just blithely accept whatever the winning party wishes to do. So to hell with what Labour voters might want, and sod scrutiny and debate. It's an astonishingly odd position to assume. It shouldn't even have necessarily presented the party with that great a problem - there was little in the New Labour manual that was particularly anti-welfare (lest we forget that Blair's Labour, for all it's faults, was the party of tax credits and the minimum wage). Admittedly, I think public attitudes towards welfare have hardened somewhat since then, and it's always more difficult to present a united front when you're effectively leaderless, but I think it did somewhat serve to demonstrate how lacking in direction and any sort of coherent vision the party appears to be. If the Labour party are unsure whether they should or can challenge some fairly nasty welfare changes then I'm somewhat unsure what purpose they actually serve.

Hats off to Corbyn - he's exploited this uncertainty well, and done an effective job of galvanising those of a left or centre-left persuasion who feel politically alienated and disenfranchised. It's a source of great frustration that the Labour party at large seem unwilling to recognise the existence of this section of the electorate (it's not, with the great ascent of the SNP, the rise and subsequent demise of the Lib Dems and the improved fortunes of the Greens, as though they haven't had any warning on this front). The other candidates have run insipid, uninspiring, complacent campaigns and now they're panicking. Good. And yet the seemingly co-ordinated, and rather unpalatable attacks on Corbyn are missing the mark and only serving to embolden his campaign, primarily because they steadfastedly refuse to actually engage with his politics or offer anything resembling a compelling alternative. I'm not going to pretend to know what will happen if Corbyn does become leader - I couldn't honestly say whether he'll last 100 days, let alone five years. Could he ever win an election? You'd imagine not, and yet I wonder if this isn't one of Labour's biggest problems - they seem, perversely, almost too focused on winning elections. The insistence that there's only one way to win an election - and that's the New Labour way, the Blair way, has only served to constrain the party. If they're sensible they can use this campaign, use a Corbyn victory to refocus and try to carve out a distinct identity, to decide what kind of party they want to be - if they do this there's every possibility they'll emerge a stronger party in the long-term. Alternatively, they can continue to behave like petulant children and tear themselves apart.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

I'm one of the people you mention in that first paragraph. Of course you can criticise us but we're fed up of Labour being a neo liberal party that is barely different from the Tories.

Putting the schadenfreude and half-arsed trolling to one side for a moment, I actually do sympathise.

As a 'eurosceptic' (such an woefully inadequate term) Conservative, I've spent much of the last 10-15 years – i.e. pretty much the whole time I've been politically conscious – feeling marginalised by the party I'm intuitively drawn to and regard as home. I 'defected' to UKIP because I saw it (and still see it) as a pressure group within the wider conservative movement and the best way to push the Conservative Party in my preferred direction. I don't regret it either. I could sit here till dawn listing the things I don't like about UKIP, but I have no doubt that the party's growth and relative success is the reason we're getting an EU referendum.

But I digress. The point is I do 'get' the whole Corbyn thing. There is no centre-left equivalent of UKIP. For millions of lefties who intuitively lean towards Labour, Corbyn represents the first chance in ages (and the best here and now chance) to create a Labour Party that rejects neo-liberalism and the post-Thatcher/Blair consensus. Letting that chance slip just because Dan Hodges, Tony Blair and a bunch of polling boffins think it's not the most auspicious electoral strategy does seem rather joyless and defeatist. Bollocks to that sort of scientific pragmatism. Where's the ideology? Where's the vision? So, yeah, I'm not sure I'd just let the chance slip if I were in your position.

 

[Red]

Putting the schadenfreude and half-arsed trolling to one side for a moment, I actually do sympathise.

As a 'eurosceptic' (such an woefully inadequate term) Conservative, I've spent much of the last 10-15 years – i.e. pretty much the whole time I've been politically conscious – feeling marginalised by the party I'm intuitively drawn to and regard as home. I 'defected' to UKIP because I saw it (and still see it) as a pressure group within the wider conservative movement and the best way to push the Conservative Party in my preferred direction. I don't regret it either. I could sit here till dawn listing the things I don't like about UKIP, but I have no doubt that the party's growth and relative success is the reason we're getting an EU referendum.

But I digress. The point is I do 'get' the whole Corbyn thing. There is no centre-left equivalent of UKIP. For millions of lefties who intuitively lean towards Labour, Corbyn represents the first chance in ages (and the best here and now chance) to create a Labour Party that rejects neo-liberalism and the post-Thatcher/Blair consensus. Letting that chance slip just because Dan Hodges, Tony Blair and a bunch of polling boffins think it's not the most auspicious electoral strategy does seem rather joyless and defeatist. Bollocks to that sort of scientific pragmatism. Where's the ideology? Where's the vision? So, yeah, I'm not sure I'd just let the chance slip if I were in your position.

Well, the idealist in me wants Corbyn to be the next Pm, but the realist in me knows he won't be. He might become the leader of the Labour party though and I can only hope that if that does transpire the party acknowledges that there is a considerable amount of people who welcome this desire for change. Burnham is starting to be a bit more pragmatic and circumspect with the things he's been saying of late. I don't entirely think he's being genuine though.

 

[Abertawe]

Before this I actually quite liked Burnham but it would appear he's a snakey bastard. He's wet finger for sure.

There is a certain methodology that most political people in this country at least use in order to determine what position they will take on important issues, and of course, that methodology is the wet-finger methodology. Which way is the wind blowing?
That is not how one creates a better world. One creates a better world by, perhaps, bucking what is at that moment an important opinion held by large numbers of people in any society, whether it is our society or Europe, and doing what is right, so that in the long run the situation's reality will change. We need to create realities rather than being driven by an attempt to placate people's momentary aspirations.

 

[smat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=321&v=R_Jaw_pJq50

lmao @ cathy newman