Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Hasn't he done well, then?
Stoke Newington Labour want me to go to their meetings now though :'( :'(
i would actually be up for going but i know my neighbour is going to be there and he talks to me all the time as it is
makes it seem less straight and honest.
must be a tough line to walk
he's essentially got to legitimise the ideas that
a/ austerity is a political strategy, not an economic necessity
b/ people earning >£100,000 a year are not 'middle class'
both of which are going to be an absolute uphill struggle.
but it's extremely difficult to talk about tax and spending when the right wing press talk about them as if they are.
but you've got to get him to think his life isn't the same as Investment Banker Man, and that's the difficult part.
(many of whom are floating voters) get spooked by newspaper stories claiming that there's a war on the middle class, when actually it's a targeting the top 2-5% of people.
HMRC estimates that 719,000 people will earn £100,000 or more in the 2014/2015 tax year. In 2014 the parliamentary electorate was 45,325,100 people.
(justifiably) have a lower threshold than £100,000, which is why I hedged my bets on 2-5%.
that the Conservatives are actually the ones destroying the middle classes. right??
I've been reading 'Shock Doctrine', am I getting this? slashing spending on social amenities, ramping up private debt for the working poor, increasing the disparity between the wealthy 1(or so)% and everyone else?
"I think out there the public are crying out for a different way of politics, a different style of politics, they are fed up of the soundbites the spin, they want to see authenticity, people who mean what they say and that’s what you saw today from Jeremy Corbyn."
Andy Burnham there, calling out the old politics of soundbites and spin, whilst engaging in the old politics of soundbites and spin. I think he's just shown in a single sentence why he lost the leadership election.
Ian Wright. Surprising choice.
Tbh any answer but Bendtner would've though.
post Conference tweet he'd post about Miliband too.
I've come round to Rentoul a bit over the last few years. But man he's a drag.
Actually - he wrote an article at the weekend along the lines of `Housing crisis? What housing crisis!`. His keynote piece of evidence? `House prices in 4 London Boroughs are still lower in real terms than before the crash`. Well that's alright then!
Someone else can find the tweet, I can't be arsed.
He's very much of the old-school 'gossipy' political press pack - more interested in that than the effects of policy, evidence or issues on the ground.
He's a Westminster bubble journalist.
I watched the speech in more detail on newsnight/the conference show last night.
The bit that was originally writen for Ed by an anonyous student of some sort at the end was really stirring stuff. We should elect whoever wrote it.
but you'd think they'd err on the side of caution being as his sex dwarf was eaten by otters
He's like a hog on heat.
I quite liked it personally but it wasn't a great speech objectively. Was a bit all over the place. Did like his turning around the stuff about `security` mind. That was good.
The stuff about large passages of the speech being rejected by every other Labour leader does make Corbyn look a bit silly, admittedly.
So the structure and language and whatehaveyou was as different as the message supposes to be. Greek orators would not be happy, granted.
And that's fine.
Though wincing old man vs nasal buffoon isn't exactly an embarrasment of riches.
If they were the stirring bits about equality that everyone's remembering, then it just makes every other leader look a bit silly for not using them.
Blair and Blairism were of their time. I doubt a Tony Blair speech would get the kind of reception now that it did in 97 (we're too familiar with his rhetorical flourishes and the flaws in his thought processes). Similarly Corbyn's speech wouldn't have been as well received in the late 90s.
All political phenomena are of their time as you rightly point out. Which is why it's even more vexing that `Blairism` is still `a thing`. It's in the past and unsuitable for todays challenges and messages. Also Corbyn's rise is a direct result of Blairism too - a rejection of certain parts of what it stood for.
Although Blair's speeches at Conference were usually pitched at the electorate as much as the hall. Corbyn showed little such concession, but I think too much has been analysed of this. He's been in the job for 2 weeks and conference speeches are usually drafted months in advance...
it wouldn't surprise me if Burnham's team (and possibly Cooper's) had already started drafting stuff a while ago and had to bin them, whereas Corbyn's probably wasn't started until the shadow cabinet was in place.
On a similar vein, apparently on election day Miliband has 2 speeches written. 1 for an overall majority; 1 for a hung parliament. Actually hadn't prepared one for defeat because he was convinced Labour in some form were going to win. Bless him.
Than anyone since Blair, he has a fair mandate to carry on speaking in those terms.
Being left wing is attracting hundreds of thousand new members, I'm one of them. I'd be a bit put off if started talking about benefit caps or chucking out immigrants or whatever,
Hundreds of thousands of new members =/= the required increase in numbers of voters Labour needs, in spite of how much of a surge the first part appears. No evidence so far to suggest a Corbyn `bounce` of anything like that is required to make polling progress. In fact Corbyn's numbers look fucking terrible. But it's early days.
You've been talking about his lack of wider appeal for months but the fact is he's attracting new members, that's the definition of wider appeal. You can write it off as a bounce if you want (I don't think it is showing signs of slowing but we'll see eh) but the fact is it's happened due to him being left wing. Going back on that now would've killed it straight away.
Five years of Corbyn as opposition will leave the political debate in a markedly different place from what we've experienced in the last twenty years. I don't think you or I could say what'll be the message to gain wider appeal in the next general election.
I actually think it's as much to do with him being an intensely honest-seeming and 'real' politician. Just as the likes of Mhairi Black and the SNP were returned as much because they seemed to actually want to be in politics to help their constituents.
Obviously there aren't likely to be right-wingers finding Corbyn appealing but I'm not sure it's just a thirst for leftism itself.
He does seem honest of course, and it helped save him from being completely smeared like Ed, but the swell of support has been on a wave of anti-austerity feeling.
Changing his position to appeal to home county Tories in his first conference speech wouldn't have done him any favours as an Honest Politician.
I'm not saying that. Rather I'm saying that *just* having leftist views wouldn't have had this effect. Ed Miliband was pretty leftist but he didn't have any of Corbyn's 'new politic' feel. Anti-austerity, etc. will be popular with groups but I think it's wrong to see him simply as a symbol of leftism: he has his own charisma for the electorate which is based strongly on our feelings about politicians in the wake of the expenses scandal, etc.
But he'd still be shooting himself in the foot by looking dishonest switching perspectives in his first appearance.
Key word being 'seeming'.
or underlining that he gives a sense of being honest that other honest politicians don't. In short, I don't know what your point is.
is that having not served on the frontbench and been bound by "collective responsibility" he's not had to stand up for positions he doesn't believe in until now.
Corbyn is genuinely pitching himself as a broad church within the Labour party - to simplify it as left-wing isn't quite true. He's said where he'd like to go, but will only take the party there if it wants to go there and not if it means losing he support of the troublesome right wing of the party, who seem to be as adept at briefing against their leader as those on the right of the Tory party.
You're right on the party membership though. I've never known the party feel so invigorated or motivated, and it's important to realise just how crucial that can be for a party in opposition. Labour may not have the monied backers of the Conservatives, but they have the far greater numbers. It's important that Corbyn is able to harness that enthusiasm and dedication.
Also, it needs to be acknowledged that there is more than one objective for an opposition party than just winning an election. In the five years between now and 2020 Labour has to offer genuine scrutiny and alternative arguments to this government will propose because they're certainly not going to get it in the press or other mainstream media.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/19/jeremy-corbyn-not-a-better-pm-than-david-cameron-poll-finds (evidence of Corbyn `bounce` being evident but not yet big enough)
For 3, all reported from left-leaning sources. I think I'm right in recalling that Labour were polling ahead of the Tories after the Labour Conference in 2010 after Ed Miliband had been in post for the same amount of time. Chilling stuff.
Although must also be noted that you're correct in not knowing what the electoral battleground will be in 2020 so these should all be taken with a pinch of salt. Corbyn will also not be up against David Cameron most likely so one needs to factor that in too. But it can't be denied that none of these numbers look any good. Especially given that new opposition leaders do usually experience a big poll bounce (even Gordon Brown!) and given JC's celebrity garnered over the summer you'd expect it to have had more of an impact so far...
But as always, early days.
32% of "potential"-Labour voters thinking that Corbyn would be a better PM than Osborne is actually surprisingly high given that that kind of question tends to get a lot of don't knows as well. I'd also be surprised if he actually advanced some of the policies listed there - if he advances the abolition of private schools and the monarchy in the 2020 manifesto then he'll deserve what he gets. Instead, I'm sure he's got the sense not to fight those battles and bow to popular opinion on those areas.
The net satisfaction should be more concerning, although not surprising given the tone of coverage from most of the media. I suspect that might have ticked up slightly following the end of the first week onslaught and his media round showing him to actually be a fairly normal person rather than a Stalinist firebrand manning the barricades.
of signing his own electoral death warrant without the help of the media though. His non singing of the national anthem at that remembrance gig the other week was astonishing in that regard. I personally couldn't give a shit whether he sings it or not - but who'd want to be the leader of the opposition that most people can remember him not singing the national anthem of a country he wants to be leader of. More of those missteps and it'll be curtains.
if you don't think he'd have been monstered as a hypocrite if he had sung the anthem.
There were plenty of other people at the service who didn't sing the anthem - the press chose who they were going to concentrate on.
I believe it was you admonishing ME for being patronising recently.
the Sun portrayed him as a hypocrite that for taking a place on the privy council, and made it out as if he only did it for Short money, so you're either being naive or wilfully obtuse.
Now, I haven't actually said there would have been a negative `press line` about Corbyn if he had sung the national anthem. The Sun and the Telegraph would have doubtless called him a hypocrite. Fine. But which of these things is worse:
Headline A: `Hypocrite Republican Jez sings God Save The Queen`
Headline B: `Disrespectful Republican Jez refuses to sing God Save The Queen`
Headline B is way worse. Now, faced with this paradox regarding the media treatment of him singing the national anthem - Jeremy Corbyn chose a path which laid him open to worse representation, and one that would echo more negatively in the minds of those who in 5 years time he wants to vote for him. Curse the media all you want but a) they're not going to go away, b) any Corbyn decision TO sing the national anthem would've resulted in better headlines even if they had have taken the hypocrisy angle.
I don't like the fucking press either. But Corbyn has a choice as to how he appears in front of them on certain matters. Not denying the treatment of him has been ridiculously savage, but I factored all of this in when thinking about whether or not to vote for him in the leadership election.
Can't type today.
If his greatest (only?) strength is his authenticity, then would throwing that away on day 1 really be better than being hounded for his beliefs?
Somewhat rhetorical question there - I don't think there's a right/wrong answer, or it's as cut and dried as you appear to, but appreciate the point you're making.
and it's a fair argument. And you're right to pull me up on the fact that these issues aren't cut and dry and are largely unmeasurable. Still think that the Leader of the Opposition refusing to sing the national anthem at a remembrance service looks the worst out of all scenarios in my mind but there we have it. Especially because it's a strand of authenticity/principle that even the most ardent Corbynite wouldn't give a shit about him dispensing with. But there we have it. My principle objection was to being referred to as naive fwiw.
We await round 2 for whether or not he kneels for the Queen at the ol' Privy Council. Tougher gig that - I'd actually advise him to not bother on that one. Most people don't know what the ceremony is (so any non-kneeling could pass under the radar) and a picture of him kneeling before the Queen would certainly not look comfortable for him.
personally or electorally? (Or both i suppose?)
I hope that the inverted commas make sense and aren't loading the question too much.
principle, of which there is little personal or electoral consequence for disregarding, is probably a better outcome than being labelled `disrespectful` at a war memorial which has the potential to have a significant electoral consequence.
My personal view is that Corbyn is neither and that I don't give a shit if he sang the anthem or not.
But there was a poll the other day that said there was widespread support for Corbyn's policies, which then dropped 10% when people were told that they were Corbyn's.
It's a bit like the polls showing majority support for Obamacare if you don't call it Obamacare, and opposition if you do.
It shows the uphill struggle he'll have, trying to overcome the perceptions that the public have as a result of the way the media choose to portray him.
much pitched to the hall, and he brought in Prescott to push the OMOV/Clause4 bits too.
Corbyn's come in with the vast majority of the party's membership backing him, but with MPs and media-friendly dissenters already trying to rock the boat - very successfully, given how well they've kept policy discussion out of the papers. He's having to appease that mutiny before he's even set out where he sees the party going.
But you're right about 'Blairism'. As I've said before, none of the so-called Blairites are anything like Blair. He pitched himself to the left of where they now position themselves and married that position with policies aimed at driving down poverty and increasing investment in public services.
None of them will like to admit it, but Corbyn is closer to Blair than any of those currently calling themselves Blairites.
my understanding was that Blair's early work was pitched to the hall as a way of getting them to follow his direction of travel towards the electorate and to get back into power, whilst still staying true to `Labour principles`. Which is different to Corbyn's speech yesterday, where he barely mentioned such matters.
Although like you point out I've seen a couple of Blair's earlier speech transcripts and they're much more left-wing than would be currently thought. Think there was one at the TUC from about 1994 where he even managed to get a standing ovation from a room full of Union leaders. Imagine that!
But yeah you're right there. Based on that Corbs certainly seemed closer to Blair than Liz Kendall did during the leadership election.
is "man who believes in nuclear disarmament won't use nuclear weapon."
I wish they'd leave him alone and actually allow him to do his job in opposition.
By next week.
saw it without audio, and Eamonn did the most weird expressions whenever Corby was talking. Started talking about Arsenal and Man United, which seemed a bit cruel.
to leave Scotland to the SNP then, and not even try to win back voters? only 0.16% of the trade union vote and 7.1% of the constituency party vote could be bothered to debate Trident at conference.
Problem is in Scotland, as with other devolved government (see especially: Boris in London), is that there is very little scrutiny of what is going on unless it affects London and Westminster, and even then it's driven by inadequate gutter press muck-racking and vested interests.
I'd be surprised if you see much coverage of the SNP's slightly dodgy and right-wing policies.
two hours and Wza STILL hasn't sharted out a response to this?
but I didn't want to make it too easy.
when do we send out the search party?
that a potential Labour scenario is that, in 2020, we will have a Prime Minister whose party have pledged renewal and support of Trident, but has declared he will never actually use it.
Bit of a game theory headfuck that.
As part of the "new politics" or whatever?
every time he has to decide whether to use the nukes? Could work
that the man who says he won't use a weapon of mass destruction is being called out as *increasing* the likelihood of nuclear war.
of it being safer if everyone carried a gun.
I.e. Complete bollocks
a Game Theorist like Thomas Schelling would possibly argue that Corbyn's prospected nuclear disarmament/refusal to use a nuclear weapon increases the chances of a nuclear weapon being used against Britain.
Same logical lines as his argument that a nuclear-free world is, possibly, significantly unsafer than one in which countries have nuclear arms.
when you have a small number of nuclear-holding countries who are in complete control over all their weapons and who are able to conduct diplomacy with each other at the highest level.
It could be argued that this is not the situation now, and it certainly won't be in a number of years.
The biggest threats to security being non-State actors who evidently DON'T act rationally chucks the whole game out the window.
if the biggest threat to security at the moment is from terrorists, who exactly do you point your nukes at when they launch one at you? The country they've launched it from? The one where you think their leader might be living? The one the members come from?
Somewhat fudged/unlearned use of GT aside - point was to suggest it's not necessarily weird for Corbyn's prospective position to increase the likelihood of nuclear attack.
Although it's a somewhat parallel glance at it because that isn't the commentary angle that czuk is, of course, critiquing.
It's not applicable anymore.
He should consider joining the English rugby team.
S******* Labour have told Jeremy Corbyn not to mention the word "S********" for fear of "playing to the nationalist agenda". The Labour leader was advised by senior party insiders to refer to towns and cities rather than the country during his first trip north of the border. One party source told the paper: “You don’t hear MPs talking about ‘England’, but rather,the places in England like Manchester and Birmingham. This should be the case with S*******. By referring to S******* instead of individual places, some of our people are playing to the nationalist agenda.”
Gawd bless Kezia's Kru.
going in Scotland under the SNP?
"Scotland is the best educated country in Europe, according to a report released by the Office for National Statistics."
Other performance at a glance:
in funding, literacy and numeracy then?
But you'll have to do better than that.
culminating in this hilariously pathetic headline today:
Good to see Nick Cohen once again using his reflexive protection of the political and press establishment as another excuse to go after the current Labour leadership team too.
Looks like it has the potential to be more damaging than any of the rest of the stuff so far.
I imagine we all just assumed it was bullshit.
bit of work into the depths of his and McDonnell's links/sympathies with the aims/actions of the IRA. Some pretty grim stuff admittedly.
Not completely sure how relevant these things are to today's politics. Only Northern Irish (Unionist) Corbynite that I know doesn't seem that bothered tbf. Probably best to judge people on how they act when holding serious office above all else...
I'm surprised they bothered publishing it given that the IRA thing is already old news (in 24 hour news cycle terms, over a fortnight is an age) and regardless of the detail, there's no massive scoop in there. The fact that it was relegated below the fold pretty much is the editorial acknowledgement of that. It needed to have been published during that first week when he was being hammered on all fronts to hold any real weight.
I didn't think it much of a scoop (which is what it was being hailed as) - just part of an ongoing narrative re: Corbyn and the IRA. New info was grim but hardly revelatory.
all his previously heroic campaigning paedo stuff is actually horrible witch-hunter persecution of innocents. Whoops!
apparently he should apologise 'for the way he forced police to reopen an investigation into the former home secretary'
The poor police! Being forced into doing investigations!
Cameron saying Watson should examine his conscience. I didn't think the Tories were aware of the concept of a conscience.
I was a bit irked by his speech but the idea of being anti-austerity AND pro-budget balancing was totally outlandish. This though...I know it's early days but fucking hell.
the day they announced they'd vote for it, McDonnell was on Newsnight and Evan Thingy was asking him why and McDonnell was basically like "er, yeah, we're gonna vote for it because it's silly anyway and we might as well pretend" and ET was like "isn't that a bit silly?" and you know what? It was
sounded like fun
But a totally avoidable one. Guess its good to get them all out the way early whilst the plp can't do anything because of the mandate Corbyn has.
Thing is, Cameron said he wouldn't cut tax credits about two weeks before the election and now he has - that's a substantially bigger u turn than a silly political point scoring charter. Labour need to take a leaf of of the Tories repeating everything and nauseum so it sticks technique and batter him on that more important u turn today.
He had limited options/support in the party and was there really another anti austerity candidate who would have taken it? You can't have the leader and shadow chancellor pulling different ways. I think Mcdonnell has been fairly smart getting together an anti austerity committee going with Piketty etc but he will have to reign in his general manner of saying what he thinks a tad (obviously that the charter is bullshit anyway). Saying that I think he will also be incredibly good at laying the smackdown on Osbourne in a debate.
The main issue in terms of internal divisions is the weird situation of having a leader who genuinely represents the majority of labour voters and members and a load of MPs who dont. There's so many coasters in safe seats (such as mine. Hi Jim Dowd), Blair hangovers etc, and obviously no one in their right mind joined the labour party in the years around Blair so there's a generational gap with MPs too (hence no decent leadership candidates born after about 1964). I don't know the ins and outs of deselection but I'm starting to think that should almost have been the right way to stop this.
but I've no idea how they'll ever resolve that without a mass electoral wipeout and then starting again.
He used to write quite often (monthly?), but not a dickie bird for a while now...
A deselection process would of course finish the Labour Party off for good, although that doesn't mean it won't happen. There does remain the uncomfortable detail that all the current Labour MPs were elected on Miliband's prospectus, not Corbyn's, no matter how much anyone would like it to be otherwise.
if it involved a bit less of the parliamentary Labour party shitting itself in public.
They're the ones making labour look a shambles really, one u turn is bad but they've acted fucking disgracefully since it started emerging that corbyn was going to win. They should shut up or fuck off. Kinder politics.
is that 'Which? Magazine' dickhead
That's a good win for Corbyn. Shame it'll be overshadowed by McDonnell's amateur hour bullshit.
Word is that Corbyn didn't even know about the u-turn. It might not be in his nature to show who's in charge but letting McDonnell continue to act as co-leader would be disastrous.
It is still a u-turn on Government policy though, shortly after an impassioned plea from a new opposition leader. Surely Labour can get some decent press out of that, right?
Probably not going to happen though.
If I was in Corbyn's press office, I'd be making sure this is on the front page of every tabloid with a quote saying Cameron's going to have blood on his hands though as that might just get some coverage: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/son-karl-andree-350-lashes-accuses-uk-putting-saudi-business-concerns-first
I'd be smashing my fist into a desk and yelling, "WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS, AMATEUR HOUR?!" four or five times a day. People do that in real life, right?
I agree though. That needs more publicity. And when you have a leader who's historical main strength is campaigning on human rights then you'd think it would be a no brainer.
I'm not sure Corbyn's press office has THAT much influence on the front pages of the tabloids.
That's why you push a story they can't ignore for party political reasons.
In fact I often am, but if say the Mail actually report the Saudi prison story I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if Corbyn wasn't even mentioned. Because they could do that if they wanted to couldn't they? And they would want to.
None of the right-wing press are going to give Corbyn any credit any time soon, so just push stories that make Cameron and the Tories look bad even if you don't get any direct credit for it. There's still plenty of appetite for those stories all over the media.
Perhaps that's not what Corbyn wanted, but there's really no alternative right now.
reading a bit more carefully that's pretty clear. Still I'd think it's quite a stretch to be able pin much on Cameron there.
Probably one of Corbyn's better media days since elected given his own party's mess.
must be a fate worse than death.
Did enjoy the statement last week that David Cameron was `rattled` by Labour. Erm... yeah sure.
If there's a purging going on I wanna be there.
I gave him the stink-eye!
in Owen Jones's piece yesterday about Corbyn and message discipline etc.
Labour would be stupid not to take it up and do their best to turn it into this parliament's "bedroom tax".
that Miliband actually had quite a bit of success with getting some messages to cut through - `Cost Of Living Crisis` for example. Problem was Labour changed their messaging so much in this period nothing was really allowed to settle in the mind of the electorate.
Another problem is that some of this negative messaging will run contrary to the `gentler, kinder politics` message advocated by Corbyn. Problem is - negative messaging works so...
to handle the "Cost of Living Crisis". The energy stuff was a good start, but then as far as I can recall it vanished in favour of the far harder to explain "One Nation Labour" tagline.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Labour casting particular policies in a negative light, so long as they're not doing it to individuals - don't paint Osborne and IDS as callous over the "work penalty", rather every time it comes up refer back to examples of the impact. I think Corbyn/his front bench can even get away with the kind of withering remark like the "trying his best" line under his "new politics", even though it's technically an attack.
Of course, I'm fully expecting Labour's parliamentary party to shit the bed this afternoon and undo this lunchtime's reasonable work.
Embarrassing embarrassing embarrassing embarrassing embarrassing
just to enjoy all the delicious cringey embarrassment of it. Argh, it'd be so painful/satisfying.
might have attracted more attention. Seemed to slip by. Sad news.
Although Guido's obit was a fucking disgrace http://order-order.com/2015/10/21/rip-michael-meacher/
I despise the hypocrises of socialists more than anyone, but there's a time and a fucking place mate. Jesus.
Also will actually trigger a very interesting by-election. First test of Corbyn's Labour mettle in a seat held by a socialist since 1970. If UKIP get a surge then that'll be bad news.
People were saying far, far worse about Thatcher from the very minute she died and I think they had every right to do so.
I took the same issue with Thatcher's death and the response myself. Don't mind a balanced piece which deals with pros and cons etc. but the geezer's literally been cold for about 6 hours.
Informed critical comment - fine. Personal sniping under the guise of an obit - not on. IMO. But it's Guide what did you expect etc. etc.
Anyway, this is the real NEWS of the day: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3282441/It-s-difficult-s-ex-wife-apparently-ex-prostitute-Jeremy-Corbyn-David-Cameron-gossiping-waited-President-Xi-s-speech.html#ixzz3pCKES4rh
Trousers are about 2 sizes too big!
And the centre left and greens got smashed and also Canada is boring, so *shrug*
I heard he's a Stalinist
#TRUE ANARCHIST #BREAKTHEINTERNET