[Closed] The labour party

Tail still trying to wag the donkey, those careerists who entered via the blairite escalator have found that the gravy train no longer stops at their station --their bitterness and irrelevance will soon be forgotten--it will take a couple of years for the plp to become more reflective of the membership--but with the forthcoming economic collapse things could move much quicker--in all respects......

Ah yes the revisionist history where labour under Blair were always more Tory than the Tories. No they weren't.

True, but it's equally revisionist to pretend that the conservatives were electable in 1997 or 2001: a donkey with a red rosette would've won those elections. The point being that there's no reason to suppose that Labour's strategy then would be effective now.

Blair moved the centre of politics to the right.

Nah, that was Thatcher. Whether you supported her or not, she made a seismic shift in UK politics, which largely dictated what followed.

Tail still trying to wag the donkey, those careerists who entered via the blairite escalator have found that the gravy train no longer stops at their station

Somebody on R4 yesterday made the interesting (well I thought it was interesting) point that logically, both Labour and the Conservative Parties should, due to internal differences, each split into 2 separate parties (Labour splitting into a left and centre-left party, with the Tories splitting into a centre-right and right wing party), but because of First Past the Post, they'd rather stay together than risk having only a few seats.

FPtP really needs to go.

I said that yesterday! And so did someone with different genitals.

So you did ben, don't know how I missed that!

We have pretty consistent and conservative (little c) views in the UK. Extremes make the headlines, but moderate/centrists hold the power. The key to power is having the most compelling centre ground position. At the moment that is the Tories (just) but it will change.

Labour just need to stop misreading the reasons why they lost the last election. Until then, they will remain in a pickle.

I have come to the conclusion that a lot of politicians are really stupid, machiavellian and astute at the games of Westminster but generally thick.

Dianne Abbot this morning said she wanted peace and harmony in a party that has the interest of Britain at heart, then with the next breath flayed anyone who wasn't with Jeremy as being a snivelling turncoat.

The Blairites who predicted this mess are causing it with the non-stop criticism of Corbyn, comment pieces on how he is doomed to fail etc. Blairites lost the last 2 elections ffs do they want another go? With Yvette Cooper?

Its worse than that! Its fine to criticise if you offer some kind of alternative. But thats notable by its absence. Which means its just the sour grapes of the 'boo hoo we're not in charge any more' brigade.

A succession of the usual Blaire sock puppets have queued up to deliver there condemnation of Corbyn, but not one of them has articulated a single solitary idea as to what would replace him. There's just the muttered vague, no-specific platitudes that their glorious leader was so keen on himself, with no actual substance whatsoever. No policies. No ideology. No direction. Nothing!

And therein lies the problem with the present labour party. It was hollowed out by Blair. Purged of any discount to the degree that its now unable to think for itself

Look at the Tories. Do they look like they're in any doubt about what it is they're trying to do? What direction they're heading in ideologically?

The key to power is having the most compelling centre ground position. At the moment that is the Tories (just) but it will change.

I think the whol corbyn thing is an interesting test of this [ probably true] hypothesis. Traditionally you win elections by getting the swing voters to switch sides. I would imagine 80% ish of each parties key voters would not dream of voting for the other side therefore they can be ignored. The problem both parties have is that their core supporters are more "radical"* - left wing or right wing- than the electorate at large. Whether corbyn can move the consensus or compel those who do not vot to turn up remains to be seen. IMHO its doubtful.

Personally I think the next election could be a proper shit storm as both parties look like they could be unelectable
Europe will drive a truck , laden with explosives, through the tories ranks and then self detonate at the worst possible time.
If labour get their stuff together before this then they may look the more electable option.
* Blairites get more respect on here and in the real world I assume from the right wing and centrists that they do from the lefties for example. IMHO this is just further proof of how bad the judgment is of these people 😉

As Call me Dave is giving a free vote on Europe won't that stop the worst of the infighting?

Its fine to criticise if you offer some kind of alternative.

Completely correct and it goes a a good way to explain why Corbyn is in power; as the other 3 candidates failed to offer any real vision and direction for the party.

A succession of the usual Blaire sock puppets have queued up to deliver there condemnation of Corbyn, but not one of them has articulated a single solitary idea as to what would replace him.

Not exactly a surprise. Bliar is on record that he'd prefer labour to lose under a leftwing leadership.

On the subject of the reshuffle though, [url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/06/winning-ugly-the-art-of-jeremy-corbyns-shambolic-shuffle ]a lot of people have missed the point I think[/url].

[quote=Pigface ]As Call me Dave is giving a free vote on Europe won't that stop the worst of the infighting?

I doubt it as it is evidence of the split. Only last year he was saying he would not do this and he had said all along he was not even considering this. Due to the divisions within the party he had no choice but to do this as there was going to be mass resignations[ from the cabinet] if he did not do this [ from the no camp].

Nothing divides the tories like Europe its their explosive achilles heel

How much and how deep the scarring of this battle will run remains to be seen but the Tories views are so polarised on Europe its hard to see they are the same party . Many are much closer to UKIP than Ken CLarke, or the PM's view.

Nothing divides the tories like Europe its their explosive achilles heel

the problem there is that all disagreement is utterly neutralised by the outcome of the referendum. It doesn't matter which outcome any Tory MP campaign for, because the outcome is democratic, so the losing side has to accept it without ill feeling.

Since 1979, we've seen how Thatcherism/Reaganomics have changed the world. The rich have become far richer, while a bottom up approach to taxes and driving market forces has simply resulted in a stagnation of income for the poorest.

Meanwhile, three successive governments have tied house prices to the perceived success of an economy (note that house prices aren't included in official inflation measures) and we're in the situation whereby there's apparently not enough money for public services, yet there's (globally) an estimated £2tn going untaxed.

It has to change, perhaps it's the circles I move in but there seems to be an appetite amongst the general public for a shift to the left. I've gone from being a sworn non-Labour voter in the aftermath of the Blair years to a Labour Party member under Corbyn.

ninfan
the problem there is that all disagreement is utterly neutralised by the outcome of the referendum. It doesn't matter which outcome any Tory MP campaign for, because the outcome is democratic, so the losing side has to accept it without ill feeling.

I can sense it already

#EUref2 🙂

The EU referendum is absurd (unless there is some hidden plan conjured up among the Brussels elite and this is simply a test case). How can you vote on something that doesn't exist. A future Europe HAS to be very different from the current one. Without knowing what the future one is going to be, how can you vote? Bugger all point in voting on the current, unsustainable system IMO.

Corbyn is a disaster for the Labour party and is going drive the party into opposition for many years. Regardless of what may be said, the UK population is not going to vote in a hard left wing party, and that is where Corbyn is trying to take Labour.

His main problem is that he has always been on the fringe of the party and has basically ignored the PLP. Now that he is leading it, the PLP is responding in kind. Vast swathes of the PLP have no loyalty to him and were voted in on a manifesto which has not relationship with the way that Corbyn wants to go. As an example the party voted in the last conference to support the renewal of Trident (that is the Labour party). Technically is against his own party! Madness.

What will happen is that large numbers of the PLP will be deselected, will form their own party (the SDP?) and split the left of centre vote even further. While Blair seems to have become to most hated person in the UK, he did get Labour into power for three terms (although John Major et al made the first one very easy). Before Blair there was no chance, remember Kinnock and Foot!

And the bit that really pisses me off about Corbyn, now is a time to attack the Tories, to hold up their policies and to show what shambles they are on Europe. With a majority of 12, it should be possible to stop any significant right wing policy changes. Instead the internal bickering will allow Dave and George to drive any policies they want.

And then Momentum complain that the press (including the BBC) seem to be having a go at Corbyn. Heck, it is such an easy target, it is too hard for them not to. And it is just too depressing ...........

so the losing side has to accept it without ill feeling.

FFS there was ill feeling from the winning side never mind the losing side

Be serious for a minute the only issue is how deep the cuts and damage will go not if there will be any.
Group cohesion is always going to be lessened when you are openly arguing with each other and campaigning and briefing aginst one another.

A future Europe HAS to be very different from the current one. Without knowing what the future one is going to be, how can you vote? Bugger all point in voting on the current, unsustainable system IMO.

But we have a vote on Scottish Independent with no idea of what the future would be, so what be any different!

So we agree that the Book of Dreams was just that !! 😉

Without knowing what the future one is going to be, how can you vote?

The argument, which is basically we cannot predict the future- is equally true for both positions rather than just the one that matches your view.

Nothing divides the tories like Europe

- there is already division in the party and eg Kate Hoey is lining up with OUT already

- Labour is far better at ripping itself apart than the tories are

And the bit that really pisses me off about Corbyn, now is a time to attack the Tories, to hold up their policies and to show what shambles they are on Europe. With a majority of 12, it should be possible to stop any significant right wing policy changes. Instead the internal bickering will allow Dave and George to drive any policies they want.

STW Blaming The Victim alert !! Don't you think that Corbyn would infinitely prefer to be presenting his ideas for the economy, rather than responding to the endless back-stabbing from Blairites and their pals in the press?

What will happen is that large numbers of the PLP will be deselected, will form their own party (the SDP?)

No it won't. I think this is the fundamental problem in Labour today - the two parties seem intent on splitting apart but both want to retain the Labour 'name' because most of their voters tick 'Labour' on the voting slip, rather than in-depth knowledge of the actual MP themselves. The 'other Labour' party will be political suicide.

think you are underestimating the potential for the EU referendum to be a shitshow for Labour

LIkely to be cross party campaigns for either vote option the ony question is which lot will be bitter afterwards

IMHO those hate the EU really hate the EU and there are more of that demographic on the upper , and all parts, of the tory party than in labour

Its true labour will not be unscathed by it though.

And the bit that really pisses me off about Corbyn, now is a time to attack the Tories, to hold up their policies and to show what shambles they are on Europe.

That's almost as wrong-headed as the view that Corbyn is being a dictator for removing some of his most active critics from the shadow cabinet. I remember the collegiate big-tent approach of Blair and Brown. The labour party back then was a shining example of open minded free thinking debate 😀

there is already division in the party and eg Kate Hoey is lining up with OUT already

Corbyn is pretty anti-EU, he agreed to stick to party policy to stay in but how long will that last.

JC is in the wrong party IMO. Voting had shown people like some of his ideology but now he's being bogged down by other stuff....he should go elsewhere and least he could do what he wants to with a bunch of similar minded politicians, and see what the public say...maybe he'd succeed, maybe he wouldn't. Least he'd know he tried....Labours not the party for left wing minds anymore....

That's almost as wrong-headed as the view that Corbyn is being a dictator for removing some of his most active critics from the shadow cabinet

Wasn't Jezza a prolific rebel himself? Lucky for him that his predecessors didn't take the same approach that he has eh?
Some might say that they were more open minded and tolerant.....

Ken says our membership of NATO needs to be reviewed after he was parachuted in as the co chair of the labour defence review. Corbyn then sacks the defence spokeswoman with I guess someone more in line with his and Kens view on defence. Oh I was right....

'Mr Jones quit his defence spokesman role over the issue of Trident after Mr Corbyn replaced pro-nuclear weapons MP Maria Eagle with Emily Thornberry, who favours unilateral nuclear disarmament.'

Labour democracy in action

HOld on a minute are you telling me the leader of a political party who stood on a certain platform has put people who share this view in positions to argue the case for the party

This does indeed sound dangerously undemocratic to me and so unlike every other political leader ever.

If you must moan about Corbyn at least pick somethign that differentiates him from everyone else.

Junkyard - lazarus
If you must moan about Corbyn at least pick somethign that differentiates him from everyone else.

Me! Me! Me! (like very eager school kid putting hand up)

As usual I have said JC is not Jesus Christ but his supporters keep portraying him as the returning savior but deep down he is [b]J[/b]ust [b]C[/b]ommunist! 😆

I like Junkyard me coz he is very funny like TJ ... are you TJ coz I am sensing something is ... 😛

PB, it's a good job that the level of geopolitical risk is so low at the moment. Imagine all this nonsense in a world of heightened tension. That would make all the shenanigans seems almost irresponsible, which really wouldn't do at all.

(Busy digging bomb shelter)

HOld on a minute are you telling me the leader of a political party who stood on a certain platform has put people who share this view in positions to argue the case [u]for the party[/u]

Which are they supposed to be arguing the case for? The leader (and the platform he stood on) or the party (and the formally ratified policies it has adopted)?

Hang on, hang on you mean because you support the published and agreed labour policy on defence you can in fact be sacked for not following the leaders views that are not in fact the policy of his party?

Ken isn't an MP so its interesting he's been sent on the media rounds. Can Corbyn find no MPs willing to back him on TV or radio?

Yes the leader can appoint the folk around them who share their view and then try to influence party policy from this platform

Why is this surprising you both?
Why do you think is something special about Corbyn?

What aspect of him doing what all leaders do will you get outraged about next?

@ ninfan I would expect to argue the position I believed in and if it did not match the leaders I would expect to get the sack[ whatever party i was in]

you?

Hang on, hang on you mean because you support the published and agreed labour policy on defence you can in fact be sacked for not following the leaders views that are not in fact the policy of his party?

Has that happened? To whom?

would expect to argue the position I believed in and if it did not match the leaders I would expect to get the sack[ whatever party i was in]

[i]"I want open debate, I will listen to everyone, I firmly believe leadership is listening."
"I am not imposing leadership lines. I don't believe anyone has a monopoly on wisdom - we all have ideas and a vision of how things can be better"[/i]

Corbyn won't make it to the EU referendum, he'll be long gone even if the referendum is this autumn

#Jambyfact

or accurately quoted

I am not leader who wants to impose leadership lines all the time.

I don’t believe anyone of us has a monopoly on wisdom and ideas - we all have ideas and a vision of how things can be better.

I want open debate in our party and our movement.

I will listen to everyone.

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/130135691169/speech-by-jeremy-corbyn-to-labour-party-annual

I actually asked what you think would happen. DO you think a person can openly oppose the leader and remain in position in any party. Is it just Corbyn who gets rid of these types? Its not is it and the attack is just tories going i dont like him.

I will listen to everyone.

Sorry junky, couldn't help myself! 😀

no problem with it as it is what he has done and it is is just politics/leadership. To get shocked that a politician has behaved like a politician is pointless
to do it only about the other side is even more pointless

he confusion began on Sunday when Mr Cameron was asked if he has “absolutely closed your mind to allowing ministers a free vote”.
He said: “I’ve been very clear. If you want to be part of the government, you have to take the view that we are engaged in an exercise of renegotiation, to have a referendum and that will lead to a successful outcome.”
When asked if anyone “in Government who opposes that will have to resign”, the Prime Minister said: “Everyone in Government has signed up to the programme set out in the Conservative manifesto.”
Downing Street sources later confirmed that Mr Cameron was “very clear” that he would expect any minister who plans to campaign for Britain to leave the EU to resign.

this week he announced they coudl openly campaign against them

Its just politics

I would argue daves is worse [ well I would wouldn't I] as it has undermined his leadership
Corbyn clearly has loyalty issues with a PLP who are at best indifferent and usually openly hostile.
Everything else is us just playing political point scoring.

Corbyn hasn't sacked people for disagreeing on policy. (yes Eagle git moved) he sacked people for questioning his leadership and the party's direction. Benn disagreed over policy still in job.

DrJ

Mr Corbyn replaced pro-nuclear weapons MP Maria Eagle with Emily Thornberry, who favours unilateral nuclear disarmament.

The stated labour policy on Trident is? And after appointing Ken, a non MP to be co chair of the defence committee review. Who has expanded the role to include our possible withdrawal from NATO.

Sacking yes if you don't support the party line but this isn't

Moved, sacked.....

The issue is one of credibility for the whole party. Do we vote for their published policies or what the leader says and non elected members?

DrJ

Mr Corbyn replaced pro-nuclear weapons MP Maria Eagle with Emily Thornberry, who favours unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Correct, but you have no evidence that that was WHY she was replaced. I suspect that it had more to do with her public siding with General Whotsit about his statement about Corbyn being dangerous if elected. At that point it was clear she had to go.

Do we vote for their published policies or what the leader says and non elected members?

We vote for their published policies of course. Is there an election? Are we voting? Did I miss something?

Clearly Coryn is trying to change labour party policy and as he has just been elected as leader on a platform that included this policy on trident its not unreasonable to argue he has a mandate for it. Its pretty hard to argue that a leader trying to change party policy is somehow undemocratic. Every labour leader has done it be it clause 4 or union block voting. Its what leaders try to do.

All this is is tory using whatever he does as a method to beat him JHad they stayed in position no one would be condemning him for having an open party they would be claiming he has weak leadership. Its getting really boring having to constantly counter tories just using whatever happens as a means to moan about Corbyn he is just doing what all leaders of political parties do.

As for ken he is the co chair with the shadow defence minister being in charge.

Jeremy Corbyn has risked causing further splits in the Labour party by appointing Ken Livingstone as co-chair of the party's policy review on Trident.

The former Mayor of London is a strong opponent of renewing Britain's nuclear deterrent and shadow defence secretary Maria Eagle, who is in charge of Labour's defence review, was said to be "furious" at the decision after hearing about it on Twitter.

His appointment is part of Mr Corbyn's determination to push through an anti-Trident policy as the party’s official stance in time for when MPs are asked to vote on the renewal of Britain's fleet of four Trident ballistic missile submarines next summer.

Don't you think that Corbyn would infinitely prefer to be presenting his ideas for the economy, rather than responding to the endless back-stabbing from Blairites and their pals in the press?

This.

If the cry-baby entitled Blairites could just shut up for a few moments, or alternatively join the party they like trying to out do, i.e. the Tories, then Labour would be much better off. 60-odd percent of their supporters voted for a significant change in direction. If you count Burham's votes too then that's well over 3/4 of the people who voted in the leadership election wanting policy considerably to the left of NuLab. It's about time they listened.

JY, all I am doing is posting links or references to statements made by Labour Party MPs and Shadow cabinet members, past and present.

The Labour Party came out almost immediately to counter Livingstone's idiotic statement on NATO. It's Labour Party policy to vote in favour of Trident renewal and if Cobyn wanted to something different he could have debated at the party conference. As it was he dodged the issue as he got wind he would lose the vote.

@zokes - nope its the leftish Corbyn-ites who need to leave and form their own party which will be just as unelectable as Labour would be under Corbyn. Blair got Labour 13 years in Government, thats the key fact.

Surely the point is that regardless of the labour membership, the UK do not vote for hard-left policy. Are the hard leftists happy to remain in opposition and watch the tories do what tories do for the next X years?
Because I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that Labour under JC or any other hard left won't win.
Leaves me hoping that the lib dems can get their act together.

all I am doing is posting links or references to statements made by Labour Party MPs and Shadow cabinet members, past and present.

Can you not be honest with yourself? No else is struggling to understand why you will quote anyone anywhere criticising him .

nope its the leftish Corbyn-ites who need to leave and form their own party

JY video below here is a good example. Labour kicked put militant tendancy, it was Kinnock's greatest achievement and paved the way for a Labour government. Corbyn and his suporters need to do the same if they want to get elected. As you know from my perspective the longer Corbyn remains around the better.

The Labour Party abandoned all its morals and values to attract right wing voters when 'new Labour' came along, they just turned into a Tory plan B and offered nothing as an alternative to the Tory party,
Lots of people see Corbin as a genuine alternative to the 'same old same old' political circus that we seem to be stuck with now,
The more they howl about Corbin and try to character assassinate him the more a lot of people think he might be onto something and offer a genuine alternative to the tossers we're stuck with now..

the UK do not vote for hard-left policy.

Are the hard leftists happy to remain in opposition and watch the tories do what tories do for the next X years?

Because I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that Labour under JC or any other hard left won't win

IMHO he needs to persuade those who do not vote to turn up and persuade folk that voting can make a difference and change things

TBH the tories imploding over the EU is probably the best hope Labour have

@kahni - middle ground voters, not rigjt wing. Blair brought in the minimum wage, if youndon't win elections you can't do anything except get a bit shouty and go on prptest marches

Jamby have you considered addressing what I say rather than just repeating what you do?

Switches blocker on had enough of your biased partisan drivel for a while.

Surely the middle grounders are the deciders?
So it should (and mostly does) come down to who is more middle ground, lab or tory.
From my POV, neither are an appetising prospect at present.
Oh for un-entrenched, neutral, un-indoctrinated political parties.

Junkyard - lazarus

All this is is tory using whatever he does as a method to beat him JHad they stayed in position no one would be condemning him for having an open party they would be claiming he has weak leadership

In fact they've done both- he's simultaneously a dictator crushing all dissent, and weak for not crushing Benn for dissent

TBH I don't think he's chosen the best strategy; it's a sensible tactic, he opened the door to people and gave them a chance to work with him, then acted when they chose not to. But that's been spun twice, once as weak leadership and once as hypocrisy and authoritarianism. If he'd just picked his favourite cabinet first time he'd have still got the second line but not the first. It seems like he's chosen the reasonable course of action in an unreasonable world and maybe not understood how it would be painted. (OTOH maybe I underestimate how things will be spun regardless of what he does; but here I think he's not played the game well)

I think he also underestimates the labour party's willingness to score own goals- he's brought people onto the team who want to see the party fail so that they can blame him, rather than trying to make the party succeed. The blairites would rather have 10 years in the wilderness as long as it's them that leads them back out- basically they're playing a different game entirely where the object is to win the party not elections.

(though, I had an interesting chat with some old blairite mates last week who're basically bricking it- they'd formed a lot of opinions based on the idea that Cameron was going to be basically a Blair 2 and that having him win wasn't that big a deal. And now they're finding out what it really means and asking what sort of country will be left in another 5 or 10 years, and realising that all their ideas about moving to the centre have enabled the tories to move massively to the right. Mind you they're still all thinking about who to blame rather than what to do, but it's progress)

Though a bit of an elephant in the room is that the labour party is just low on quality right now. You saw it in the leadership election- Corbyn succeeded largely because of the low quality competition. And now you see it in the weak field of cabinet candidates. He can only **** with the dick he's got.

nope its the leftish Corbyn-ites who need to leave and form their own party which will be just as unelectable as Labour would be under Corbyn.

You see the trouble with this is that Corbyn won the biggest ever landslide in the leadership election, in all 3 sections of the vote. When are the blairites going to accept that they lost? I've said it before plenty times, but they have a simple choice, either accept that they lost and do whatever they can to support the new leader, or leave.

I think that has certainly been the case but as so many dont vote I am not sure it is the ONLY way to win.

I also find it strange that both parties have to flip flop around trying to win over the [s]unprincipled[/s] wavering voters who could flop either way based on who has the nicest haircut 😉

I think only time will tell whether this approach works or not- I do suspect some "hard left" polices - no nukes possibly being one [ even though i do , weakly, support such a position]- are sufficiently off the wall to , alone, render the party unelectable.

They still have to give some thought to not being always "far left"

@zokes - nope its the leftish Corbyn-ites who need to leave and form their own party which will be just as unelectable as Labour would be under Corbyn.

So, as per my post, over three quarters of them then? Why don't the 25% who secretly want to **** pigs with Cameron go and do so instead? Or maybe they could form a new party - they could call it [i]New Tories[/i]

Blair got Labour 13 years in Government, thats the key fact.

Mainly (with the odd exception, such as the minimum wage) by out Torying the Tories. I'm 32. There hasn't been a left wing government in the UK in my lifetime.

basically they're playing a different game entirely where the object is to win the party not elections.

Oh and another excellent balanced post with an amusing ending

I also find it strange that both parties have to flip flop around trying to win over the unprincipled wavering voters who could flop either way based on who has the nicest haircut

There is plently I agree with from both the tories and labour (even now) but if I have to choose.......

Though a bit of an elephant in the room is that the labour party is just low on quality right now.

And why is that? Could it be that Blair and Brown packed the parliamentary party with PPE drones straight out of Oxford and gave jobs to those who were best at greasing their way up the pole, instead of the using the tried and tested local constituency/trade union route where prospective MPs had to cut their teeth on the coalface by working their way up through local government or trade unions?

I think the lib dems ruined coalition they were so keen on being seen to be in power that they forgot to have principles and use their position to further their agenda - they did seem to have the hang by the end to be fair but the damage was done as election night proved.

They just looked like unprincipled spineless turncoats

If you are a middle ground [ not an insult] voter then you will prefer middle of the road politics and a coalition certainly delivers that.

I do prefer PR and this will lead to coalitions so perhaps the "best" [ least worst] option is to have bland middle of the road policies that enthuse very few of us but anger very few of us?

dazh - you're right, he did get voted in but there's a huge gap of people between him and the people who voted him in..

It is comical really. He's nothing special but his values really get people's knickers in a twist.

Essentially he believes in trying to change the power relations within the UK to make it a fairer society...but god do people hate that.

"What..you mean we can't wave our dicks around by going to war and showing how tough we are"...."what, you mean give some money to some deserving people...i mean i know they were born without arms but still, they should try harder"..."what, pay taxes...god no, that's so below me"..."i deserve my place at the top and the rest of you can get lost you bunch of disabled (or insert other unfortunate life circumstances people here if you wish) scroungers"....

I think the lib dems ruined coalition they were so keen on being seen to be in power that they forgot to have principles and use their position to further their agenda - they did seem to have the hang by the end to be fair but the damage was done as election night proved.

You see the trouble with this is that Corbyn won the biggest ever landslide in the leadership election, in all 3 sections of the vote. When are the blairites going to accept that they lost?

The illusion is that the Labour Party 'leader' is anything more than the head of the PLP. Conference and NEC run the party, and while Corbyn has considerable clout and the backing of much of the 'machine', conference sets policy and it could be argued that Corbyn should accept that he's lost over Trident and stick to its line.

Corbyn's mandate is important, but until that works it way through to conference and NEC, he is not yet the ultimate authority in the party.

Does Corbyn have a sufficient majority among full members to start loading conference with delegates who would back him?

You see the trouble with this is that Corbyn won the biggest ever landslide in the leadership election, in all 3 sections of the vote. When are the blairites going to accept that they lost? I've said it before plenty times, but they have a simple choice, either accept that they lost and do whatever they can to support the new leader, or leave.

You'll never win an election by appealing to the party membership, particuarly not when setting policies.

They are, by their very nature, the hardcore.

You only need to look at Cameron - to most of the party membership many of his policies are weak willed and/or a complete anathema (Europe, immigration, gay marriage etc). While most of the other ones don't go far enough. (Benefits etc).
In fact you can see the mistakes that they have made by pandering to the membership, then backed away from because they utterley isolate them from the voters (eg. Tax credits) that's not to say they haven't been thrown the occasional bone to keep them happy, but ultimately, Tory policies and decisions have remained far closer to the centre ground than their party membership (well, those who hadn't abandoned it and gone to UKIP)- and thus they won the election.

Blair did much the same, rule from the centre whilst throwing occasional bones to the membership (minimum wage, hunting) and won elections by doing so. Even the Lib Dems couldn't satisfy the party membership, 'cause they were mainly nutters.

Corbyns 'appeal' to the membership and Labour Party supporters (rather than the voters at large) and the sudden upsurge of new party members from the 'random nut jobs' on the left is the equivalent of a new Tory leaders policies bringing the UKIP members flocking back home to the Tories - electoral suicide.

sunnydaze310 - Member

Essentially he believes in trying to change the power relations within the UK to make it a fairer society...but god do people hate that.

The number of times you hear about how he's "far left" or "extreme left" really says a lot. He's no such thing, the UK doesn't really have much of a far left, but it's the standard description. It's a well proven trick tbh,a lot of people seem convinced that Cameron/Osborne/May are centrists in much the same way.

I don't think you can dismiss everyone who backed Corbyn as a random nut jobs. Many were younger people making their first foray into politics, which is a good thing for the Labour Party in the longer term, especially when you look at the ageing nature of both the Conservative and LibDem membership. Look how young membership has energised the SNP.

My reading is that JC was elected not for broad electoral appeal, but to shake up the party and make it fit for future purpose after a decade of decline.

The problem for him is that that his core support are not yet represented in party structures, and may never be. And that he'll get removed pretty quickly (would he even get on the ballot in another leadership election?)

The number of times you hear about how he's "far left" or "extreme left" really says a lot. He's no such thing, the UK doesn't really have much of a far left, but it's the standard description. It's a well proven trick tbh,a lot of people seem convinced that Cameron/Osborne/May are centrists in much the same way.

Well you have to admire the Tories' spin machine for making sensible things like state-owned railways seem like the beginning of a Stalinist tyranny, while you marvel at the stupidity of the British electorate who routinely vote for things which are directly opposed to their own interests, apparently stuck in a time warp of forelock-tugging and blindly doing the bidding of the gentry.

from the middle, Corbyn is hard left. As as far left as Farage is right.