Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
for Corbyn stuff
And feel that this may be a cause for concern
there'll be no more Corbyn chat for a while :(
live coverage of corbyn taking more than 2 hours to name a cabinet, possibly some deselection chat, more analysis about competence. i'm sure toynbee's good for a few columns too, after a surprisingly quiet period.
plenty of material to take us right into 2017 i reckon.
What's happened to that bloke out of The Kooks and his new political movement?
when the hustings were on in gateshead we drove past the venue and i went to my bf 'do you reckon owen smith got the train here tonight? i bet you jeremy corbyn did, and stood the whole journey so someone else could have his seat'
he outdid my expectations and sat on the floor the whole time
what's this i'm hearing about him dropping a truth bomb on the warmongering elite, and now it’s up in arms?
Corbyn just dropped a truth bomb on the warmongering elite, and now it’s up in arms - The Canary
Khan's gone for Smith!
aka an old story, now with added racism
I wanna plan my topical tweets in advance
One recycled story per day, except on hustings days when there will be NO COVERAGE.
hadn't realised she was active with progress, nor had i realised that her mate mcternan was working on smith's campaign. (hmmm... interesting)
also: caroline lucas' letter re:heidi alexander's hatchet job (another of smith's campaign masterminds) slipped through the cracks :
Jackets and ties
Fights for us
And our rights
Works for people
Day and night
Phones your dad
When you're bad
To bomb Assad
a true socialist leader,
voice of the people
slams down the little red book.
careerist pragmatist pigs,
sacked by jez at 1am
ha! fuckin didya
'Yet while Smith was almost universally adored by the Left and was deemed to be heading for ‘certain victory’, Corbyn, saying almost identical things in an eerily similar context, is despised by many within Labour and deemed ‘unelectable’.
This piece is not primarily intended to compare the different qualities and attributes of these two Labour leaders but instead is designed to show firstly, just how far to the right Labour lurched in the New Labour years, and secondly to suggest that Labour can — and must — unite around a set of shared values and policies that articulate a clear alternative to ‘austerity’ and which challenge neoliberal orthodoxy in order to help make Labour electable at the next general election, whenever it may be.'
I don't really know a lot about John Smith to be honest. What I do remember though is that he was a compelling, passionate speaker. One of the things I'm confused most about with regards to Corbyn is that he's a limp, weak speaker but he seems to pack out halls all over the place with it. His victory speech after he won last September and his address to the Labour Conference were really, really poor pieces of political oratory I thought.
Bit better than Corbyn. Worse than Kinnock or Brown.
Can't decide where to put Blair - He made my skin crawl but lots of other people seemed to like him.
very clear orator. A fair amount of his lines stuck, which is always a good sign.
Problem with him is that he was corny and schmaltzy. Guess it was popular mind. The bloke didn't have a 90% approval rating for nothing at one point!
"A day like today is not a day for soundbites, we can leave those at home, but I feel the hand of history upon our shoulder with respect to this, I really do.”
Although a fair soundbite for a fair achievement, I think. Still looks silly though.
He was a barrister so he was very experienced but he wasn't used to speaking for crowds or the media.
Blair was the opposite. He had great instincts for reducing ideas to soundbites so even if he was personally quite uncharismatic his speeches tended to achieve their goal. He was also an amazing defensive speaker, much like Cameron. He always seemed more plausible when he was answering questions than he did when you were thinking about his decisions.
Like I say I don't know much about him but footage I've seen suggested he was pretty decent from the dispatch box and at Conference etc. but certainly haven't seen that much.
But I think that just shows how important the qualities that he does have are to those backing him at the moment - honesty, trust, principles, values etc - like it or not, it seems to me that until the "rebels" address why most of their party no longer seem to trust their more pragmatic approach then they're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
the problem is that picking leaders based solely on their "honesty, trust, principles, values" is politically untenable.
The article Streetflash quotes says that it doesn't want to draw comparison between Corbyn and John Smith. I bet it doesn't. JS was a barrister before entering parliament, and he served in cabinet as Trade Secretary before becoming Shadow Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition. He was an incredibly skilled politician as well as a principled leader.
Now we're not easily going to find a dream candidate like John Smith easily, but at some point you have to take a risk and start looking for someone who can practically defend the left, not just embody it.
I was hoping for Geoff to reply, because we find it easier to find agreement somewhere in the middle of our opposed positions. I'm not going to get drawn into another debate where you fail to address anything I actually say.
I've been trying to. I agree with your point, that's why I said that the position of the members was understandable. The "rebels" do need to address why the party no longer trusts their pragmatic approach.
I thought that the example of John Smith as a principled leader and a skilled politician was a relevant one given the discussion.
All I mean, is I was deliberately trying to avoid another "but Corbyn's not tenable", "but neither is your candidate" debate by setting it out in the terms of the election that the "rebels" need to win now; i.e. they need to win around people who don't buy their approach to politics any more (rightly or wrongly - again, doesn't matter which). Corbyn's deficiencies either aren't seen as such by his supporters, or they just say "yes... and?", which begs the question of how the rebels win members around - I'm assuming it's a given that it's not a tight enough race where winning over a few undecideds is enough.
As Geoff says below, I'm not sure how the that particular problem (or the wider divide) can be resolved is at the moment, particularly given that Corbyn supporters at the moment are liable to see any concessions from the rebels as just the (a) triangulation necessary to win this battle so they can get back to (b) neoliberal (c) moderate politics as usual.
...the problem Labour have is that the Corbyn faction apportion their sovereignty with the Membership, the `rebel` faction apportion their sovereignty with the electorate. And right now those two groups have never been further apart and they're entrenched in their respective positions.
Although at the moment I don't see how this problem can actually be solved. One of the key failings of the Labour right in all of this is understanding where the Corbyn surge has come from and how it can be harnessed, and it has been too emphatically stated in the language of the 1980s (`Trot` entryism etc.) which is inadequate to understand it.
For Labour to form governments these 2 factions need to work together, but I'm struggling to see at the moment how they can. The reason being is that there's a lot of critique of the right of the party for screaming at the Corbyn supporters - but I don't see the Corbyn supporters budging either because they're a) fed up with `triangulated` politics b) fed up with `neoliberalism` and c) fed up with a moderate Labour party.
I was thinking this morning that it's amazing the Labour Party has lasted as long as it has. These tensions are nothing new, but never have they been more on display.
The PLP used to have more 'union' MPs, and the Blair intake was massive and more 'modernist', so that faction has moved its position. Didn't matter too much as so many left the party under Blair, but as those members return (and a new generation of centre-lefters join) the problem has returned, worse than ever. The balance of tension isn't the same as before and feels kind of unresolvable, but I think the characterisation of the two factions as careerist Blairites and raving trots is probably unfair to the majority, so the middle ground might be quite well populated.
Probably kill Wes Streeting AND whoever runs The Canary and everyone will be happy.
Although seems to me the previous electoral college kept a lid on it all. The left of the Labour party's always been a bit miffed because of the `pointlessness` of voting for the most leftwing candidate. Corbz is the first time in many peoples' lifetimes when voting for the most leftwing actually had a point. Crudely speaking of course.
I remember when Ed Miliband's win was spoken of as a triumph for the left of the Labour party. How things change eh.
is that I've got a feeling that if Miliband hadn't reigned in some of his leftism, then I suspect Corbyn probably wouldn't have been elected last year (and not because Labour would have been in power).
I didn't think there'd be ANOTHER reason why this is all Ed Miliband's fault!!
But yeah - Miliband loses election on a full soft-left ticket = no Corbyn.
A lot of that chimes with Corbynism, a lot of it sounds like proto New Labour. I don't think anyone doesn't know how far labour's moved to the right at this point.
He's dead so you can sell him as a perfect socialist, the greatest PM E never had, architect of Blairism, fat bastard... Whatever you like, really.
What do tou think Jezza's favourite biscuit is?
(they are nice tbf)
JCs proposals on consitutional reform sound really positive:
in some polling carried out by Ben Bradshaw et al
and the phone-owners are all big Smith likers
Particularly when the "results" are leaked to the press. If they're willing to release the tables, then I'll pay attention.
especially like the 'Smith in front according to someone else' results
last week said that he'd spoken to more Owen Smith supporters than Corbyn supporters too.
Of course that's what he should say. Basic psychology.
I lumped a tenner on Smith at 6/1 anyway. Ridiculous odds in a 2 horse race. Although I think Jez has got this one quite comfortably.
But he's certainly doing a good job of promoting someone he doesn't necessarily totally agree with, as he prefers him to the alternative. And is therefore projecting a much more positive vision to the media and people watching.
Which is all that I'd have liked him to do for Corbyn over the past year.
we'd be in paradise, no?
I just think he's doing a good job of backing someone who would appear to be "unelectable" to this particular electorate. And either, is keeping up the pretence in the face of poor polling, which is good for his team, or the polling is true, which probably means him working productively, and not revealing his doubts in public, is helping win over an electorate who are believed to favour the other candidate.
Probably some parallels there somewhere.
Point is 6/1 in a 2 horse race in the absence of firm evidence to back up the length of those odds = worth a punt.
Last YouGov polling (which got the last leadership contest spot on) suggested a waning of support for Corbyn to not far above the 50% mark. With the £25 lads not being able to vote this suggests the momentum within the present Labour Membership being away from Corbyn. Still think he's got enough support to see him home but I wouldn't be sure on that score.
Suggests to me that a candidate better than Owen Smith could've really won this.
Labour won its appeal against that so the £25 people after February can't vote. Unless I've gone totally mad and forgotten something that is.
£25 people are special and fine
Fuck me this whole thing's worn me out.
There's a few London boroughs where this is true as well, obviously Vauxhall but others too
even with the exclusions of people who signed up this year, there are so many people who joined last year that would never vote for anybody else and Momentum made such a concerted effort to get the £25 votes in over about a month (while Smith had about 24 hours from when he was announced as challenger to do the same) that I can't image any situation where Corbyn could possibly lose. If Smith gets over 30% he'll have done well; if he gets, say, 45% I'd say Corbyn might want to rethink things a bit.
But we don't have any evidence yet for these assertions - that's the point.
If Corbyn gets anything less than his last majority it'll be because people have LOST FAITH in his INEPT leadership we need a NEW party etc etc
until I read the rest of it.
Incredible scenes. Although worth noting that pretty much all of the seats in that carriage are reserved.
D'you I did actually think when I saw the initial photos that the train he was on didn't look that busy... Usually when you're forced to sit on the floor there's luggage in all the vestibules etc.
For those who like more detail. Have fun guys!
Seems to have changed his entire outfit before sitting down too. Clever Corbyn.
do you think they were that irked by the idea they were ram-packed, or has someone at the organisation got it in for him? just the sheer length and detail of this...
Jez was attacking private sector train provision so Virgin are perfectly reasonable in saying `hang on, his analysis isn't right`.
Although they'll also naturally want to make nationalisation of the railways less likely so... who knows. It's provided me with a hearty chuckle so fair play regardless.
to 'make a point'. But isn't that excatly the kind of bullshit he's meant to be rallying against?
I don't really care. Just a media stunt ain't it? (If Virgin are indeed correct - Corbyn's office have countered saying it's a lie). The ultimate point Corbyn was making was that trains are often overcrowded. Which is true, regardless of how he makes it.
Of course I will also enjoy anything that makes him look a bit of a tit, so there we go.
I mean fair play, if he's actually learning how to deal with the press.
and then later sat down
he walked past some seats before eventually having to sit on the floor. The train emptied out later and he sat down? Ok
but it shows him walking past empty unreserved seating before sitting down, I'm led to believe?
you've never done that? Walk down the train looking for a table for your group, get to the end and there's nothing, remaining individual seats have filled up in the meantime?
And the train he was on doesn't make its first stop until almost 2 hours in so... (yeah someone on twitter actually looked into it)
maybe a train staff member found him a seat? The criticisms require legwork on the part of the reader, and I can think of spurious explanations for them. What's the point of it?
Most likely explanation - they couldn't all find a seat together, Corbs defaulted to sitting on the floor, his team went `oh here's a good media opportunity`, Corbs used it to make a point about the train being overcrowded which turned out to be inaccurate. Meh.
but now he's been busted, and people have had a cheap chortle about it, there's no point constructing some weird narrative around it. It's a little desperate.
isn't a bit desperate. All politicians do it)
building a narrative that he manufactured a photo op = havin a laugh
trying to think of an alternative explanation - I end up looking desperate
The messiah would never EVER take a photo op, even if that's exactly what it looks like and even if he actually had a seat before the next stop and never said anything about it. x
it doesn't show whether or not the seats are reserved, as, as far as I can tel from the footage, there're no images of the screens above the seats.
`people like me` are giving him a fisting for not being any good at dealing with the press/presenting himself etc. etc. Not really fair if I give him a shinning for trying...
is the same as their inability to persuade people they're right about Corbyn? Let me know.
by liberal-ish people that the Remain campaign was a heroic and good attempt to keep something nice for everyone and to protect immigrants that only failed because Corbyn didn't try, rather than the grubby, uninspiring and vaguely racist failure that it was.
The argument is that Corbyn's lacklustre campaigning led to a situation a week before polling that 1/3 of Labour voters did not know what Labour's position on the EU referendum was. Reasons given for this are that his personal campaigning was poor, he didn't do enough of it, didn't show necessary leadership etc. etc.
Point is that if you overlay that sort of performance in a General Election where message discipline is everything, then you get absolutely thumped. This is more the point than `Brexit is Corbyn's fault`.
Osborne threatening a punishment budget if they lost etc etc. The logical conclusion from criticising Corbyn's Remain effort is the idea that if he'd pulled his finger out then Remain would have won, which is... bollocks.
On the flip side I genuinely think that someone like Tony Blair would've given a load of BIG CORNY SPEECHES about staying in and that we'd have probably ended up staying in. Corbyn would've been incapable of doing that of course, so it's unfair to criticise him for that.
I don't blame Corbyn at all for Brexit, it's worth reasserting.
had naff all to do with the result. Not even Blair could have saved us (?!).
Many of his supporters read "Corbyn's performance around Brexit has really knocked the respect that I had for him. I wanted to stay in Europe and he didn't help enough in that regard to garner my support in the future" as being "OMG GUYS CORBYN IS THE REASON WE'RE LEAVING EUROPE FUXACHE!!".
do the rest of the party fuck off or shut up?
There's no respect within the party for either side. Each believes that the other has fundamentally destroyed any chance of an effective opposition. Corbyn is never going to win over the majority of PLP, ever. Not even enough for them to go back to the uneasy 'pretending to be a tiny bit behind him' that there used to be before Brexit.
Corbyn has shown that he's steadfast in upholding the principles he believes in and the ones that he stood with to become the leader and is completely uncompromising in that (fair enough) but that means the party will split, it probably needs to.
She got a text from them AS IT WAS HAPPENING. Have contacted my mate to get their mate to clarify.
so gave it to the guardian instead
The message was a little cringey
the message made it seem pretty lame.
Haha jeez is that how PR is conducted?
but I'm sure journos must get like 50 of those a day,
Tina Turner lyrics etc...
Particularly without taking any steps to protect the identity of anyone else on the train in the image? I've just done data protection training at work and it seems like that shouldn't be allowed.
for a long, long time.
You can take a picture of people on the street without their permission... (though you can't, for example, within a restaurant, so I don't know where train carriages fall).
Someone politics-EmO probably got paid to write that too.
is a `reknowned` ScotNat journo. Writes for The National I think.
I now support him 110%
He is O, overqualified
He is R, respectful
He is B, Blairite-bashing
He is Y, young-at-heart
He is N, nationalising
He is C.O.R.B.Y.N.
a picture of his picture in a newspaper?
of how the media don't actively hate him yet.
It was Southern though, so technically last weeks news.
is the biggest news story of the day. I assume they'll quietly drop it down the page when they realise it doesn't really stand up, like their one last night accusing him of being racist.
Still, it gave a lot of smarmy journalists and 'moderate' Labour types the opportunity to jump up and down on twitter, and then retweet people calling them dickheads, so I guess it's worked?
Corbo. The Corbinator. Corbiñero.
is it time for another poll?
until the train manager asked on his behalf?
How is he meant to ask the Russians to move their bags (army) from the seat (Ukraine)?!
about whether there were bags on the seats corbyn walked past or not
to point out that fringe events at a party conference are somehow not a revolutionary new tool of the Trotskyite vanguard.
supposedly reputable mainstream political journalists' stories completely fall apart when someone else does a simple Google.
Just need to get some quotes from a couple of "outraged" MPs which show a divided party and it's still seen as a legitimate story even if the actual substance all falls apart by the time the print version has made it into WH Smith.
I was really excited to read that voting had started. I actually thought it was nearly over. Oh no, 24th September!
my voting thing came with a notice like you only have a month left to vote!!!!!!!!
This really isn't acceptable, even in hard hitting politics where you're trying to smash someone back onto their heels. A massive apology and gesture needed. And perhaps stop going off script until you can trust yourself.
and seems like more of an arsehole every time one of these #problematic quotes comes out.
has anything substantive happened at all?
I heard something about a Corbyn Trains Scandal, it must be a Big Important News Story if all the papers are leading with it.
Smith wants to rerun the EU Referendum. Anything else we should be trying again? Rematch against Iceland? The 1992 General Election? Bet he enjoyed the Wicker Man remake, too, right?
"If anyone was offended I apologise." This is the man who claims to be the future of progressive politics, showing no understanding of the stigma around mental health and trying to defend his use of lunatic as just "colourful language".
He's really pushed my buttons with this. I'm fuming.
More perplexed at why `I'm Owen Smith And I'm The Unity Candidate` thought that was the right thing to say. Especially given he's been a bit #problematic with previous aggressive language.
Marco Rubio called Donald Trump a lunatic at a Reupblican rally I recall - not in the UK obviously but was that justified? I've no qualms with calling Trump a lunatic myself.
Even if he was to win then he knows his card is marked for deletion.
who doesn't think about his choice of language especially well. He'll do it again. And again.
You can hear him in the recording pausing as he reaches for an appropriate word, and that's the one he came up with. Unless he sticks to a script there's no way he won't do it again in a few weeks time.
Thing about his `smash her back on her heels` thing re: Theresa May is that I'd LITERALLY never heard that as a phrase before. I read it and was like `Fuck me that's a bit strong` before reading that it was apparently a spin on a relatively common phrase.
So there we have it. Is it a Welsh thing?
much the same way a whole load of racist and homophobic terms have been binned off over the last 50 years or so; I'd say the same about calling people "crazy", "loopy", "loony" and so on. They're all terms that stigmatize mental health problems and in my mind have no place in progressive politics. When someone who wants to become the most visible person in British progressive politics is throwing around terms like that about his opponent and brushes it off as nothing more than "colourful language", it shows just how far we've still got to travel on gaining widespread understanding of mental health.
It was the wrong thing for him to say. For several reasons.
in a post-truth world - i.e. the world we live in now, as opposed to a few years ago, when everything was true
and I keep thinking it's Richard Osman.
is that Corbz sat on the floor because he wanted to sit next to his wife who was also travelling with them. Apparently...
20000 comments on the guardian's main article about this; puts us lot to shame.
what an utterly absurd thing for people to give a shit about, almost as daft as #antanddecgate. love how this and the 'lunatic' thing have completely drowned out the health launch...
p.s. link above from fidel is completely wtf. does anyone transcribe these press conferences?
So there we have it.
I got as far as "the rise of the crusty Corbyn to the apex of a militantly leftist Labour".
but I agree with the following:
'You've got to distinguish between addressing an issue, and what the right policy is to make a difference... not to make a point. A lot of the politics that is going on left and right at the moment is more about a protest. It's not often about a policy. You get a strange coalition of different views of what the future should be, coming together in alliance to protest against the status quo.'
'I think this Conservative government believes that it can't contain the unity of the Conservative Party without delivering Brexit, but … 48 percent, 16 million people that voted to remain, and we don't yet know what we're being offered. I understand why there's parts of the right-wing media and the Conservative Party who want to shut this debate down, but we're a free country. I don't think we should shut it down.' - Blair
Seems like a couple of waffley, contentless paras to me.
"“Hillary Clinton,” he said, with a grin over his coffee cup, “is the Democrat nominee and, at least if the polls are correct, she has a fair chance of winning.”"
Get him, lads
and feel like they are wasting their lives? Like," I studied for years, I was gonna do another Watergate scoop", and then the editor is like "ASK THAT MAN WHY HE DIDN'T SIT ON A TRAIN SEAT"
Corbyn's answer was actually pretty good just now. Anyone watching it who didn't think "oh ok, fair play" and votes Tory or Smith pretty much deserves it when they can't afford the medical bills in 15 years when the NHS doesn't exist.
You also neglected to mention him losing his temper when the Sky journo asked the question the first time. Not the first time he's lost his temper when he's been asked a question he doesn't like. It's not a good look, especially over something so trivial (I know the triviality's why he got annoyed but still...)
he actually went off on one about the ridiculous state of the press (as long as it's not too conspiracy theory-ist)
Go full Trump, why not. It's got this ridiculous already.
Spent a large chunk of it hammering on about the press.
I felt that was pretty good from him. If anything my disappointment has been him not going far enough with that side of things.
I think if he now just opened every reply to a stupid question from a journalist with something like "so and so journalists name, from the ... who were found guilty of hacking a dead Milly Dowler's phone, what was your question again?" I'd be happier.
Not sure I'd go that far. Getting grumpy, for sure. Again, I'm not convinced I have an issue with that. It's hard to judge because this train business is such a trivial fucking thing for people to give a shit about.
Remember when he "lost his temper" at a journo and the guardian tried to make out that a) he was about to have a nervous breakdown and b) resign? Well he did NEITHER, so suck it.
who is a certifiably bellend and he came across really well.
You could tell he was fairly pissed off, which it never a good look. KGM is a total dickhead though, so fair enough.
Must be the Irish in him.
(I'd really rather McDonnell had put himself forward as usual and won than Corbyn he can do this stuff way better)
My FB feed is just full of snarky comments against Corbyn and the occasional "he's the best". Imagine just maybe sitting in some middle ground where you can look a bit less of a thundertwat?
and it's the last area you'd expect it...
is pretty much exactly what you'd want from him. Completely despairing of the bullshit news that's thrown at us (meaning voters) every day by people who we all hate, dismissive of what absolutely deserves to be dismissed and clearly very keen to discuss the important issues for which the press conference was set up. Anyone who thinks that won't make more people sympathetic towards him (provided they see it) is being silly.
why did the train staff try to get him to upgrade to First Class?
gonna go to yer man's rally tomorrow (Y)
Honestly its blown out of proportion. Political stunt or not sometimes trains are full.
No, you are the only person in the world who doesn't see how essential the issue of how full Jeremy Corbyn's train was is.
If most the major papers are headlining with this issue it is clearly of critical importance. I just have to trust them with their judgment on this one
I rode a train yesterday where I was forced not to sit on the floor but next to someone;a man; a very muscular man
He's finally made it!!!
He's big in Japan?
used to work for Look East didn't he. Hmm.
Typical media establishment cronyism here, clearly.
I'm going to guess it went something like this:
"Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been making headlines this week with controversy over footage of him sitting on the floor of a train that may or may not have been full. But what does it all mean for our region?? We spoke to local resident Tommy Tattle of Fingringhoe who has recently *been on a train* to hear his thoughts *on trains*."
it was actually him attending a rally in Colchester (or Chelmsford: one of them c-towns). Footage of some happy old folks dancing (not j-dog himself). All v. positive.
I am not alone!
put me back on track, I'd be throwing Cheltenham into the mix too.
during this subthread
Decent bloke, all told
He could have quipped, if he'd been reached. But he couldn't be reached. Because he was making jam.
watching the hustings rn, always forget how incredibly shit owen smith is when i don't see him speak. like one of those stone angels from doctor who
for remaining in the EU opened up a touch of ambiguity about the whole thing.
Regardless of the `DID HE VOTE LEAVE?!` chatter - the fact he can't convince people of his OWN position on the biggest campaigning issue of his leadership so far is a bit... troubling.
who will never ever be convinced
without being accused of being a closet brexiteer then i don't really know what corbyn was meant to do? couldn't join the cheerleading squad cos of his previous on the EU could he? they would've panned him no matter what he did; it's a pretext and i'd imagine even you can see that.
to indirectly accuse him of lying is shit-flinging pure and simple. pretty desperate stuff. but they can use the evidence of traingate to fuel the new narrative of corbs being a deceitful liar (as well as a sexist; an anti-semite; a terrorist sympathiser; incompetent etc. etc.)
(Sorry. I know I should let that one go, but I'm still fucked off about it.)
the most important thing in all of this is the fact that 1/3 of voters, when polled, didn't know what Labour's position on the EU was. The point is that Corbyn's communication/media cut-through/message delivery was poor on what is quite a clear-cut and binary issue. Overlay that onto something like a general election and it's wise to think `hang on - this man doesn't seem up to the job`. Obviously a hostile media not granting him as much coverage as perhaps he should've means this isn't 100% his fault - but that factor plagues every leader on the left so you can't just default to whinging about it.
Corbyn could've avoided this by sharing a platform with David Cameron on the matter - and given the Labour message extra noise. He chose not to do that. He could've avoided it by not saying things like he was only `7/7.5 out of 10` on remaining in the EU. But again, he chose not to do that.
Agree that accusing him of lying as Owen Smith did yesterday is not really beneficial, to anyone. Although it's also worth thinking about why the space for Owen Smith having the opportunity to do so was open.
I'm conflicted about this... on the one hand, sharing a platform might have helped in terms of coverage & making it look like the two parties were of a mind on this. On the other hand, you'd have had two people standing up making completely different arguments at the same time.
Cameron's was basically: "I did a great job renegotiating terms and we're all going to die if we don't stay in the brilliant EU." Corbyn's: "Look, the EU isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternative."
It would surely have killed the credibility of the overall message to have the two main people saying completely different things about the EU - I'm not sure they were compatible arguments.
With that said, there's a very valid point in there about Corbyn's media cut-through... how it's resolved is a difficult one, and I'm not sure that either candidate in the current election has said much about how they'll solve it; all they've done in the last week is demonstrate how they don't look equipped to do so.
But the ultimate goal of the referendum campaigning was to project that `Labour is REMAIN` above all else. Corbyn's message about the EU not being perfect is in entirely secondary to that. And perfectly malleable to the wider goal. But like I've said - the failings of the EU campaign more widely lie on Cameron's shoulders not Corbyn's, because Cameron wasn't able to convince voters on a referendum he called. The point about Corbyn is how he performance leads to worries about general Labour performance if they persist with him.
Yeah Smith certainly ain't the answer. Although if there is one thing in Smith's favour, it's that him winning the election will be that Seumas Milne will be out of his £96,000 a year job. That'll be cause for rejoicement.
you'd have seen Labour shedding voters to UKIP and the SNP and possibly the Greens, and then the line of attack would be that his poll numbers were down.
And it still probably wouldn't have altered the result of the referendum.
Think Corbyn has enough currency on the left for that to not be an issue.
Completely agree with your last sentence though.
think it was just over 70% for lib dems and just under for SNP.
to have got a different result in the referendum ~670,000 people would have needed to change their vote from out to in.
roughly 9.3m people voted labour in 2015 so let's say 670k is approx a 7.5% swing in labour voters, which would mean 75%+ of labour voters MIGHT have swung the referendum.
how do you think a leader showing more competent pro-EU leadership might have achieved that swing?
personally, i think many people wanted to vote out, and that the referendum wasn't really about party politics. i don't think corbyn offering fuller voiced support would have made a difference to the result, given that everyone thinks he's an unelectable incompetent anyway.
39% of Tory voters voted Remain
you could argue that David Cameron was more responsible than Corbyn for not encouraging enough people in his own party to Remain:
yet interestingly, 57% of middle to upper-middle class people (ABC1) voted to Remain while 35% of lower-middle to working class people (C2DE) voted to Remain:
I guess a lot of poor people vote Tory then...
so therefore have more in common with the greens, the snp, the lib-dems, the labour party and the left-wing of the conservative party - a very broad left coalition that makes them poorer.
poorer people generally voted to leave and therefore have more in common with the right-wing of the conservative party and ukip - a broad right coalition that makes them poorer.
it could end up with a stronger middle class base necessary to win elections
whereas at the moment it has a weak middle class base and a weak working class base that's being stolen by Ukip.
that it doesn't piss off the (roughly) 30% of Labour Brexit voters enough to push them into the warm embrace of UKIP as well as assuming that "not-Brexit plus Labour values" is more enticing than a Lib Dem or Green version of "not-Brexit"; as you've already identified, all the other left-ish parties (and the Lib Dems) are offering "we won't do Brexit", so it's hardly a unique position.
I can't see how electorally it's worth the risk of ignoring the referendum result and the views of roughly 10% of the electorate that currently vote Labour to chase 12% of the electorate that apparently preferred the Tories in 2015, presumably largely on shared social and economic values rather than EU policy.
I mean Ukip are pretty much finished now that Farage is gone (it's still early days but the polls are showing a slight dwindling in their popularity). Ukip have been around since 1993 and have been irrelevant for most of their existence. Now that the Tories are adopting a slightly more socially right-wing stance (as they did with Hague/Duncan Smith/Howard) by accepting Brexit, there's less point in Ukip existing (whereas Cameron was actually quite socially liberal, which is what led to the rise of Ukip to 'fill the gap' of social conservatism).
If Smith wins (which he won't, sadly), voters will have the choice between an old-fashioned anti-EU Tory government vs. a modern pro-EU Labour government. There was a lot of confusion in the referendum and I don't think all 52% of people who voted Brexit necessarily realised what they were voting for. A lot of them have been affected by Cameron's austerity saw Brexit as an anti-Cameron vote. They might think it's a good thing we have a new Prime Minister who seems genuine about Brexit but their lives are not going to improve over the next few years. If we have another say on the EU, this time spearheaded by a Labour leader (instead of Cameron), they might think differently. Unfortunately the public are slow learners and sometimes shit has to actually start before they realise it's bad.
You also have to factor that demographics change slightly in each election and there will be more younger left-wing pro-EU people eligible to vote, and more older pro-EU left-wing people in future elections.
It's like Obama not been able to convince people he was born in the US. It reveals a fundamental lack of trust that people have in him and people are right to try and use it to undermine him.
given how long traingate lasted
currently boarding trains to Pontypridd to find out the truth
is supposed to win back any voters who voted Brexit to spite a political elite who they don't feel listens to them. Seems to me that moving the goalposts of the referendum after the fact would entrench their position.
Having said that, I don't know if Smith actually thinks he can win this, or if the plan is just to inflict as much damage on Corbyn as he can during this campaign.
I'm guessing that he's looking to position Labour as `the party of the 48%` given the EU referendum. Guess we'll wait and see if that becomes a defining characteristic within the electorate (I don't think it will) but I actually side with Corbyn's position on it - `the referendum happened, the people voted, just get on with it`.
and is not actually the main political issue for a lot in fact most people. A substantial number of that 48% are not labour voters and economically probably share little with the labour party. On top of that May is a pro EU politician that they will be happy to vote for.
If Boris got in I could see why it might be a good electoral strategy to galvanize support but that's not the case. A chunk of core labour voters wanted out of the EU to suddenly position yourself as the pro EU party is a sure fire way to lose these votes, perhaps permanently.
On the EU I actually think Corbyns position is much closer to the electorate (even many of the people who voted for remain) then parliamentary politics at large.
is that it might encourage another far-right movement to break into the political mainstream (let's call this UKIP 2 for now).
although I don't see how a party like that would ever have any success in an election because of first past the post. It would also be too much of a negative campaign - 'they lied to us' - to encourage enough people to vote for it.
In other words I see no danger in ignoring the Brexit vote (yes it will piss people off but in the long run it's much more dangerous and damaging to accept it). I think a Labour pledge to keep us in the EU would help unify the left-wing (since the Greens, the SNP and the LibDems are all pledging to prevent Brexit) and help fragment the right-wing (the divided Tory party and 'UKIP 2' or whatever their new name will be).
This is a fairly sizable group (particularly in the NE where I am living) that lacks any real representation. I see a very real danger of ignoring the vote. Negative campaigns work and the resentment and hate is real. Politics can change very quickly and destructive fascist tendencies have historically manifested themselves very quickly.
would accelerate the heat death of the universe.
as soon as Brexit becomes a reality people will change their minds. So bring it fucking on.
In broad terms, what is the percentage of liking to disliking Corbyn?
Corbyn is the future vs Corbyn is a bit shit.
Come on now, a simple vague percentage please.
with varying levels of reservations about it all.
then we've got GEOFF and asita in the blairite corner for balance.
Just to skew it, I think he should get a job as a slightly useless leader of a provincial town council. Would be brilliant at it.
I think he accidentally ended up with a golden opportunity to make a real change and it was sort of exciting, but he fluffed it so badly due to some sort of weird refusal to attack the Tories, or show some commitment to the EU, or actually engage with a wider audience on any level at all.
jimmy can't be bothered to read the thread though, so doubt he'll trawl through the several thousand posts of well-reasoned, nuanced, thoughtful and comradely discussion of the topic.
ah well, 3 blairites it is.
1. a supporter of tony blair, labour prime minister 1997-2007.
e.g. GEOFF is a blairite.
2. a pejorative, slightly imprecise slur used against those to the right end of the spectrum in the labour party.
e.g. 'GEOFF's a dirty stinking blairite!'
3. a shrinking neoliberal sect. first rose to prominence in the 1990s before support dwindled in the wake of Tony Blair's Holy War of 2003 (more commonly known as the Iraq war, later discredited by the chilcot report and common sense), among other things. now largely a fringe movement, albeit still with influence in some quarters. supporters are often considered at best obtuse, at worst ideological extremist free-market fundamentalists.
e.g. 'those blairites sure are obtuse!'
The last elected Communist in Britain has just recently stepped down and was replaced last night in a by ejection.
Whilst almost all of 'his votes' went to the SNP, the Labour candidate won. With the help of Tory transferred votes, natch.
She is, apparently, the first openly Scottish independence-supporting politician to be elected.
Fucks sake Corbyn. You ousted a Commie, using Tory votes, and ended up with a Nat the ranks. Call that a win!!1??1
Note to self: sub in North British for Scottish and the Yoons won't suspect a thing.
to listen to some banging tunes that would drown out Owen Smith's voice.
He's SO shit. Thing I found funniest was bringing up that he'd used an ablist slur the other day and being like "well *I'VE* apologised, but in NINETEEN NINETY TWO Jeremy called a Tory MP a lunatic. Will HE apologise????"
Quite apart from the absurdity of trawling back 24 years to try and score a bizarre (and inherently backfiring) point, I'm not even sure if ablist slurs wrt mental health were on anyone's radar in 1992. So fucking weird.
I will laugh when it's confirmed
what a plum
and we've still got most of a month to go
O ut of control
R eally good
B limey! He's so good
N o way he's this good!
Y es he is
LEAVE CLIVE OUTTA THIS M8
First Owen Smith came for Corbyn. And I did not speak out.
Then Owen Smith came for McDonnell. And I did not speak out.
Then Owen Smith came for Clive Lewis. And I said: U WOT?
Would Trot again!!1¡;!
The revolution could be possible but it's led by Noel Edmonds.
Blairites have thrown a woman out of the party because she likes The Foo Fighters and you have to say fair enough actually.
You let one fan in and before you know it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JozAmXo2bDE
I wonder what crazy antics Corbyn is going to get up to this week!
http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4473264 >>>>>>> this thread
No idea if it's a bid to steal Labour voters or a genuine uncynical May pet project.
it's a bid to steal centrist voters who like but don't implicitly trust public services.
This review will give her a stick to beat the public sector with and please her base, and an angle to show her in a favourable light to people who like the work of the public sector but have bought into the idea that it needs strict supervision from a dispassionate government.
(Not sure about that URL though)
He's just a down to earth chap with bags and bags of integrity. Deffo one of the good guys bd
`Please don't deselect me. Please please please don't deselect me`. But that's probably me being too cynical.
Why would Thornberry get deselected?
Given that the article is pitched to make most reference to the sovereignty of Labour party Members, it suggests keeping on side with them is her overriding concern. Not sure what the mood is in her CLP.
and the two of them have been working together for over a decade.
just something struck me about the tone of it re: the Members and got me speculating. Cynically so, as I admitted.
that actually consults those members would be a good and exciting thing? Crazy!
who'd get deselected, and she's aware of that.
started with her saying she'd vote for owen if she was in labour but ended with her conceding he's at least equally as shite as corbz is
that's what i call
dunno if she'd be in a position to vote for anything if she was in labour
with a human child
do u get it
As I say, the thought of Owen winning and then the fallout after they have to get rid of him again would be amusing, although 'the Blairites' fucked that up with Brown and Miliband so probably they just want to watch Owen limp to GE failure but keep altering the rules along the way so that the election of the next leader is more controlled and ends up with someone they think is electable. That person will win but only because by 2025 no one will be able to face voting for the Tories again.
The fact that Smith is not a great candidate for party leader does not mean that it doesn't matter if he doesn't win.
If Corbyn wins the party is on a massively difficult road that risks all the good work that has been achieved (NEC appointments, membership growth, compromises from his rival) will all be vulnerable. If the Tories get a 80 seat majority the party will be as vulnerable to hijack as it was in the 90's.
If Smith wins you have a personally weak leader whose ironically in a good position to mediate between two warring factions. He will also not go to the wall for his leadership. He will want a future career in politics if his spell of leader doesn't work out.
It's not that I like Smith as a candidate, I just don't see how him as leader with the NEC (now controlled by Corbyn supporters) running conference, and Corbyn in a cabinet role, isn't a better holding pattern for the party than the risk that Corbyn's continuing leadership represents.
don't you think, guys?
I thought the whole speech was good and I'm mainly excited to hear that he's actually gone to Cornwall.
who have no idea about tech divide into two camps:
1. try and dismiss this as 'drivel' (eg Rentoul) or
2. try and claim it means that the likes of TfL won't be able to profit from their software (eg Mayorwatch)
The former are ignoring the positive, informed reaction it's getting from the tech sector, and the latter are forgetting that they themselves were calling for TfL to open up their data for third-party use, and that TfL is only having to sell its software because it's being choked of funding in the first place.
there's only three ways TfL can raise funds: fares, subsidy or commercial activity. Neither of the first two are popular with mayors or indeed the general public, so it would seem perverse to impede activity in the latter.
It's a bit worrying how Khan seems to be gearing up to use TfL as a piggy bank for anything and everything he fancies. Feels like he doesn't have a lot of time for them as an organisation. Maybe his dad's time as a bus driver wasn't a bed of roses for him.
but it was the rank hypocrisy of people who have spent years complaining that TfL aren't open with their data and software that is what annoyed me.
Not sure about your second point. He's having to monetise TfL assets to cover the reduction/removal of the central grant - it's unlikely that any of these measures will generate a surplus.
to pay for his election promise on affordable housing?
TfL land, as with all land, if worth less on the open market if you mandate that 50% of homes have to be affordable.
I still don't see that as him using TfL as a piggy bank.
The main issue is that he sells the land at all. TfL has spent years making canny use of its property portfolio, but that strategy has been based around keeping ownership of the valuable land and renting it out, not flogging it off on the cheap.
Now admittedly we're not talking about the really valuable stuff, we're talking about suburban car parks, and I'm not particularly seriously accusing him of treating TfL as a golden goose, but I stand by my impression that certainly compared to the previous two mayors he's a lot cooler about them as an organisation. Maybe he's just not clicked with the senior management.
both Ken and Boris would have spent the first night of Night Tube posing for photo-ops with Peter Hendy all along the Central Line. Sadiq turned up, gave a speech, then went back to his limo and went home.
and the timetable for it to happen was drawn up under Boris's administration. Khan has just added in conditions such as the minimum affordable homes numbers etc.
I am a bit worried about the selling of the freehold - it looks like that might become necessary because of the way that the land is effectively not being sold at market rate, but it all seems a bit complicated.
Re. Khan and TfL not getting on: believe me, he and Val Shawcross are seen as a huge improvement over Boris, who made TfL waste millions on projects like the scrapping of bendy buses, introducing the NB4L, cable car, pro-car traffic light sequencing and Garden Bridge, while hogging all the publicity of the openings of Livingstone-commissioned improvements and then commissioning virtually no improvements himself.
but Boris was also pretty pliable. And he didn't have a monopoly on stupid ideas either. Shawcross wanted to rebrand the Cycle Superhighways as just Superhighways... until she was told what it would cost in rebranding and repainting.
And now I've just remembered... Jim Murphy!
Drafted in to push through some particularly noxious policy then binned off in exchange for... dunno. Eternal life?
I assume the 'new party' have to have all their MPs stand again in a new by-election, right? But I'd guess if Corbyn's side keep the name Labour they don't need to do that?
because your Mandate comes from the people
Usually need to find a new seat at the next election obvs.
I'd thought that Tory to UKIP loony had been forced to have a by-election after his defection.
Maybe if you hadn't used 'Mandate' in a facetious way I'd have taken you seriously. ;-)
There's nothing to say that he had to do it.
There's plenty of examples of MPs crossing the floor and not resigning to force a by-election; Quentin Davis, Robert Jackson, Paul Marsden...
according to 'polls' - but we all remember the polls don't we? The polls!
I’d like to teach the world Corbyn
In perfect harmony
I’d like to hold him in my arms
And keep him company
I’d like to see Labour for once
All standing hand in hand
And hear them echo through the hills
For peace throughout the land
but they're wrong to - this is very beautiful and thank you for sharing
But YouGov's polling on Leadership elections/This Sort Of Thing is v. reliable. Called the last Labour election spot on.
Shows him romping to another leadership victory.
Tables make for interesting reading. 3 takeouts:
- Smith's campaign has been a disaster. He's even behind among Remain voters, who were his key audience.
- Split between pre-May 2015 Members and post-May 2015 Members is remarkable (even more so when overlayed with attitudinal word association questions - wow)
- Overall roughly only a third of all Labour Members think Corbyn is a) competent and b) going to lead Labour in the next GE.
makes a split less likely and a leadership challenge in a years time more likely.
Here's a really good piece which is along the same sort of lines:
In short - it's better that the battle between the left and the centre is being fought within one party (which will ultimately survive it) than between two parties, which is a notable feature of the modern European political landscape...
would be suicidal for those who don't support him. Surely the lesson from all of this is that the only way Corbyn's going is on his own terms (and if you really want to try, make sure you're not putting up a gaff-tastic "credibility" candidate against him).
can't see how this is anything other than bleakly correct. Even with the rump of pre-May 2015 Members wanting shot of Corbyn, his campaign has become adept at simply recruiting more Corbyn supporters. Quite remarkable all in.
amongst his own backers are horrific. It's pretty clear they just see him as a tool for getting rid of Corbyn and that even if Smith were to win, there will be another leadership challenge next year, or a party split afterwards.
A no confidence vote would do it and then we could have a clean sweep of new candidates. That's literally one of the virtues of Smith.
He's basically is a palate cleanser, but no one's voting for him because the membership are insisting on being served a three course meal, despite the fact that the kitchen is on fire.
He should definitely get some posters made up saying "Vote for me as leader, I'll be slightly easier to get rid of than the other one". Maybe some mugs too.
looks like Smith would be putting `2nd IndyRefs For All!` on a mug.
He'll probably sell out arena's before all this is done, but he doesn't have the support of his MPs, less than half his membership think he's competent, and his polling with the electorate is hitting record lows.
If people want to vote for the inspiring populist who has no problem with losing causes, rather than placeholder who might be able play the right of against the left till someone better comes along then that's fine, but they should be prepared to own the consequences.
I'd like to hear more about all the elections that have been won on a "vote for me as a placeholder" platform in the past please.
I love the amount of nonsense you write in the name of common sense. It's very Trump/Brexit.
you have never once successfully taken on any of his arguments. Either being all `your posts are too long m8` or being all `I'm just joking in this thread guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!`
I've engaged with you both dozens and dozens of times going back months in these threads until I got sick of the completely tone deaf responses from you both calling me a rabid Corbynista for disagreeing with you despite the fact I've said a number of times I think Corbyn is a rubbish leader.
And please feel free to tell me how the "vote for me as a placeholder" platform thing is supposed to work if I "have never once successfully taken on any of his arguments".
` you both calling me a rabid Corbynista`
Well if I have somewhere then I apologise but I certainly don't think I have because I'm well aware of the fact that you've a) been perfectly critical of Corbyn and b) are perfectly critical of the situation as a whole. And yes, you've gotten stuck in in the past for sure, eloquently so, but right now you seem to be just picking on asita for no reason other than, as I've said before, bullying. Perfectly fine to take a step back from the long posts and that in favour of finding humour in it all, but this repeated personal digging of the lad here's just a bit much don't you think? If he'd have said `nonsense` in response to something you'd have written you'd have no doubt gotten a tad uppity about it, for instance.
amounts to bullying. Others can judge for themselves whether that's a fair summation, I'm very, very comfortable with it as a description of what was written above and I notice you still haven't made any defence of it either.
Anyway, I'm off to ask Sean to give Fidel some proper training on deleting threads successfully.
But a lot of your recent posts towards him add up to it. This never needs to get personal, does it?
Your point wasn't addressed to me but I'll answer it - Smith isn't positioning himself as a placeholder, he's positioning himself as a genuine candidate for leading Labour into the next election. So your central point doesn't strike me as valid because that isn't what Smith is doing. However there is strategic value in him AS a placeholder, if he wins, to a) stave off an early GE which Labour would get thumped in b) attempt to heal some of the unhealable divisions under the Corbyn Leadership, c) actually fuck off if it turned out (as it would have done) that he was absolutely useless at being Labour leader). 3 reasons why I think him as a leader would be beneficial to the Labour Party overall, you may disagree. And this is all realpolitik and not BOLD STUFF but... these are unique circumstances.
Funnily enough, Jeremy Corbyn was originally talked of in a number of left circles as a placeholder candidate (on here, Owen Jones etc.). Give him the gig to move Labour to the left then hand over to, I dunno, Lisa Nandy in 3 years. How things change.
many, many months ago to support complete straw man arguments and he's still doing it below. I'm not really sure how many more times I need to explicitly state I don't support Jeremy Corbyn or indeed the modern Labour party, but apparently I'm still "partisan" so it's definitely time to just stop responding to you both.
whilst you're being snide and dismissive then I apologise. Perhaps being negative about everyone didn't stand out particularly clearly.
Well if you feel that I did that I can assure you that would have not been my intention and I apologise if that's what came across.
it's because you and RH have both been way more personal than was necessary in these arguments. It makes you look partisan as well as childish.
As to my suggestion that one of Smith's virtues is that he make a useful placeholder, what do you mean by 'work'? I'm not his campaign manager and this isn't a slogan. My point is that just because both candidates are bad, doesn't mean the outcomes are equal. If you don't have a good leadership candidate, and we both agree that Labour doesn't, there's a clear virtue in having one you can get rid of when the party is in a stable enough place to have an open contest.
Obviously it's not inspiring but when you know both candidates are bad why are you concerned about their charisma?
until the PLP threw their toys out of the pram and set themselves up as the opposition to the party membership.
I had a lot of optimism for what Corbyn could achieve on a limited term, and even truncated by the Brexit vote and the coup he's done a lot.
The problem is that I think that if he had planned to stand down at any point the coup should have been avoidable. Obviously there would still be rebellions but I don't see how they get critical mass, let alone 80% of MPs, if he had let it be known that his plan was not to fight a GE. The centre-left should have been vying for his blessing not lining up with Progress to fight him.
...Corbyn leads Labour into the next GE (possibly next year) and loses at a similar margin, or worse, to the 2015 GE showing, should Corbyn resign as leader even if the vast majority of Members want him to stay? This is becoming a likely scenario.
similar margin... bit more difficult to say depending on the scenario, but probably.
Much depends on how everyone reacts in the wake of his impending re-election. If he's given a fair crack by the party up to the next GE then it's not too unreasonable to judge him by the usual terms of "win or make significant inroads to keep your job" and I don't think it would be unreasonable for him to say to the membership that he's given it his best, but he believes it's the right time to pass the batton on and he could probably sell it to his supporters.
If this internal disfunction continues though, it's going to be far harder to sell a resignation as anything other that something that an internal Labour faction were working for years towards, sacrificing any chances of getting Labour into power in 2020 (or earlier) as a price worth paying (and yes, I see the irony given that there's a small-ish portion of Corbyn supporters who hold a similar belief).
The real potential flashpoint with the members comes in whatever happens next though. Obviously given the current composition of the PLP there's no chance of a left-ish candidate making the shortlist, at which point many may well dismiss it all (and the party) as a stitch up, but after new-boundaries and a new PLP (more/less left? who knows) it might be that a reasonable accommodation might be found for a candidate that could appease all but the most militant Corbyn supporters.
But the point here's about trying to gauge at what point of contact with the electorate does does `The Members` sovereignty become secondary. marckee's arguments, to me, repeatedly, and solely, come back to the point about the will of the Members being the most important variable in determining who should lead the party and how everyone should behave.
Although at some point The Electorate take over as the most important audience for The Labour Party, right? And at what point does this happen? The issue here is about the language of `throwing ones toys out the pram` when, if the collision course with the electorate is now so set in stone (as you yourself seem to agree) aren't the actions of `the PLP` in fact rather rational (if indeed you wish to lump them all together)?
of assuming Corbyn supporters are cultish acolytes, and that his evil power grows stronger the more shit gets thrown at him.
If Labour got wiped out in a GE and a decent compromise candidate was found, I don't think Corbyn would keep the membership's backing. Of course, what's more likely is a GE wipeout followed by a choice between Corbyn or similar and a completely underwhelming, valueless 'moderate' patsy. And several thousand more posts in threads like these.
I don't think the `cult` label is either helpful or accurate, but there is a strong personal pull betwixt Corbyn and his fans. The like I've never really seen before, not as this scale.
Although I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest he might retain the Members backing even after a big GE defeat. Although the most elementary aspect of all of this will be the fact that he'll be 70 years old most likely so... regret levels of starting this sub-thread are rising.
GE loss followed by Corbyn leadership landslide might come about. Wouldn't worry about it tbh
The small point of that GE loss troubles me though. You may have noticed!
if anybody can put forward a credible platform then i'm fairly sure the vast majority will be open to listening to their ideas and giving it fair consideration (worth recognising that many members would want that to be a leftist platform now).
the reason corbyn's support has become relatively entrenched is because the alternatives offered since last year have been crap, and the attacks made on him have tended to reflect more poorly on those making them than on corbyn himself.
I'm still of the opinion that it's not a given that a united Corbyn led Labour party couldn't do well in a General Election. Obviously it's very tough, and I'd say odds at the moment are that the next govt will be Tory or Tory-led, but I don't think the opportunity for Labour's completely gone.
Similarly, if Labour does do badly in the next GE, then there's some seriously tough questions for the PLP (and I mean individually, not as a homogeneous group, although it is important how the PLP responds overall) to answer about how they approach their next leadership nominations;
- do they need find a way to bring the members with them, or can they take an "I told you so" approach to things without making the existing tensions and fractures even worse. (or does this even matter?)
- if there's a need to bring the members along, does this mean approaching the leadership nominations differently to how they would prefer to, or is there another, better way of doing this?
- is the failure of Corbyn's politics down to the platform (in which case not nominating a left-ish candidate could possibly be justified) or the candidate (in which case it would be an intellectual failure to reject any left-ish candidate purely on that basis)... I think there's two schools of thought over this in the PLP at the moment and they're working to a common goal for now, but shouldn't be at this hypothetical point in time; at the moment I don't think a Clive Lewis or whoever would make the nominations in an open election, but if we're blaming Corbyn's competence etc and not his platform, then there probably should be a candidate of that ilk.
- What should Labour post 2020 should actually look like; where I think most agree is that Miliband, and the imigration/economic messages didn't work last time around - largely because Labour didn't earn a hearing. Assuming the same is true again in 2020 (or whenever), how do they finally gain enough trust with the electorate to earn the chance to put their platform forward and actually be listened to?
- For better or worse, Labour will be the largest political party in Europe at this point. Leaving aside all of the above, how do they harness that and turn it into a real strength in the campaign? Sure, not all members will be interested in putting too much time in, but there must be a way in harnessing those numbers to help negate the financial advantage the Tories traditionally have. (This is something that ideally would have been answered before, but presumably if there's been a big defeat, it wasn't).
They're mostly questions I don't have answers to. Trouble is, as things stand I don't trust many MPs to come up with particularly good answers either.
our differences are all within your first paragraph as usual. I don't see how he's ever had the chance of it myself, but we never know these things until a GE do we.
Your questions are all pretty spot on to be honest. Although the central one comes back to the point post-2015 GE where the question was `right - what does a modern, progressive, `big tent` social democratic party look like in 2015` and... the people charged with answering that failed and Corbynism became the most attractive option instead. I think the problem runs deep across Europe on that score - with economic security and immigration the top 2 concerns (and which centre-left parties aren't best placed to answer).
I think haemorraghing Members post-Corbyn is inevitable. Again I'm not going to use the language of `cult` at all, but I think that a lot of newer Members are attracted to him personally above all else. And I can see why - he scratches a political itch no-one else can I think.
His appeal is based on what he stands for, what he means for how the Labour party works, and a good slice of defensiveness over 'the establishment' attacks him.
Supporting him is almost a bit Brexity - he represents a chance for usually ignored people to voice their discontent. I don't think it's inevitable that when he goes then membership will drop. It could happen, but it's entirely dependent on how he goes...
but have a look at page 2 of this: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/0cpa7iw5l7/TimesResults_160830_LabourSelectorate.pdf
Come back to this a few times today I have but when asked word association about Corbyn, Corbyn supporters return:
Principled - 97%
Honest - 93%
Shares My Political Outlook - 87%
These numbers seem remarkable to me. Can't imagine even Nicola Sturgeon is anywhere near that. And that explains his appeal. Think your `Brexity` analogy's pretty good to be fair - think as we've analogised before, lefties have been sticking the old clothespeg over their nose and voting for Labour for over a generation now - Corbyn's allowed them to take it off breathe in two walloping great nostrils of fresh political air.
"I think the problem runs deep across Europe on that score - with economic security and immigration the top 2 concerns (and which centre-left parties aren't best placed to answer)."
I think the trouble here isn't that there isn't a sensible centre-left or left response to these issues, but that it's not an easy thing to pitch; on immigration, it's very difficult to tell people "that thing you're worried about, isn't really what you're worried about" and similarly on the economy it's going to take an eternity to unpick Cameron and Osborne's simplistic analogies to a household budget where there's rarely any concept of investing to grow.
It is, however, where I think Labour could harness their membership to their advantage... if the numbers allow short doorstep chats to become longer conversations where you listen to people's actual concerns and keep asking "why" immigration is such a worry, and "what" the perceived impact is, then you're suddenly better placed to explain to them on a one-on one basis why *such and such a policy* will actually do something to help make things better.
Obviously all very hard and hypothetical.
A lot of people are fed up with being called racist etc. when voicing concerns about immigration. Hence why UKIP appeals, to an extent. However, in my experience most people talk about the `effects` of immigration in 2 ways - a) placing strain on local services (hospitals and schools) above all else and b) immigrants claiming benefits they feel are unfair given British peoples' reliance on them etc.
Key to a) is decentralisation of government and borrowing to allow certain councils to `meet the public service needs` in high immigration areas. Thus tangibly showing how impact of immigration is curbed.
Key to b) is hard, heavy language and policy on benefits immigrants are allowed to claim upon coming here for x years. That's a trickier sell but if Labour has to make a compromise with immigration on a policy platform to stand a chance at a GE it's difficult to see where else to make it.
Interesting to note that a) is a Corbyn policy but he's not the man to sell it.
Not saying I agree with b) by any stretch because I'm VERY liberal on immigration personally but... is this the sort of `best of a bad bunch` policy Labour has to come up with to meet voters in the middle on immigration at the moment?
is the kind of thing that pushed me away from Labour in Jan 2015 and left me voting Green instead that May.
I rather think that's probably the one area where the left may not have an answer at the moment - personally my feeling is that rather than pander to (what I think is) the vocal minority on things like this, better in my view to address points like A and the "they're all taking our jobs/driving down wages" with positive policies that address unemployment, wage growth, inequality and cost of living.
In short, I don't think Labour will ever win votes by chasing ever rightwards with rhetoric on areas like immigration, security, prisons and the like; the Tories and UKIP will always out-do them on policy and be more trusted to deliver whatever's promised, so Labour end up forcing the debate ever further onto ground it can only lose on.
Obvs, only my personal opinion; I've no facts or figures to base it on.
but where that balance lies is the Big Question isn't it. And one which there appears to be a paucity of talent within the Labour party to answer.
One positive consequence of Brexit could be that immigration lessens as an issue given the fact we'll have `control over our own borders` again meaning that progressive rhetoric on it won't spook people. I have my doubts.
I can definitely see that happening.
part of a leadership challenge, but either way, it shows just how Smith has been used by the right wing of the party in lieu of them putting up their own candidate.
I admire you for continuing to fight the fight here in a measured tone when people have taken to simply insulting you in response, but that really is awful mate. "Owen Smith: The Malaise That Is For Your Own Good".
Are Labour Members not allowed to have a critical eye cast over them in a similar vein?
if I write about why he's the least worst option; about how Corbyn has become a populist and that he's irresponsible for not finding a way to bank his power and end the in fighting. But I like the guy, I recognise why all of this has happened, I'm not really into mud slinging, and above all I don't think it would do any good.
I am voting for Smith because he is the least worst option, he has a chance of tempering the two wings of the party, and he's the best shot at a leadership contest in a year and a half that isn't dominated by rancour. I wouldn't put it on a campaign banner but it's the best 'bad outcome' I can find.
but privately thought it might be better that Smith won, simply because Corbyn probably is unelectable at this point thanks to various factors. But this is a time when raw emotional appeal wins political battles. It's not exactly surprising that a weathervane offering little more than a return to Miliband-land is going to get beaten hard.
would probably look an awful lot like shifting power back to the same folk who've pulled the strings for the last however long, or at the very least a re-marginalising of the left.
which is exactly why he represents the worst option of the two in my eyes.
If he plans to stand down and name a successor then it makes sense to reject Smith, but as I've said before if that is Corbyn's plan I can't understand how he's got into this mess.
If you think he plans to fight the GE though, you're in danger of losing wholesale when Smith could be a very good compromise. JC is polling terribly with the public and a wipe out loss in a GE would give all the power back to the centrists.
With Smith you have a candidate who has promised to give complete manifesto control to conference. That should have been one of JCs goals from the off, and that combined with the new NEC appointments means that the membership would be better placed than any time since '92 to control the direction of the party.
That's the sort of radical change that would be a good legacy for Corbyn but the closer he gets to the General the more he risks losing everything.
about Corbyn's Irish connections...
and the YouGov poll; his own numbers on a myriad of categories are little better than Corbyn's and he's proved himself to just as full of obvious gaffs as Corbyn too, if not more so in the actual campaign.
Obviously if you take the line that you've taken above, that Smith is only a stopgap to a third candidate in 2017, then it's irrelevant; but then that's not the platform that people are being asked to vote on (obviously, because it's an unsellable position for a candidate to hold).
i think smith's a windsock who has the support of no one: not members, not the plp (other than as an ABC candidate), not the party establishment, and not the electorate.
i don't buy the idea that he's a positive because he can be removed easily for any number of reasons, but the main one being: who will the membership actually be allowed to choose from if/when he were he to be replaced?
also, if this is truly such a crucial time for the labour party in opposition and the country at large, then how on earth does putting a placeholder in as leader of the opposition help in any way?
a GE wipeout for corbyn would be disastrous for the labour left, that's obvious, but you gotta play to win etc. etc.
there's also almost 4 years, most likely, til the next GE. an awful lot can (and will) happen in that time. as colin's said previously: if corbyn's going to fail, let him do so on his own terms. anything less and we'll only see more conflict between an energised membership and the party establishment.
because the people driving the coup have no interest in a Corbyn-giving-way-to-a-chosen-successor scenario, because the still moves the party to left and leaves it with a leader from its left. However nice and universally likeable that person is, that's not what they want to happen
I agree that there are rebels who objected to that scenario and will have worked to prevent it, but it doesn't explain why they were so successful at turning the vast majority of the PLP against Corbyn.
If he planned to stand down, every soft-left MP with ambitions of being leader should have been vying with each other to earn Jeremy's nomination. If he set that up as a prospect I don't understand how the coup happens.
getting rid of him. Kind of makes you wonder who could, given the loyalty and reverence on display to Corbyn himself and the separation on display between pre-May 2015 and post-May 2015 members.
In other news I note that Emily Thornberry is 10/1 to be next leader after Corbyn. Methinks that's good value.
"TWICE AS MANY LIBDEM VOTERS WENT TO LABOUR THAN TO CONSERVATIVE, BUT THREE TIMES AS MANY LIBDEM SEATS WENT CONSERVATIVE THAN LABOUR. THE LIBDEM COLLAPSE UNINTENTIONALLY HANDED THE TORIES VICTORY IN 2015. A LIBDEM "COMEBACK" COULD HAND LABOUR A VICTORY IN 2020."
(only read the headline)
Could be just what the Smith campaign needs
kind of used to non-awful celebs trying to be a bit dignified in their political interventions rather than just going waaaaaaaaah
nice centre-left liberal people are being driven Robert Webb by the increasing difficulty/complexity of their position and all the bad vibes they have absorbed. They've been abandoned.
Sounds like wrong rhyming slang.
Think Rowling's alright myself - having been poor under both a Tory and Labour government she's pretty well placed to make some noise about the importance of the latter if you ask me.
Webb's an irritant though and no denying.
In other white hot celeb politics news, they had Ian McEwan on Channel 4 News talking about Brexit yesterday. Who gives a fuck what he thinks?
If he were to win, Owen Smith is not going to form a government either, FYI.
There will no doubt be the usual flurry of articles proclaiming that she's DESTROYED something or other and issued a SMACKDOWN to whoever. She'll probably be isssuing an empty threat of legal action any minute now, too.
Wings Over Scotland shooting his bolt all over it.
- Kerry McCarthy
I actually think the overall trend of these statements makes for pretty bleak impression of Corbyn overall, but some of the things they bring up are really funny.
"At one PLP meeting Jeremy started talking about how vulnerable people “were being forced to borrow money from hedge funds”. Angela Eagle and I caught each other’s eye. Did he really not know the difference between loan sharks and hedge funds?"
Obviously just a verbal slip. Imagine if all your colleagues werre secretly documenting everything you said in passing at work that didn't stand up to scrutiny and crucifying you for it months later. Has this level of behind the scenes stuff been thrown about between bickering politicians before? Would have loved to see the Lib Dems/Tories doing this during the last Parliament.
"The trouble with Michael is that he had to buy all his furniture" and so on - and I guess was seen as fair game 20 years down the line when you had a book to sell.
Fair few things like this about Ed Miliband slipped out during his tenure. Can't remember them now obviously.
Seem to remember a few bits re: the Coalition too. Namely around Nick Clegg's poor planning of his Free School Meals policy.
Don't really give a stuff about gaffes or whatever. All of these statements do paint a picture of Corbyn being either unskilled or uninterested in the usual mechanics of government though. Although we have less information on previous leaders owing to there being less of an imperative to have them look silly in the press - think Miliband wasn't exactly great either in terms of people trying to get meetings/getting mixed messages from the Leader's office etc.
mind was the fact that the Lords sent record numbers of Bills back to the commons under the Tory-led Coalition because they were so badly drafted/thought through that they couldn't even pass them to a reading etc. Seems like a more fundamental failure to me but it's a bit more boring ain't it.
is this "His office was clearly under-staffed and in a bit of a muddle."
I get the feeling this is at the root of a lot of his issues (albeit probably not all of them) - it's not that he doesn't care, that he isn't interested and so on, it's that he's built an inexperienced and small team around him that aren't able to cope with the volume of things that require his/his team's attention and he's getting (at times) bad advice.
The Land Rover complaint or one about his team cancelling a meeting after she resigned are quite honestly a little bit odd reasons to put into a "these are the important reasons why I resigned" missive though.
And everyone was like oh look at the confusion and gaffes it's all so true. Or Yes, Minister. It's not amazing that the office politics of... er, politics is gaffe prone and not very slick.
I guess the worrying thing is the consistency in content and tone of the why I resigned pieces, because they are slick. Suspiciously slick...
he's convinced that sometimes the establishment uses the money and resources available to it. Chill out, Shayler
if by establishment you mean Progress/Portland Comms which is Royter's implication I don't buy that the resources available to them include the range of otherwise independent minded MPs that have come out with these statements.
Let's not forget he's inexperienced himself, having never run an office higher than his constituency one. Would allow him a bit of leeway on this, but not too much.
"Learn fast" is very much a necessity on most of those fronts.
C! - you're adorable
O! - you're so beautiful
R! - you're a cutie full of charms
B! - you're a darling and
Y! - you're exciting
N! - you're a feather in my arms
C! - you look good to me
O! - you're so heavenly
R! - you're the one I idolize
B! - we're like Jack and Jill
Y! - you're so kissable
N! - is the love light in your eyes
Is Corbyn's dark magic wearing off?
As for asita... *Sends private pm*
she hates the electorate
Everyone hates anyone with an opposing view.
on display here?
No, she's just hilariously out of touch with the real world. Labour are Fucked
bookies are saying 10/1 on it which is great value.
If Corbyn was to have the ability to practically anoint a successor - think she might have it in the bag. Problem is a) Rochester and b) the fact she's a Lady (Lady Nugee). Can the Labour party be led by an actual Lady??
enough MPs would nominate her and most corbyn supporters would accept her over any other candidate without corbyn's approval. she's clever enough to bring large sections of the PLP on board and, I see, has started reaching out to sections of the party that corbyn has ignored/is not welcome with. I would guess she's being sent out to limit damage a bit right now and reassure etc. before his re-election on the understanding that she'll later take over.
look out Putin!
...if he stood down next week then she'd had it in the bag. Problem is we don't know what the circumstances are going to be in even a year's time and the composition of the Membership so would be wary of saying it's a certainty. As this year has shown us - anything can happen! But yes if circumstances remain how they are now, she's making all the right noises for it for sure.
'As this year has shown us - anything can happen'
The referendum result didn't take all of us by surprise ;)
I just didn't think it would happen. Ah well.
Corbyn being elected leader still happened within the last year too of course ;)
Corbs really is a useless unelectable prick isn't he?
Anyway, I have a hospital appointment so will leave you to it. Be nice to each other.
He really is a fucking imbecile.
incredibly sloppy messaging.
through overcompensation than undercompensation but... From my own experience, I work in a sector which I would say is about 70% women and I have never observed anyone's curtailment of after work drinks based on their gender. Leaving aside the idea that it's just plain daft for him to suggest it of course.
I've definitely known women with kids to opt out of most after work drinks.
That said, telling the lads not to go to pub is the most hilariously antagonistic open goal Corbyn's gifted the haters in a while.
but is it really that big an issue in terms of addressing gendered workplace inequalities? Two blokes in my team frequently skip the pub because they've got kids too. Not sure it's a thing worth mentioning by Corbs for several reasons.
The post-work drink and after hours culture is a significant barrier to equality in the workplace, especially regarding promotions etc.
Not sure there are any votes in trying to address it though.
and his life is basically pretty similar to Mad Men in terms of boozing and hospitality, networking and all of that. It's a male-dominated environment, and I don't imagine they really take any steps to try and change that.
There are issues with male dominated industries within this for sure. Construction for instance.
But is the answer to discourage after work drinks? Fully aware that Corbyn's probably placed this in a wider context but, again, doesn't seem to me to be the right solution to the problem.
is totally coincidentally mapped to repudiate every claim or action the Corbyn campaign makes, and all move on?
I work in an industry where females have significantly outnumbered men in every organisation I've worked in - seems a fair observation to bring to the table if you ask me.
mostly female workplace where there is a big workplace/after works drinks culture which most female employees wish to get involved in?
Not at all relevant to how these things can work without massively excluding women then. Not at all.
workplace/after works drinks culture?
In many of the male-dominated industries we're talking pretty much every day, until the early hours of the morning.
do people not do things other than drink after work?
Not daily, but several times a week there's people going on till 3/4am. And this isn't one of the industries Marckee's probably referring to.
as in even if you have the disposable income not to be left bankrupt after this I can't see how this would be a good thing.
I've no issue with after work drinks in principle - I do one or two occasionally with people - but in my experience (anecdotal evidence ahoy!) there's often been something of a macho culture around them (e.g. the peer pressure to not leave early or sack them off all together).
There's also possible career implications for those who don't join in - Muslims who won't go to a pub for religious reasons for example - as they don't get the networking benefits that joining in affords. It's not so much that people are explicitly disadvataged by not joining in, but nepotism is still definitely a thing, so those who don't partake could easily be passed over because they don't spring to mind when opportunities come up - particularly if discussed after hours.
For me, there's definitely *a thing* to be discussed here. Corbyn's missed the mark a bit in the way he's addressed it, but in the rush to ridicule him again people are missing the fact that he's identified another area of British culture that statistically probably does benefit the middle-class Anglo-Saxon male more than anyone else.
how Muslims end up getting unintentionally excluded from e.g. Christmas parties at even fairly enlightened workplaces
finding somewhere that didn't serve alcohol to book for a meal at so one of our team could be included.
Something else I've noticed about all this fuss... a quick search on Google and Twitter shows that almost everyone complaining about this online appears to be both British and male; the only comment from a woman or minority that I've spotted is from Stella Creasey, who agrees with the thrust of the problem identified, if not the solution supposedly proposed. Again, anecdotal rather than statistically sound evidence and perhaps there's confirmation bias going on, but it feels somewhat telling to me.
Hmmm... that should have been worded better :(
construction/engineering etc. industries I'll admit. Although whilst Corbyn's quote has clearly been taken out of context - we're debating what he said which appeared to be in absolute terms.
So do you agree with what Corbyn's proposing? And do you think it's actually something that can be achieved?
Lots of news sites are claiming he wants to 'ban' after work drinks, but if you watch the interview, you can see that he says nothing of the sort.
he was making a comment about the more subtle ways in which sexism in the workplace manifests. Which is fine. Although he did clumsily state that example and did say that it needed to be 'dealt with' which is vague enough to generate a headline I suppose. But yes he hasn't actually proposed anything of the sort.
I admire your principles, but I don't think you'll appeal to the electorate going on like that. Not a criticism, but really it doesn't seem much use.
or what you want me to have said?
the case that this is because of other structural inequalities? Women with children's exclusion from post work drinks, for instance, is a symptom and not a cause right? So Corbyn should be saying 'I want women in the workplace with children to be more able to partake in it' rather than saying 'workplaces should discourage it'.
to be won by campaigning for a culture in which EVERYONE can have their work/life balance screwed over equally.
or at least to the point that after work drinks should be discouraged?
I work on gender equality policy (covering things like work-life balance, equal representation on company boards etc.) and I've literally never come across any advocacy for discouraging after works drinks altogether, or any research that it should be stopped in order to foster more equality and promote more 'women friendly' policies.
I think the direction of most policy is that, above all else, about supporting women and men to be equal carers. Policies like non-transferable paternity leave, parental leave, childcare, the Barcelona objectives, are all much more significant.
Perhaps he's just been misquoted again but it does come across as a very simplistic and probably quite ill informed initiative.
companies shouldn't actively encourage it
Maybe ask some women idk
That was an innocent typo but apologies for it all the same :)
a woman who loves going to the pub. as in most things corbz does not go far enough here. ban men from after-work drinks, subsidise them for women + establish a free creche service in all pubs
outside of work hours
within a certain radius from the kettle
I'd actually be up for this.
So basically, he didn't say ban them and even the stuff which reads as wildly sexist in print sounds quite reasonable in context of him saying it?
Still a stupid thing for a politician to be saying when their electoral base is voting for UKIP, who scoff at these issues.
le unelectable face (´･ω･`)
Just weird that there's so much disparity - BetFred had it at 66 last night and I tried to put a tenner on it but they'd only accept a lower stake and then instead of accepting it I tried to do Ladbrokes at 50 but they said my account was frozen and then BetFred went down to 33 so I had to do Coral at 40. Fucks sake.
Pretty culturally insensitive of you not to know that TBH. Expected better of the enlightened minds in this thread.
I was just saying that I was happy with the name, not that I'm taking part in this weird pissing contest.