UK Labour Leadership election

A Dub in Glasgo

I was reading my Friday paper this morning (finding time to read is a pain). Anyhow, the Herald (Glasgow) Business Editor had a piece which which went against the accepted narrative in the media

Sneering mockery of Corbyn's economic policies is entirely unjustified

'The policies of Jeremy Corbyn, the surprise frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest, are probably not without their minuses. And, while the SNP has railed against austerity, there is still an astonishingly widespread view in the UK that Osbornomics are sensible, with many people seemingly oblivious to years of evidence that the Chancellor’s policies are flawed. '

RDM_83 again

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This will be reflected in the result of the election I would think. While they didn't win the last election, Labour didn't do too badly either.

We are sitting here with a Conservative government that managed to get in without a need for a coalition partner and the narrative is "well we didn't win but we didn't do badly", its this surrounding yourself in a nice safe comfortable bubble of the right sort of people and only listening to them thats killing UK Labour

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Immigration only seems to be a priority in deprived areas such as parts of the North of England.

Look at the polling data its not, I linked that article because it breaks down peoples views and you can see that its across all groups including the Left and BAME voters.
And even if you say is true, which its not as the data shows, the North of England is where Labour should be listening, London is important but its not everything particularly since the Tories always win the rest of the South East (the places where the people that have lived in or commuted to London end up). Look at Labour in Scotland they lost what was previously their heartland because of this lazy attitude.

You presumably would like Labour in power someday how do you think they should handle the fact they hold an electorally unpopular opinion (which is fine if you have enough support otherwise but at the minute they don't).
Also keep in mind that the Conservatives could if needed go into coalition with UKIP, so any vote they loose to the Kippers isn't as much of a blow as when Labour loose a vote to them.

ancapailldorcha

RDM_83 again wrote: »

You presumably would like Labour in power someday how do you think they should handle the fact they hold an electorally unpopular opinion (which is fine if you have enough support otherwise but at the minute they don't).
Also keep in mind that the Conservatives could if needed go into coalition with UKIP, so any vote they loose to the Kippers isn't as much of a blow as when Labour loose a vote to them.

I would but if they become Tory-lite again then I don't see what the point would be. Regarding Immigration, I think most of the parties, barring UKIP of course are quite laissez-faire about it. We've had all 3 major parties in power since 2000 and none of them have curbed it. Labour "opened the doors" as we're so often told while the Tories and the Lib Dems were more than happy to leave them open while throwing out some token restrictions on benefits, etc... I am not a PR officer for a political party so I would have no idea how to change this perception. I support EU membership and immigration so this isn't a problem for me and many others.

A Dub in Glasgo

Corbyn must be delighted he is not getting endorsement from Blair

Sam Russell

The media are pushing the idea that the Tories won a mandate - but they only got 36% of the national vote and that is only 5% more than Labour. The last election was lost by the poor leadership of Ed Milliband. He was shouting as loud as he could the Labour would not do a deal with the SNP when he should have been screaming out about the Tories favouring their rich friends and harming the poor. (e.g. the sale of The Post Office at half price, the treatment of Non-Doms, etc.)

Has Corbyn any leadership qualities?

blinding

If Blair really wanted Corbyn to lose he would have told people to vote for Corbyn.

Who would really want the endorsement of a war criminal ? ? ?

ancapailldorcha

I read once that Blair only joined Labour because he thought that it would be easier to climb the ladder there than at the Conservative party.

blinding

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I read once that Blair only joined Labour because he thought that it would be easier to climb the ladder there than at the Conservative party.

He certainly could just have easily been a tory prime minister.

He has been stacking up the £millions since he left office.

Tony could always be easily bought.

Berni Ecclestone knew this very shortly after Phoney Tony was elected prime minister.

I suppose Phoney Tony wanted to let it be known that he was available for a price.

BoJack Horseman

If anyone subscribes to the 'Guardian politics weekly' podcast, this weeks episode is worth a listen.

There are systemic issues affecting the UK economy, (that thankfully have less impact here) in which Corbynomics can have a positive impact.

May seem odd, but I'd have no issue with a "peoples QE" so long as it was extremely regulated by statute.

And a state investment bank is something that Ireland has already done (but has been modest in its ambition).

The BOE must be kept independent though.

djpbarry

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I was reading my Friday paper this morning (finding time to read is a pain). Anyhow, the Herald (Glasgow) Business Editor had a piece which which went against the accepted narrative in the media

Sneering mockery of Corbyn's economic policies is entirely unjustified

'The policies of Jeremy Corbyn, the surprise frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest, are probably not without their minuses. And, while the SNP has railed against austerity, there is still an astonishingly widespread view in the UK that Osbornomics are sensible, with many people seemingly oblivious to years of evidence that the Chancellor’s policies are flawed. '

I haven’t had a chance to read the article in full, but just on that excerpt there, the author presents a false dichotomy: there is a happy medium between Corbyn’s proposals and Osborne’s policies.

BoJack Horseman

djpbarry wrote: »

I haven’t had a chance to read the article in full, but just on that excerpt there, the author presents a false dichotomy: there is a happy medium between Corbyn’s proposals and Osborne’s policies.

Well, in broad strokes....
If you half the distance between the far-left & the centre-right, you arrive at the centre-left.

md23040

Following last nights very well handled channel four news debate (fifty minutes), it seems apparent that based on political intelligence, pragmatism, media oratory skills etc, that of the four candidates Jeremy Corbyn remains head and shoulders above the rest. Although my political views are diametrically opposed to his on many area's, especially economically (but not all), he by far seemed the most convincing and genuine, different in his candid approach to fully answering questions intelligently, on a political mantra so far removed from any of the others that is obviously resonating with the grass root supporters - as it is fine having such theoretical ideologies in opposition without the challenges of practical realities.

Andy Burnham and Liz Kendall blow with the political winds of trying to say the right things without substantiating on their points, ducking the questions with political evasive speak (similar to Ed Milliband) and come across as out of their depth and phoney. Liz Kendall Yvette Cooper is a replica of her husband Ed Balls, doesn't come across well on television (seems reticent and nervous), is very much part of the labour political machine and seemed like a miffed headmaster talking down to the others as she has previously held high power within the labour movement without realising that's the past. But like her husband she answers questions in a general vague, woolly manner, does not get bogged down in detail for fear of causing some of upset or giving room to the interviewer to find issues with the answer.

Corbyn has to be admired for how he's played this, but has had an open goal from the start, being up against these weaker candidates - although it will be inevitable within the short term that Labour party will split, unfortunately becoming irrelevant for a lost decade or two. This cycle started under Blairism with the Unions gnashing their teeth, and came to the fore more when David Milliband got shafted as the heir apparent by his brother Ed with the help of the Union executive, and again unfortunately the future of controlling parliament will lean more to the right, unfettered with Osbornomics.

The Tory future under either George Osborne or Theresa May has a ten year window of ineffective, unopposed opposition, as Labour eats itself from within - very sad times indeed.











.

BoJack Horseman

Liz Kendell isn't married to Ed Balls.

And its a done deal, most of the votes are already cast, the C4 interviews reeked of defeat.

Onto the amusing sight of Corbyn vs 'Call me Dave™' at PMQs in front of 232 labour MPs of which less than 10% supported his leadership.

loyatemu

Interesting comment from the Guardian here - I think I made a similar point back at the start of this thread that regardless of what one thinks of Corbyn's politics or personal qualities, he's going to have his work cut out as he has absolutely no relevant experience and the bulk of the parliamentary party do not support him. Just making it as far as 2020 still as leader would be an accomplishment - the Tories ditched IDS before he got a chance to lead them into an election.

TheGuardian wrote:

In a fortnight’s time, if opinion polls and most other available evidence are to be believed, Jeremy Corbyn will be elected leader of the Labour party, placing the most unexpected pressure on the political management skills of a man who has previously run only the planning committee of Haringey council in north London.

Jon Stark

loyatemu wrote: »

Interesting comment from the Guardian here - I think I made a similar point back at the start of this thread that regardless of what one thinks of Corbyn's politics or personal qualities, he's going to have his work cut out as he has absolutely no relevant experience and the bulk of the parliamentary party do not support him. Just making it as far as 2020 still as leader would be an accomplishment - the Tories ditched IDS before he got a chance to lead them into an election.

The party is already split as it is so whoever gains leadership will have that problem on their hands.

The Guardian have disappointed me in their coverage of this election as they have clearly set out their stall as anyone but Corbyn.

They come across as completely desperate. One such article I read recently was so completely over the top in its slating of him over his "sexist" policies that the article provoked a massive backlash in its comments section.

In fact, so desperate have they become that they have even turned on Andy Burnham in the hope of transferring his votes to another candidate who has a "better" chance of beating Corbyn. One specific article that comes to mind is their coverage of a (surprise) visit to Burnham's house, where they go on to illustrate him as some sort of cringe inducing bluffer.

I find it incredibly sad as Corbyn has clearly captured the minds of many. He's providing clarity and purpose while the others are, like Miliband, struggling to present a clear picture for where they want Labour to be.

And once again that clearly was the situation again last night after the sky news debate going by opinion polls.

Euphoria Intensifies

The Guardian's editorial line seems to be that Yvette Cooper deserves to be Labour leader purely because she owns a set of ovaries and isn't quite as insufferable as Liz Kendall.

jank

My limited insight/readings into this leadership battle is one where Labour insiders are already looking ahead to the post Corbyn era and the wreck of a party it will have on its hands and where the Torries are beside themselves with glee at the prospect that Corbyn will lead the main opposition party as they have so much on him e.g. he called Osama Bin Laden's death a 'tragedy'...

Corbyn vs Osborne for PM 2020?

BoJack Horseman

That's a worse choice than Cameron vs Miliband!

While the Tories know Labour will be weaker now, they would be wise not to crow about it.
Gloating never looks good.

LordSutch

At this stage it looks like Corbyn is going to walk away with the Labour leadership!

Back to the future (1980s Michael Foot) style :cool:

Good news for the Conservatives of course, but a total disaster for the Labour party, & a credible opposition.

How & why this is happening I just don't know?

Bad news for almost everyone tbh.

A weak opposition is a worthless opposition.

BoJack Horseman

Apparently only half of those eligible have voted yet, but Corbyn has won.

Interesting few months for Labour.
Only around 1/8th if the parliamentary party will have supported their leader.
Corbyn has already said MPs will be sidelined from policy formulation.
His lackeys have suggested deselection for moderate MPs, this may keep some loyal, but will engender massive resentment.

BoJack Horseman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Bad news for almost everyone tbh.

A weak opposition is a worthless opposition.

Bad for the Tories also.

A complacent Tory party can find things going ill for them also.... Not forgetting that their cleaving in two is just 2 years away.

Benny_Cake

It's questionable if any of the Labour candidates would be capable of winning an election. Could any of them win back the seats that have been lost in Scotland? Build a movement that gets working class, and particularly young working class people to turn out to cast a vote? The Labour Party has an existential problem and while Jeremy Corbyn may not be the answer, Kendall, Cooper and Burnham certainly aren't either.

The main problem with Corbyn will be the knives being sharpened for him, although some of the newer Labour MPs tend to be a bit more to the left than their predecessors from what I've read.

LordSutch

Word association surrounding 'Jeremy Corbyn' . . . Michael Foot, Red Ken, Derek Hatton, Trotskyist militant, Arthur Scargill, Anthony Wedgewood Benn, loony left, winter of discontent, James Calahan, Harold Wilson, strikes, pickets, scabs, Unions, NUM, TGWU, down the pits, miners, unemployment, the red flag, CND, Gerald Kaufman, inflation, flatulation, backwards, old school, grey, brown, British Leyland, rust, shut, closed, history, socialists, grey beards, elbow patches, pipe smoking . . . .

Voting ends today (Thursday), and unless something very dramatic happens? Jeremy Corbyn of "Old Labour" will be facing David Cameron @ leaders questions in the very near future

Must be like a political wet dream for the Tories, specially if it comes true.

loyatemu

LordSutch wrote: »

Must be like a political wet dream for the Tories, specially if it comes true.

You could be right, but the rises of Syriza, Podemos, Sinn Fein etc shows the current volatility of electorates and their willingness to move away from the centre ground - nobody expected Corbyn to win the leadership in the first place.

Having said that I think his biggest problem is going to be the Labour Party itself rather than what the general electorate thinks of him. He wants to move the party back to the left, he's not going to be able to do that without creating schisms, and he has no experience of leading anything. He's become the mantle-bearer for the left by default, because nobody else fancied the job. I don't think even the most fervent socialist would have regarded Corbyn as leadership material if you'd asked them 6 months ago - he's 66, how likely is it that he's suddenly going to reveal new organisational and leadership qualities nobody had previously noticed.

Sam Russell

loyatemu wrote: »

You could be right, but the rises of Syriza, Podemos, Sinn Fein etc shows the current volatility of electorates and their willingness to move away from the centre ground - nobody expected Corbyn to win the leadership in the first place.

Having said that I think his biggest problem is going to be the Labour Party itself rather than what the general electorate thinks of him. He wants to move the party back to the left, he's not going to be able to do that without creating schisms, and he has no experience of leading anything. He's become the mantle-bearer for the left by default, because nobody else fancied the job. I don't think even the most fervent socialist would have regarded Corbyn as leadership material if you'd asked them 6 months ago - he's 66, how likely is it that he's suddenly going to reveal new organisational and leadership qualities nobody had previously noticed.

You could have said the same of John Bruton and Enda Kenny. Both got the big job despite showing the same level of leadership qualities as Corbyn - that is none.

loyatemu

Sam Russell wrote: »

You could have said the same of John Bruton and Enda Kenny. Both got the big job despite showing the same level of leadership qualities as Corbyn - that is none.

they both had ministerial and shadow cabinet experience and were supported by the majority of their parliamentary party. They weren't exactly outsiders.

Sam Russell

loyatemu wrote: »

they both had ministerial and shadow cabinet experience and were supported by the majority of their parliamentary party. They weren't exactly outsiders.

They both had limited ministerial experience - John Bruton brought down a coalition government over VAT on children's shoes but he did serve a while in other ministries. On the other hand, Enda Kenny did a sterling job as Minister for Tourism for three years - not an earth shattering level of experience. He also failed to get elected as Taoseach in 2008 (lucky) and got elected in 2011 against a busted FFlush. Even so, he still went around making promises that he could not keep.

So neither had the best experience for the top job.

Maybe Corbyn may get lucky. Cameron is a weak fool, with a right wing he has to pander to, with UKIP getting plenty of press coverage.

LordSutch

Leaving leadership experience (or lack of) aside for one moment, is the elephant in the room not the fact that Corbyn wants to take the labour party back to a "pre Blair era".

I am certainly not a fan of Tony Blair, but to his credit he did create New Labour whilst shedding many of the old ills that haunted 'Old Labour' (see post #175).

Its almost as if Corbyn has stepped out of a Labour Party time machine from about 1980.

Cameron & Co will slaughter him.

Benny_Cake

LordSutch wrote: »

I am certainly not a fan of Tony Blair, but to his credit he did create New Labour whilst shedding many of the old ills that haunted 'Old Labour' (see post #175).

Its almost as if Corbyn has stepped out of a Labour Party time machine from about 1980.

Cameron & Co will slaughter him.

Old Labour is older than that, under Kinnock it moved steadily to the right as well, and didn't get too much thanks for it. The Tories were finally run out of office because people were fed up with the scandals, John Major, and a middling economy, as well as Blair's personal "charm".

To many under the age of 40, Corbyn isn't a blast from the past, he's a breath of fresh air.