I no longer fully understand my party. Extraordinary really. All I can think is that it's not so much Corbyn winning this thing, but the other candidates conspiring to lose. If they can't beat Jeremy Corbyn for heaven's sake they really don't deserve to win. Knowing the Labour Party, they'll handle this the wrong way and just attack Corbyn. Instead they need to raise their game, offer some remotely inspiring policies and if necessary compromise to win this. It's back to the drawing board for Burnham and Cooper's campaign. They should pause and think this through. They are both to blame for this but there's time for them to turn it around.
Henry, you are not alone.
Labour is facing the inevitable comeuppance from the tactics they, and their companions in the media, have been pushing since the recession. If you constantly claim the sky is falling in because the Tories hate the poor based on tenuous logic, then the political centre doesn't believe you but you succeed in radicalising your core supporters. You end up with a big gap between the activist base and the median voter you need to win, and with the activists angry enough to not give a damn.
Of course not. Why would Party members want to abandon their principles so that less than 1% of their number can swan around in ministerial limousines? It is a piece of the Labour soul to believe that their Party has only ever been in office, never in power. From that perspective not wanting to win is not only no big deal, it is rationality.
In that case it's a false perspective. Who is the greater betrayer of the working class, those who smug vanity makes them cling on to all of their precious "principles" and remain in impotently in opposition watching the Tories do what they like, or those who pragmatically put forward a programme to gain power and actually do something to help the poor and underpriveleged?
Labour should have voted for AV, once it was clear that the LDs were f*cked. Then the smug tossers could have gone off and formed Old Socialist Eco Labour, and Kendall (or more likely Chuka) could have led a centre-left party that actually aspired to government.
What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
The shadow the Corbynites will cast is a long one. Those who disagree will leave or be forced out, the tone of acceptable conversations will be pulled leftwards and who would want to vilified as a baby-eating crypto-Tory?
It'll take a disaster like Foot and a brave man like Kinnock to give them the high-voltage shock required.
Even if Corbyn is only leader as a short time, presumably he will use his time to promote leftists to the front bench, in order to bolster their credibility for a future leadership contest?
Advice from a Tory. Thank God Plato doesn't possess the slightest shred of arrogance...
A Tory who voted for Labour when Blair was in charge. I would have thought she is exactly the sort of swing voter that Labour need to appeal to.
I fully accept that the "centre ground" in the English shire counties at least is to the right of Cameron and Osborne.
If you think the only problem Labour has is with the English Shires then you are kidding yourself.
It's hard to see how the party could avoid a split if Corbyn became leader: this is someone on the outer fringes of loony leftism, but, more importantly, someone who would take the UK into the international wilderness. The US would look on in utter bewilderment at a Corbyn-led Labour Party - would he even get security clearance for the normal leader of the opposition briefings?
But it is also hard to see how Labour avoids a split if Corbyn doesn't become leader. I expect Liz to withdraw and urge her supporters to vote for Cooper. The Left will see it as a Blairite stitch-up to rob them of victory (and they would have a case). Unite? Who knows whether they will rein back their financial commitment if Corbyn just loses. Surely there will be a wedge of activists who think "What's the point?" whoever loses.
Dark days.
Titter.
I think it unlikely that Liz would withdraw. She is no quitter. If she did then I do not think she would back Cooper, there is no love lost there politically or personally. Coopers remarks about childlessness were uncalled for.
It's hard to see how the party could avoid a split if Corbyn became leader: this is someone on the outer fringes of loony leftism, but, more importantly, someone who would take the UK into the international wilderness. The US would look on in utter bewilderment at a Corbyn-led Labour Party - would he even get security clearance for the normal leader of the opposition briefings?
But it is also hard to see how Labour avoids a split if Corbyn doesn't become leader. I expect Liz to withdraw and urge her supporters to vote for Cooper. The Left will see it as a Blairite stitch-up to rob them of victory (and they would have a case). Unite? Who knows whether they will rein back their financial commitment if Corbyn just loses. Surely there will be a wedge of activists who think "What's the point?" whoever loses.
Dark days.
Titter.
I think it unlikely that Liz would withdraw. She is no quitter. If she did then I do not think she would back Cooper, there is no love lost there politically or personally. Coopers remarks about childlessness were uncalled for.
It's quite bewildering to me why Jeremy Corbyn has waited until now before even considering the Labour Leadership race. I know he only got in by the skin of his teeth but he is 66 and will be 70 by the time of the next election.
The broadcasters both BBC and SKY are struggling on how to question Corbyn. They are trying to 'wind him up' saying "Tony Blair said this and said that" but he's not biting. Coming across as extremely cordial and he doesn't talk in soundbites, which even I find refreshing.
Only a couple of days until F1 returns. And then disappears for another four weeks. A seven week period with 1 race is daft.
Budapest weather update. Possible storms Friday, hot and sticky Saturday then a big temp drop for Sunday but staying dry http://www.bbc.com/weather/3054643
There should have been the German GP last weekend of course, which would have made it better.
Lady Bucket, surely they should just ask him on his political views regarding Hamas, the IRA/Sinn Fein (in the aftermath of the Brighton bombing) and so on?
@IanAustinMP: @gabyhinsliff@LadPolitics People should calm down. I think it's very unlikely he'll win & there is some evidence that polls might be wrong
ROFL
Ah, the Corporal Jones response 'Don't Panic! Don't Panic'
It's hard to see how the party could avoid a split if Corbyn became leader: this is someone on the outer fringes of loony leftism, but, more importantly, someone who would take the UK into the international wilderness. The US would look on in utter bewilderment at a Corbyn-led Labour Party - would he even get security clearance for the normal leader of the opposition briefings?
But it is also hard to see how Labour avoids a split if Corbyn doesn't become leader. I expect Liz to withdraw and urge her supporters to vote for Cooper. The Left will see it as a Blairite stitch-up to rob them of victory (and they would have a case). Unite? Who knows whether they will rein back their financial commitment if Corbyn just loses. Surely there will be a wedge of activists who think "What's the point?" whoever loses.
Dark days.
Titter.
I think it unlikely that Liz would withdraw. She is no quitter. If she did then I do not think she would back Cooper, there is no love lost there politically or personally. Coopers remarks about childlessness were uncalled for.
For those very reasons, Liz would look magnanimous - and convince many in the party she had put Labour's interests ahead of her own personal ambition. (In the short term, at least....)
Let's face it, she is going to come a poor fourth. She may as well try and redeem herself some... She may swing enough to make it a straight Corbyn v Cooper fight, with Burnham marginalised - and his supporters deciding the direction the party takes. Seems to me that is the best shot of beating Corbyn now.
If she presses on regardless, then I reckon Corbyn will edge it.
I no longer fully understand my party. Extraordinary really. All I can think is that it's not so much Corbyn winning this thing, but the other candidates conspiring to lose. If they can't beat Jeremy Corbyn for heaven's sake they really don't deserve to win. Knowing the Labour Party, they'll handle this the wrong way and just attack Corbyn. Instead they need to raise their game, offer some remotely inspiring policies and if necessary compromise to win this. It's back to the drawing board for Burnham and Cooper's campaign. They should pause and think this through. They are both to blame for this but there's time for them to turn it around.
Henry, you are not alone.
Labour is facing the inevitable comeuppance from the tactics they, and their companions in the media, have been pushing since the recession. If you constantly claim the sky is falling in because the Tories hate the poor based on tenuous logic, then the political centre doesn't believe you but you succeed in radicalising your core supporters. You end up with a big gap between the activist base and the median voter you need to win, and with the activists angry enough to not give a damn.
Yes you are broadly correct. The other candidates are not really showing any conviction. Well not showing any courage of their own convictions. A lot of damage is done even assuming Corbyn does not win.
The Labour leadership race isn't going to bring out the 'silent middle England' vote that's fearful of the SNP. Nor can Cooper stoke up fear of arabs streaming to the polls.
I reckon that like the Scottish GE polling, this might just be correct.
This is a small turnout very localised election with only hardcore Labourites, union members and very dedicated spoiler Tories who are going to bother.
Lady Bucket, surely they should just ask him on his political views regarding Hamas, the IRA/Sinn Fein (in the aftermath of the Brighton bombing) and so on?
Vote Labour to return the Falklands to Argentina ?
Yvette Cooper has rubbished a shock poll which has Jeremy Corbyn as the runaway favourite for Labour leader - as a new survey puts her in front.
The shadow home secretary hit out after last night's stunning YouGov study put her in third place with just 20% of the vote.
She sounded a warning over the party's return to the 'dismal days of the 1980s, with internal party warfare and almost two decades of opposition'.
And she insisted the poll, which put Mr Corbyn on 43% and Andy Burnham on 26% in the first round, didn't match her own private research.
Today a university's survey of 294 Labour councillors put Ms Cooper in a narrow first place but conceded support is growing for radical left-winger Mr Corbyn.
It's hard to see how the party could avoid a split if Corbyn became leader: this is someone on the outer fringes of loony leftism, but, more importantly, someone who would take the UK into the international wilderness. The US would look on in utter bewilderment at a Corbyn-led Labour Party - would he even get security clearance for the normal leader of the opposition briefings?
But it is also hard to see how Labour avoids a split if Corbyn doesn't become leader. I expect Liz to withdraw and urge her supporters to vote for Cooper. The Left will see it as a Blairite stitch-up to rob them of victory (and they would have a case). Unite? Who knows whether they will rein back their financial commitment if Corbyn just loses. Surely there will be a wedge of activists who think "What's the point?" whoever loses.
Dark days.
Titter.
I think it unlikely that Liz would withdraw. She is no quitter. If she did then I do not think she would back Cooper, there is no love lost there politically or personally. Coopers remarks about childlessness were uncalled for.
Cooper didnt make any
She has contacts with the Balls/Brown dark arts team.
Cooper is a loser. Better have Corbyn, as he will have a further leadership contest sooner.
Labour is facing the inevitable comeuppance from the tactics they, and their companions in the media, have been pushing since the recession. If you constantly claim the sky is falling in because the Tories hate the poor based on tenuous logic, then the political centre doesn't believe you but you succeed in radicalising your core supporters. You end up with a big gap between the activist base and the median voter you need to win, and with the activists angry enough to not give a damn.
Radicalising? There had always been a hard-left tendency from within Labour - it's hardly just only emerged because of Labour critique of Conservative Policy. Even the wider public hardly regard the Conservatives as a party helping the poor and under-privileged - if it that was the case, it does beg the question as to why these groups aren't voting Tory if they are so 'helped'. The Tories are regarded as competent, and having clear aims and policies, and leader who is credible and taken seriously. That is why people are voting for them, not because they are paragons of virtue.
As for the gap between the activist base and the median voter, that is really down to the party becoming more London-centric, than anything else. If you increasingly become a London party, in a city which embraces liberal-left attitudes which are the antithesis to the attitudes of the rest of the country, then inevitably a gap between the activist base and the median voter will emerge. That said, I suspect that activists in general are hardly that close to your average voter - certainly, I doubt there wasn't something of a gap between your average Labour activist in the Blair years, and your average voter. It was just that Labour were desperate for power, and the activists at that point realised that the only way you can implement at least some of your aims is through government, and not carpering on the sidelines in opposition. It also took the Conservative party, and from what it seems - their activists to get to a similar point between 1997-2010, too. The party activist is in general atypical from your average voter, simply by being a party activist with a vested interested in getting a political party elected. The difference between a sane activist to a silly one, is an activist that recognises the need to understand the electorate, rather than impose their perspective all the time. There seemed to quite a few Conservatives out there who weren't all keen on gay-marriage for example, but they were smart enough to know that the electorate at large supports it.
The shadow the Corbynites will cast is a long one. Those who disagree will leave or be forced out, the tone of acceptable conversations will be pulled leftwards and who would want to vilified as a baby-eating crypto-Tory?
It'll take a disaster like Foot and a brave man like Kinnock to give them the high-voltage shock required.
Even if Corbyn is only leader as a short time, presumably he will use his time to promote leftists to the front bench, in order to bolster their credibility for a future leadership contest?
Advice from a Tory. Thank God Plato doesn't possess the slightest shred of arrogance...
A Tory who voted for Labour when Blair was in charge. I would have thought she is exactly the sort of swing voter that Labour need to appeal to.
I fully accept that the "centre ground" in the English shire counties at least is to the right of Cameron and Osborne.
If you think the only problem Labour has is with the English Shires then you are kidding yourself.
The English shires constitute a large majority of the British population:
When the activist base believes that it's morally superior, voters are selfish and evil for not agreeing with them and throwing teddy out of the pram in disgust - we end up with 4 Labour candidates
- Liz The Tory, who's trying to be like the only Leader that actually won an election in 40yrs - Yvette the Sphinx who doesn't say anything about anything - Andy the Northern football bloke who will promote people on regional accents - And Jerry the Bennite with loads of dodgy friends but at least says what he thinks and isn't a crypto-Tory like Hattie...
The party activist is in general atypical from your average voter, simply by being a party activist with a vested interested in getting a political party elected. The difference between a sane activist to a silly one, is an activist that recognises the need to understand the electorate, rather than impose their perspective all the time. There seemed to quite a few Conservatives out there who weren't all keen on gay-marriage for example, but they were smart enough to know that the electorate at large supports it.
The Labour leadership race isn't going to bring out the 'silent middle England' vote that's fearful of the SNP. Nor can Cooper stoke up fear of arabs streaming to the polls.
I reckon that like the Scottish GE polling, this might just be correct.
This is a small turnout very localised election with only hardcore Labourites, union members and very dedicated spoiler Tories who are going to bother.
I ain't laying Jezza at 3-1 !
I guess the polls *could* be wrong in the sense that one of the issues with polling at the GE was a lack of a representative sample from pollsters. The SNP issue was one that featured throughout the election, and when asked always showed large numbers of voters alarmed by them. Yet, pollsters never picked up the phenomenon of this leading to a rise in the Conservative vote. If pollsters can't find a representative sample in a GE, it does beg the question whether they can do this in a leadership election - particularly given that the make-up of Labour activists and members is likely to differ incredibly from that of the country. That said, the trouble is there are just too many sources, and mood music which indicates that Corbyn is in strong position. While this poll may be wrong about the extent of Corbyn's lead, it does likely reflect that a Corbyn win is a definite possibility, and perhaps the most likely outcome. All in all, like @HenryGManson I do not understand the Labour party. I care far more about Labour having a shot at power, then I do Labour being as left-wing as it possibly can.
I do find it remarkable that some people are hoping that Cooper will be beat Corbyn to the leadership. I mean Cooper as a party leader, a potential PM? Really? We know how good she was as a minister and she has been around long enough to see what sort of politician she is, and she is the great hope for Labour's future. Very sad.
As with so much of the Party's problems the root cause seems to be Gordon Brown. He did so much damage, and not just to the country. A Labour Party which still included people like John Hutton would have much more to say to the electorate at large and would be worth listening to.
What a 'Master Strategist' Ed Miliband was. He took the Labour Party to the left but obviously didn't think it was left enough, so he loses the GE, then resigns straight away and along comes a man so left-wing you need binoculars to see him.
@NCPoliticsUK: The Anglian Ruskin cllr poll reported here seems to have been done only in marginals. So not representative of Labour http://t.co/r1WKaZItdZ
The shadow the Corbynites will cast is a long one. Those who disagree will leave or be forced out, the tone of acceptable conversations will be pulled leftwards and who would want to vilified as a baby-eating crypto-Tory?
It'll take a disaster like Foot and a brave man like Kinnock to give them the high-voltage shock required.
Even if Corbyn is only leader as a short time, presumably he will use his time to promote leftists to the front bench, in order to bolster their credibility for a future leadership contest?
Advice from a Tory. Thank God Plato doesn't possess the slightest shred of arrogance...
A Tory who voted for Labour when Blair was in charge. I would have thought she is exactly the sort of swing voter that Labour need to appeal to.
I fully accept that the "centre ground" in the English shire counties at least is to the right of Cameron and Osborne.
If you think the only problem Labour has is with the English Shires then you are kidding yourself.
The English shires constitute a large majority of the British population:
They do indeed but the implication from IA's post was that Labour's problems lie solely with the 'centre right' voting habits of the Shires. This is delusional.
I do find it remarkable that some people are hoping that Cooper will be beat Corbyn to the leadership. I mean Cooper as a party leader, a potential PM? Really? We know how good she was as a minister and she has been around long enough to see what sort of politician she is, and she is the great hope for Labour's future. Very sad.
As with so much of the Party's problems the root cause seems to be Gordon Brown. He did so much damage, and not just to the country. A Labour Party which still included people like John Hutton would have much more to say to the electorate at large and would be worth listening to.
Seeing as Kendall looks to be out the betting running, on a forced choice (The Labour party always has a chance) to be holding the PMship, would you rather have
'See 1983 and 1992. During recessions, in the first instance voters usually turn to the centre-right as the traditional home of economic competence, particularly when the alternative is out of the far left. Only in despair, as in Greece, will the voters look outside the mainstream.
Labour has lost the economic argument of borrowing vs austerity. I don't think Corbyn would have either the time or opportunity to reverse that even if a recession landed next year.'
The Tories would have lost power in 1992 had they not already got rid of Thatcher . In the perception of the electorate a change of government had occurred but 16 months earlier. As it was, I suspect that had Kinnock not lost control of himself at Sheffield, Major would not have managed an overall majority
I'm neither a political expert or historian, irrespective of opinions there clearly some clever people on here and I'd like to know: has the Labour Party EVER been in such a mess?
Perhaps this 'Corbynite Manoeuvre' is a gigantic bluff. The threat to end civilisation as we know it may be a ploy to make the eventual winner look sane and Labour reformed.
My betting conclusion of the current Labour leadership is to lay Andy Burnham at around evens and back Yvette Cooper at 11-4.I suspect after the Labour List readership survey the 5-2 about Jeremy Corbyn will look big and we could get flip-flopping favourites as well as flip-flopping candidates.Interesting that Yvette Cooper polled relatively highly amonst the over 65s,some of whom will not be touched by internet access and so not touched by internet polls.Her chance probably depends on a strong recommendation,at the very least,from the Liz Kendall camp.
Everything on that list are all arguable policies: in fact, Osborne would claim they have made progress on 1 ("Implementing stronger anti-avoidance rules), and are going further in this parliament.
The big downside is that it is all relentlessly anti-business. There is no sign that Corbyn gets that business and commerce needs to thrive in order to pay for the things he would like to do. In short, business seems to be the enemy to him.
The idea of a National Investment Bank is good, but can only do a small part of what is necessary. Governments rarely pick winners; they can only enable them.
The anti-business rhetoric is not unexpected from Corbyn, and not disappointing for that reason. But it's clear he sees business as the enemy. And that should worry us all.
Cooper is a loser. Better have Corbyn, as he will have a further leadership contest sooner.
@PickardJE: Ally of Corbyn dismisses idea that he'd only do the job for a while:
"He wants to go the full five years."
Good - it was disgraceful to see reports he would stand down automatically at some point, making his bid nothing more than an ego trip. If he wins, he may well decide to step down if the party looks to be doing poorly, but he should go in assuming he has to go the distance.
Perhaps this 'Corbynite Manoeuvre' is a gigantic bluff. The threat to end civilisation as we know it may be a ploy to make the eventual winner look sane and Labour reformed.
What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.
The Social Democratic Party (SDP) was a centrist political party in the United Kingdom.[4][5][6][7][8] It was founded on 26 March 1981 by four senior Labour Party 'moderates', dubbed the 'Gang of Four': Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Bill Rodgers and Shirley Williams. At the time of the SDP's creation, Owen and Rodgers were sitting Labour Members of Parliament (MPs); Jenkins had left Parliament in 1977 to serve as President of the European Commission, while Williams had lost her seat in the 1979 general election. The four left the Labour Party as a result of policy changes enacted at the January 1981 Wembley conference which committed the party to unilateral nuclear disarmament and withdrawal from the European Economic Community. They also believed that Labour had become too left-wing, and had been allegedly infiltrated at constituency party level by Trotskyist factions whose views and behaviour they considered to be at odds with the Parliamentary Labour Party and Labour voters.[citation needed]
Twenty-eight Labour MPs eventually joined the new party, along with one member of the Conservative Party, Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler. Williams and Jenkins were not at the time MPs, but were elected to the Commons in by-elections at Crosby and Glasgow Hillhead respectively.
The defecting Labour MPs were Tom Bradley (Leicester East), Ronald Brown (Hackney South), John Cartwright (Woolwich East), Richard Crawshaw (Liverpool Toxteth), George Cunningham (Islington South), Bruce Douglas-Mann (Mitcham), James Dunn (Liverpool Kirkdale), Tom Ellis (Wrexham), David Ginsburg (Dewsbury), John Grant (Islington Central), John Horam (Gateshead West), Ednyfed Hudson Davies (Caerphilly), Edward Lyons (Bradford West), Dr Dickson Mabon (Greenock), Bryan Magee (Leyton), Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland), Tom McNally (Stockport South), Bob Mitchell (Southampton, Itchen), Eric Ogden (Liverpool West Derby), Michael O'Halloran (Islington North), David Owen (Plymouth Devonport), William Rodgers (Teesside Stockton), John Roper (Farnworth), Neville Sandelson (Hayes and Harlington), Jeffrey Thomas (Abertillery), Mike Thomas (Newcastle East), James Wellbeloved (Erith and Crayford), Ian Wrigglesworth (Teesside Thornaby). It was noted at the time that apart from Owen and Rodgers, and to a lesser extent Maclennan and Mabon, none were front-rank figures in the Labour Party, and most were undistinguished backbenchers in danger of deselection.
I'm neither a political expert or historian, irrespective of opinions there clearly some clever people on here and I'd like to know: has the Labour Party EVER been in such a mess?
I do find it remarkable that some people are hoping that Cooper will be beat Corbyn to the leadership. I mean Cooper as a party leader, a potential PM? Really? We know how good she was as a minister and she has been around long enough to see what sort of politician she is, and she is the great hope for Labour's future. Very sad.
As with so much of the Party's problems the root cause seems to be Gordon Brown. He did so much damage, and not just to the country. A Labour Party which still included people like John Hutton would have much more to say to the electorate at large and would be worth listening to.
Seeing as Kendall looks to be out the betting running, on a forced choice (The Labour party always has a chance) to be holding the PMship, would you rather have
PM Burnham PM Cooper PM Corbyn.
The whisky and revolver is not available.
In that forced choice then I think I would follow the good Dr. Sox's advice and vote for Corbyn on the grounds that he is most likely to blow up before the back straight and we can try again.
However, given the dearth of available talent in the Party I am not sure a second attempt will produce a better result and so will probably be looking to go to the off-licence after I have worked out how to circumvent the firearms regulations.
P.S. The match I would like to see in 2020 is Javid versus Jarvis, but I doubt I will as too many things would have to happen in both parties and for both individuals for it to come about.
When the activist base believes that it's morally superior, voters are selfish and evil for not agreeing with them and throwing teddy out of the pram in disgust - we end up with 4 Labour candidates
- Liz The Tory, who's trying to be like the only Leader that actually won an election in 40yrs - Yvette the Sphinx who doesn't say anything about anything - Andy the Northern football bloke who will promote people on regional accents - And Jerry the Bennite with loads of dodgy friends but at least says what he thinks and isn't a crypto-Tory like Hattie...
The party activist is in general atypical from your average voter, simply by being a party activist with a vested interested in getting a political party elected. The difference between a sane activist to a silly one, is an activist that recognises the need to understand the electorate, rather than impose their perspective all the time. There seemed to quite a few Conservatives out there who weren't all keen on gay-marriage for example, but they were smart enough to know that the electorate at large supports it.
I think you do a very good summary of the candidates, Plato! Tbh, I would caution thinking that CIF represents Labour's activist base (though Twitter probably does). Some CIFers, from reading their comments' section haven't voted Labour in god know's how long, and a lot them are hard-lefties who (after the LDs going into coalition) no longer really have a political home. I suspect that's why a lot of them are so angry, tbqf. I think parts of the activist base do not believe they are thinking voters are selfish or evil but 'just Tory voters'. The trouble is, is that Labour can't afford to restrict who it appeals to. Of course, I would - as young person - like to get more young people voting. I would like to get groups who currently feel so disengaged by the political system voting too.
But Labour cannot rely, on some wishy-washy coalition of ethnic minorities, young people, and previous non-voters, as well reluctant LDs, and some voters from the Greens and the SNP to win an election. Even if they did try to get non-voters and young people, these groups aren't going to agree with everything your average person of the liberal-left says. In many cases, they may disagree. The sad thing is, Labour if it tried to understand the perspective of a lot voters, could probably then at least engage some of them with alternative arguments. Voters are not beyond being persuaded to think about alternative view-points, but you do that by understanding how they see the world, as opposed to dismissing them and believing they are evil.
I'm neither a political expert or historian, irrespective of opinions there clearly some clever people on here and I'd like to know: has the Labour Party EVER been in such a mess?
As I see it they are split irrevocably.
This is a picnic compared to the eighties. Currently, we are contemplating something that may not happen. Back then the party split, Foot was leader and Militant had its mitts everywhere. This could all still largely turn out to be a storm in a teacup.
Great spot from Stephen Bush: the YouGov poll is gender-weighted 50-50 yet apparently the membership is closer to 70-30. But reweighting to that makes things better for the women!
What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.
They do not want to kill all white men - that is silly. They want to castrate them - and feed the gonads to badgers.
Personally I would take this poll with a BIG pinch of salt - Yougov have shown themselves to be more left of centre in their population sample and when it comes down to a 2-horse race I suspect many Labour members will be unwilling to take the risk.
Re: Conditions for a split from Labour. The problem is the past failure of the SDP. However if that is overcome then the conditions for a new centrist party are better than 1981. We have a "liberal" party now led by someone as left wing as Corbyn. So if Labour went for Corbyn then there is room for a Centrist party. The LDs and Labour may as well merge if Corbyn takes over.
What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.
I don't think gender-specific toys are a good thing, and I'm not part of the hard-left. Although I don't regard this government as more evil than Thatcher (but am very scared of it's policies), don't think Thomas the Tank Engine is Racist (LMAO) and I don't want to kill all White Men (but I doubt the vast majority on the Left, which includes quite a few White men want to do that anyway).
Thank you plato and southam, I was vaguely aware of that but to me this seems different, possibly because of the 24/7 coverage. I have mixed feelings, I'm enjoying watching labour seemingly destroy itself but the lack of credible opposition is good for nobody.
IMHO one major factor that saved Labour in the 1980s was the continued level of union funding. But if the Govt's reforms lead to a choice by each member as to where their individual political affiliation fee went..... Then it would improve the propsects of new parties forming and thriving. Of course it would then be curtains for the structure of the current labour party.
@sean Fear - I'd include the performing arts, charitable sector, public sector, new media and some tech start-ups on that list. Their bible is the Guardian.
The trouble is that many of those people are both concentrated in London, where they live and work, and also tend to be well-connected to one another, articulate and well-educated, which gives them a significant national profile which they can use to their maximum advantage.
They also all talk to and socialise with each other, and are quite snobby and dismissive of those who are not their 'equals' so can quite easily convince themselves they speak for the whole country.
@sean Fear - I'd include the performing arts, charitable sector, public sector, new media and some tech start-ups on that list. Their bible is the Guardian.
The trouble is that many of those people are both concentrated in London, where they live and work, and also tend to be well-connected to one another, articulate and well-educated, which gives them a significant national profile which they can use to their maximum advantage.
They also all talk to and socialise with each other, and are quite snobby and dismissive of those who are not their 'equals' so can quite easily convince themselves they speak for the whole country.
And, economics aside, they had the ear of a large chunk of New Labour too so don't view advancing their socio-cultural views, at least, still further as an impossibility.
They're both right and wrong. The Guardian were absolutely stupid to go with that front-page - and ICM weren't that better than YG in the GE, either. That said, putting to one-side the NS 'leaked poll' story, and CLP nominations, it does seem odd to take the YG as complete gospel, given their polling issues in the GE (and even the last Labour leadership contest). While it shouldn't be dismissed, it also shouldn't be taken at face value without any criticism.
@bigjohnowls If Labour are an anti-austerity, populist movement then they are the Syriza of the UK. That is terrifying. Populism can be good in doses, but as the basis for a political party, does not lead to long-term, coherent policies for the country.
What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.
Right now, the women's equality party is being covered on Sky News. They're going to campaign against violence against women. Presumably violence against men is ok.
Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
The hard-Left is a funny beast - it sells a land of milk and honey for its supporters and kills the rest of the population in the process.
It's a pipedream of wishful thinking - and as you note, seeing the world how they want it to be/human nature can be changed a la Marx.
It's been tested to destruction all over the Earth - but the idealistic always look for ways to make it reality.
Sitting around singing kumbaya and putting flowers in the end of rifles may feel great, but it butters no parsnips. I find Paul Mason a fascinating character in this respect. He knows his economics and his onions - but still brandishes his SWP placards on the picketline.
I think you do a very good summary of the candidates, Plato! Tbh, I would caution thinking that CIF represents Labour's activist base (though Twitter probably does). Some CIFers, from reading their comments' section haven't voted Labour in god know's how long, and a lot them are hard-lefties who (after the LDs going into coalition) no longer really have a political home. I suspect that's why a lot of them are so angry, tbqf. I think parts of the activist base do not believe they are thinking voters are selfish or evil but 'just Tory voters'. The trouble is, is that Labour can't afford to restrict who it appeals to. Of course, I would - as young person - like to get more young people voting. I would like to get groups who currently feel so disengaged by the political system voting too.
But Labour cannot rely, on some wishy-washy coalition of ethnic minorities, young people, and previous non-voters, as well reluctant LDs, and some voters from the Greens and the SNP to win an election. Even if they did try to get non-voters and young people, these groups aren't going to agree with everything your average person of the liberal-left says. In many cases, they may disagree. The sad thing is, Labour if it tried to understand the perspective of a lot voters, could probably then at least engage some of them with alternative arguments. Voters are not beyond being persuaded to think about alternative view-points, but you do that by understanding how they see the world, as opposed to dismissing them and believing they are evil.
I'm trying to recall how much of a surprise the Gang of Four split was at the time. We had lots of gnashing of teeth - but it seemed to come out of the blue that Labourites would actually do it.
Anyone here with a better recollection of how it played out. I mainly remember watching the TV open-mouthed when the Labour manifesto came out. It didn't leave any room for doubt that they'd lost their minds.
I'm neither a political expert or historian, irrespective of opinions there clearly some clever people on here and I'd like to know: has the Labour Party EVER been in such a mess?
As I see it they are split irrevocably.
This is a picnic compared to the eighties. Currently, we are contemplating something that may not happen. Back then the party split, Foot was leader and Militant had its mitts everywhere. This could all still largely turn out to be a storm in a teacup.
What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.
Right now, the women's equality party is being covered on Sky News. They're going to campaign against violence against women. Presumably violence against men is ok.
No, I don't think they think that. One of things I always wondered, is on these issues why don't men organise their own organisation to campaign against violence against men? I was having a discussion online a couple of months back on male suicides, and I was told that as a 'leftie feminist I would never understand anyway'. So it seems some do not even want women's equality groups involved in issues such as male suicides, violence against men, and homelessness (which disproportionately affects men) anyway.
What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.
I don't think gender-specific toys are a good thing, and I'm not part of the hard-left. Although I don't regard this government as more evil than Thatcher (but am very scared of it's policies), don't think Thomas the Tank Engine is Racist (LMAO) and I don't want to kill all White Men (but I doubt the vast majority on the Left, which includes quite a few White men want to do that anyway).
I kid you not. There was a Guardian article last year about Thomas' racism.
Re: Conditions for a split from Labour. The problem is the past failure of the SDP. However if that is overcome then the conditions for a new centrist party are better than 1981. We have a "liberal" party now led by someone as left wing as Corbyn. So if Labour went for Corbyn then there is room for a Centrist party. The LDs and Labour may as well merge if Corbyn takes over.
@Plato On Paul Mason, did you read his postcapitalism article in The Guardian? I had no idea he was a member of the hard-left. He always came across as fairly moderate and affable on the BBC. I found out the rather sad news, on another note that he is a Manchester United fan, a fate I would wish on no one.
@GarethoftheVale2 That's another issue. The biggest problem with the voting strategy of the hard-left is that it ignores the electoral map - that you have to capture enough seats to get a majority, and that only how much votes you get matters, but crucially where you get those votes.
What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.
I don't think gender-specific toys are a good thing, and I'm not part of the hard-left. Although I don't regard this government as more evil than Thatcher (but am very scared of it's policies), don't think Thomas the Tank Engine is Racist (LMAO) and I don't want to kill all White Men (but I doubt the vast majority on the Left, which includes quite a few White men want to do that anyway).
Yeah, Sean's accusations were a teensy bit extreme. Saying that 'a very big base of support' within Labour 'wants to kill all White Men' should really be supported with some kind of evidence.
What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.
I don't think gender-specific toys are a good thing, and I'm not part of the hard-left. Although I don't regard this government as more evil than Thatcher (but am very scared of it's policies), don't think Thomas the Tank Engine is Racist (LMAO) and I don't want to kill all White Men (but I doubt the vast majority on the Left, which includes quite a few White men want to do that anyway).
I kid you not. There was a Guardian article last year about Thomas' racism.
Was that established as genuine? I totally thought that it was a top trolling effort from SeanT (or similar)
As has been stated previously the first thing that would happen if Corbyn got in would be a steep hike in gilt yields as investors lose confidence in the UK. The pound would fall far and fast, interest rates would have to be put up and quickly. All this would be before he's even written a first budget.
What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.
I don't think gender-specific toys are a good thing, and I'm not part of the hard-left. Although I don't regard this government as more evil than Thatcher (but am very scared of it's policies), don't think Thomas the Tank Engine is Racist (LMAO) and I don't want to kill all White Men (but I doubt the vast majority on the Left, which includes quite a few White men want to do that anyway).
I kid you not. There was a Guardian article last year about Thomas' racism.
The Guardian has morphed more and more into a joke as time goes on, I'm just glad most people aren't reading it's content. I used to like the Guardian a lot, but I've become more and more critical of it in the last year or so. I saw some ridiculous article on the backlash against Harman, with querying whether it was a result of her 'being a woman'. FGS, anyone with a common-sense radar knows it's not because of that.
Re: Conditions for a split from Labour. The problem is the past failure of the SDP. However if that is overcome then the conditions for a new centrist party are better than 1981. We have a "liberal" party now led by someone as left wing as Corbyn. So if Labour went for Corbyn then there is room for a Centrist party. The LDs and Labour may as well merge if Corbyn takes over.
A Corbyn-led Labpur party could tip a handful of seats, like Rother Valley or Hartlepool, over to UKIP.
Comments
It would only benefit the LDs if the voters ignored policy.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
The broadcasters both BBC and SKY are struggling on how to question Corbyn. They are trying to 'wind him up' saying "Tony Blair said this and said that" but he's not biting. Coming across as extremely cordial and he doesn't talk in soundbites, which even I find refreshing.
Interesting times indeed!!
http://labourlist.org/2015/07/you-just-cannot-cut-your-way-to-prosperity-jeremy-corbyn-outlines-plans-to-make-large-reductions-in-93bn-of-corporate-subsidies/
Azerbaijan's on the calendar too, so 21 races, potentially, next year.
Let's face it, she is going to come a poor fourth. She may as well try and redeem herself some... She may swing enough to make it a straight Corbyn v Cooper fight, with Burnham marginalised - and his supporters deciding the direction the party takes. Seems to me that is the best shot of beating Corbyn now.
If she presses on regardless, then I reckon Corbyn will edge it.
The other candidates are not really showing any conviction. Well not showing any courage of their own convictions. A lot of damage is done even assuming Corbyn does not win.
Phil Booth
@EinsteinsAttic
Go to http://www.petition.parliament.uk Click several times on the portcullis graphic to the left of the page title, 'Petitions' #enjoy
The Labour leadership race isn't going to bring out the 'silent middle England' vote that's fearful of the SNP. Nor can Cooper stoke up fear of arabs streaming to the polls.
I reckon that like the Scottish GE polling, this might just be correct.
This is a small turnout very localised election with only hardcore Labourites, union members and very dedicated spoiler Tories who are going to bother.
I ain't laying Jezza at 3-1 !
Yvette Cooper has rubbished a shock poll which has Jeremy Corbyn as the runaway favourite for Labour leader - as a new survey puts her in front.
The shadow home secretary hit out after last night's stunning YouGov study put her in third place with just 20% of the vote.
She sounded a warning over the party's return to the 'dismal days of the 1980s, with internal party warfare and almost two decades of opposition'.
And she insisted the poll, which put Mr Corbyn on 43% and Andy Burnham on 26% in the first round, didn't match her own private research.
Today a university's survey of 294 Labour councillors put Ms Cooper in a narrow first place but conceded support is growing for radical left-winger Mr Corbyn.
http://bit.ly/1SB9H0m
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 2m2 minutes ago
Anglia Ruskin Uni poll of Lab cllrs puts Cooper on 52% to Burnham 48% in run-off. 1st round Corbyn 25% Kendall 14%. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/yvette-cooper-rubbishes-jeremy-corbyn-6112628 …
Cooper is a loser. Better have Corbyn, as he will have a further leadership contest sooner.
As for the gap between the activist base and the median voter, that is really down to the party becoming more London-centric, than anything else. If you increasingly become a London party, in a city which embraces liberal-left attitudes which are the antithesis to the attitudes of the rest of the country, then inevitably a gap between the activist base and the median voter will emerge. That said, I suspect that activists in general are hardly that close to your average voter - certainly, I doubt there wasn't something of a gap between your average Labour activist in the Blair years, and your average voter. It was just that Labour were desperate for power, and the activists at that point realised that the only way you can implement at least some of your aims is through government, and not carpering on the sidelines in opposition. It also took the Conservative party, and from what it seems - their activists to get to a similar point between 1997-2010, too. The party activist is in general atypical from your average voter, simply by being a party activist with a vested interested in getting a political party elected. The difference between a sane activist to a silly one, is an activist that recognises the need to understand the electorate, rather than impose their perspective all the time. There seemed to quite a few Conservatives out there who weren't all keen on gay-marriage for example, but they were smart enough to know that the electorate at large supports it.
Chuka Umunna: Set up an English parliament
http://bit.ly/1HQSzyu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shire#/media/File:EnglandTraditionalShires.png
When the activist base believes that it's morally superior, voters are selfish and evil for not agreeing with them and throwing teddy out of the pram in disgust - we end up with 4 Labour candidates
- Liz The Tory, who's trying to be like the only Leader that actually won an election in 40yrs
- Yvette the Sphinx who doesn't say anything about anything
- Andy the Northern football bloke who will promote people on regional accents
- And Jerry the Bennite with loads of dodgy friends but at least says what he thinks and isn't a crypto-Tory like Hattie...
@GEddy039: @DJSkelton @RC_Garrick yep foot wud hve won in 83 if sdp hadn't split the vote interestingly progress are funded by one of those splitters
As with so much of the Party's problems the root cause seems to be Gordon Brown. He did so much damage, and not just to the country. A Labour Party which still included people like John Hutton would have much more to say to the electorate at large and would be worth listening to.
Did we underestimate EdM all along?
YOU COULDN'T MAKE IT UP.
I can't imagine who else the Lefties would listen to right now.
PM Burnham
PM Cooper
PM Corbyn.
The whisky and revolver is not available.
david_herdson said:
» show previous quotes
'See 1983 and 1992. During recessions, in the first instance voters usually turn to the centre-right as the traditional home of economic competence, particularly when the alternative is out of the far left. Only in despair, as in Greece, will the voters look outside the mainstream.
Labour has lost the economic argument of borrowing vs austerity. I don't think Corbyn would have either the time or opportunity to reverse that even if a recession landed next year.'
The Tories would have lost power in 1992 had they not already got rid of Thatcher . In the perception of the electorate a change of government had occurred but 16 months earlier. As it was, I suspect that had Kinnock not lost control of himself at Sheffield, Major would not have managed an overall majority
As I see it they are split irrevocably.
"He wants to go the full five years."
If Burnham were to win under such circumstances, he would be fatally wounded before he started.
But does anyone care what Miliband thinks?
This is really desperate stuff.
The big downside is that it is all relentlessly anti-business. There is no sign that Corbyn gets that business and commerce needs to thrive in order to pay for the things he would like to do. In short, business seems to be the enemy to him.
The idea of a National Investment Bank is good, but can only do a small part of what is necessary. Governments rarely pick winners; they can only enable them.
The anti-business rhetoric is not unexpected from Corbyn, and not disappointing for that reason. But it's clear he sees business as the enemy. And that should worry us all.
I've been trying to remember why that felt so familiar all morning!
That really effed them for ages.
However, given the dearth of available talent in the Party I am not sure a second attempt will produce a better result and so will probably be looking to go to the off-licence after I have worked out how to circumvent the firearms regulations.
P.S. The match I would like to see in 2020 is Javid versus Jarvis, but I doubt I will as too many things would have to happen in both parties and for both individuals for it to come about.
I think you do a very good summary of the candidates, Plato! Tbh, I would caution thinking that CIF represents Labour's activist base (though Twitter probably does). Some CIFers, from reading their comments' section haven't voted Labour in god know's how long, and a lot them are hard-lefties who (after the LDs going into coalition) no longer really have a political home. I suspect that's why a lot of them are so angry, tbqf. I think parts of the activist base do not believe they are thinking voters are selfish or evil but 'just Tory voters'. The trouble is, is that Labour can't afford to restrict who it appeals to. Of course, I would - as young person - like to get more young people voting. I would like to get groups who currently feel so disengaged by the political system voting too.
But Labour cannot rely, on some wishy-washy coalition of ethnic minorities, young people, and previous non-voters, as well reluctant LDs, and some voters from the Greens and the SNP to win an election. Even if they did try to get non-voters and young people, these groups aren't going to agree with everything your average person of the liberal-left says. In many cases, they may disagree. The sad thing is, Labour if it tried to understand the perspective of a lot voters, could probably then at least engage some of them with alternative arguments. Voters are not beyond being persuaded to think about alternative view-points, but you do that by understanding how they see the world, as opposed to dismissing them and believing they are evil.
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/623800049210822656
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/623618984571760644
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/623801635337306112
The problem is the past failure of the SDP.
However if that is overcome then the conditions for a new centrist party are better than 1981. We have a "liberal" party now led by someone as left wing as Corbyn. So if Labour went for Corbyn then there is room for a Centrist party. The LDs and Labour may as well merge if Corbyn takes over.
I agree with this MP
Mine cheerleading Kendall makes me puke
He's a loser, unlike the winner Toby Perkins
The trouble is that many of those people are both concentrated in London, where they live and work, and also tend to be well-connected to one another, articulate and well-educated, which gives them a significant national profile which they can use to their maximum advantage.
They also all talk to and socialise with each other, and are quite snobby and dismissive of those who are not their 'equals' so can quite easily convince themselves they speak for the whole country.
They're both right and wrong. The Guardian were absolutely stupid to go with that front-page - and ICM weren't that better than YG in the GE, either. That said, putting to one-side the NS 'leaked poll' story, and CLP nominations, it does seem odd to take the YG as complete gospel, given their polling issues in the GE (and even the last Labour leadership contest). While it shouldn't be dismissed, it also shouldn't be taken at face value without any criticism.
@bigjohnowls If Labour are an anti-austerity, populist movement then they are the Syriza of the UK. That is terrifying. Populism can be good in doses, but as the basis for a political party, does not lead to long-term, coherent policies for the country.
They won elections - go for it Labour..
It's a pipedream of wishful thinking - and as you note, seeing the world how they want it to be/human nature can be changed a la Marx.
It's been tested to destruction all over the Earth - but the idealistic always look for ways to make it reality.
Sitting around singing kumbaya and putting flowers in the end of rifles may feel great, but it butters no parsnips. I find Paul Mason a fascinating character in this respect. He knows his economics and his onions - but still brandishes his SWP placards on the picketline.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKgz1a5WcAAwu2o.jpg
Anyone here with a better recollection of how it played out. I mainly remember watching the TV open-mouthed when the Labour manifesto came out. It didn't leave any room for doubt that they'd lost their minds.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/21/labour-tory-voters
The SDP were a complete leap in the dark, UKIP could be an alternative/or a Blue Labour Party that attempted to get those voters back onboard.
@GarethoftheVale2 That's another issue. The biggest problem with the voting strategy of the hard-left is that it ignores the electoral map - that you have to capture enough seats to get a majority, and that only how much votes you get matters, but crucially where you get those votes.
Saying that 'a very big base of support' within Labour 'wants to kill all White Men' should really be supported with some kind of evidence.
It would be a catastrophe.