Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Four weeks to go!!!
We already know the result!
about admitting you fancy one of the candidates in the last thread.
It doesn't matter who wins: if it's Corbyn then Labour will either immediately implode, dump him for someone with fewer principles, or ride out 2020 with him at the helm.
If it's not Corbyn then it'll be another painful 5 years of no policies, equivocation and headless chicken moves, just as it was under Miliband.
No matter what happens, the Tories will win in 2020 but it won't matter anyway because there won't really be anything much left for Labour to be able to magic into any kind of help for all the people being fucked over.
If this thread isn't for crazy hot takes while we await the inevitable disappointment of a new Labour leader what the fuck is it for.
Also, it's bang on the money, sorry.
:D :D :D
What have you done with the real Royter?
All sorts of weird stuff happens in subsamples. Not properly representative. Can sometimes be hmmm interesting to track what's happening in subsamples over time. But only as long as you have a pot of salt to hand.
Wouldn't surprise me hugely, though, if the Tories genuinely did nudge into second place in Scotland within, say, the next two years.
on Labour winning in 2020 I'd stick £20 on that no bother. Look at Farage and his 4 million. People like a man with a plan.
Saving up my money for multiple votes to spoil the forthcoming tory leadership election. They charge much more!!!!
we can do that 'Donate to the Tories' thing where you get to play tennis with Cameron. Then we can kill him.
better than giving money to ESA
will we need a server?
Me and the missus have. Corbo all the way.
Still signed up to the Greens. I'm not going to join Labour just to add one vote for a guy the party seems to be determined to oust or simply block.
If we get to 2020 and he's somehow still there (or has somehow made sure the party is still left-wing via whoever takes over) then I'll cancel Green membership and vote for Labour.
I heard the Tories will win in 2020 no matter what happens.
If there's one thing the country likes, it's keeping in a group of fuckheads just one extra term to make absolutely sure they're as awful as the previous terms showed.
Got a letter yesterday telling me to vote for Tessa Jowell for Mayoral candidate. Nah.
Can't WAIT to see all of the selfies on twitter with the cross in the Corbyn box over the next 2 weeks. Remember you're not properly left-wing unless you broadcast it to everyone...
have you decided who you're voting for in the mayoral race?
but I've been impressed with Sadiq Khan for a while now.
Think for me the most important part of being London Mayor is actually giving a shit about London. Khan fits the bill well here. Saw a poll today saying he polls well in favour of Zac Goldsmith too so... seems sensible.
Not convinced by anyone else. Lammy's a good egg and that but he's not Mayor material yet. Maybe in future. Not sure why Jowell wants to job tbh.
You'll have followed it at closer and more informed quarters than me for sure.
Sadiq Khan is probably the single biggest hypocrite around when it comes to human rights and civil liberties.
Probably not something people care about when it comes to London Mayoral elections, I guess, but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
Might have to do a bit more reading I think!
wasn't he also a bit of a pillock over the Lutfur Rahman debacle?
but he's certainly tended towards some impressively Burnham-esque flip-flopping and some disingenuous about turns in his campaign.
Mind you, I'm probably the last person you should listen to about Kahn - I see a lot of the characteristics I hate in modern politicians every time I hear him, so I automatically see the worst in what he says everytime.
who doesn't understand what the role of mayor involves, and he hasn't got a clue about the extent of his powers.
Not that this prevented the present Mayor being elected, obviously.
The weighing in of 4 ITK folk has shone an unfavourable light on my lack of focus on the Mayoral contest big time it seems. Time to actually get off my arse and look at it...
Who's the favoured candidate from you lot so far then?
but stands about as much chance as Sian Berry of beating Goldsmith. (Obviously the Tories would be crazy not to pick him over the other three.)
because the guy's a good egg, knows his shit about transport and deserves a vote of confidence. But of course he won't win, so that hardly matters. Jowell next because there's nothing I like more than a boringly competent politician. I wouldn't trust Sadiq Khan as far as I could throw him. Lammy = idiot, Abbott = cunt, and frankly I have no idea who Gareth Thomas is.
It's a pretty slim field isn't it? Don't know much about Wolmar but... does Jowell have any hope of beating Goldsmith (assuming he gets the tilt?) Not sure London's in the headspace to elect a New Labour mayor tbh.
Is it worth voting Khan to stop Goldsmith getting the gig though? These things are never straightforward...
is that of the two frontrunners Jowell is more electable than Kahn in an AV election... she may be New Labour, but I'm not sure too many people actually associate her that closely with that movement any more (would have thought she's more closely associated with the Olympics) and I'd have thought she'd be more likely to get second preferences than Kahn assuming that it's the usual two horse race; they'll probably do as well as each other in the centre-ground, but I can see Kahn picking up less second preferences from the left (ironically!)
I've been wrong about these things before though, and as I say, I see the worst in him, so it could be personal bias talking.
I've seen Jowell's been working on a lot of initiatives re: the London housing shortage. Think all the candidates are - it's the biggest problem London faces and if she's well placed to tackle it then she'll be worth a vote.
Can't find out much about Goldsmith's platform other than being fervently against Heathrow expansion. Not sure how worried to be about him.
Jowell wants the job because it's about time something got moving on the housing crisis.
I am disappoint :(
Doubt I'll post much. Although my contract is coming to and end - unemployment looms. :/
with 'least likely to provoke an Evening Standard smear campaign'?
Jowell's alright, just a bit woolly on policy and strategy.
is such an unhealthy way to look at the world
is now just morbid curiosity about watching it send this guy completely over the edge
There's more important stuff in my life than Jeremy Corbyn, don't worry.
Anyway - we know the result. Corbyn's got this in the bag - both regrettably and deservedly it has to be said. Not sure why I've got grounds for complaint - I spent ages going `let's get Corbyn elected and see what happens`. My bluff's been called - fair play. Home trying to form a Shadow Cabinet will be good initial bants.
but can it really be that much worse than watching one of the other three bumble along and lose in 2020 anyway?
(this has probably been discussed to quite some extent already, hasn't it, never mind)
But losing in 2020 isn't an inevitability. Perfectly plausible for the Tories to go too far and for the electorate to despise them for it. They had a close shave in 2012 after all. Labour would then be well placed with a `Fiscally responsible but not as cruel as the other lot` pitch. But yeah, hypotheses hypotheses. Who knows.
I don't know whether he has the smarts for wheeler-dealing, but he's impressed me the most.
My dream ticket would be him and Tony Travers, but I suspect that they're more suited to being advisors.
Cheers for the link. Need to spend an evening meeting the candidates methinks.
(I can't be bothered to find them all now, but Mayorwatch might have a decent list of them)
we're all voting for corbyn.
i have no idea about mayor of london or deputy leader though, anywhere i can look at an even-handed commentary or analysis?
for london mayor sadiq khan, abbott, or lammy are the three i'd consider at the moment but i'm not informed on it at all really.
Dave Hill on the Guardian and Mayorwatch cover London reasonably well, but neither are without their biases. I'd suggest looking for the LBC hustings last week, but they excluded two of the candidates completely.
I don't understand the freezing out of Wolmar. Maybe they're scared of having to debate with someone who knows what they're talking about - at other hustings he's shown the other candidates up for their lack of grasp of their brief.
He's my pick, and if he doesn't win the nomination, the winning candidate would be stupid to not have him on their team.
would be great news.
* Peter Anderson
The former doesn't know what he's talking about and the latter is a serious block to progress.
there's a whole host of horrors on that board. I don't think I even knew Angela "Let's stop being beastly to the bankers" Knight was on there.
And I stick with Oddy. I've met him. He's a git.
on the board though.
Anderson, and Moylan in particular, have Boris's ear on way too many things.
which went into my spam folder and i didn't see it until the morning of the deadline.
tried again by text this time and still waiting for confirmation that it's gone through ok
with either my new address or my old address. WELL LOOK HARDER FUCKERS.
over the weekend the gf got really drunk and slurred, "promise me you won't vote for that twat Cooper as your second preference" at me. I'm still waiting on an explanation.
to say that THEY are straight talking and no nonsense
on the NHS for performing too well during the election campaign.
Feels an especially long time 'cause they held it during silly season.
when you're convinced Corbyn's worst choice ever but also know that the other three are also fucking useless.
Theo, please make some news for me.
Also, I actually think Cooper would be good at the job and that Burnham is far worse than Corbyn.
*puts on sunglasses*
CONSERVATIVE estimate imo
but i thought i was backing a bit of a maverick, someone who'd do things his own way, not care what the establishment thought, have the odd dooby out of his office window, etc, then i start reading DiS again and see that the Guardian have brainwashed the Outer Party en masse. It's like when i backed the Ultimate Warrior from day dot and everyone got on the bandwagon so i had to ditch him for Papa Shango. I'm voting Burnham.
Might start crying.
When Papa shango turned into the Godfather?
the Telegraph was not where I expected
but I can't work out its tone. Is he saying that the Corbynites are rational or delusional?
and Corbyn's are shit but his supporters are too young to realise.
just read the Andy Burnham one and I'm not sure what words mean anymore
someone volunteer to read the other ones and feedback please
is that a joke? there can't actually be four fucking weeks of this still to go, surely tae fuck
thank you cards
to call out Corbyn on his IRA stuff. Makes me wonder if they think that's beyond the pale, just stuff the newspapers should deal with or they have fears of skeletons of their own being dragged out. Maybe the latter, assuming they have decided Corbyn's a shoe-in. Just keeping their heads down to avoid any scrutiny until/unless they get elected.
No doubt he's been personally linked to kneecappings and bombings?
currently being elected government officials and stuff? I think weeing all over the peace process for slim political gains probably isn't the cleverest thing to do (and let's ignore the fact that Kendall's already tried it).
I suppose it raises questions over Corbyn's political judgement or something. But... it's bad enough that the Labour party has to keep on revisiting Iraq - let alone dragging up some stuff from 30 YEARS AGO about Corbyn's relationship with the IRA.
I have a lot of Facebook friends who are torn over this because they would like a more lefty Labour Party but they are passionately against any sense of treating the IRA with respect.
In 1987 (yup, 28 years ago) Corbyn did a minute's silence for the IRA guys killed by the SAS in Gibraltar, and he was seen with Gerry Adams (there's also some other stuff around post-Brighton bombings, etc.).
Recently, he was sort of ambushed over the IRA thing. As in he was asked to condemn the IRA specifically and his response (which I am fine with) was that he condemned atrocities no matter who did them. He is running his whole campaign like this obviously: he isn't going to be pulled into attacking groups of individuals it seems. Obviously some will take away from this that he won't condemn the IRA, rather than seeing a bigger picture.
But from the comments of Labour supporters I've seen, it's clearly a big sticking point. Maybe it will result in a lot of 'shy Blairites' voting.
This one goes right to the top!!
I just spent two minutes on wikipedia fact-checking this minute's silence claim (for which they provide no evidence): "He also observed a minute’s silence in 1987 for eight IRA members killed by the SAS in an ambush in Gibraltar."
There were 3 (alleged) IRA members killed in Gibraltar in 1988.
There were 8 (alleged) IRA members and a civilian killed in Loughgall, County Armagh in 1987.
Odious, cowardly "reporting" regardless of what you think of Corbyn.
+ the whole Gibraltar thing and extrajudicial executions are an absolute fucking scandal that still hasn't been properly accounted for, fair play to him if he did honour a minute's silence for them.
Doesn't really matter if we think it's true, false or (like me) don't think it matters to his role as Labour leader either way.
to call out Corbyn on his IRA stuff"?
Maybe they're not as gullible as you and your Facebook friends?
how vile they were in the aftermath of the Death On The Rock affair.
And in return for their diligent reporting, they got the 1990 Broadcasting Act. Good ol' Thatcher.
For your records
for telling us about
o h g o o d
- WITH - YOUR - STYLING -
A lesser DiSer might have spun it into a 'Guess Who?' thread.
for my vote, because she probably does some awful stuff doesn't she
might have a dig later
and am voting for her.
which makes me suspicious
is that her DIY activism ethic and "the fightback starts now!" rhetoric plays into the 'Labour party as a protest party not a party of government' narrative that's already so fucking tedious.
But she's passionate, energetic, a proven organiser and generally likeable.
but she's the party establishment choice and is a posh school/Oxbridge bod so probably going to turn out bad eventually. Likes the Wedding Present though so b d
His pitch at the hustings I went to was basically, "I've been around for ages and I'll work with anybody I'm really not fussed."
whereas she's the 'rising star'
just scrambling for reasons why people might feel uneasy about her. As Labour MPs go, I like her.
Sound voting record. Seems passionate and sensible.
Something grates about her that I can't quite put my finger on mind.
concerned about anti-Isreal state views merging into anti-Semitism. Again, going back to my point about the IRA above, I see Labour supporters are concerned that he has put himself in the anti-Semitic camp and they don't want to be associated with that.
without rubbing shoulders with anti-semites. Which is why a lot of politicians avoid the whole thing. Corbyn's explanations have been very clear but they aren't getting much coverage - the Guardian has his defence halfway down their homepage, whereas their 'Questions he MUST answer' hack job was at the top.
It's the usual dirty mudslinging and I think a politician with one eye on the top job wouldn't touch the Israeli question with a fucking bargepole, but the fact he's a campaigning MP who hasn't ever been a careerist is one of the reasons people like him so *shrug asci thing*
re new Corbyn supporters not being able to accept anything negative about him and seeming willing just to project their desires onto him. You said at the time that this was just the nutters amongst them, but I think it's more than that. i mean your general point seems reasonable enough, just that people seem to want to find quick and often convoluted seams of logic to explain away any criticism or even constructive critique levelled against him.
who was saying that Cathy Newman was trying to stitch him up on C4 News last night. She did no such thing. Probing, important questions which, in any case, Corbyn answered with clarity. Just as it should be, and a much better grilling than KGM's Hamas/Hezbollah interview.
Newman also retweeted some of the abuse she got in response. Obviously these people are a minority but... still (not sure why this sort of shit still surprises me on twitter).
(And yes just as many nutjobs on the right etc. etc.)
in hardcore supporters of most things though.
However there does seem to be a fair chunk of his support who just see him as Mr Anti-Politics and everyone who critiques him as die-hard supporters of the status quo*. For every detractor who paints him as a foaming at the mouth hard left anarchist there's a supporter who wants him to be just that. Those guys are going to be kinda disappointed if he does win the leadership and THE SYSTEM fails to shrivel up and die.
*insert CG gag here
even sensible people like Royter are prone to it.
I've been guilty of it myself. There's just so much shit being slung at him right now it's hard to tell what's genuinely #problematic and what his detractors are just hoping will stick.
There probably is a bit of needlessly defensiveness going on, mainly based on media outlets giving someone like Blair (currently trousering millions from Uzebki dictators, amongst other stuff) time to slate Corbyn whilst slurring Corbyn.
I posted in one of the other threads the hack job from the guardian, which printed the accusation that Corbyn had given money to a Holocaust denier, including the fact it was an unsubstantiated allegation and that Corbyn had gone on record to deny it. Hard to blame people for being a bit twitchy about criticisms of him as so much of it is pure bollocks. It's particularly irksome coming from broadsheets and the centre-left, who couldn't get off their high-horse quick enough.
I understand why it happens - the natural reaction to someone exaggerating massively is to go an equal distance in the other direction. It's annoying though cos it self-perpetuates Corbyn/panacea thing. I want to be able to say that the other three candidates don't offer solutions to 21st Century politics and neither does Corbyn but feel like there is no room in the debate for this.
and I'd blame the centreist/Blairite wing in a 'they started it' way. Plus I've been impressed with how dignified and rational Corbyn has been in response to each new line of attack.
Re: a wider debate and whether Corbyn as leader would be a good thing... I don't think he is the ultimate solution. Ideally there would be more than one anti-austerity voice in mainstream politics, and various and competing anti-austerity ideas and policies could be discussed. This leadership election has been a bit rubbish for that, but I massively prefer Corbyn being part of it than having four identikit suits offering shades of beige.
but am mostly massively disappointed that it hasn't encouraged the other three out of the beige shadows. it hasn't even encouraged the rest of the party to have a debate about policy or philosophy - only a binary and somewhat point-missing one about direction.
The ongoing clusterfuck of a response is one of the most enjoyable things in the news for ages though.
without a functioning Labour party we're all fucked for the foreseeable
(was tempted to wade in with a 'what have the Labour Party ever done for us?' diatribe but cba)
I think "functioning" is an absolute pipe dream for the foreseeable.
but without an opposition that looks in any way electable, I dread to think what the Tories might to do expedite a budget surplus :(
what a guy
given to Tony Blair's `dealings` with unsavoury characters. Guardian/Independent/The Economist all come back to it once in a while.
Corbyn's links to holocaust deniers and whatever are going to be explored. That's political life. Not a problem though is it? Just let his `straight talking, honest politics` set the record straight eh...
most of Corbyn's rebuttals have either not been reported or have been buried compared to the prominence given to the allegations. And the murky past and present of people like Blair and Straw is on record, but is put to one side for their 'rare interventions'.
And you know full well that damaging allegations and clear, plausible denials are a problem. You'd surely be hard pressed to pretend not to have noticed the concerted effort to derail the Corbyn campaign, or to pretend that all candidates have been subject to the same 'that's politics!' mudslinging.
how would you have personally liked news media to investigate Corbyn's links/donations to rather unfavourable anti-Semitic characters then?
- call his campaign office for comment
- not have any stories to run
I do think there is place for a discussion about anti-Semitism in the Palestinian movement and the courting of Islamist votes by the likes of Galloway, but it's hugely complex and nuanced (except for Galloway - he's a cunt). I'm just still fucking irked by that 'I don't think Jeremy Corbyn is even slightly anti-Semitic but ooh look at these people who share his weird anti-war views nudge nudge' article.
But I don't think that investigations into JC's links with certain people can be entirely explained away as self-pitying hatchet jobs. That's nuanced as well.
if he'd gone for a full on PR led damage limitation jobber, maybe something about never risking association with baddies ever again. Thing is, he clearly believes in talking with all sides in conflicts as a way of achieving peace, and I think he's totally right to do so, so any kind of U-turn on that position would be disappointing.
As for investigating his links to anti-semites...does anyone actually believe he's anti-Semitic? Like, even a little bit?
I'm satisfied by Corbyn's replies myself.
I don't think Corbyn's anti-Semitic by any stretch. But I'm more concerned as to whether or not he comes more from a place of `my enemy's enemy is my friend` which can be a pretty damaging place wrt international relations.
On the other hand it would be genuinely interesting to see what impact a staunchly pro-Palestine left-wing leader/opposition leader would have in the Middle East.
so in the fantasy land where a Corbyn led Labour landslide then things would look pretty grim for British Aerospace and Oppressive Solutions or whatever. But he'd still face opposition from the US and the EU and aaaargh it all looks completely insurmountable tbh don't want to think about.
If a holocaust denier is quoted as saying `Jeremy Corbyn gave my group a donation` then... someone's gonna pick that up. And if `someone from Mr Corbyn's office` offers a rather vague statement in response... you're gonna keep asking questions right?
But like I said - Corbyn's answered those questions now on terrestrial television so... straight talking, honest politics triumphs again right?
You know full well that damaging allegations and clear, plausible denials are a problem. You'd surely be hard pressed to pretend not to have noticed the concerted effort to derail the Corbyn campaign, or to pretend that all candidates have been subject to the same 'that's politics!' mudslinging.
He's a really pathetic urchin
Hate that New Labour can't see the cognitive dissonance of saying we need to respect the electorate's decision and support loads of right wing economic policies after the GE, but if you vote in Corbyn we're throwing our dummies out the pram forever.
"NATO, (created by Clement Attlee of 1945 fame) is a club of Western democracies who (broadly) respect their citizens’ human rights. In the other corner is the vile, autocratic Russia, where racists attack gay people and ethnic minorities"
but I haven't really had time to follow this all, and while I'm broadly for a big socialist lefty changing the discourse of mainstream politics in the UK, some of these seem to be valid points (if not necessarily well articulated). of course, that he wants to open the mines could be completely made up for all i'm aware.
The full quote is: “Where you can re-open pits - yes - and where you can do clean burn coal technology yes.
“I think we can develop coal technology. Lets do so because energy prices around the world are going up. Open cast mining is not acceptable, deep mined coal is possible and is an alternative.”
To do it instead of, or as well as, ploughing money into green technology is baffling. Doubt it'd actually happen though, and most of my support for him is based on 9. - that no one else is going to win anyway - and that it can actually push some leftist discussion into the one-sided argument we're having right now.
albeit in vague terms. It's a really backwards looking kinda policy though.
This to the last part too.
Says it all.
so presumably the other candidates are right wing, making the point of voting labour if one of them wins what exactly?
Makes reference to the fact that Blair's Christianity and politics are intertwined. Seems it was his almost evangelical following of his faith which led to both a) his desire to get into power to do help eradicate poverty and help people and b) his behaviour with George Bush post September 11th (Iraq etc.)
Think it's worth treating Blair with a bit of cynicism mind...
1,293 posts on the labour leadership contest
good work all
it reads "JERMEY COBRYN IS A WANKER!!!!" over and over again?
in which Corbyn literally seduces the Blairites one by one. Described in troubling detail.
She does say she hates Liz Kendall and wants to know what I think of her...
and the right side will join with the lib dems.
All I managed in response was a cheery "well, at least it'll be interesting!"
I've thought about this as a possibility, seems a bit...obvious. Like, the Libs in the 80s were just tiddly bunch of odd bods, rather than the electoral poison they currently are. Would take a hell of a lot of selling.
would mean that all the people in the Labour Party that passionately believe their main objective is to get back into power would voluntarily be putting themselves in a position where they would never get back into power. So that's perhaps a bit unlikely. Even Kendall's said she'll never leave the LP no matter what.
in a 'No Corbyns Club' kind of way whilst also gobbling up the few Lib Dems left then it would appeal, but party loyalty is a funny thing. Personally, I think Corbyn will win, the right will try and organise behind the scenes and topple him, and if they manage it we'll have a New Labour endorsed leader before 2020 who makes some kind of vague concessions to curtailing austerity/being a bit less of a top down party. But no clue, really. Exciting though.
it comes across quite how gruesome it'd be for Corbyn the leader. From day one the press attack dogs are released (and that is going to be REALLY ugly), every day the tories will put up some wankstain MP to sneer at him, and amidst that he'll STILL have to put up with the whole Mandleson-orchestrated assassination plot behind the scenes in his own party. Won't be fun for the guy.
If the right of the party emerge ascendant, either after this election or in the nearish future, and proceed to ignore the groundswell of optimism for change in direction that's happened recently, I can see a new party being formed that challenges Labour in a way that the Greens or TUSC etc never have...
but you really think? You might get the odd Galloway jumping, but these people got on board with Big Tone, do you think they'd see Burnham as the final straw (Straw)? I'm not convinced. I think the Labour Party post leadership election will be a fun-filled nest of resentful but still grudgingly allied vipers, whoever wins.
I'm completely making it up homie. But I do think it's more likely than an SDP style split, for the reasons you say.
It's all about who's willing to risk their seat. The bulk of the parliamentary party wouldn't dare, I reckon.
I haven't :(. Will be well annoyed if I have been turned down because my husband's a communist. I can't think of any other reason that I wouldn't be allowed to vote.
just kidding, jewish chronicle!!
> Holocaust Denial
Where do they come up with this stuff?
• Geoff Hoon
• Stephen Byers
• ghost of John Smith
• Dennis Healey
• Stafford Cripps
"But let’s be clear about this, if you want a really good, vigorous, outriding opposition, and you want to continue being in opposition, vote for somebody who is good at opposition. I mean, if that's what you want, do that, yeah? If you want someone who's oh-so-great at opposing things then you go right ahead, mate. Yeah, mate, you vote for the opposing man and see where that gets you. What? No no no - I think you DEFINITELY should vote for someone who's really good at being in opposition and see how fucking great that turns out for you, mate."
Assuming he can actually form a Shadow Cabinet.
Not sure how MPs will feel about being whipped by a man who's spent his entire career rebelling against them.
Point is how can you expect to be able to whip MPs for the sake of party/policy unity if you've defied the whip so much yourself?
loyalty and unity are all the time, I can't imagine he'd have much of a problem. It'd be pretty hypocritical to spend half the election campaign going on about that and then to start rebelling all the time.
principle is, I assume a Corbyn led Labour party would have much of a problem with the 93.5% of MPs who didn't vote for him refusing to back his policies out of a) principle and b) representation of their constituents.
choose, under Corbyn, to switch to valuing principle instead?
a) the two things are mutually exclusive
b) that the majority of Labour MP's don't `value principle`?
this is a pointless tangent though
a `change of behaviour` too y'know.
This isn't a pointless discussion - the point is that these things are, as always, more complicated.
If you want a serious answer, he can't, and I don't think he (or any of the others) should automatically expect it. Loyalty should be something that's earned as you prove yourself in the position of leader and MPs should allow whoever's elected time to show whether they're worthy of that respect before any toys are thrown out of the pram.
and on the other side anyone that tries to offer nuances to his policies to make them more palatable to the wider public is going to be accused of backstabbing. That will be the legacy of this campaign, thanks to the ghosts of Blairite past's willingness to throw absolutely everything at stopping Corbyn. I suppose they will feel it'll be worth it if Burnham wins, but they've really fucked it either way.
I don't understand why Corbyn supporters would prefer Burnham as their 2nd preference above all else.
I thought the central point of Corbyn is that he offers `principle`, clarity and a robust set of policies. Burnham has been the absolute antithesis of this during the leadership contest.
Obviously these things are more nuanced than that but... I don't personally get it.
And Cooper is too tied up with Balls/Brown. Doubt any of them are madly excited about Burnham. It's completely academic anyway, Corbyn supporters' second prefs won't be counted.
Actually quite like Biz Liz, comes across as committed and reasonably genuine, probably as a result of her callowness. But obviously she's out.
Cooper's been a major disappointment. She couldn't inspire her way out of a paper bag, and for me has come to stand for everything wrong with the Blairites and the anti-Corbyn campaign in general. I agree with her that it'd be great if the next leader was a woman, but why she thinks a lot of people are going to vote for her purely on that basis I'm not really sure.
Burnham's a duplicitous little shit but he has at least signalled a willingness to meet the left wing surge halfway, and has set out a reasonable enough plan which the Tories probably maybe wouldn't wholeheartedly adopt.
she kind of came alive last week and set out what she's against but she seems to have forgotten to follow it by making clear what she wants to actually do.
Mind you, it's difficult to actually disagree with her "policies" section of her website when they're such high level aspirations like "Building over 2 million homes" or having a "high wage high-tech economy". They're not bad soundbites, but utterly meaningless when there's not a single word about what she'd actually change to achieve those goals.
she seems to genuinely have thought she'd get the nod without really trying. It's like me with my a-levels. Well we were wrong, weren't we Yvette?
Yeah I did to be fair, but my response wasn't meant to be taken too seriously either.
Of course - the key thing here is behaviour. Perfectly possible for MP's to be wary of a Corbyn led party but, as always, there are ways of doing it. If Corbyn becomes leader then I personally think the party SHOULD just let him get on with the job. I've no problem with people refusing to serve in his Shadow Cabinet, but any instant attempt at a coup or any attempt to queer the fact he was perfectly democratically elected should be met with the derision and, also, poor judgement it deserves. If Corbyn's as bad a prospect as everyone says he is - then time and political nature will work its course. It'd be a big mistake to try and speed that process up.
the worst thing Labour can do, whatever the result, is to have factions keep tearing strips off each other.
Perhaps a shiver will run up their spine at how *right* it feels.
09:30: Yvette Cooper - children as young as seven should get sex
Children as young as seven should have compulsory sex... and relationship education
My favourite things in the campaign so far are the images her campaign have thrown together.
Yvette's campaigning literature looks like something produced by a building society in the early 90s.
Reading this makes me like her quite a lot:
She's a bit too slick in parts, but she's actually got quite a lot in common with Corbyn in terms of party democracy, albeit from a more centre-ist angle. Would massively prefer her to Tom Watson.
(well, redistribution of wealth and minimum wage anyway) https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/18/students-profile/
The jeremy corbyn thing in my head:
1) slow news cycle in politics
2) he is radically different to all the other politicians running for leader. People like conviction in some circumstance
3) the labour base was massively pissed of about the welfare abstaining by Labour ( And rightly so IMO. A vote at this stage of the parliament would not have mattered in 5 years time for the next election. Why vote for the echo of Labour right when you can vote for the shout of the Tories?)
4) he will be destroyerd by the press and most his own party hates him. Howver, it is clear he has support of the labour membership, so the MP's need to stop attacking him on and off the record like they are now. They are destroying the party, not him. He is entitled to run on the platform he is running on
5) I think it's a risk for him as leader, but at the same time, it's a risk they may have to take. If it's pulled off, and they can change the terms of the argument leftwards, then that would be better overall IMO
great man speaks
...which of these 2 articles is worse?
That one in the Independent is astonishingly flimsy for something from a national newspaper.
He wore a jumper in 1989 or something
2. In the form of lists
3. Are always
Did enjoy the bit in the Independent saying 35 economists agree with Jeremy Corbyn's policies. 35!
the first few points in the Indy one are decent, gets very err, umm after that though. Basically just a very light summary article that's been arbitrarily divided into 'points' so that tossers will click on it! Rejoice at our free press!
shredded any credibility it might have had.
he has predicted Jermey Corbyn will win.
Jeremy hardy has had his vote denied.
Can't they see doing that to lefty comedian's is a very bad idea publicity wise?
this is dodge as hell https://twitter.com/RebeccaaDay/status/634317162849665025?lang=en-gb
Labour's change in member registration/affiliates/whatever has had this unintended consequence. They should just put their hands up and say `Look guys we fucked up and we'll tighten this for next time` rather than go through this process which does nobody any favours.
and despite that allowing *every* opposition supporter a vote if they want one, the incidents of any actual influence are very thin on the ground indeed.
This whole thing is just absurd and also weirdly self-aggrandising.
Obviously being a member of a different party should probably preclude you, but apparently previous associations are grounds for exclusion. Presumably this guy isn't allowed to vote:
Although think it's fair to say the UK's behaviour has been different to the US's behaviour here but... still, fair point.
I wonder if the donation amount was set too low for most people. If it was £20 then the system would probably police itself (ethics around pricing out those on low wages who most need a Labour govt notwithstanding of course).
Why should you be allowed to vote in a leadership election if you support another party, or have done extremely recently? Even if it's the Greens and you feel Labour could be your "natural home", if you're not committed to supporting the party whoever wins the election, why should you be given a say in the matter?
***people who supported other parties join the Labour party***
Party now: "Quick, let's get rid of them!"
And I accept this purge doesn't look good and is probably being pursued for all the wrong reasons but...
IDK, for me it's a balance between on the one hand trying to work out what the hell a political party even is in the post-mass-membership, fragmented political landscape era, and on the other hand wanting new members/supporters to show some self awareness and respect for the fact we haven't worked that question out yet.
Don't know if I can really express that very clearly sorry.
the sanctimonious protests of the people who have registered JUST to support Corbyn a little bit rich if I'm quite honest. Only becoming a member (we're talking Membership here, not voting at a GE) a political party if a certain person is leader doesn't exactly say that you believe in what the party's about and it is pretty spiteful behaviour all in. Although the Labour membership process allows it and even encourages it through the new £3 scheme so, regardless of the motivations of those signing up, they just have to lump it I'm afraid.
If it's okay to leave a party when its politics go in direction you don't support then it's okay to join when it's the other way round.
about attempting to influence/force the party into said `other way round` of course.
as soon as a leadership election is announced?
but no-one here's denying the Labour party's processes have gotten them into this mess, albeit inadvertently, and that a fair number of people will be unfairly refused a vote as a consequence.
I take it the Labour party will also be refunding these people their membership subs? If not - they could be in real trouble.
Agree that it's a fucking mess, but it's a mess caused by an incredibly centralised party with dwindling membership trying to re-engage with its support and absolutely shitting the bed when they realise that might entail a loss of control.
at least the £3 contributions anyway. I would assume there's already a procedure for refunding membership fees. I think the logic is that when you make the £3 donation you pledge that you support the values of the party or some such bs, and hence if they find out you don't then you've gone and perjured yourself or something whatever. Anyway: they'll keep the money.
probably the only clever thing they've done in years
or write a huffy tweet about it.
One of the two.
Maybe an exciting Friday afternoon task...
made me glad marckee has been relatively quiet during this fiasco
that only one of marckee and Geoff are on shift at any given time, and then we avoid getting into lengthy, knowing debates about the various merits and faults of each of TfL's board members.
although I'm sure Geoff has his opinions.
Geoff, you and BITT are the big posters there.
Still, it was fun to see still_here claim that the SNP might cost Labour one of their marginal seats.
ctrl + f 'hatfood' = 16 matches
(a good half-dozen of those hits are people typing my username, but on the flip side, a few of yours are you '^this'ing my posts)
and Geoff pulling me up on it
Not the worst prediction in that thread though tbf.
Don't worry there are a lot of predictions threads from last year where we're all as wrong as each other.
2010 was the first time Labour allowed it and that was a rather undiscussed factor in Ed's election.
*definition of new unknown
The issue here is that Miliband changed the leadership voting system to a `1 member, one vote` system. Seemed neat at the time. How it used to work was in 1/3s. With the PLP still having 1/3 representation in spite of being the lowest group (after Members/Supporters and Trade Unions) in number.
This meant that the Members had a lot lower say in the outcome of leadership elections because no matter how many of them voted, they only received 1/3 representation. Not the case here - meaning a person who paid £3 to vote Corbyn has the same influence over the outcome as the Deputy Leader.
Which, given there's 100,000 new union members in the 170,000 newly registered to vote (and presumably they won't be purged) hasn't quite done the job.
Just vintage Miliband really. Intentions - fair; execution - terrible.
what I meant was it was undiscussed re: Miliband in 2010 because it simply wasn't as much of a factor as it is for this 2015 leadership election for the reasons above!
I do quite like that she's shocked that the party has a compliance unit though
you probably expect parties to have everything up to Death Squads, though
no I'm not sure what a death sqaud is
other parties don't have death squads?!
you literally couldn't write this stuff
I totally get the attraction of opening up the party to £3 supporters, especially in terms of the ££ raised, but you really have to be willing to bear the consequences of doing that. They'd have been better either going all out and having a full open primary or limiting it to full members, where the entry price would be too high for perceived entryists.
I think people are right to be peeved- I highly doubt that this would be being pursued so rigorously if Corbyn hadn't have made got the nominations he needed, and many feel it is another slur against them for a party they feel abandoned them years ago.
Imagine if all this happens and Corbyn doesn't win... by a small margin!
by the skin of his teeth on second preferences to Burnham/Cooper is literally the worst possible outcome.
If people are that aggrieved (as they should be to an extent because technically they've done absolutely nothing wrong) then nothing's stopping them joining the party that does represent them the best and building their resistance from there. Or even setting one up perhaps.
but that isn't exactly helpful to Labour's cause.
The irony is that the group being "purged" is the group of people most inclined to conspiracy theories.
The further build up of resentment amongst these people and fellow onlookers (a number of them who already DO vote Labour) is absolutely mental for them to contemplate. Many will never vote Labour again after this.
Purging folk who are members of other parties I can sort of understand. Doing it on this scale is borderline suicide.
that the people pleading with the membership not to drive the bus over the cliff edge have now set fire to the bus.
Well, I say funny..
which will eliminate the need for a violent blood bath.
We have reason to believe that you do not support the aims and values of the bloodbath or you are a supporter of an organisation opposed to the bloodbath and therefore we are rejecting your application.
Although you may have received or may still receive a ballot paper, it will not work and if you do vote it will not be counted.
Should you wish to dispute rejection by the bloodbath you would have to submit and pursue an application to join the bloodbath as a full member.
pretty much sums it up really.
for not "sharing the values or beliefs of the Labour Party" when half of Labour's problem seems to be that it doesn't hasn't actually had any idea what it's values or beliefs are for the last decade or so.
Good work me.
"Jeremy has no recollection..."
"Jeremy believes that..."
"Jeremy is deeply moved..."
I want to believe that Jeremy actually refers to himself in the third person, rather than someone else in his office referring to what Jeremy said to them.
Sore loser to be andy Burnham. Because nothing says strong leader like suing your own party.
We're going to get loads more threads out of this yet!
The fact they won't tell people why they've been expelled is just leading to speculation...but if they're throwing people out for being part of the anti-tuition fees movement...then fucking hell
saying people got kicked off for going to green party bbqs
also green party bbqs seem weirdly inappropriate now I come to think of it
ethical forestry commission type charcoal is complete crap
this is the most spuriously-claimed touched nerve ever. although this in turn has touched my nerve. playing the long game eh
Because either loads of Tories have infilitrated and tactically voted Corbyn in, or if Someone Else wins it'll seem like Labour's rigged its own election to throw out any Corbyn supporters.
They've properly fucked it up beyond all repair. Scrap it, start again (they won't).
It's turning into one of those old threads we used to have on here where everyone would get told they were being left-wing in the wrong way.
they'll admit they were wrong: https://twitter.com/rosieatlarge/status/634367868885442560
that Corbyn supporters are being deliberately weeded out. I'm more of a view that this crazy system has fucked them so much they've been backed into making stupid distinctions.
It's pretty clear that someone who voted Green at the election and voiced their support for the Greens during the campaign, but who is now enthused at the potential for a new direction in Labour (and yes I admit that means Corbyn) is a perfectly valid contender for a vote in the election. But clearly these people are falling foul (legitimately on paper at least) of the line "or you are a supporter of an organisation opposed to the Labour Party ". Francesca Martinez being one of the high-profile people in that category.
It's such a hideous mess that maybe aborting is the right (appallingly bad) option.
than just gracefully backing down and admitting they've been over zealous, and reinstating most of the votes.
...which also obviously won't happen.
but it's pretty clear the whole thing is massively flawed. How can anyone have any confidence in the integrity of the result now, regardless of what it is?
that thinks anything they've done in the past couple of weeks to stop Corbyn from winning, has made them look more electable in the eyes of the public than if they'd just let him win
Osbourne must be laughing his horrible face off
WILL EVERYONE JUST STOP DOING ANYTHING PLEASE
Everyone with any actual or desired connection to the Labour Party is not allowed to do or say anything for at least 3 days. It's the only safe option.
BONFIRE OF THE BLAIRITES
I just thought it was his standard odd disconnected-from-actuality posting style.
That is quite a plea, isn't it?
He's definitely edged ahead of Geoff in the losing-it odds for me.
FO,M. Seriously, FO.
He's gone too far this time! Geoff was right all along!
Stock market is tanking too, presumably in fear of Corbynomics.
Dunno if Owen Jones had factored The Quietus in to his list of POWERFUL VOICES who will do anything to discredit Corbyn as Labour leader.
Should probably stick to awful articles about music tbh
Worth a tenner?
the result of the contest MIGHT be delayed until next Thursday now so an extra 5 bonus days of this joy might unfurl.
Hope it does. I'm sure you'll all take great glee in the fact that the result of this is announced on the day I get married. Megabantz.
I feel like we're all too exhausted to carry any animosity
MAYBE THIS WAS THE PLAN ALL ALONG
Got a fair few hardcore Corbynites coming as well.