2 (I should have read the previous thread faster!)
Meanwhile, the government continues sailing merrily on its way, without an effective opposition. Whilst this is good for the government, I'm not sure it's good for the country.
And if Labour does end up with a leader more towards the non-revolutionary far left - where the Greens are - or with influence from 'purer' socialists, where does that leave the Greens?
They threw away much of their distinctiveness in Scotland by climbing into the SNP trailer. Will the same happen in England and Wales?
The story might be a bit more credible if there were such a thing as the Communist Party of Great Britain. There is a Communist Party of Britain (the de-facto successor of the CPGB) and there is a small splinter-group which calls itself the CPGB (Provisional Central Committee) but which hasn't "built" itself into a proper party yet.
The story is bad enough without the unnecessarily hurtful detail
"Sewel turned a framed picture of his betrayed wife Jennifer (pictured), who is University Secretary at Durham University, face-down on a table before the romp began"
On topic, I'm sure the people who are complaining about the new members wouldn't be moaning if the second coming of Tony Blair had shown up and a bunch of people had joined the party to vote for him.
The process is good - the problem is that the other contenders just aren't inspiring enough to get people to join up.
I'm clearly missing something: a process designed to get the widest possible number of people involved is doing just that. It doesn't seem to be a particular misuse of it.
The story is bad enough without the unnecessarily hurtful detail
"Sewel turned a framed picture of his betrayed wife Jennifer (pictured), who is University Secretary at Durham University, face-down on a table before the romp began"
I'm missing something too anti frank, I naively assumed the Labour Party was all about democracy and equality. It appears that the dice will continue to be rolled until the right people get the right result.
I'm missing something too anti frank, I naively assumed the Labour Party was all about democracy and equality. It appears that the dice will continue to be rolled until the right people get the right result.
Meanwhile Tories are laughing their socks off
They have learned from Europe.. they do that.. eg Ireland and others.
It strikes me suddenly that its always the left being infiltrated, you never hear about the Tories being infiltrated by anyone..
I'm missing something too anti frank, I naively assumed the Labour Party was all about democracy and equality. It appears that the dice will continue to be rolled until the right people get the right result.
Meanwhile Tories are laughing their socks off
They have learned from Europe.. they do that.. eg Ireland and others.
It strikes me suddenly that its always the left being infiltrated, you never hear about the Tories being infiltrated by anyone..
On topic, I'm sure the people who are complaining about the new members wouldn't be moaning if the second coming of Tony Blair had shown up and a bunch of people had joined the party to vote for him.
The process is good - the problem is that the other contenders just aren't inspiring enough to get people to join up.
I thought "Toriesforcorbyn" were infiltrating the Labour party.
On topic, I'm sure the people who are complaining about the new members wouldn't be moaning if the second coming of Tony Blair had shown up and a bunch of people had joined the party to vote for him.
The process is good - the problem is that the other contenders just aren't inspiring enough to get people to join up.
I thought "Toriesforcorbyn" were infiltrating the Labour party.
That's interesting Plato, those tens of thousands won't be the middle class types that voted for Blair, they're not joiners. My guess is they'll be youngsters, the type that will warm to Corbyn. I'm beginning to believe he has a real chance.
On topic, I'm sure the people who are complaining about the new members wouldn't be moaning if the second coming of Tony Blair had shown up and a bunch of people had joined the party to vote for him.
The process is good - the problem is that the other contenders just aren't inspiring enough to get people to join up.
I thought "Toriesforcorbyn" were infiltrating the Labour party.
but they wont stay signed up that's fairly certain. If you look at the revenue streams for Labour and the Tories down the line, Labour are screwed. I was amazed at some of the figures I heard about the Tories money raising efforts had generated.
Do Labour tithe their MP's and councillors like the LD's?
Yes Mr Squareroot, the comparison between the anti democratic and bullying EU is accurate.
Aaah,, but we are better off in than out, The best way to think of the EU is to laugh at them and carry on doing business with them. Their Parliament and all the other stuff are a joke.
Does anyone know if the NUS has backed Corbyn? It's just the sort of thing they'd do. I don't expect they'd generate a large number of affiliates - but every little helps to push Corbyn over the line.
That's interesting Plato, those tens of thousands won't be the middle class types that voted for Blair, they're not joiners. My guess is they'll be youngsters, the type that will warm to Corbyn. I'm beginning to believe he has a real chance.
Yes Mr Squareroot, the comparison between the anti democratic and bullying EU is accurate.
Aaah,, but we are better off in than out, The best way to think of the EU is to laugh at them and carry on doing business with them. Their Parliament and all the other stuff are a joke.
But it doesn't work like that does it, we can do business with them without the extortionate membership fees. You are correct, the parliament is a joke and we're signed up to it.
On topic, I'm sure the people who are complaining about the new members wouldn't be moaning if the second coming of Tony Blair had shown up and a bunch of people had joined the party to vote for him.
The process is good - the problem is that the other contenders just aren't inspiring enough to get people to join up.
Precisely that. My meagre anecdotal evidence suggests the people joining to get involved in this vote are those who "want our party back". Cooper, Burnham and Kendall represent the people they want to wrest it back from.
I'm finally thinking Corbyn could pull this off....
Thinking about this and looking back at the previous thread, I will wait until HYUFD pronounces. His intellectual self-confidence puts us all in his shadow.
On topic, I'm sure the people who are complaining about the new members wouldn't be moaning if the second coming of Tony Blair had shown up and a bunch of people had joined the party to vote for him.
The process is good - the problem is that the other contenders just aren't inspiring enough to get people to join up.
I thought "Toriesforcorbyn" were infiltrating the Labour party.
There's always talk about this kind of thing in the US primaries, but in practice people don't seem to bother doing it in any numbers.
I've never understood the value of these "would you be more or less likely to" type polls. Meaningless unless you know the starting point of those responding. Two names on the list above would make me more likely to vote Labour - but even then I'd be looking to the Greens, Conservative and LibDems before considering Labour.
I'm clearly missing something: a process designed to get the widest possible number of people involved is doing just that. It doesn't seem to be a particular misuse of it.
Indeed. Corbyn is now less unpopular than the other three.
That's interesting Plato, those tens of thousands won't be the middle class types that voted for Blair, they're not joiners. My guess is they'll be youngsters, the type that will warm to Corbyn. I'm beginning to believe he has a real chance.
Will be a real laugh if he beats those middle class losers who after years of uselessness in government and cabinet expected it to be just between the two of them. All those ppe no marks will be crapping themselves at the thought of Corbyn winning it.
Right wing press trying to get the contest abandoned as the wrong result is about to occur shocker.
From the POV of the right wing press, the right result is about to occur.
As a kipper and ex Tory this must be bitter sweet. This is the sort of thing you always wanted to happen to the Tory party.
It will help UKIP and the no campaign if Corbyn wins . If Corbyn gets of the fence, and states he wants to leave the EU. This would also help the SNP on getting another Independence Referendum.
The right and and left could then combine on leaving. Which at the moment seems to me the best position for England.
I'm clearly missing something: a process designed to get the widest possible number of people involved is doing just that. It doesn't seem to be a particular misuse of it.
Indeed. The defence against those joining electing an unsuitable candidate was the 35 MP nomination limit - for the Tories it is whittling down to the final 2 before letting the members decide - so if the party didn't want the risk of Corbyn winning, they shouldn't have put him on the ballot.
Of course, no doubt he will not win, but thanks indeed to labour for the excitement, even if they are unduly pessimistic. And as exciting as an actual split and a new party would be, I find it hard to imagine them doing more than sulking.
Right wing press trying to get the contest abandoned as the wrong result is about to occur shocker.
From the POV of the right wing press, the right result is about to occur.
As a kipper and ex Tory this must be bitter sweet. This is the sort of thing you always wanted to happen to the Tory party.
As I said last night, this would be like Tony Marlow or Harvey Proctor becoming Conservative leader. Even I think they would have been too right wing for the voters.
The problem for Labour, though, is that Corbyn's opponents are so bland. He's the only candidate who seems to possess convictions.
Right wing press trying to get the contest abandoned as the wrong result is about to occur shocker.
That makes no sense whatsoever. As Sean f says, if the press is right wing, Corbyn winning is a good thing. Therefore I think the reporting of some in labour contemplating it, silly though that would be, can be taken as genuine.
Right wing press trying to get the contest abandoned as the wrong result is about to occur shocker.
From the POV of the right wing press, the right result is about to occur.
As a kipper and ex Tory this must be bitter sweet. This is the sort of thing you always wanted to happen to the Tory party.
As I said last night, this would be like Tony Marlow or Harvey Proctor becoming Conservative leader. Even I think they would have been too right wing for the voters.
The problem for Labour, though, is that Corbyn's opponents are so bland. He's the only candidate who seems to possess convictions.
Surely more like Nigel Farage becoming Conservative leader.
I'm clearly missing something: a process designed to get the widest possible number of people involved is doing just that. It doesn't seem to be a particular misuse of it.
Indeed. The defence against those joining electing an unsuitable candidate was the 35 MP nomination limit - for the Tories it is whittling down to the final 2 before letting the members decide - so if the party didn't want the risk of Corbyn winning, they shouldn't have put him on the ballot.
Of course, no doubt he will not win, but thanks indeed to labour for the excitement, even if they are unduly pessimistic. And as exciting as an actual split and a new party would be, I find it hard to imagine them doing more than sulking.
The problem that the right of the Labour party currently has is that they are disorganised and don't have a clear message to sell to the general public.
In other words, they simply aren't very good at politics.
Right wing press trying to get the contest abandoned as the wrong result is about to occur shocker.
From the POV of the right wing press, the right result is about to occur.
As a kipper and ex Tory this must be bitter sweet. This is the sort of thing you always wanted to happen to the Tory party.
As I said last night, this would be like Tony Marlow or Harvey Proctor becoming Conservative leader. Even I think they would have been too right wing for the voters.
The problem for Labour, though, is that Corbyn's opponents are so bland. He's the only candidate who seems to possess convictions.
He does not seem convincing on the EU at the moment. What is his position to staying in, yes or no ?
I'm clearly missing something: a process designed to get the widest possible number of people involved is doing just that. It doesn't seem to be a particular misuse of it.
Of course, no doubt he will not win, but thanks indeed to labour for the excitement, even if they are unduly pessimistic. And as exciting as an actual split and a new party would be, I find it hard to imagine them doing more than sulking.
I think he is likely to win. There is no real enthusiasm for Burnham and Cooper, and quite some antipathy to Kendall. Rather as malcolmg wrote below the PPE SPADS will be bricking it.
Right wing press trying to get the contest abandoned as the wrong result is about to occur shocker.
From the POV of the right wing press, the right result is about to occur.
As a kipper and ex Tory this must be bitter sweet. This is the sort of thing you always wanted to happen to the Tory party.
As I said last night, this would be like Tony Marlow or Harvey Proctor becoming Conservative leader. Even I think they would have been too right wing for the voters.
The problem for Labour, though, is that Corbyn's opponents are so bland. He's the only candidate who seems to possess convictions.
Surely more like Nigel Farage becoming Conservative leader.
Farage leading the Conservatives vs. Corbyn leading Labour would be a contest worth watching.
The other thing about this process is that, at least per the current betting, despite attracting a lot of new members, Corbyn probably won't win. Some of the new members will drift away again, but others will stick around and help whoever does win get elected.
Right wing press trying to get the contest abandoned as the wrong result is about to occur shocker.
From the POV of the right wing press, the right result is about to occur.
As a kipper and ex Tory this must be bitter sweet. This is the sort of thing you always wanted to happen to the Tory party.
As I said last night, this would be like Tony Marlow or Harvey Proctor becoming Conservative leader. Even I think they would have been too right wing for the voters.
The problem for Labour, though, is that Corbyn's opponents are so bland. He's the only candidate who seems to possess convictions.
Surely more like Nigel Farage becoming Conservative leader.
Farage leading the Conservatives vs. Corbyn leading Labour would be a contest worth watching.
Farage leading the Conservatives vs Corbyn leading Labour would be a country worth emigrating from.
So if Corbyn does win either he refuses to compromise or modulate his positions, not all of which he will be able to get adopted as party policy, and his days are therefore numbered. Or he does rollback on the rhetoric and compromises to remain leader, thereby showing himself to be no different really than any other politician, even with more explicit lefty positions, and the crazies will lose their enthusiasm.
The obvious question which begs an answer is, what was the point of promoting and holding a leadership election that was open to all, in order to reach the broadest church possible within Labour, if they are then going to disqualify those deemed undesirable?
The only thing they appear to have got right, was checking new affiliates were on the electoral register which is pretty basic stuff.
Morning all. Corbyn as Labour leader might not be a complete disaster for Labour in the medium term. My overwhelming impression based on their election campaign is that they're not particularly for anything, but against lots.
If Corbyn tacks somewhat back to the centre if he does become leader, we'll at least have alternatives to compare and contrast.
I still think there's a case to be made for higher taxes in order to support things like:
- Abolition of student loans (perhaps introduce a proper graduate tax for the really successful) - More social housing, plus more support for first time buyers. - More support for poor parents (in both senses of the word)
The obvious question which begs an answer is, what was the point of promoting and holding a leadership election that was open to all, in order to reach the broadest church possible within Labour, if they are then going to disqualify those deemed undesirable?
Well the problem is it wasn't supposed to reach the broadest possible church possible within labour. The leadership system was designed to restrict the choice to be presented to the members, but MPs panicked and lost confidence in that feature, not bug, of the system, and thought they could add someone on as a token candidate.
So if Corbyn does win either he refuses to compromise or modulate his positions, not all of which he will be able to get adopted as party policy, and his days are therefore numbered. Or he does rollback on the rhetoric and compromises to remain leader, thereby showing himself to be no different really than any other politician, even with more explicit lefty positions, and the crazies will lose their enthusiasm.
The standard strategy is to get them riled up against the government in mid-term, then moderate closer to the election to pick up floating voters. At that point the radicals have got their guns aimed firmly at the government and will excuse the necessary tactical retreat. Mitt Romney did a lot of this movement literally during the first debate with Obama; Conservatives were ready to forgive him because they were happy he was winning the debate.
The problem here is that: 1) Labour has some branding problems that it really needs to tackle mid-term; The voters won't believe the pivot if it's left to the last minute. 2) Corbyn may actually believe what he says...
The obvious question which begs an answer is, what was the point of promoting and holding a leadership election that was open to all, in order to reach the broadest church possible within Labour, if they are then going to disqualify those deemed undesirable?
Well the problem is it wasn't supposed to reach the broadest possible church possible within labour. The leadership system was designed to restrict the choice to be presented to the members, but MPs panicked and lost confidence in that feature, not bug, of the system, and thought they could add someone on as a token candidate.
The obvious question which begs an answer is, what was the point of promoting and holding a leadership election that was open to all, in order to reach the broadest church possible within Labour, if they are then going to disqualify those deemed undesirable?
Well the problem is it wasn't supposed to reach the broadest possible church possible within labour. The leadership system was designed to restrict the choice to be presented to the members, but MPs panicked and lost confidence in that feature, not bug, of the system, and thought they could add someone on as a token candidate.
But if they didn't want Corbyn to win, they shouldn't have nominated him. The checks and balances are there in the system, it's just that the MPs chose not to use them.
@politicshome: Jeremy Corbyn on influx of Labour members since election: "What it’s about is converting Labour into much more of a social movement" #marr
Corbyn on Marr 'Marx could be used as a guide for public ownership of the major monopolies. Am I a Marxist? Marx's analysis of history is fascinating though I probably have not read as much of him as I should have. Though I am not talking about the Labour Party being a revolutionary party it needs to offer a democratic, socialist alternative true to its roots, not austerity lite and not cutting local government and social care spending and investing in manufacturing industry.'
Like any leader of any party, Ed sought to reshape the party in his own image. Despite the nature of his leadership victory, this was legitimate. Inexplicably, this led Ed to define the Labour Party that he led in contrast and opposition to the most successful Labour government ever. This approach wasn’t cosmetic, tactical or even strategic. It was one of profound principle: that New Labour and, by definition, its achievements should be jettisoned. An unwise move in its own terms, but when placed in the context of the electoral and political realities of the time, this appears idiotic at best, suicidal at worst.
If Corbyn does win and isn't bumped off immediately - I expect him to do quite well with his free-stuff manifesto. What youngster wouldn't want free tuition, who wouldn't take a free house...et al.
And then reality will kick in after a few months. His dubious friends will be mentioned again and again, and the Argies and Labour's poor credibility with the nation's cash... And he'll say something stupid/angry or his supporters/entryists will and make them all look loony.
So an early honeymoon wouldn't worry me at all. It'll be quite entertaining to see many Labourites who actually think he's *good* for their Party build him up, and then watch the electorate blow a raspberry a la 1983.
@ianbirrell: Corbyn thinks there's no competition in telecoms since 'one line comes into my house.' Someone should tell him about mobile phones #marrshow
And that you can get more than one line, from more than one provider...
@ianbirrell: Corbyn thinks there's no competition in telecoms since 'one line comes into my house.' Someone should tell him about mobile phones #marrshow
And that you can get more than one line, from more than one provider...
On topic, I'm sure the people who are complaining about the new members wouldn't be moaning if the second coming of Tony Blair had shown up and a bunch of people had joined the party to vote for him.
The process is good - the problem is that the other contenders just aren't inspiring enough to get people to join up.
I thought "Toriesforcorbyn" were infiltrating the Labour party.
but they wont stay signed up that's fairly certain. If you look at the revenue streams for Labour and the Tories down the line, Labour are screwed. I was amazed at some of the figures I heard about the Tories money raising efforts had generated.
Do Labour tithe their MP's and councillors like the LD's?
Money alone does not determine election results otherwise Romney would be US president
Thinking about this and looking back at the previous thread, I will wait until HYUFD pronounces. His intellectual self-confidence puts us all in his shadow.
I've never understood the value of these "would you be more or less likely to" type polls. Meaningless unless you know the starting point of those responding. Two names on the list above would make me more likely to vote Labour - but even then I'd be looking to the Greens, Conservative and LibDems before considering Labour.
It gives a guide though as it is of the public as a whole and it is they the new leader needs to impress
If D Milliband (spineless banana eater) and A Johnson (self confessed incompetent, rumoured to be lazy) are the best electoral option Labour have got, then they really have a problem.
On subject of leadership, from all I have heard in the last couple of weeks, Corbyn's supporters are enthusiastic and highly motivated. Makes them much more likely to vote in my opinion than those of the other candidates. Labour supporters arent the best at turning out for an election at the best of times (Ref: 2015 GE).
I can see Corbyn getting 50% in the first round the way things are going, or if not very close to it.
@JamesTapsfield: Corbyn: "I don't think leaders should lay down policies". Eh?
OK, that one is weird. I get the nationalisation fervour - I think it is actually a popular position, to be honest - but a leader is more than a spokesman, they are supposed to provide direction, carry people along with them. Although I do not often agree with him, especially in denigrating 'populism' as inherently bad (as it is in Europe), I think Guy Verhofstadt once made a good statement on leadership and democracy, namely that A democracy...is a political leader developing a vision and then trying to convince the public opinion to follow his vision.
Laying down a vision should entail laying down some policies too
Right wing press trying to get the contest abandoned as the wrong result is about to occur shocker.
From the POV of the right wing press, the right result is about to occur.
As a kipper and ex Tory this must be bitter sweet. This is the sort of thing you always wanted to happen to the Tory party.
It will help UKIP and the no campaign if Corbyn wins . If Corbyn gets of the fence, and states he wants to leave the EU. This would also help the SNP on getting another Independence Referendum.
The right and and left could then combine on leaving. Which at the moment seems to me the best position for England.
Not necessarily, Corbyn would be de facto leader of the No campaign, campaigning alongside Farage and Hannan. Cameron would be de facto leader of the Yes campaign, campaigning alongside Sturgeon, Farron and Blairites in Labour. It would be the 2 left and right wings for No with the centre in England, Wales and Scotland for Yes
All Cameron needs now to secure a double-digit lead is Corbyn to win and a war to kick off with Argentina.
But seriously, as many have pointed out, the fact that the four potential Labour leaders are all so poor (in differing ways) does say something about the health of the Labour party. As does the massive schism between Labour members/supporters on the one hand and Labour parliamentarians on the other.
@ianbirrell: Corbyn thinks there's no competition in telecoms since 'one line comes into my house.' Someone should tell him about mobile phones #marrshow And that you can get more than one line, from more than one provider...
So if Corbyn does win either he refuses to compromise or modulate his positions, not all of which he will be able to get adopted as party policy, and his days are therefore numbered. Or he does rollback on the rhetoric and compromises to remain leader, thereby showing himself to be no different really than any other politician, even with more explicit lefty positions, and the crazies will lose their enthusiasm.
The standard strategy is to get them riled up against the government in mid-term, then moderate closer to the election to pick up floating voters. At that point the radicals have got their guns aimed firmly at the government and will excuse the necessary tactical retreat. Mitt Romney did a lot of this movement literally during the first debate with Obama; Conservatives were ready to forgive him because they were happy he was winning the debate.
The problem here is that: 1) Labour has some branding problems that it really needs to tackle mid-term; The voters won't believe the pivot if it's left to the last minute. 2) Corbyn may actually believe what he says...
As does the massive schism between Labour members/supporters on the one hand and Labour parliamentarians on the other.
Makes a change from all these years of hearing how the Tory parliamentarians are so different from their members/supporters I suppose, though whether that situation remains I could not say.
Of the Labour MPs now, a fair slab are newbies - the rest are so many no-marks and those who don't want to get involved in a race this time around/standing for deputy instead to show willing.
It's understandable self-preservation, but it's a sad reflection that the runners are so lightweight.
All Cameron needs now to secure a double-digit lead is Corbyn to win and a war to kick off with Argentina.
But seriously, as many have pointed out, the fact that the four potential Labour leaders are all so poor (in differing ways) does say something about the health of the Labour party. As does the massive schism between Labour members/supporters on the one hand and Labour parliamentarians on the other.
@ianbirrell: Corbyn thinks there's no competition in telecoms since 'one line comes into my house.' Someone should tell him about mobile phones #marrshow
And that you can get more than one line, from more than one provider...
As does the massive schism between Labour members/supporters on the one hand and Labour parliamentarians on the other.
Makes a change from all these years of hearing how the Tory parliamentarians are so different from their members/supporters I suppose, though whether that situation remains I could not say.
The 330 Conservative MPs seem (to me) to be fairly representative, in views and backgrounds, to Conservative voters and party members - a quite broad church of businessmen ("big" and "small"), landed gentry, suburbanites and country folk... Labour on the other hand seems to be dominated (at 'the top') by the London metropolitan sort - which probably explains to a degree why they advanced a bit in London at the GE and retreated elsewhere (except for taking some easy LD pickings).
Of the four leadership candidates, only Corbyn represents the non-London element of Labour (and conversely would put off its London element) whilst the other three candidates would likely continue the "Labour as the Metropolitan party" theme (which of course isn't too clever as the SNP just take all of Scotland, UKIP take a good chunk of the vote in the northern/poorer English cities, and the Tories the remainder of England & Wales).
@ianbirrell: Corbyn thinks there's no competition in telecoms since 'one line comes into my house.' Someone should tell him about mobile phones #marrshow
And that you can get more than one line, from more than one provider...
TBF this is a classic example of a natural monopoly, and why telecoms are normally regulated in a lot of weird, un-free-market-ish ways even when they're not state-owned.
I see the Labour leadership contest as a pivotal moment in the long and bloody war between the bitterly opposed wings of British socialism - a Battle of Corbyngrad between the true socialists on the side of of the Union Politburo, and the evil Blairite socialists on the other (Blairzis may be an appropriate term for them). If General JerCorv can persuade the Politburo to send enough troops from the East then the combined might of the Blairzi forces, currently somewhat unsteadily headed by von Küper, von Kändell and von Burnheim, could be surrounded and destroyed.
Comrades, call your brothers in from the cold reaches of political Siberia they've been confined to while the Blairzis have been on top. Urge them to pay the £3 so they too can man the barricades of Corbyngrad and help end the scourge of Blairzism once and for all!
''I honestly haven't been so gobsmacked with politics since 1983. This is hilariously bonkers.''
I think its worse than 1983. In 1983 labour still had a huge rank and file mass manufacturing membership. And it had plenty of causes to fight. And it had Scotland.
If D Milliband (spineless banana eater) and A Johnson (self confessed incompetent, rumoured to be lazy) are the best electoral option Labour have got, then they really have a problem.
On subject of leadership, from all I have heard in the last couple of weeks, Corbyn's supporters are enthusiastic and highly motivated. Makes them much more likely to vote in my opinion than those of the other candidates. Labour supporters arent the best at turning out for an election at the best of times (Ref: 2015 GE).
I can see Corbyn getting 50% in the first round the way things are going, or if not very close to it.
A similar survey was done by Mori last week of the potential Tory candidates for leader. It shows that post-Cameron they are not exactly deluged with certain election winners either. Asked whether they could see the candidate as a good PM the results were as follows
Could? (Net could against could not)
Boris 32% (-20%) May 28% (-14%) Osborne 23% (-30%) Gove 13% (-40%)
So if Corbyn does win either he refuses to compromise or modulate his positions, not all of which he will be able to get adopted as party policy, and his days are therefore numbered. Or he does rollback on the rhetoric and compromises to remain leader, thereby showing himself to be no different really than any other politician, even with more explicit lefty positions, and the crazies will lose their enthusiasm.
The standard strategy is to get them riled up against the government in mid-term, then moderate closer to the election to pick up floating voters. At that point the radicals have got their guns aimed firmly at the government and will excuse the necessary tactical retreat. Mitt Romney did a lot of this movement literally during the first debate with Obama; Conservatives were ready to forgive him because they were happy he was winning the debate.
The problem here is that: 1) Labour has some branding problems that it really needs to tackle mid-term; The voters won't believe the pivot if it's left to the last minute. 2) Corbyn may actually believe what he says...
@ianbirrell: Corbyn thinks there's no competition in telecoms since 'one line comes into my house.' Someone should tell him about mobile phones #marrshow
And that you can get more than one line, from more than one provider...
TBF this is a classic example of a natural monopoly, and why telecoms are normally regulated in a lot of weird, un-free-market-ish ways even when they're not state-owned.
It's noting to do with being 'fair': he utterly misunderstands the market in a rather hilarious manner.
I think he is completely sane. His ideas may not be very practicable but they are quite rational.
I prefer my analysis. Corbyn has included the Richard Murphy tax gap analysis as part of his prospectus. He *believes* this stuff:
"A detailed analysis last year produced by Richard Murphy suggests that the government is missing out on nearly £120 billion in tax revenues, per year. That’s enough to double the NHS budget; enough to give every man, woman and child in this country £2,000. The £120bn figure is made up from: • about £20bn in tax debt, uncollected by HMRC which continues to suffer budget and staffing cuts (only partially reversed in the last Budget) • another £20bn in tax avoidance • and a further £80bn in tax evasion.
This is money taken from us all. And we can address this. Therefore I am announcing today that my fairer tax policies will include:
• The introduction of a proper anti-avoidance rule into UK tax law . • The aim of country-by-country reporting for multinational corporations. • Reform of small business taxation to discourage avoidance and tackle tax evasion. • Enforce proper regulation of companies in the UK to ensure that they file their accounts and tax returns and pay the taxes that they owe. • Lastly, and most importantly, a reversal of the cuts to staff in HMRC and at Companies House, taking on more staff at both, to ensure that HMRC can collect the taxes the country so badly needs.
As does the massive schism between Labour members/supporters on the one hand and Labour parliamentarians on the other.
Makes a change from all these years of hearing how the Tory parliamentarians are so different from their members/supporters I suppose, though whether that situation remains I could not say.
If the parliamentary party produces a good candidate, the membership will vote for them, hence the election of Blair and Cameron by their party membership's. If not the membership is more likely to vote for someone closer to their hearts, hence Tory members voted for IDS and Labour members may vote for Corbyn
I think he is completely sane. His ideas may not be very practicable but they are quite rational.
I prefer my analysis. Corbyn has included the Richard Murphy tax gap analysis as part of his prospectus. He *believes* this stuff:
"A detailed analysis last year produced by Richard Murphy suggests that the government is missing out on nearly £120 billion in tax revenues, per year. That’s enough to double the NHS budget; enough to give every man, woman and child in this country £2,000. The £120bn figure is made up from: • about £20bn in tax debt, uncollected by HMRC which continues to suffer budget and staffing cuts (only partially reversed in the last Budget) • another £20bn in tax avoidance • and a further £80bn in tax evasion.
This is money taken from us all. And we can address this. Therefore I am announcing today that my fairer tax policies will include:
• The introduction of a proper anti-avoidance rule into UK tax law . • The aim of country-by-country reporting for multinational corporations. • Reform of small business taxation to discourage avoidance and tackle tax evasion. • Enforce proper regulation of companies in the UK to ensure that they file their accounts and tax returns and pay the taxes that they owe. • Lastly, and most importantly, a reversal of the cuts to staff in HMRC and at Companies House, taking on more staff at both, to ensure that HMRC can collect the taxes the country so badly needs.
That number is 350% of the Inland Revenue estimate.
And Corbyn believes he can collect most if it, and this is where his programme will be paid for from.
This is barking of almost David Icke quality imo.
The magic tax money tree is popular with the left, and as a chartered accountant, i can tell you its a mix of either complete fantasy, or having huge negative implications on the economy and jobs
Of the Labour MPs now, a fair slab are newbies - the rest are so many no-marks and those who don't want to get involved in a race this time around/standing for deputy instead to show willing.
It's understandable self-preservation, but it's a sad reflection that the runners are so lightweight.
All Cameron needs now to secure a double-digit lead is Corbyn to win and a war to kick off with Argentina.
But seriously, as many have pointed out, the fact that the four potential Labour leaders are all so poor (in differing ways) does say something about the health of the Labour party. As does the massive schism between Labour members/supporters on the one hand and Labour parliamentarians on the other.
The Labour MPs talent pool has suffered from a series of major faults:- 1. The effect of Brown crushing the careers of rivals. Many forced to retire early. 2. The efect of Unite and other unions backing their choice of candidates for CLP selections. 3. The effect of All Women Selections reducing the chances of males, a selection based on gender and union influence and not ability. 4. The proliferation of SPADs becoming MPs. Again selection from a narrower talent pool.
I see the Labour leadership contest as a pivotal moment in the long and bloody war between the bitterly opposed wings of British socialism - a Battle of Corbyngrad between the true socialists on the side of of the Union Politburo, and the evil Blairite socialists on the other (Blairzis may be an appropriate term for them). If General JerCorv can persuade the Politburo to send enough troops from the East then the combined might of the Blairzi forces, currently somewhat unsteadily headed by von Küper, von Kändell and von Burnheim, could be surrounded and destroyed.
Comrades, call your brothers in from the cold reaches of political Siberia they've been confined to while the Blairzis have been on top. Urge them to pay the £3 so they too can man the barricades of Corbyngrad and help end the scourge of Blairzism once and for all!
As does the massive schism between Labour members/supporters on the one hand and Labour parliamentarians on the other.
Makes a change from all these years of hearing how the Tory parliamentarians are so different from their members/supporters I suppose, though whether that situation remains I could not say.
The 330 Conservative MPs seem (to me) to be fairly representative, in views and backgrounds, to Conservative voters and party members - a quite broad church of businessmen ("big" and "small"), landed gentry, suburbanites and country folk... Labour on the other hand seems to be dominated (at 'the top') by the London metropolitan sort - which probably explains to a degree why they advanced a bit in London at the GE and retreated elsewhere (except for taking some easy LD pickings).
Of the four leadership candidates, only Corbyn represents the non-London element of Labour (and conversely would put off its London element) whilst the other three candidates would likely continue the "Labour as the Metropolitan party" theme (which of course isn't too clever as the SNP just take all of Scotland, UKIP take a good chunk of the vote in the northern/poorer English cities, and the Tories the remainder of England & Wales).
The Tories are led by Cameron (educated at Eton and Oxford and ex SPAD) and Osborne educated at St Paul's and Oxford and ex SPAD). Burnham comes from the North, Kendall the Midlands, Cooper was born in Scotland and raised in the South. Much of Corbyn's support actually comes from London.
In 1997 and 2001 Tory MPs were largely privately educated and working in the City and representing rural seats, they did not represent the average voter, whereas now a small majority of Tory MPs are state educated and most represent suburban seats. In 1997 and 2001 by contrast more Labour MPs worked in the private sector and represented the suburbs, now they are mainly ex public sector workers representing urban seats. When they win parties representatives are more representative, when they don't they are not
Of the Labour MPs now, a fair slab are newbies - the rest are so many no-marks and those who don't want to get involved in a race this time around/standing for deputy instead to show willing.
It's understandable self-preservation, but it's a sad reflection that the runners are so lightweight.
All Cameron needs now to secure a double-digit lead is Corbyn to win and a war to kick off with Argentina.
But seriously, as many have pointed out, the fact that the four potential Labour leaders are all so poor (in differing ways) does say something about the health of the Labour party. As does the massive schism between Labour members/supporters on the one hand and Labour parliamentarians on the other.
The Labour MPs talent pool has suffered from a series of major faults:- 1. The effect of Brown crushing the careers of rivals. Many forced to retire early. 2. The efect of Unite and other unions backing their choice of candidates for CLP selections. 3. The effect of All Women Selections reducing the chances of males, a selection based on gender and union influence and not ability. 4. The proliferation of SPADs becoming MPs. Again selection from a narrower talent pool.
It's also just a matter of time: Government tends to wear down the talent pool, especially when the situation demands somebody new, and Cameron and Blair were both elected as MPs when their party was in opposition.
Given the rising panic in the Labour and left leaning MSM around Corbyn, the prospect of yet another bloody nose for the Westminster Bubble establishment is looking increasingly likely, I'm sure the right leaning MSM will join in as the reality that Corbyn may win sets in. The MSM's ability to influence events is starting to be really tested.
Should Corbyn win I'd envisage he'll focus his efforts on the 16 million DNVs and the few million not registered to vote, which was a rich seam of votes mined by the SNP.
Comments
Meanwhile, the government continues sailing merrily on its way, without an effective opposition. Whilst this is good for the government, I'm not sure it's good for the country.
And if Labour does end up with a leader more towards the non-revolutionary far left - where the Greens are - or with influence from 'purer' socialists, where does that leave the Greens?
They threw away much of their distinctiveness in Scotland by climbing into the SNP trailer. Will the same happen in England and Wales?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslim-boarding-school-rated-good-by-ofsted-threatens-to-expel-pupils-for-mixing-with-outsiders-10415952.html
We need to stop take a softly softly approach here. The school needs to be closed down and all directors need to be banned from working in schools.
"Sewel turned a framed picture of his betrayed wife Jennifer (pictured), who is University Secretary at Durham University, face-down on a table before the romp began"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3174689/Lord-Snorty-Blair-crony-responsible-behaviour-peers-filmed-taking-cocaine-200-night-prostitute-s-breasts-romp-two-escorts-discounted-flat.html#ixzz3gyazPQ5I
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The process is good - the problem is that the other contenders just aren't inspiring enough to get people to join up.
Meanwhile Tories are laughing their socks off
It strikes me suddenly that its always the left being infiltrated, you never hear about the Tories being infiltrated by anyone..
I'd be surprised if there's 1000 Tories4Corbyn in that little lot.
Do Labour tithe their MP's and councillors like the LD's?
This election is turning into a Blues Brothers style car crash - just when you think it must be over, off it goes again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMagP52BWG8
I'm finally thinking Corbyn could pull this off....
If Corbyn gets of the fence, and states he wants to leave the EU.
This would also help the SNP on getting another Independence Referendum.
The right and and left could then combine on leaving.
Which at the moment seems to me the best position for England.
Of course, no doubt he will not win, but thanks indeed to labour for the excitement, even if they are unduly pessimistic. And as exciting as an actual split and a new party would be, I find it hard to imagine them doing more than sulking.
The problem for Labour, though, is that Corbyn's opponents are so bland. He's the only candidate who seems to possess convictions.
Could the king across the water return to save the Labour party (chose Miliband D or Balls E as you see fit.) ?
Surely more like Nigel Farage becoming Conservative leader.
In other words, they simply aren't very good at politics.
What is his position to staying in, yes or no ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3174564/He-s-cool-headed-honest-considerate-Charlotte-Church-throws-support-Jeremy-Corbyn-Labour-leader.html
The obvious question which begs an answer is, what was the point of promoting and holding a leadership election that was open to all, in order to reach the broadest church possible within Labour, if they are then going to disqualify those deemed undesirable?
The only thing they appear to have got right, was checking new affiliates were on the electoral register which is pretty basic stuff.
If Corbyn tacks somewhat back to the centre if he does become leader, we'll at least have alternatives to compare and contrast.
I still think there's a case to be made for higher taxes in order to support things like:
- Abolition of student loans (perhaps introduce a proper graduate tax for the really successful)
- More social housing, plus more support for first time buyers.
- More support for poor parents (in both senses of the word)
The problem here is that:
1) Labour has some branding problems that it really needs to tackle mid-term; The voters won't believe the pivot if it's left to the last minute.
2) Corbyn may actually believe what he says...
It's beyond stupidly sentimental.
@politicshome: Jeremy Corbyn on influx of Labour members since election: "What it’s about is converting Labour into much more of a social movement" #marr
Believes in anti-austerity politics, gets into power then discovers that there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?
And then reality will kick in after a few months. His dubious friends will be mentioned again and again, and the Argies and Labour's poor credibility with the nation's cash... And he'll say something stupid/angry or his supporters/entryists will and make them all look loony.
So an early honeymoon wouldn't worry me at all. It'll be quite entertaining to see many Labourites who actually think he's *good* for their Party build him up, and then watch the electorate blow a raspberry a la 1983.
And that you can get more than one line, from more than one provider...
On subject of leadership, from all I have heard in the last couple of weeks, Corbyn's supporters are enthusiastic and highly motivated. Makes them much more likely to vote in my opinion than those of the other candidates. Labour supporters arent the best at turning out for an election at the best of times (Ref: 2015 GE).
I can see Corbyn getting 50% in the first round the way things are going, or if not very close to it.
Laying down a vision should entail laying down some policies too
What have they done?
But seriously, as many have pointed out, the fact that the four potential Labour leaders are all so poor (in differing ways) does say something about the health of the Labour party. As does the massive schism between Labour members/supporters on the one hand and Labour parliamentarians on the other.
It's understandable self-preservation, but it's a sad reflection that the runners are so lightweight.
Perhaps he'd prefer the following:
http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/01060/21VZVIJREG1CIVIC_S_1060242f.jpg
Of the four leadership candidates, only Corbyn represents the non-London element of Labour (and conversely would put off its London element) whilst the other three candidates would likely continue the "Labour as the Metropolitan party" theme (which of course isn't too clever as the SNP just take all of Scotland, UKIP take a good chunk of the vote in the northern/poorer English cities, and the Tories the remainder of England & Wales).
Comrades, call your brothers in from the cold reaches of political Siberia they've been confined to while the Blairzis have been on top. Urge them to pay the £3 so they too can man the barricades of Corbyngrad and help end the scourge of Blairzism once and for all!
I think its worse than 1983. In 1983 labour still had a huge rank and file mass manufacturing membership. And it had plenty of causes to fight. And it had Scotland.
Now...??
Could? (Net could against could not)
Boris 32% (-20%)
May 28% (-14%)
Osborne 23% (-30%)
Gove 13% (-40%)
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3605/Osborne-closes-gap-on-May-and-Johnson-as-a-potential-PM-among-Conservative-supporters.aspx
"A detailed analysis last year produced by Richard Murphy suggests that the government is missing out on nearly £120 billion in tax revenues, per year. That’s enough to double the NHS budget; enough to give every man, woman and child in this country £2,000. The £120bn figure is made up from:
• about £20bn in tax debt, uncollected by HMRC which continues to suffer budget and staffing cuts (only partially reversed in the last Budget)
• another £20bn in tax avoidance
• and a further £80bn in tax evasion.
This is money taken from us all. And we can address this. Therefore I am announcing today that my fairer tax policies will include:
• The introduction of a proper anti-avoidance rule into UK tax law
. • The aim of country-by-country reporting for multinational corporations.
• Reform of small business taxation to discourage avoidance and tackle tax evasion.
• Enforce proper regulation of companies in the UK to ensure that they file their accounts and tax returns and pay the taxes that they owe.
• Lastly, and most importantly, a reversal of the cuts to staff in HMRC and at Companies House, taking on more staff at both, to ensure that HMRC can collect the taxes the country so badly needs.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/09/22/new-report-the-tax-gap-is-119-4-billion-and-rising/
That number is 350% of the Inland Revenue estimate.
And Corbyn believes he can collect most if it, and this is where his programme will be paid for from.
This is barking of almost David Icke quality imo.
1. The effect of Brown crushing the careers of rivals. Many forced to retire early.
2. The efect of Unite and other unions backing their choice of candidates for CLP selections.
3. The effect of All Women Selections reducing the chances of males, a selection based on gender and union influence and not ability.
4. The proliferation of SPADs becoming MPs. Again selection from a narrower talent pool.
I think Natalie Bennett and Jeremy Corbyn are neck-and-neck in the "who can have the craziest policies" competition.
In 1997 and 2001 Tory MPs were largely privately educated and working in the City and representing rural seats, they did not represent the average voter, whereas now a small majority of Tory MPs are state educated and most represent suburban seats. In 1997 and 2001 by contrast more Labour MPs worked in the private sector and represented the suburbs, now they are mainly ex public sector workers representing urban seats. When they win parties representatives are more representative, when they don't they are not
Should Corbyn win I'd envisage he'll focus his efforts on the 16 million DNVs and the few million not registered to vote, which was a rich seam of votes mined by the SNP.