UK Labour Leadership election

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Well you show us your data to back up your assertion that

'This is just the 2nd leader in a row elected by Len McCluskey's money & resources.
Jezza differs because he brought in a lot of hard-left £3 voters.'

Well, Its safe to assume that Labours biggest donor & the chief financial, human resource & materiel backer of Corbyn helped enormously.

No other candidate had that level of support.
Unite & GMB etc were able to put cash down (£90,000 as of last month) & more importantly feet on pavements to canvas for their guy, not forgetting all the meeting halls & other non-cash supports that reaps 50% of cote members (many of the union membersip).

Separately, the £3 vote broke overwhelmingly for Jezza.
It's pretty obvious that a far-left candidate would attract casual support of a similar mindset

LordSutch

blinding wrote: »

Labour people have taken back their party from the New Tories of Blair,Campbell and Brown.

Yes indeed, but will resurrecting the ideals of a labour party from the early 80s, engage with a 21st electorate & the modern business world?

blinding

LordSutch wrote: »

Yes indeed, but will resurrecting a labour party from the early 80s engage with electorate & the business world?

We all know that the super rich have done very well in the economic consensus of the last 30 years (lets say that they are 5%)

Perhaps the 95% might consider does it really have to be this way.

If he is true to his apparent form, this will further polarise UK politics and guarantee a Tory victory next time unless they really mess things up. Those 'on benefits' will find less sympathy as they are clearly outside the Tory constituency now.
Overall a positive for politics; things are clearer. Perhaps similar might happen here if SF do exceedingly well next time.

micosoft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You have just witnessed the most democratic leadership contest in a long time.


They did not on both accounts

Huh? You must have missed the last two months of news around how ex Tories were joining labour for the princely sum of £3 in order to vote for Corbyn. The Labour leadership vote was a shambles by any measure let alone the idea it was "democratic" in any meaningful way.

BoJack Horseman

blinding wrote: »

Perhaps the 95% might consider does it really have to be this way.

Except that living standards have improved for everyone since Labours far-left hey day in the 70s & 80s.

I would have thought no one would want that blast from the past?

Tbh, nothing has done more to rise people up than capitalistic social democracy.

Corbyn sees it differently, but I think if pressed, the 95% of people (mostly middle class) would agree.

A Dub in Glasgo

micosoft wrote: »

Huh? You must have missed the last two months of news around how ex Tories were joining labour for the princely sum of £3 in order to vote for Corbyn

So can you tell me how many of those £3 voters were Tories?

blinding

blinding wrote: »

We all know that the super rich have done very well in the economic consensus of the last 30 years (lets say that they are 5%)

Perhaps the 95% might consider does it really have to be this way.

The 'haves' that will be frightened by new old labour are not the top 5% (which aren't rich, just comfortable and of the right age) or the top 1% (which might count as wealthy) but the hard working but struggling middle classes who see his message as taking from them to give to those who think they're 'entitled' to a soft life.

micosoft

Deleted User wrote: »

Zero time for the Lib Dems? Surely they'll align far closer to the moderate left than the Tories.

The question now is whether the Lib Dem's can take the middle ground being vacated by Labour while the Tories are distracted with UKIP. If (and that's a big if) the Lib Dem's had leadership this could be their resurrection after the last 50 years of Labour.

blinding

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Except that living standards have improved for everyone since Labours far-left hey day in the 70s & 80s.

I would have thought no one would want that blast from the past?

I sincerely wonder if that is true for the poorer 33%/.

The New Tories /Tories have been very good at keeping this section of society without representation. Its probably why so much of this section of society did not vote. Before Ukip their choice was New Tory/Tory. Now that wasn't much of a choice was it.

Fr Tod Umptious

Is the cycle of British politics that each party takes turns in making itself unelectable.

Labour in '80s to mid '90s.
Tories mid '90s to '10s
Labour again now.

micosoft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

So can you tell me how many of those £3 voters were Tories?

No. And neither can Labour.....

Sam Russell

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.

Jelle1880

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'm not exactly a fan of Thatcher, but I think you need to re-evaluate your political views if you think she was 'ultra right wing'.

She was conservative as fck and in favour of the wealthy, but that doesn't make someone ultra right wing.

Leonard Hofstadter

Those who voted for UKIP did so either because they wanted a protest vote, or because they saw the Tories as too centrist/pro-EU/Labour lite/liberal/soft on immigration (take your pick). The Tories can move even closer to the centre now and hoover up the moderate Labour voters if they want to.

Dohnjoe

"Corbyn has hinted that Britain should seek greater diplomatic relations with Russia. He previously described the Kremlin’s state propaganda channel Russia Today as “more objective on Libya than most” and believes that the Ukraine crisis was caused by the west and Nato."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/12/what-does-jeremy-corbyn-think

George Galloway to return to Labour, calling it

gizmo555

Jelle1880 wrote: »

She was conservative as fck and in favour of the wealthy, but that doesn't make someone ultra right wing.

Maybe not, but being best mates with someone like this certainly does:

LuckyLloyd

Lemming wrote: »

I think Corbyn's fvcked himself. As an political commentator for the BBC remarked last last week, the very person who might not want Corbyn elected is Corbyn himself. As has been pointed out, he's very much to the left - as in, into the fringes left so that alienates most moderate folk who do not care for Labour/Tory/Whatever and just want sensible (or as sensible as can be) politicians at the helm - and that's most of the population to be perfectly honest. Fanbois will always be fanbois regardless, as will the "party faithful".

If he tries to hold the middle-ground as he might suddenly encounter the need to do when shown the reality of shouting from the backbenches (where it's easy to shout and not have to follow through ... ) vs. leading , then a lot of those £3 voters will think he's sold them out, and moderates will be very slow to believe him anyway as the damage has been done already given he's spent most of his career very much sitting on the far left. So I think he's going to be utterly toothless, undermined, and constantly on the backfoot from within the labour ranks and without. The only saving grace will be to remind all those younger voters who don't remember the 1970s/80s and think he's a "breath of fresh air" just how stale that breath of air really is and just how far fringe-left (or right for that matter) views work in the real world (i.e. they don't).

He's 66 years old. There's no long term game here for him to '**** himself' at. This will be the culmination of his political career, and his opportunity to get some of his political platform out infront of the electorate. If it doesn't work out fair enough, but not taking the opportunity was not an option.

gizmo555

gizmo555 wrote: »

Maybe not, but being best mates with someone like this certainly does:

He helped her when she needed it most and she never forgot that. It wasn't about left or right issues.

RDM_83 again

gizmo555 wrote: »

Maybe not, but being best mates with someone like this certainly does:

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

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

He helped her when she needed it most and she never forgot that. It wasn't about left or right issues.

A common misconception. She lifted the arms embargo on Chile before the falklands war. I actually don't know why she admired him so much, but it long predated any favours done.

jank

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Except he's not going to parliament dressed like that.

Am I correct he was voted worst dressed MP? However in these hipster times he also got voted best beard.

Inquitus

Well that's the end of Labour for the foreseeable, wouldn't put it past the party to split at this point. They need to sort out their leadership election process, Corbyn is simply unelectable in the UK, today, tomorrow or indeed any other day in this lifetime.

ancapailldorcha

jank wrote: »

Am I correct he was voted worst dressed MP? However in these hipster times he also got voted best beard.

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

BoJack Horseman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Surely, the issues and his views on them are what's important, no?

Of course.
Worry not though, In time these too will be ripped to shreds.

Benny_Cake

Inquitus wrote: »

Well that's the end of Labour for the foreseeable, wouldn't put it past the party to split at this point. They need to sort out their leadership election process, Corbyn is simply unelectable in the UK, today, tomorrow or indeed any other day in this lifetime.

Were any of the other candidates "electable"? New Labour has run it's course, Kendall and Cooper were simply not credible. Burnham had a chance but blew it by turning down support from the big unions in case it made him look too left-wing - characteristic of Labour's gutlessness in recent years. Someone else mentioned Maggie Thatcher as a candidate who was considered unelectable, Ronald Reagan was too.

I don't know if Corbyn will win an election, the odds are long with the loss of Scotland and with the way in which Labour has alienated it's core voters over the last 20 years but he certainly has a chance to put the party on a trajectory which gives voters a choice other than Tory vs Tory Lite.

BoJack Horseman

Benny_Cake wrote: »

he certainly has a chance to put the party on a trajectory which gives voters a choice other than Tory vs Tory Lite.

Tough job for Corbyn though.
Him alone vs 550 Tory MPs.

gallag

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Fantastic news.

It really is! Tory rule for a generation.

jank

ads20101 wrote: »

Looks like all is not well in the Labour camp..

Just watching the news coverage.

There appears to be multiple senior members stating that they will not serve on Corbyns shadow cabinet and some interviewees are being openly hostile.

For the love of god, will they just grow up, act like adults and give the man a chance. He won by an overwhelming majority, he has a mandate, just give him that.

One more interesting snippet that sky are going with. Because he is a staunch republican Corbyn may well not join her majesty's privy council. To my knowledge he has to this in order be leader of the opposition.

Christ even the SNP were wise enough to back all things regal and royal when the independence question was put up. Corbyn dissing the monarchy will be seen as an afront to the queen. The guy won't last 24 months me thinks.

Benny_Cake

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Tough job for Corbyn though.
Him alone vs 550 Tory MPs.

Don't forget the other 8 members of the Socialist Campaign Group :pac:

The size of his victory and his popularity among the party membership will give him some clout and should mean that a heave against him is some time off. Tough job though, certainly.