UK Labour Leadership election

Inquitus

gallag wrote: »

It really is! Tory rule for a generation.

Red Ed didn't get elected for being to far left and he's closer to Thatcher than Corbyn, how on earth can Corbyn get elected, especially in a FPTP system, personally I don't see any way it can happen, at least in Corbyn's lifetime....

jank

Sam Russell wrote: »

63 % of voters in the last election did not vote Tory. 31% of the same voters voted Labour. Labour only need 10% extra votes to get elected - 41% would give them a secure majority. Margaret Thatcher never got more than 42% in any election, and was considered unelectable when she got the leadership.

She was ultra right wing, and the leader (or became the leader) of a small cabal of ultra right wing Tories. By ruthless tactics and Labour incompetence, she managed to remain a minority leader within the Tories, and by dint of FPTP, kept herself in power. She even went to war in 1982 to cement her chances of re-election. No-one votes in the opposition in wartime.

Milliband lost the election because he was fighting the SNP and not the Tories.

I think you will find that in 1982 the Falklands were invaded, she did not seek it nor conspired for it. Therefore she went to war only to recapture territory previously held. Blame Argentina so if you want.

jank

RDM_83 again wrote: »

There is a certain irony for somebody thats pro-corbyn to start sharing awkward group photo's and shared events :-\

I hear there are awkward photos of Corbyn with Hamas and hezzbelloh?

jank

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What does this have to do with anything? Surely, the issues and his views on them are what's important, no?

Somewhat correct however, the average non political joe so will take one look at him and say ' you want me to vote for that as PM?'

Sam Russell

jank wrote: »

I think you will find that in 1982 the Falklands were invaded, she did not seek it nor conspired for it. Therefore she went to war only to recapture territory previously held. Blame Argentina so if you want.

Of course she conspired to cause the Falklands war. She ordered the sinking of the Gen Belgrano causing 323 fatalities. It was sunk by a nuclear submarine on her orders despite the fact it was not in the British declared exclusion zone and was in fact sailing away from the zone at the time. Prior to the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands, the British had indicated secretly (through Lord Carrington, foreign secretary) that they would not oppose them, but then they did, on the personal intervention from MT.

I do not know what the definition of ultra-right wing is, but warmongering would certainly fall into the definition for me. She had other charming qualifying traits as well. Remember she ran a campaign against the miners that eventually shut all coal mines in the UK.

However, this is off topic.

gallag

Sam Russell wrote: »

Of course she conspired to cause the Falklands war. She ordered the sinking of the Gen Belgrano causing 323 fatalities. It was sunk by a nuclear submarine on her orders despite the fact it was not in the British declared exclusion zone and was in fact sailing away from the zone at the time. Prior to the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands, the British had indicated secretly (through Lord Carrington, foreign secretary) that they would not oppose them, but then they did, on the personal intervention from MT.

I do not know what the definition of ultra-right wing is, but warmongering would certainly fall into the definition for me. She had other charming qualifying traits as well. Remember she ran a campaign against the miners that eventually shut all coal mines in the UK.

However, this is off topic.

What a load of bull, have you any evidence that they "secretly" said they would not oppose a foreign country using military force to land grab a British territory? If they had done that they would have been as unelectable as corbins labour is now! It would have been political suicide! And if it was planned they sure would have been more ready for the war!

BoJack Horseman

Sam Russell wrote: »

Of course she conspired to cause the Falklands war. She ordered the sinking of the Gen Belgrano causing 323 fatalities..

Impressive feat....
Starting a war by sinking an enemy vessel 1 month after the start of the war.

Christopher Nolan & Stephen Hawking couldn't manifest such a time paradox!

ancapailldorcha

Ok guys, back on topic please. Feel free to start a new thread if ye'd like to continue this.

LordSutch

Mrs Thatch Vs Michael Foot
Mrs Thatch Vs Neil Kinnock

We know the outcomes, and the rest is hstory.

Old Labour was out of fashion, out of favour with the electorate, and out of step with modern Britain.

New Labour was born, Tony Blair elected, and the old guard died off as the years went by ....

Or so we thought

Looks like at least one of the old crusties slipped through the net.

The Black Oil

Could really see the disappointment on Andy Burnham's face when the announcement was made.

BoJack Horseman

The Black Oil wrote: »

Could really see the disappointment on Andy Burnham's face when the announcement was made.

He's got those eyes that look like naturally occurring mascara..... He looked so crushed... Which is odd as the outcome has been certain for weeks.

LordSutch

Glad somebody else noticed Andy's eyes!
(I thought it was eyeliner)

voz es

'The Guardian' the paper honest journalists craved for their words to be printed on is currently doing its self a great amount of damage with its center right efforts.

Simply The Guardian is calling its own Bluff!

BoJack Horseman

voz es wrote: »

'The Guardian' the paper honest journalists craved for their words to be printed on is currently doing its self a great amount of damage with its center right efforts.

They simply took the line that Corbyn will not deliver labour electoral victory, which, is more than likely correct.

I found this oddly realistic for a paper proud to be the UK media arm of Syriza.

and FWIW, not everything that disagrees with the Church of Jezz is right-wing.
It just happens that almost everyone is to the right of someone on the far-left.

voz es

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

They simply took the line that Corbyn will not deliver labour electoral victory, which, is more than likely correct.

I found this oddly realistic for a paper proud to be the UK media arm of Syriza.

and FWIW, not everything that disagrees with the Church of Jezz is right-wing.
It just happens that almost everyone is to the right of someone on the far-left.

BoJack i feel an alignment with Old(current) Labour then my search for FWIW on google lead me to an urban dictionary. I need to brush up I expect the odds for an Obama victory in his political landscape would have been on par with Corbyn's.

What is very interesting about Corbyn is his lack of giving ground, Jeremys lack of compromise has surely to be his greatest strength. A man who didn't trade on principle for ambition is one that is extremely hard to get at.

The usual behind the scene powers that be will not have came across his sort in the inner circles of British politics in their political careers, they have typically been dealing with forms of politician similar to that Tory in the red dress that ran against him, A career politician.

Very exciting times very exciting times indeed. To compare him to any former political leader in his guile is similar to Gladstone, Churchill or even Thatcher ( in her single mindedness). He is his own man which is a massive massive aid if you are going to bring about change.

Corbyn is a brilliant speaker with a real depth in his analysis, he could well change hearts and minds.

His views on the Ireland of Ireland are not typical for public speaking at least.

Lemming

voz es wrote: »

What is very interesting about Corbyn is his lack of giving ground, Jeremys lack of compromise has surely to be his greatest strength. A man who didn't trade on principle for ambition is one that is extremely hard to get at.

No, it'll be his biggest weakness. Politics is the art of compromise. How far one has to compromise on a given issue is up for debate, but rarely does one "get their way" without repercussion or without some having to bend in the wind elsewhere. Corbyn has spent his life shouting from the backbenches, where it's very easy to say what you want and get away with not having to follow through on it. He can't do that anymore and is very much into unknown territory, so running around like the proverbial bull in a china shop is going to do nothing for him except smash up a lot of china with not much else to show for it.

TBH, Corbyn wants to disband the UK military and re-nationalise everything whilst promising jobs for all all the while forging closer ties with Russia. And I'm sure he's costed all of this masturbatory Marxist fantasy up on something better than the back of a soggy packet of cigarettes ... The guy has come up with batsh*t lunacy stuff in his time like having a ring-fenced tax for military spending that would be entirely optional.

He wont get elected anywhere within an arses roar of the PM's office and to be perfectly frank I'm not sure he'll survive the current term of government as Labour leader.

BoJack Horseman

voz es wrote: »

What is very interesting about Corbyn is his lack of giving ground, Jeremys lack of compromise has surely to be his greatest strength

Only in the world of protest politics.

When it comes to those little annoyances called winning & governing, its vital to be able to look past & not remain a hostage to old bankrupt ideologies.

(But the trap the far-left always set itself is that they prefer virtuous ideological purity to actually governing & making a difference)

He's supported by barely 15% of his parliamentary party.
Failure to compromise will see him exit.

He's the leader of 230 MPs who would prefer not to lose their jobs to the Tories in 2020.
They need him to be rational.

feargale

The British Labour Party is in reality two parties in a forced marriage, one extending from the centre left out to the singers of the Red Flag, the other extending from the centre right out to Blairites who have little or nothing to distinguish them from Tories. These two wings have no business being in the same party, and are held together only by the antediluvian British first past the post voting system. So Labour swings unhealthily from Foot to Blair to Corbyn, each time leaving a huge block of its membership out in the cold. Labour in government should introduce PR, in the interests of leftist politics and also in the interests of decency. A fair, continental type voting system would naturally lead to a divorce of Labour's two wings, giving the people a better choice, and providing normal modern democratic politics, with post- election negotiations and coalition government where each party knows the boundaries, as opposed to the coup-like conniving that the present party system engenders.

voz es

Please excuse my non quoting as both of you but both were detailed and considered answers.

The art of compromise is the most important of elected democratic tools, mind this is pre-election. Have you watched the Corbyn oxford debates? He has just the right amount of appeal for the middle and the honesty to let those how feel the texture of the current negative issues know he is there. Undecided Scotland is very important in this and the Ulster nationalist voters must be accounted for to, the man have been quoted on the 32 county front.

voz es

feargale wrote: »

The British Labour Party is in reality two parties in a forced marriage, one extending from the centre left out to the singers of the Red Flag, the other extending from the centre right out to Blairites who have little or nothing to distinguish them from Tories. These two wings have no business being in the same party, and are held together only by the antediluvian British first past the post voting system. So Labour swings unhealthily from Foot to Blair to Corbyn, each time leaving a huge block of its membership out in the cold. Labour in government should introduce PR, in the interests of leftist politics and also in the interests of decency. A fair, continental type voting system would naturally lead to a divorce of Labour's two wings, giving the people a better choice, and providing normal modern democratic politics, with post- election negotiations and coalition government where each party knows the boundaries, as opposed to the coup-like conniving that the present party system engenders.

To put it simply there is room in Brittish politics for a Blairite Party

feargale

voz es wrote: »

To put it simply there is room in Brittish politics for a Blairite Party

There should be. There should be room in every democratic country for every hue and shape of political opinion.

Eugene Norman

voz es wrote: »

'The Guardian' the paper honest journalists craved for their words to be printed on is currently doing its self a great amount of damage with its center right efforts.

Simply The Guardian is calling its own Bluff!

The metropolitan elites have convinced themselves that a left wing Labour Party won't appeal to workers ( who they've also convinced themselves don't exist anymore) because it doesn't appeal to metropolitan elites.

Would be interesting to see a real left wing paper grow from this.

Eugene Norman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Only in the world of protest politics.

When it comes to those little annoyances called winning & governing, its vital to be able to look past & not remain a hostage to old bankrupt ideologies.

(But the trap the far-left always set itself is that they prefer virtuous ideological purity to actually governing & making a difference)

He's supported by barely 15% of his parliamentary party.
Failure to compromise will see him exit.

He's the leader of 230 MPs who would prefer not to lose their jobs to the Tories in 2020.
They need him to be rational.

The idea that he automatically loses is comical. The Tories have far more problems at the next election.

jank

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The idea that he automatically loses is comical. The Tories have far more problems at the next election.

There is no evidence there that Corbyn will be within an arses roar of being PM in 2020. The most left wing leader of the labour party in 80 years.

ancapailldorcha

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The metropolitan elites have convinced themselves that a left wing Labour Party won't appeal to workers ( who they've also convinced themselves don't exist anymore) because it doesn't appeal to metropolitan elites.

Would be interesting to see a real left wing paper grow from this.

I used to really like the Guardian but it's become every bit the corporatist rag it pretends to rail against. This little gem from the Independent is a reason why it's little better. Fortunately, the Guardian no longer has a monopoly on the left thanks to the Internet.

jank wrote: »

There is no evidence there that Corbyn will be within an arses roar of being PM in 2020. The most left wing leader of the labour party in 80 years.

Why not? He's just been elected leader by quite a significant margin. I'd say people will be fed up of the Tories enough to consider him. The worst thing would be ousting him a in 2019 and electing another leader who has to use the campaign to defend the party against the Tory narrative culminating in another Tory win.

Eugene Norman

jank wrote: »

There is no evidence there that Corbyn will be within an arses roar of being PM in 2020. The most left wing leader of the labour party in 80 years.

He's to the right of labour pre 1997 in many ways.

You just keep repeating whatever the right wing press tells you. Left wing = unelectable.

That's not the case.

Sam Russell

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The idea that he automatically loses is comical. The Tories have far more problems at the next election.

The Tory press and the BBC all come out with the line that Corbyn is unelectable before he has even nominated his shadow cabinet or even been leader for a day, let alone get any new policies out.

The Tory press and the BBC all come out with the line that Labour had a catastrophic election. They had a net zero loss of seats to the Tories but they had a massive loss to the SNP. They did not make enough gains from the LibDems to make up their losses to the SNP. They had a small net gain in popular vote. They were 5% or so behind the Tories in popular vote. That 5% would have changed the result significantly owing to the tipping point nature of the FPTP electoral system.

The next big test is the proposed EU in/out vote. This could well define the British electoral scene before the next election.

Eugene Norman

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Tory press and the BBC all come out with the line that Corbyn is unelectable before he has even nominated his shadow cabinet or even been leader for a day, let alone get any new policies out.

The Tory press and the BBC all come out with the line that Labour had a catastrophic election. They had a net zero loss of seats to the Tories but they had a massive loss to the SNP. They did not make enough gains from the LibDems to make up their losses to the SNP. They had a small net gain in popular vote. They were 5% or so behind the Tories in popular vote. That 5% would have changed the result significantly owing to the tipping point nature of the FPTP electoral system.

The next big test is the proposed EU in/out vote. This could well define the British electoral scene before the next election.

Sure and it's scaring the Tories silly. The Tory party is partly a free market business party but mostly it's electorate are mild English nationalists. In the last election they stopped the slide to the UKIP by promising a referendum and scaring their potential defectors that labour wouldn't have one.

Now along comes a leftist sceptical of the EU. A nightmare. The business funders of the Tories expect the party to have the refrendum but to campaign for the EU. That will split the party

Leonard Hofstadter

The Tories will drive each other mad over Europe, that's a given. But equally given that Corbyn is anti-EU he will tear Labour apart if he tries to force Labour to campaign for an EU exit. Very interesting times ahead.

And if the Tories thought Corbyn was within even an asses roar of getting into Number 10 they'd kiss and make up quicker than the time it takes to read this post.

Sam Russell

captainspeed wrote: »

The Tories will drive each other mad over Europe, that's a given. But equally given that Corbyn is anti-EU he will tear Labour apart if he tries to force Labour to campaign for an EU exit. Very interesting times ahead.

And if the Tories thought Corbyn was within even an asses roar of getting into Number 10 they'd kiss and make up quicker than the time it takes to read this post.

If Corbyn gets within an asses roar of getting into No. 10, it will be because it will be too late for the Tories to kiss and make up. You forget that UKIP are there to take Tory stragglers and split the vote. Also, the EU vote will be well over by then.

By the way, I am not a Corbyn supporter - I know nothing about him and had never heard of him before the election for Labour leader. He was one of the looney left, but now he is Labour leader. Margaret Thatcher was a member of the Looney right, but became leader of the Tories. She was put up to run as a stalking horse to force a leadership election to allow the real contenders to run. Unexpectedly, she won outright.

Perhaps Corbyn will repeat this. (I doubt it though).