Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[Shamwow]

Excellent article. I think 'we' are going to have to learn this lesson the hard way though, it's hard to see how Jeremy is going to go from the current situation.

Any article that tries to blame the situation on one particular group of people is shit. The entire thing is one person's oversized ego shat out in text form. "Look how right I am". Shut up.

The anti-austerity part in particular shows this person's lack of understanding in my opinion. Yes Labour lost the argument on austerity but that's because they didn't make the argument very well. They basically said "yeah, we fecked up and there's no money left but we oppose austerity". There was no credibility in that argument and it was entirely due to the fact that the Labour party lacked any sort of backbone. Add to that the note that Cameron was able to wave around with glee in that debate "sorry there's no money left" or whatever it said.

It doesn't mean that the public can't be persuaded to oppose austerity, something which I think will become especially true over the next few years. But when the people making the argument are also making the argument against themselves, they aren't going to win are they?

 

[Shamwow]

I still love this assertion that it's the Corbynites who are all completely naive and wishful, while the centre ground is somehow a place of competence and electability within the Labour party.

The pathetic, insipid coup shows that the Labour party as a whole is massively incompetent from top to bottom. The fecking coup made Corbyn himself look like some kind of scheming political mastermind in comparison considering just how badly executed it was. The Corbynistas may not be the adults playing politics, but neither is the inept, equally incompetent centre-ground of the Labour party.

So true

 

[Smores]

true... the party is probably finished either way
better 150 or so mp's quit and form a new new labour party with the snp and libs in a pro europe coalition and becomes the official opposition and fights for the centre whilst UKIP and the Corbynistas shout nasty stuff at each others from the sidelines and the adults (try to) play politics

There's a general lack of policy discussion from those against Corbyn, just insults and the usual buzz words.

If you want Labour to focus on being electable and being in synch with voters beyond the member base how much are you willing to compromise because there has to be a line?

The public want Brexit should we compromise on that and champion no freedom of movement? How about more austerity since its apparently popular? How about further cuts to benefits?

Or do you just mean Labour should once again treat the electorate as children and pretend to be in agreement whilst saying the right things? That'll work, they definetely haven't seen through that already

 

[Sweet Square]

If you read the whole thing (and the link to the actual report I posted a page or so ago), it's quite clear that many were long time Labour voters. A hell of a lot of seats that won't be won unless they're voting Labour.

I'll give it a read when I've got some time(It's 50 pages isn't it)but I was replying(in a somewhat poking fun way)to how the article attacks Corbyn. He's not ''weak'' on things such migration, welfare, standing up for our country(Whats this shite about) or even Europe, he just believe's that there a different way to tackle these problems.

But let's say it's true that hitting people on welfare, being mildly xenophobic and nationalist wins votes I argue it's the duty of the opposition(And the Left)to challenge this ideas and present an alternative. Is Corbyn doing a good job at this - mostly likely not (Although The membership growing, the polling numbers are pretty bad)but I'd rather try to convince people of an alternative than simple agreeing with bigotry on the bases it will win votes.

 

[ThierryHenry]

The anti-austerity part in particular shows this person's lack of understanding in my opinion. Yes Labour lost the argument on austerity but that's because they didn't make the argument very well. They basically said "yeah, we fecked up and there's no money left but we oppose austerity". There was no credibility in that argument and it was entirely due to the fact that the Labour party lacked any sort of backbone. Add to that the note that Cameron was able to wave around with glee in that debate "sorry there's no money left" or whatever it said.

It doesn't mean that the public can't be persuaded to oppose austerity, something which I think will become especially true over the next few years. But when the people making the argument are also making the argument against themselves, they aren't going to win are they?

Well I completely agree with your argument of needing to make a credible argument against austerity, it's almost exactly why I voted for Corbyn last year.

But I now don't agree that Jeremy is the person to do that at all - the more I see of his leadership of the party, the man himself, and his handling of the media, I find the idea that he'll be able to prepare a competent argument and opposition laughable. He's making the Labour party a joke to those outside of his bubble (the article defines them as 'those comfortable in metropolitan modernity' - I think that sums the group up pretty well), while increasing the fervour of those in it against the rest. That's only going to end in increasing disaster for the Labour party and movement.

There's a general lack of policy discussion from those against Corbyn, just insults and the usual buzz words.

If you want Labour to focus on being electable and being in synch with voters beyond the member base how much are you willing to compromise because there has to be a line?

The public want Brexit should we compromise on that and champion no freedom of movement? How about more austerity since its apparently popular? How about further cuts to benefits?

Or do you just mean Labour should once again treat the electorate as children and pretend to be in agreement? That'll work, they definetely haven't seen through that already

I want a competent Labour party leader who provides a clear opposition to the Tories with a well communicated message. Personally, I think that leader should embrace PR, campaign to the EU to allow a more controlled immigration policy, and argue that large levels of public investment are needed around the UK to help those who have been left behind by the successful cities (mostly London). Feck knows if that will win us the next election, probably not.

 

[Cheesy]

I want a competent Labour party leader who provides a clear opposition to the Tories with a well communicated message. Personally, I think that leader should embrace PR, campaign to the EU to allow a more controlled immigration policy, and argue that large levels of public investment are needed around the UK to help those who have been left behind by the successful cities (mostly London). Feck knows if that will win us the next election, probably not.

A message like that seems fairly sensible and probably would win an election. The problem, of course, is that it requires both a competent leader and a competent Labour party. And neither exist at the moment - there are no remotely credible alternatives to Corbyn, and the party as a whole is shambolic.

 

[SteveJ]

We should just bring back blair - he probably is still the best chance of getting anything left of the conservatives elected

Maybe he can run the country from jail...a bit like ODB in the Gravel Pit video.

 

[Fully Fledged]

I'll give it a read when I've got some time(It's 50 pages isn't it)but I was replying(in a somewhat poking fun way)to how the article attacks Corbyn. He's not ''weak'' on things such migration, welfare, standing up for our country(Whats this shite about) or even Europe, he just believe's that there a different way to tackle these problems.

But let's say it's true that hitting people on welfare, being mildly xenophobic and nationalist wins votes I argue it's the duty of the opposition(And the Left)to challenge this ideas and present an alternative. Is Corbyn doing a good job at this - mostly likely not (Although The membership growing, the polling numbers are pretty bad)but I'd rather try to convince people of an alternative than simple agreeing with bigotry on the bases it will win votes.

I agree. We need a credible opposition not Conservative Lite. What's the point in voting if both major parties standing are pushing the same manifesto?

 

[ThierryHenry]

I agree. We need a credible opposition not Conservative Lite. What's the point in voting if both major parties standing are pushing the same manifesto?

Bizarre argument. For a very obvious place to start, we'd still be in the EU if Labour had won the last election.

 

[Shamwow]

Well I completely agree with your argument of needing to make a credible argument against austerity, it's almost exactly why I voted for Corbyn last year.

But I now don't agree that Jeremy is the person to do that at all - the more I see of his leadership of the party, the man himself, and his handling of the media, I find the idea that he'll be able to prepare a competent argument and opposition laughable. He's making the Labour party a joke to those outside of his bubble (the article defines them as 'those comfortable in metropolitan modernity' - I think that sums the group up pretty well), while increasing the fervour of those in it against the rest. That's only going to end in increasing disaster for the Labour party and movement.

Corbyn might not be charismatic, and he may be a bit weird (as Neil Kinnock would put it) but he has the advantage of not having to contradict his past self all the time. That's the biggest reason that Labour lost the argument last time and it's the biggest reason why Remain lost last month.

And you can feck right off if you're going to go around telling people who they are if they support Corbyn.

 

[Red Dreams]

Bizarre argument. For a very obvious place to start, we'd still be in the EU if Labour had won the last election.

what a bizzarre argument. We would still be in the EU if Cameron had not miscalculated and held a referandum for political gain.

 

[Red Dreams]

Maybe he can run the country from jail...a bit like ODB in the Gravel Pit video.

 

[Red Dreams]

I agree. We need a credible opposition not Conservative Lite. What's the point in voting if both major parties standing are pushing the same manifesto?

correct.

Left or right are simply labels.

If Labour offered a manifesto that appealed to the avearge person, they will get the votes.

 

[ThierryHenry]

what a bizzarre argument. We would still be in the EU if Cameron had not miscalculated and held a referandum for political gain.

Err yeah. And that was in his manifesto, and not Labour's, which is the point I was making.

 

[Red Dreams]

Err yeah. And that was in his manifesto, and not Labour's, which is the point I was making.

how about missing the point?

He wanted to remain. Labour lost because they offered Tory Lite btw.

 

[ThierryHenry]

Corbyn might not be charismatic, and he may be a bit weird (as Neil Kinnock would put it) but he has the advantage of not having to contradict his past self all the time. That's the biggest reason that Labour lost the argument last time and it's the biggest reason why Remain lost last month.

And you can feck right off if you're going to go around telling people who they are if they support Corbyn.

I disagree that that's the main reason we lost the last two elections.

And I'm not calling any one individual anything, but I think it's fair to say that the types of people who strongly support Corbyn are quite a narrow group. The good is that it includes Green and SWP voters, but I don't see where else he's going to pick up lost votes.

 

[Red Dreams]

The key point is that any leader/party that offers something the voter can identify with will come out to vote.

 

[ThierryHenry]

how about missing the point?

He wanted to remain. Labour lost because they offered Tory Lite btw.

Really not sure what you're arguing here. I was disagreeing with the suggestion that the two manifestos were indistinguishable.

Did you think anything of the article africanspur posted on the last page? Here.

 

[fishfingers15]

@Shamwow, if you were in US, you would be a Bernie bro.

 

[Smores]

Well I completely agree with your argument of needing to make a credible argument against austerity, it's almost exactly why I voted for Corbyn last year.

But I now don't agree that Jeremy is the person to do that at all - the more I see of his leadership of the party, the man himself, and his handling of the media, I find the idea that he'll be able to prepare a competent argument and opposition laughable. He's making the Labour party a joke to those outside of his bubble (the article defines them as 'those comfortable in metropolitan modernity' - I think that sums the group up pretty well), while increasing the fervour of those in it against the rest. That's only going to end in increasing disaster for the Labour party and movement.

Electability is one argument but I'd throughly dispute Labour haven't been an effective opposition under him. They've actually successfully challenged a number of key peices of Tory policy in his first year and had a commons motioned passed the other day on opposing the position on EU residents.

If Watson was the compromise I'd vote for him however i don't think he himself or the progress branch want it. They weren't even willing on Burnham.

I disagree with Corbyn on open borders and would like to see reform but the rest you've posted is just standard Labour policy. Blairs first manifesto was essentially invest invest invest but with no more taxes and all the nice wording around that of which Cameron borrowed. Do we think people will still buy into that? Especially given past and soon to be economic events

 

[Ubik]

Really not sure what you're arguing here. I was disagreeing with the suggestion that the two manifestos were indistinguishable.

Did you think anything of the article africanspur posted on the last page? Here.

I feel like you're getting close to how exasperated I got last year.

 

[Shamwow]

I disagree that that's the main reason we lost the last two elections.

And I'm not calling any one individual anything, but I think it's fair to say that the types of people who strongly support Corbyn are quite a narrow group. The good is that it includes Green and SWP voters, but I don't see where else he's going to pick up lost votes.

Losing the argument I should say was in reference to the economic argument. When Cameron pulled out that note left in the treasury by Liam Byrne - that's the point I thought it was lost but I'm not going to put the actual election down to any one issue. But yeah that note single-handedly removed any shred of credibility that Labour had specifically in regards to the economy in my eyes.

The EU referendum was in my eyes because we have politicans previously using the EU as a scapegoat e.g. for their missed immigration targets suddenly saying it's wonderful. That's not going to convince anyone.

And no it's not fair to say that, and it doesn't help anything to say that. Especially if you can't actually back it up. For your information out of the leadership candidates, Corbyn supporters were polled as having the lowest average income and of having a lower % falling into the AB group (among other things).

 

[Shamwow]

@Shamwow, if you were in US, you would be a Bernie bro.

What's a Bernie bro?

 

[fishfingers15]

What's a Bernie bro?

Die hard fans of Bernie Sanders. Some use it like an offence, but I don't see it that way. What's not to like about a man sticking to his principles.

 

[Shamwow]

Die hard fans of Bernie Sanders. Some use it like an offence, but I don't see it that way. What's not to like about a man sticking to his principles.

Oh right yeah I probably would be. I'd probably take him over Corbyn although it's hard to know for sure with them operating in very different political landscapess.

I'd still vote Hillary over Trump though, some of them Bernie supporters hate Hillary so much they'd rather Trump it seems, that's barmy IMO.

 

[Red Dreams]

Really not sure what you're arguing here. I was disagreeing with the suggestion that the two manifestos were indistinguishable.

Did you think anything of the article africanspur posted on the last page? Here.

we will have to disagree that the two manifestos were not similar.
tbh I had not read that.

But I do believe we should vote for people who do have integrity.

 

[Shamwow]

we will have to disagree that the two manifestos were not similar.
tbh I had not read that.

But I do believe we should vote for people who do have integrity.

You should probably read the manifestos before saying they are the same.

 

[Red Dreams]

Oh right yeah I probably would be. I'd probably take him over Corbyn although it's hard to know for sure with them operating in very different political landscapess.

I'd still vote Hillary over Trump though, some of them Bernie supporters hate Hillary so much they'd rather Trump it seems, that's barmy IMO.

Corbyn is much further left than Bernie. But that is to be expected.

 

[fishfingers15]

we will have to disagree that the two manifestos were not similar.
tbh I had not read that.

But I do believe we should vote for people who do have integrity.

Except people who can pivot to the left?

 

[Sweet Square]

I agree. We need a credible opposition not Conservative Lite. What's the point in voting if both major parties standing are pushing the same manifesto?

It's not that they are Tory lite(Although I had a cheeky dig at them earlier)it's that their ideology(A word that makes they have cold sweats)is completely at the whim of the public. It's been mentioned before on here many times but the abstaining from the welfare bill and mainly the excuses the 3 other candidates gave in the leadership race is a perfect summary of the problems of the Labour right/centre.

 

[Red Dreams]

You should probably read the manifestos before saying they are the same.

the point I was making is that both offered austerity in one form or another.

 

[Cheesy]

Corbyn is much further left than Bernie. But that is to be expected.

Suppose the country differences have to be taken into account in that respect. A lot of Sanders more radical ideas would probably be seen as fairly normal here.

 

[Red Dreams]

Except people who can pivot to the left?

no.

 

[Red Dreams]

Suppose the country differences have to be taken into account in that respect. A lot of Sanders more radical ideas would probably be seen as fairly normal here.

correct.

 

[Red Dreams]

It's not that they are Tory lite(Although I had a cheeky dig at them earlier)it's that their ideology(A word that makes they have cold sweats)is completely at the whim of the public. It's been mentioned before on here many times but the abstaining from the welfare bill and mainly the excuses the 3 other candidates gave in the leadership race is a perfect summary of the problems of the Labour right/centre.

tbh I have not followed all this that closely. A lot is what I have heard from friends and family.

But how can you trust people who lied to the public and took this country to war that caused the lives of so many thousands.

 

[ThierryHenry]

I feel like you're getting close to how exasperated I got last year.

One of my mates is very much enjoying how I'm now arguing exactly the same points he made to me last year.

 

[Sweet Square]

tbh I have not followed all this that closely. A lot is what I have heard from friends and family.

But how can you trust people who lied to the public and took this country to war that caused the lives of so many thousands.

I can't really sadly but there's not much choice(Although at least now with Corbyn there's something of a alternative, so I'm still backing him.)

 

[Red Dreams]

I can't really sadly but there's not much choice(Although at least now with Corbyn there's something of a alternative, so I'm still backing him.)

you cant just waive your hand and say it was a mistake. A mistake is something you can use an eraser or white out to correct.

These people had all the data and reports to study and made a deliberate political decision.

To kill people.

Its evil.

 

[berbatrick]

Oh right yeah I probably would be. I'd probably take him over Corbyn although it's hard to know for sure with them operating in very different political landscapess.

I'd still vote Hillary over Trump though, some of them Bernie supporters hate Hillary so much they'd rather Trump it seems, that's barmy IMO.

It's interesting to see where Bernie would fall in the UK spectrum. His policies are pretty much centrist Labour. But his consistency sets him apart, also his focus on inequality and money.

 

[Red Dreams]

It's interesting to see where Bernie would fall in the UK spectrum. His policies are pretty much centrist Labour. But his consistency sets him apart, also his focus on inequality and money.

Universal Health Care and Free College Tuition are pretty normal in Europe. Though I see that Hillary has moved very much closer to Bernie on Free college. Now if she is for a public option on health care...I see some light ahead.