The official NMA board
General Category => Everything Else => Topic started by: Pol on September 12, 2015, 08:30:46 PM
-
Opinion Time !
So Jeremy Corbyn has been given a massive majority to lead the labour party especially by the rank and file membership if not his fellow mps. Will this spell disaster for the party as many has predicted or will lead to a stronger party in the long term. Maybe its all a bad repeat of 80s with Cameron , ids and co having their archway towers attack on the weak maybe its only natural a stronger brand of socialism should return. Is the country too split to find middle ground ?
-
Well. Given that the top of the tree is being watered at the expense of the bottom, I dont think Labour is a threat yet. But its a long time til the next election and a lot can change. At some point people will have had enough of being bled dry, but I think its got to hit the middle classes before it happens. Ill never forget one woman on tv saying Dave was doing a good job. Not sure how tbh.
-
Looks like Labour might actually be swinging to the left again? Wasn't that the way it was supposed to be in the first place?
Whatever, he can't be worse than Blair (war-mongering Tory in disguise) or Ed Milliband (so idiotic, I suspect he was on the Tory payroll...)
We'll see.
-
I'm kinda hopeful that it will shake things up a bit, if nothing else...
-
After reading todays papers, it seems that the general opinion is that Labour are now finished and the Tories have a free reign to do whatever they want for over a decade, at least... but those were the same papers that bowed down before the Tories during the last election coverage (including, incredibly, The Sun, a paper mostly aimed at the working class / underclass, the people who are going to be hurt most by the current government...)
But lets face it, Blair and Milliband were not true Labour. They were rich career politicians with one eye on humping the cash cow. Corbyn, for all his quirks (and, yes, I'm not 100% convinced about his ideals) seems to be a proper swing to the left which hasn't happened in a damn long while. The question is... do the British public actually want that? Or are they just gonna be distracted by whatever TV reality show is on next? Gloomy prospect, I know, but I'm not very optimistic these days...
As it's been said before, it's gonna be interesting...
-
Hmm, that's the worry isn't it, that labour are now unelectable.
Take heart in the natural ebb and flow of life; there will be an end to the current government.
-
Funny isn't it....................... part of the electorate give voice to a desire for some different narrative, an alternative discourse and just something fecking else from the homogoenized media friendly facade is roundly dismissed as unrealistic and unelectable. The dogma of centralist positioning cannot accept that many people are desperate for something else.
I dunno whether or not the "Jez We Did" brigade actually believe in a Prime Minister Corbyn but I'm sure that they believe in a chance to think another way. I think that was the choice that was made, I don't think it was a "cult of personality" judgement.
Interestingly the focus seems to be on how Labour can win back the middle ground. Endlessly trying to win the affection of a narrow slice voters. I think a party that can tap into those outside these extremely narrow parameters could shake the tree somewhat harder than might be thought.
I doubt it will though.
Fixed term parliaments now so without a no confidence vote this is it till 2020 isn't it? Nearly 5 years worth of harking back to the different world the 70's/80's Labour party existed in. Just wait for the "Looney Left" charactatures to come flooding out. The media will shut out discussion of issues and invoke fantastical demons perched on the shoulder of Stalin. And god forbid he actually wins an election then I'm sure it will be A Very British Coup ;D
But hopefully what has happened is the start of something new, or perhaps more accurately a rebirth. Be nice to think it might be eh?
:-*
-
I hope so Anna, it's keeping me going...
-
The media spews out what it wants people to think, I actually think he has some good ideas just why the fck do we need nuclear weapons and why can't the trains be privatised big business isn't exactly doing a great job.
Sadly some people vote by image and not policy. Just look how popular the snp are with similar policies, ok we fcking hate the Tories but with good reason . At the end of the day the country seems to run by certain parts of England but that's maybe another issue
-
For the first time in 20 years the Labour party is actually a leftwing party, for the first time in 10 (at least) I can consider helping/doing things for them again.
Voted for him through my trade union but didn't think the blairites would allow him to win, so pleased he did.
Of course the road is very long, and plenty of times before Labour has let people down after promising lots, but at least I feel there is genuine potential for change now.
Also, aside from anything else I'm loving to see how the tory scum and rightwing rags are shitting themselves and working themselves into a fit about the whole thing... cos their behaviour when it became clear Corbyn might have actually won it and ridiculous reaction to the announcement he did proves that they are doing just that.
-
Corbyn’s victory is fascinating for several reasons.
First, haven’t we already been down this road before and wasn’t Corbyn even a part of it? When the hard left within Labour tried a coup in the 80s, did it not mean civil war within the party and decades of being marginalised by the electorate? Did Kinnock not spend most of his time on party in-fighting and trying to heal wounds and bitter division, rather than dealing with being a real member of the opposition in Parliament? That in itself created the undisputed necessity to move to the middle ground initiated slowly under Kinnock and Smith, paving the way for Blair. Whatever anyone thinks of Blair in hindsight, the fact is Labour were going nowhere fast without him. 1997 was all about New Labour – not ‘old’ Labour.
Second, is it not a fact that only 15 of Labour’s current 232 MP’s backed Corbyn? If so, that creates a significant schism within the party between its elected representatives and a party base swollen by recent supporters, many of whom have no recollection of 1980s Labour and its trials and tribulations. Doesn’t it only take 46 signatures to trigger another leadership contest?...
Corbyn has a huge job on his hands dealing with this alone, never mind pursuing a number of policies which may not be too palatable to many current Labour MP’s. With the emergence of a group calling itself “The Resistance”, already backed by Labour’s single largest private funder, his attempts to finalise the Shadow Cabinet is already showing splits. His ability to lead from the top will be tried. He is, however, the most rebellious MP in the party and one without any experience of senior office, despite his long tenure. I'm not sure the leadership qualities are proven by facts.
Corbyn will either moderate many of his own policies and accommodate more of the central politics of Labour, or he will marginalise and split the party further. We’ve already seen the effects of the hard left on Labour…under Wilson to Callaghan and the whole period of bitter in-fighting and radicalisation epitomised by Tony Benn and Denis Healey. The only reason why Labour ever won successive elections more recently was because both Smith and his protégée Blair managed to keep the party going off the rails.
Interestingly, Corbyn, unlike Galloway, managed rather easily not to stray too far from the prescribed party path. In other words, he was smart enough not to cross the line under Blair and Brown. Therefore, Corbyn has shown understanding that the party is bigger than the man. Will that be lost now that he has the whip?
Corbyn and his supporters would do well to keep this in mind. Between now and next spring, Labour might just well decide that Corbyn serves a better purpose back in the background.
-
I did find it interesting that 30,000 people joined The Labour Party within three days of Mr Corbyn being elected... ???
-
Maybe he won't win anything maybe he will
I think it definitely sends out a message that alternative to the Tories is possible, lots of people are looking for something different, I think that some of his views will stand the test of time, there is no point in labour being the Tories in disguise look how that ended up
-
Maybe he won't win anything maybe he will
I think it definitely sends out a message that alternative to the Tories is possible, lots of people are looking for something different, I think that some of his views will stand the test of time, there is no point in labour being the Tories in disguise look how that ended up
There are already alternatives out there; Greens, UKIP, EDL, Socialist Workers Party. This view that Labour are "red tories" is an interesting one. I understand that if you are far left, then it could look like that. But the plain fact, to be tested for the umpteenth time at the ballot box soon, is that most of Britain, certainly England, hover around the centre. Polls and results bear it out. So to be fair, being slightly left of centre is what winning looks like.
MR quotes people joining Labour, and yes it might be significant, but I suspect not. Only time will tell. This reflective narcissism, where groups of like beliefs talk and get excited to each other but do not reflect the majority happens time and again.
Im no fan of Corbyn, but I definitely welcome the ying and yang debate here. It makes politics a lot more interesting. Corbyn to me looks like a man who wanted to shake up the leadership debate, won unexpectedly, and doesn't look like he wants to be there. He certainly has said very little to the mass of us, but has played happily to his own gallery (as he has been doing for 4 decades on the public purse). What will be interesting is when, and if, he comes and debates with the rest of us.
No my biggest problem is with his picks for his team. Especially the revolting John McDonnell a man with stinking views and economic policy for bankruptcy. Even left leaning Labour MPs were against his appointment. Hell even Len McClusky warned against it!
-
Im no fan of Corbyn, but I definitely welcome the ying and yang debate here. It makes politics a lot more interesting. Corbyn to me looks like a man who wanted to shake up the leadership debate, won unexpectedly, and doesn't look like he wants to be there. He certainly has said very little to the mass of us, but has played happily to his own gallery (as he has been doing for 4 decades on the public purse). What will be interesting is when, and if, he comes and debates with the rest of us.
No my biggest problem is with his picks for his team. Especially the revolting John McDonnell a man with stinking views and economic policy for bankruptcy. Even left leaning Labour MPs were against his appointment. Hell even Len McClusky warned against it!
Couldn't agree more.
As for the appointment of John McDonnell, Corbyn has actually given the position to the worst possible candidate. McDonnell's glorification of violence and his revolting praise of the IRA, combined with his own fantasy of wanting to murder someone, makes him an absolute embarrassment to the Labour Party.
Doesn't look too good if you've already scored an own goal within the first minute of the game...
-
The truly revolting thing is the absurd electoral system of this country, which ensures none of the alternatives to the tories and Labour, whether left or right of either, have even the slightest chance of making it into parliament (other than possibly for the token one or two MPs, and that very rarely too), never mind getting in. Hence the need for a truly leftwing Labour Party - at least until this toxic, obsolete system is replaced by one that better reflects the actual choices of voters (like most other European countries have)
-
It's an interesting point, but the reality is that the Conservatives and Labour would still dominate, they always will, largely because of some of the points brought up by ldopas.
I don't suspect you would agree with proportional voting in the last election, given the fact that UKIP would actually be the third largest party - about the same size in Parliament as the LibDems and SNP combined.
Wasn't electoral reform (alternative voting) rejected in a referendum back in 2011?
-
Yes there maybe some choices out, is the edl a political party not sure the Scottish dl is a tiny group so I don't know much about them. The greens have some excellent ideas but are really a pressure group for the environment, ukip same for Europe, swp might gain a few votes on here but probably will never win a seat.
Danny makes a good point that the election system is biased in favour of two main parties, and yes they would probably win most seats at least others would have a fair say, I would argue that it would need to be regionalized.
It's worth remembering that the Tories only got 0.8 % more of the vote last time and look what happened.
Foolishly imo the people rejected the chance for change
-
The truly revolting thing is the absurd electoral system of this country, which ensures none of the alternatives to the tories and Labour, whether left or right of either, have even the slightest chance of making it into parliament (other than possibly for the token one or two MPs, and that very rarely too), never mind getting in. Hence the need for a truly leftwing Labour Party - at least until this toxic, obsolete system is replaced by one that better reflects the actual choices of voters (like most other European countries have)
Well I don't completely disagree. Though where PR is in action, it generally makes for weak government.
But in the end the country were given the option and just under 70% said no in 2011. That is the democratic equivalent of a massacre and certainly doomed Clegg in the longer term.
So, and I don't mean to sound rude, but 3/4 of the population do not agree with you I'm afraid! :)
-
It's interesting that today the Government voted overwhelmingly in favour of the cutting of tax credits (this further impoverishing hundreds of thousands of UK folks) and all the media can still whine about is Corbyn refusing to sing some out-dated song...
Gotta agree with previous posts about his choice of Cabinet, though. :-\
-
70% of a 42% turnout means less then 30% of the electorate voted no... and in any case that referendum was a piss-take right from the start, the proposed system didn't make any sense even for most supporters of PR and was the first of countless times in the last 5 years the lib-dem were shown how much they counted in the so-called coalition, ie zilch.
By the way, it's also never been more than the same 24/25% of (potential) voters who vote for the tories, the other 3 quarters of the nation quite rightly hate the bastards... but a lot of them don't bother to vote because with the combination of the current system and Labour having just being tory-lite for far too long they don't feel represented. If Corbyn stays true to what he says this might well change for those on the left, and if we ever were to ditch the idiotic system we currently have and switch to REAL PR (party list, or at the very least STV) a lot more people, both left and right, would vote - just like generally speaking happens in countries that have that system, because whether 'your' party wins or not, you feel you are represented in parliament by those you have chosen.
-
What are some of the real reasons there was a turnout of only 42%? And out of that turnout what are some of the possible reasons only 32% voted yes?
Whatever way you cut it, there wasn’t exactly a great appetite for the idea of replacing the current system with the alternative vote. That much is clearly obvious. The decision was made loud and clear not to change the current system; the percentage of voter turnout is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. If there had been a great interest to effect political change, then the issue wouldn’t have faded into the background. Who the feck’s jumping up and down about it now? The LibDems? Labour?
The only places with higher than 50% ‘Yes” in that referendum were six in London, then parts of Cambridge, Oxford, Edinburgh and Glasgow. What does that tell you? (Ironically, the SNP has done quite well out of the current system, so perhaps Edinburgh and Glasgow made a ‘mistake’ wanting change. As it is now with much less support than UKIP, the SNP punch well above their weight.)
All of this brings me to one of the main reasons why electoral reform even made it to a referendum: in 2005 Labour won the election with the lowest ever share of the national vote for a single-party majority government in history. That dubious distinction belongs well and truly to Labour, even ‘New’ Labour at that. That’s a significant point and explains why the 2011 Referendum gained momentum. Of course, it was actually Labour, back in 1997, that proposed changes to the current system.
Nothing takes away from the fact that the Conservatives and Labour will still dominate any other political, electoral system on a nation-wide basis until there is a real credible alternative. The Conservatives would have done even better in some previous elections under PR. If the point is that PR would destabilise the strength of the two main parties, then the jury’s clearly out on that one. Voter apathy is a significant problem throughout Western democracies.
Rather than trying to blame the current system for political failure, why not put the blame where it really belongs: on the apathy of the voters who don’t strive to make change a reality.
It’s easy to play the blame game, but real change comes from being active and doing something about it. The SNP turned a minority, outside-the-mainstream political philosophy into a powerhouse at the expense of Labour, simply because they stopped moaning about a Conservative/Labour dominated political landscape.
The point is: it can be done.
So, we have the SNP becoming a substantial political force at the expense of Labour and they now have significant political representation in London, as a consequence of the current political and electoral system. Obviously, Alex Salmond prefers real politics to armchair politics.
-
Like I said, it's great to see rightwing shits working their selves into a fit over things at the moment (the press reaction over the last few days has been truly entertaining) - under this aspect Corbyn has already won, cos it means they fear him. It's not much for now, in fact it's very little, but it's a start and it feels ******* great :D
-
You're easily satisfied for someone with such expectations.
The only people who 'fear' Corbyn are the moderate-right within Labour who look set to be on the margins and nothing more. There are also too many people in Labour unwilling to work with Corbyn/McDonnell, and that has to be a worry as far as party unity is concerned. The moderates, both left and right within the party, may well be right in their assumption that the next election is already lost - only time will tell, but probably well beforehand.
Any real victory comes only at the election and only under the current electoral system. That's the ultimate measurement here. Real politics. :)
If Corbyn himself doesn't start winning soon, then it's all for nothing and Labour won't want to risk it when the chips are down. The SNP themselves have already made that clear; Labour knows it has no time to waste. There were plenty of Labour members who doubted Blair, but it all went rather silent when the victories mounted. In fact, wasn't Corbyn one of them?
As far as The Conservatives and UKIP are concerned, they're breathing a sigh of relief that neither Yvette Cooper nor Liz Kendall won the leadership contest. As far as Cameron and Co. are concerned, Corbyn's victory makes their job of re-election that much easier. History would seem to prove it, too.
Then there are the LibDems...where they now fit in, no one knows...
-
Some excellent and very interesting recent posts , I won't try and cover all the points they covered.
PR probably didn't happen because the idea seemed to have came from nick Clegg and the lib Dems and it seemed really complicated as well. The Scottish Parliament is voted by PR and it works well enough, we have only had one coalition government of far , there is the main candidates that you vote for and the rest of the msp's are made by list candidates. I personally think its a excellent idea, if you live in a area where the party you support doesn't have a chance of winning well what is the point of voting.
Back to Corbyn 1: Get rid of McDonnell asap. 2: Thought his speech/questions at PMs question time was a breath of fresh air 3: I think he has some good ideas but they to be refined by a younger smarter mp for todays image hungry voter
-
if you live in a area where the party you support doesn't have a chance of winning well what is the point of voting.
Nailed it mate. I live in a very safe Labour constituency (at the last local election in my ward the fuqking tories ended up 4th out of the 5 parties fielding candidates, beaten by Labour, Greens and even the Lib-Dems - in this order- and only managing more votes than UKIP; I've even had the luxury to be able to NOT vote Labour out of principle in the past, safe in the knowledge there was no way the tories would get in) and I'm even reasonably satisfied with my MP, but if I didn't like it in the current system there would be absolutely ****-all I could do to change this. If I lived in a safe tory seat (god forbid!) the way things currently are I probably wouldn't bother voting
-
70% of a 42% turnout means less then 30% of the electorate voted no... and in any case that referendum was a piss-take right from the start, the proposed system didn't make any sense even for most supporters of PR and was the first of countless times in the last 5 years the lib-dem were shown how much they counted in the so-called coalition, ie zilch.
By the way, it's also never been more than the same 24/25% of (potential) voters who vote for the tories, the other 3 quarters of the nation quite rightly hate the bastards... but a lot of them don't bother to vote because with the combination of the current system and Labour having just being tory-lite for far too long they don't feel represented. If Corbyn stays true to what he says this might well change for those on the left, and if we ever were to ditch the idiotic system we currently have and switch to REAL PR (party list, or at the very least STV) a lot more people, both left and right, would vote - just like generally speaking happens in countries that have that system, because whether 'your' party wins or not, you feel you are represented in parliament by those you have chosen.
Well you and I don't know if the "other 3 quarters of the nation quite rightly hate the bastards", as you have not taken any poll or survey on it, that is your politics right there. It could be that others vote for other parties because, well, they erm believe in their policies. :)
The argument that because a 42% turnout voted overwhelmingly for something, means that the rest would have been against is flawed massively for two reasons. Firstly, you and I have no idea whether the rest would have voted for or against anyway, so it is not relevent. Secondly, we cannot render a vote invalid if the mass don't turn out, as that is their fault. Unless you want to get them out by law or the point of a gun, then that is their right.
A mix of "cant be arsed", "didn't have time" and "I don't know anything about politics" make up a large part of that so any decision as far as I'm concerned is what they deserve. The AV vote for example was ONE damn issue and many couldn't even be bothered.
As for whether more people would vote with PR I have my doubts. I go around these islands a lot and I get this feeling that people just take it all for granted and cannot be bothered, not that there is a mass of disaffection. That is the impression reading the Guardian, but only 200,000 read the Guardian!
-
if you live in a area where the party you support doesn't have a chance of winning well what is the point of voting.
Actually I cpmpletely disagree with Danny and you, sorry! :)
Think about that line, and perhaps ask yourself WHY the party you support doesn't have a chance. Then perhaps the conclusion you might come to is that if you and others VOTED they may then have a chance. It is an illogical conclusion surely?
Also if you say the other party has most votes in an area anyway, that is democracy, sorry! Two choices lie ahead for you then; either change the voting system (I think we have covered that), or move?
-
Nailed it mate. I live in a very safe Labour constituency (at the last local election in my ward the fuqking tories ended up 4th out of the 5 parties fielding candidates, beaten by Labour, Greens and even the Lib-Dems - in this order- and only managing more votes than UKIP; I've even had the luxury to be able to NOT vote Labour out of principle in the past, safe in the knowledge there was no way the tories would get in) and I'm even reasonably satisfied with my MP, but if I didn't like it in the current system there would be absolutely ****-all I could do to change this. If I lived in a safe tory seat (god forbid!) the way things currently are I probably wouldn't bother voting
If I lived in a constituency which was deemed "safe" for any political party with which I didn't agree, the last thing I'd do is spoil my vote, blame the system and keep giving off about it.
-
PR probably didn't happen because the idea seemed to have came from nick Clegg and the lib Dems and it seemed really complicated as well.
My understanding was that Cameron deliberately went for the option he knew was rubbish and would have no hope of getting any votes. To this day i don't know why the libdems went into "coalition" (there didn't seem to be much partnership) - rather than letting the Tories form a minority government and have them over a barrel so that they could genuinely ensure real change.
As for Corbyn - he's being presented as some rabbid commie - when in actual fact he was quite middle of the road for an 80s Labour MP - shows who much things have swing to the right. It interesting to see *everyone* in the Establishment gang up on him (you expect it from the Mail but the BBC have been disgraceful)
Though labour only really have themselves to blame for their current predicament. The loss of most traditional working class MP (who had come up through the Trade Unions) has left their oxbridge>lobbyis/researcher> safe seat candidates so far removed from their traditional supporters lives as to be irrelevant. Blair was no fool (well not till later), and had Prescott to appeal to the trad voters, Brown for Scotland an shim for middle England...
It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out - my money (sadly) is on Tristam Hunt or Chukka as leader going into the 2020 election
-
On the issue of moving to make your vote count. What if you voted ukip as over 12% of people did or the greens as 4% did . Add those votes together and 1 in every 6 people voted for those parties over 16% of the electorate and what did they get 1 seat for ukip surely this can't be right
-
On the issue of moving to make your vote count. What if you voted ukip as over 12% of people did or the greens as 4% did . Add those votes together and 1 in every 6 people voted for those parties over 16% of the electorate and what did they get 1 seat for ukip surely this can't be right
Well I can't disagree with you at all there, even from my (slight I think) right of centre position. You are right it doesn't make any sense really.
But what we do about it is the real debate I guess. It is a minefield. We could add regions into it as well, Wales, England and Scotland all vote differently. I hear left leaning people say they would move to Scotland because England would vote Tory, and they do. We really cannot have our cake and eat it in reality. Perhaps that is the problem with people these days, we cannot accept that compromise is always required.
-
It would definitely have to be regional, if it did ever happen, my suggestion Scotland, Wales and northern Ireland separate for obvious reasons, England maybe up to 5 or 6 different regions , putting a very rough generalization on it I would say that London is fairly spilt, the rest of the south mainly tory , the midlands can go either way and the north labour
Anyway who the fck I'm I to say
Oh one more point, I know people won't care that ukip only got 1 seat with 12% of the vote, but next time or time after it could be a new party say a labour party split - democratic socialists maybe that the same thing happens to .
Even with just 4% of the vote the greens would have over 20 seats in parliament giving them a decent voice and a chance to grow stronger
-
Once again I'm in complete agreement with Pol. I personally hate UKIP as much as I hate the tories, but you can't be democratic only when it suits you, like certain elements seem to be; if people voted for them they need to be represented in parliament. And as you said, the greens would have 20-odd seats instead of 1 which would be enough to cause problems to the big parties in some cases.
And by the way weak governments are good in my book, because it means they generally can't enforce the worst of their policies cos everyone else gangs up against them and votes them down.
-
I think history might well show that the libs Dems were good for the country keeping the Tories on the lease to a certain extent. Ok they have copped the blame in the end especially with the uni fees. Just look how much more aggressive and arrogant the Tories have become since they got full power though
-
The PR issue is unfortunately not that much of an issue at the moment though is it? I don't see any real appetite for revisiting that debate. The risible referendum the other year was it - even though the option put forward was unlikely to fly with the electorate - most people just ain't that bothered even if it would mean a far more representative parliament. And yes that does include UKIP because much as I may dislike their views there is a sizeable part of the electorate that is all but unrepresented, likewise the Green Party.
I think a similar sense of lack of representation is what gave Corbyn his win. An expression of "give us something else" as opposed to full on endorsement of his politics. He doesn't come from inside the usual political establishment where it's impossible to spot the difference on all sides.
Whether or not this is anything more than a brief moment remains to be seen, personally I'm pessimistic about him lasting more than a year or two. I can't see the party bigwigs letting him actually lead them into a general election. But if a very centrist labour was rejected at the last election I fail to see how being even more tory lite is much of a plan. Can you really nick enough tory voters to win?
But maybe there's a wider message to both labour and tory here. They both assume a natural right to "be in charge" and that only they know what to do and how to do it. Maybe that used to work when there was connections between "them and us" but that doesn't seem to be true any more and there is a widening disconnect between the world of politicians and the world the rest of us live in. Populist movements are forming in many countries from all parts of the political spectrum. Perhaps this is the first sniff in the breeze of somthing stirring here? Mind you, that don't sound very much like the English does it ;D
-
And by the way weak governments are good in my book...
That's not a very leftist idea at all. How can a far left government rule without being strong, especially if they are going to nationalise and keep the capitalists in check? I don’t think Corbyn/McDonnell, the unions or the far left would really share your view on that.
Whether or not this is anything more than a brief moment remains to be seen, personally I'm pessimistic about him lasting more than a year or two. I can't see the party bigwigs letting him actually lead them into a general election. But if a very centrist labour was rejected at the last election I fail to see how being even more tory lite is much of a plan. Can you really nick enough tory voters to win?
I don't think it's really down to the party bigwigs. Smith and Blair had a huge job to persuade Labour to become more centrist, but they succeeded and the far left, including Corbyn, was all but marginalised. A career politician, Corbyn stayed on. A career chancer and egoist, Galloway sought different pastures. As much as the Labour far left might have praised Galloway, few followed in his footsteps. This is an important point: Corbyn's approach worked better from within.
This drift to the centre for Labour continued simply because it produced electoral success and this was further accomplished by picking up the votes of more centrist, disgruntled Conservative supporters who could see that by '97 Major had lost his touch and that Hague subsequently wasn't cut out for the job or even the subsequent jobs that followed - if one is to be painfully honest. A long list of poor to inefficient Conservative candidates, especially the ever irritating IDS (who should have and could still be re-branded as IBS) followed and posed little threat to the New Labour juggernaut until it also had run its course and left a void in the political scene. Who capitalises on the discontent with Labour? Certainly not the Greens.
The thing is that Cameron isn't wildly popular in the various Conservative circles, so there is certainly disgruntled Conservative voters looking for something more robust. (Cameron stays if Labour doesn't mount much of a threat.) Now the real question is will that be UKIP or a moderate, centrist Labour party that benefits from those less than enthusiastic with Cameron's running of the Conservatives and the country?
If Corbyn doesn't moderate his views on certain things, Labour loses a large percentage of the disgruntled Conservative vote. They will need to maximise that section of the electorate if they are ever to win the next election.
-
If Corbyn doesn't moderate his views on certain things, Labour loses a large percentage of the disgruntled Conservative vote. They will need to maximise that section of the electorate if they are ever to win the next election.
So the media consensus would have you believe - but what about all the seats the "red tories" lost in Scotland in no small part due to their tory-lite ways?
BTW Corbyn was a pretty middle of the road Labour MP in the 80s/90s - its the rightwing shift in English politics that has had him portrayed (wrongly) as a raving marxist
-
Personally I think that labour lost their seats in Scotland for a few different reasons
A backlash against them siding with the Tories in the independence vote
There leadership and party in Scotland being in disarray
Snp having the policies that appealed more to Scottish voters
People being pissed off with them doing fck all for them when they had the chance
-
If Corbyn doesn't moderate his views on certain things, Labour loses a large percentage of the disgruntled Conservative vote. They will need to maximise that section of the electorate if they are ever to win the next election.
So the media consensus would have you believe - but what about all the seats the "red tories" lost in Scotland in no small part due to their tory-lite ways?
BTW Corbyn was a pretty middle of the road Labour MP in the 80s/90s - its the rightwing shift in English politics that has had him portrayed (wrongly) as a raving marxist
It doesn't really have much to do with the media in this regard. Pol has already highlighted some reasons for Labour's defeat in Scotland. The Conservatives aren't going to be able to capitalise on discontented Labour supporters in Scotland, but the SNP certainly can. The same logic applies to Scotland: the Conservatives aren't going to win much anywhere in Scotland unless they can provide a wider appeal to discontented Labour and SNP supporters.
The fact is that as far back as Kinnock and Smith the penny dropped when it came to why Labour were so isolated and, more or less, unelectable in the 80s. It was also obvious that they were not able to build on earlier electoral success or draw significant numbers of new party members. Times changed and Labour was stuck in the past and engulfed in a virtual civil war. Kinnock spent much of his time sorting out the party and Smith made significant efforts to modernise it.
Corbyn actually wasn't a middle of the road MP back in the day and that's much of the consensus from within Labour itself. Meeting Gerry Adams and sitting down with Sinn Fein/IRA in 1984 only weeks after the Brighton Hotel Bombing wasn't something of which Kinnock approved. If I remember correctly, he was staunchly against it and didn't want the party associated with Corbyn's 'initiative'. Kinnock recently refused to back Corbyn's attempt to lead the party and many of the reasons were down to Corbyn's politics and his behaviour in the 80s. Did Labour under Michael Foot support the Conservatives' actions in The Falklands? Where was Corbyn on this issue? The reason why the SDP was created and why the left of centre vote was split back in the early 80s was Labour's attitude to what is now the current EU. Where was Corbyn on this issue?
He was on the fringes of the Labour Party back in the 80s and, by all accounts from the currents MPs, he is on the fringes of it now. This is something you don't expect in a party leader, but most of the Conservative leaders during the New Labour era were likewise. It doesn't bode well for electoral success unless the governing party implodes. There's not a single MP who doesn't realise this.
Does Corbyn see himself as a Marxist, or is it a media fabrication?
-
So...why the U-turn on EU membership?
-
Great bloke. Met him in London a few weeks back at a book signing. Very humble. Everything you wouldn't expect from a politician.