[Will Hunt]

Just to get some perspective, no matter how much we may dislike the Tories, they are not a very right wing party in a broad sense. There are other major non-fringe parties across the western world who make them look like Mary Poppins at a picnic.

By right I mean broadly continuing the nu-Labour tactic of being slightlly less grim than the Tories and sneaking the good stuff in not right at all.

Well stop perpetuating the myth then! 

[erm]

Only because of how far R the Tories have gone into tin-foil hat territory could any of that be considered L-wing.

Bullshit. Read the manifesto itself or just the summary I linked to. If that is right wing then modern Sweden is Tory Utopia.

If it isn't as far left as you want it that is fair play, but that doesn't make it right wing (as you imply).

[seankenny]

... sneaking the good stuff in.

Because no one noticed the vast reduction in pensioner poverty, or the introduction of tax credits, or a functioning NHS or the massive rebuilding of schools and refurbishment of council houses.

I'm guessing a lot of the Corbynistas might not have noticed because they are comfortably middle-class and unaffected by these policies. Or because they are in their early 20s and most of this stuff took place before their 15th birthday. That's not meant to sound patronising, but a reflection of who supports him and why.

[i.munro]

Call it centre-left  or centre-right whatevs my point is about electoral tactics.
I suspect many in the PLP would shy away from say Rail Nationalisation or ditching Trident as making them "unelectable" and yet both seem to be both widely popular and sensible.

If that sort of thinking is what is motivating the Corbyn coup then he's getting my vote
and given how early the anti-Corbyn attacks started I rather suspect it is.

[seankenny]

Call it centre-left  or centre-right whatevs my point is about electoral tactics.
I suspect many in the PLP would shy away from say Rail Nationalisation or ditching Trident as making them "unelectable" and yet both seem to be both widely popular and sensible.

Hmmm. I don't think ditching Trident is particularly popular. More to the point, it's not particularly salient. Cobynoids love it, the rest of us feel a degree of ennui about the whole thing. I'd say an amazing thing for Labour would be to start talking about stuff that maters to people who might vote for us. Radical, I know.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-britain-scrap-trident/21868

[tomtom]

@seankenny Castro Lite :D

[tomtom]

Call it centre-left  or centre-right whatevs my point is about electoral tactics.
I suspect many in the PLP would shy away from say Rail Nationalisation or ditching Trident as making them "unelectable" and yet both seem to be both widely popular and sensible.

If that sort of thinking is what is motivating the Corbyn coup then he's getting my vote

Fair enough. Vote for the man.

But he'll never get into power to implement either...

[seankenny]

@seankenny Castro Lite :D

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a Birkenstock stamping on a human face forever.

[tomtom]

Meanwhile, Len (elected on a 15% turnout) McLuskey now thinks Mi5 are behind a Corbyn smear campaign

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/22/intelligence-services-using-dark-practices-against-jeremy-corbyn

Where's that tin hat picture... :D

[i.munro]

Because no one noticed the vast reduction in pensioner poverty, or the introduction of tax credits, or a functioning NHS or the massive rebuilding of schools and refurbishment of council houses.

Of course I noticed I also find it hard to miss the fact that the election of a Tory govt is swiftly followed my unemployment for me and most of the people I know. The argument here is about how best to avoid more of this and I would suggest that triangulation and variants therrof have been shown not to work. In addition the one clear message I can get from reacent elections/referenda is that there's a big appetite for change - any change seemingly.

[Will Hunt]

Of course I noticed I also find it hard to miss the fact that the election of a Tory govt is swiftly followed my unemployment for me and most of the people I know. The argument here is about how best to avoid more of this and I would suggest that triangulation and variants therrof have been shown not to work. In addition the one clear message I can get from reacent elections/referenda is that there's a big appetite for change - any change seemingly.

I don't want to knock you personally but, from the above, you were in employ under Labour, you are out of work under Conservatives and you hold them accountable, the solution: a weak Labour opposition. 

Meanwhile, Len (elected on a 15% turnout) McLuskey now thinks Mi5 are behind a Corbyn smear campaign

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/22/intelligence-services-using-dark-practices-against-jeremy-corbyn

Where's that tin hat picture... :D

Gosh those chaps at MI5 have been busy haven't they? First they were rubbing out and re-writing millions of ballots during the referendum, now they're bricking windows. And there was me thinking they were supposed to be busy trying to spot the occasional jihadist infiltrating the country posing as asylum seekers. They really do have their work cut out for them.

[Nigel]

Meanwhile, Len (elected on a 15% turnout) McLuskey now thinks Mi5 are behind a Corbyn smear campaign

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/22/intelligence-services-using-dark-practices-against-jeremy-corbyn

Where's that tin hat picture... :D

To be honest that seems a lot more plausible than accusations of people getting Dads on them. Pure playground stuff. All this smearing is exhausting, can't they just have a hustings like normal?!

[seankenny]

Because no one noticed the vast reduction in pensioner poverty, or the introduction of tax credits, or a functioning NHS or the massive rebuilding of schools and refurbishment of council houses.

Of course I noticed I also find it hard to miss the fact that the election of a Tory govt is swiftly followed my unemployment for me and most of the people I know. The argument here is about how best to avoid more of this and I would suggest that triangulation and variants therrof have been shown not to work. In addition the one clear message I can get from reacent elections/referenda is that there's a big appetite for change - any change seemingly.

The problem is that the Corbyn faction assume that if you're not with them, then you don't want any kind of progressive change. It also assumes that these problems are easy to solve.

[Nigel]

Sean (lost your ref in the quotes!)

Indeed, I don't see Corbyn as the exact same type of populist demagogue as Trump, but I see him in very much the same mould. I see him as a kind of left wing populist who would, if given half the chance, quite happily drift into authoritarianism for the good of the cause. He's also exactly the kind of politician that would propose damaging policies if he thought they'd go down well with his constituents. A sort of mix of English puritan and Diet Castro, big on unaffordable subsidies and long speeches and wielding power by coterie.

Really? Well I can't agree with that. Trump and Johnson have proven form for changing policy to further the trajectory of their career. Corbyn has absolutely no history of that - he didn't change his policies to win the leadership as it wasn't his desire, he just said what he believed and it resonated with a lot of Labour members and others. In fact quite the opposite, he's criticised for being ideologically inflexible! Your imagining of him being a in the same mould is just that, an imagining.

Not at all, but it's clear that attempts to develop and communciate policy have been virtually moribund. At least that's according to sympathetic people involved in the process, like Richard Murphy:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/07/17/the-rise-and-fall-of-corbyns-economics/

Danny Blanchflower has come out and said the same thing. And the sensible, rational economic policy is supposed to be the jewel in Corbyn's crown. It seems to me that his supporters have confused an aim - "no more austerity" - with an actual set of policies.

Fair point, he does have the policies but the message isn't getting out at present. I think that's because the media aren't letting it out instead concentrating on sensationalism, you probably think its because he's incompetent. Each to their own. Although that said some of the policies in fact getting airtime, just from the Tory front bench - end to austerity, setting up of infrastructure investment etc.

The suggestion that all MPs should be deselected once the leadership race had started. This is a complete u-turn of course, but it essentially says "Tow the line, or I'll ensure that anyone who doesn't agree with me won't be able to stand as an MP."

My understanding is that there will have to be reselection purely due to boundary changes. In which case its a statement of fact. Feel free to correct me if that's not the case as I haven't time to look into it. To be fair I wouldn't blame him if he did intend it as a threat given how he's been treated. I also consider parachuting preferred candidates into seats from the party machine as New Labour did seems inherently unfair. Anyway, in actual fact the threat cannot take the form of "toe my line or you're out" as reselection is done by CLPs. If CLPs don't support Corbyn, or even if they do but value their constituency MP enough to reselect him then that MP is fine no?

Ran out of time now sorry!

[Fultonius]

Because no one noticed the vast reduction in pensioner poverty, or the introduction of tax credits, or a functioning NHS or the massive rebuilding of schools and refurbishment of council houses.

Of course I noticed I also find it hard to miss the fact that the election of a Tory govt is swiftly followed my unemployment for me and most of the people I know. The argument here is about how best to avoid more of this and I would suggest that triangulation and variants therrof have been shown not to work. In addition the one clear message I can get from reacent elections/referenda is that there's a big appetite for change - any change seemingly.

The problem is that the Corbyn faction assume that if you're not with them, then you don't want any kind of progressive change. It also assumes that these problems are easy to solve.

And part of the opposite problem is, if you mention the Corbyn-out "coup" or don't like the pretenders to the throne, you are automatically branded a "corbynista". I don't think he'd make a very good PM and I don't think he's an "amazing party leader". I'm still to be shown a better alternative....

[i.munro]

Ooops!

[i.munro]

Just to get some perspective, no matter how much we may dislike the Tories, they are not a very right wing party in a broad sense. There are other major non-fringe parties across the western world who make them look like Mary Poppins at a picnic.

Missed this one earlier.

They committed themselves to tax rates as a % of GDP lower than the US - something no European country post-war has ever even considered feasible. They attempted to lock themselves & all future govts into always running a budget surplus.
They gone so far right that they're over the horizon  some time ago

[chris j]

Of course I noticed I also find it hard to miss the fact that the election of a Tory govt is swiftly followed my unemployment for me and most of the people I know.

Sorry if it's a touchy subject, but what did you do for a job?

[Nigel]

Of course I noticed I also find it hard to miss the fact that the election of a Tory govt is swiftly followed my unemployment for me and most of the people I know.

Sorry if it's a touchy subject, but what did you do for a job?

Tory campaign manager? 

[TheTwig]

One thing to consider (and I'm sure I've said this further up) is that the relationship between the media and people's opinions is not uni-directional. It is far too simplistic to say "The media hates Corbyn and they brainwash the people into hating him also", it's nowhere near as linear as that.
People generally read newspapers that reflect their own prejudice. Case in point, does anybody here read The Mail or The Sun? No. Why? Because they're full of vile right wing shit that we don't agree with. Newspaper editors know their readership and what they think, and they have a hard enough time flogging newspapers without trying to push stuff to the readers which they don't want to read. The content and tone of a paper will largely reflect the readership's opinion, but that doesn't mean that editors can't edge their readers towards one viewpoint or another on certain contentious issues. The relationship of influence between news content and readership opinion is very much circular.

Let's take this tenet and zoom out to look at the big picture. When you say "the media are biased against Corbyn", what you're actually saying is "the weight of popular opinion is against Corbyn and the media report on that". This is exacerbated in his case because he makes himself an easy target by not engaging with the media - i.e. he creates a vacuum which journalists need to fill - and unfortunately we live in a world where people enjoy the schadenfreude of laughing at the scruffy man with the beard.

I don't think it's a big conspiracy. I just think that outside of our little filter bubble of left-wing democratic socialists (or perhaps more accurately, revolutionary socialists, in the case of many Corbyn supporters) he's not very well liked. People do judge on looks. People do judge on personality. It is in our very nature. When you hold a minority view, as many of us do, it feels safe and cosy to tell yourself that there's a great conspiracy against you and your way of thinking. It reassures you that you're right and tells you that the majority of people are the ones who are wrong because they've been hoodwinked by an amorphous media bogeyman.

Corbyn's bloody great. He should be in the Green party (his Islington constituency would definitely re-elect him in a by-election should he defect), or hold some lesser position in the Labour party, influencing what they do.

With the obvious flaw of FPTP excepted, our parliamentary democracy is flipping brilliant, and Corbyn is breaking the model by trying to lead a party without compromise or consensus, and that is a bad thing (even the Guardian agrees with this).

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf
I'll just leave this here 

Fact is, the media are biased against Corbyn, and NOT telling both sides of the story.

[TheTwig]

No it's not. Cobyn is, as I said, a very English sort of populist. You may not have seen strong evidence, but what about the notorious NEC meeting, where several women asked for a secret ballot because they were afraid of the consequences of speaking against the leader? Stalking, online harrassement, their fearss of phyiscal assault. It's clearly not a good time to be a prominent woman in the Labour movement, and the fact that men in it say "yet to see strong evidence" is really a depressing sign of the depth of misogny within it.

Oh, and Corbyn's response to those women? To vote against them. Given others' safety or fears, and his own political survival, he chose the later. Do you see why some of us struggle with this wh

I, and I'm sure Corbyn, believe that elected representatives are accountable to the electorate that elected them in the first place. Secret ballots are quite a sordid way to conduct democracy IMHO. If you elect somebody believing they will vote a certain way (to represent your interests) and then you have no way of knowing whether they are in fact actually doing so, what is the point? As for the women on the NEC that were left distraught/shaken/in tears/shattered by the whole meeting, they obviously weren't so distraught as to immediately go to and have multiple interviews on radio/tv/newspapers and share their tragic tale were they? If I was as shaken up as they reported themselves to be the last thing I would want to do is endlessly relive it in the public spotlight. As for this trope that Corbyn is anti-women, how about Jess Phillips saying that she would stab Corbyn in the front? I'm sick of the bullshit vague idea that you can't legitimately criticise somebody just because they are female, or jewish, or gay or a whole host of other off-limits categories. There is a clear difference between singling somebody out because of X or Y reason versus disagreeing with their shabby politics, and just because they happen to be female , or gay, or whatever, then debate is shut down.

The whole 'homophobic abuse Eagle faced' thing is a fantastic example. She wasn't even at this meeting where she was magically abused! And whats more it turns out that half the families of the officers of the branch are gay themselves! 

Finally, all the hyperbole directed at Corbyn and his supporters (it has already been mentioned that there are probably a hard-core minority that use foul language/abuse/bully, same with any group of people) not only legitimately shut down debate (same as the blairite meme etc) but also make it harder for genuine abuse to be challenged. Ever heard of the tale of the boy that cried wolf?

[TheTwig]

the chaos and the shambles - arguably as much the PLP as Corbyn. Lets not forget that several people refused to serve in his shadow cabinet from day 1 after he was elected. Corbyn surely takes some if not a lot of blame here, but it is a clear nonsense to put it all at his door. He's been herding kittens.

Really? The MPs who've been coming out of the woodwork to say how they tried to serve in Corbyn's shadow cabinet but couldn't, are they some kind of dumb rabble who can't do their job properly? No, they are not. They are dedicated professionals trying to work as a solid, responsible opposition. They know what the job entails and they're trying to do it to the best of the ability.

The "coming out of the woodwork" bit is my problem. If this is genuinely the case why didn't they say that in the first place rather than this "unelectable" bollocks people might have been more sympathetic, I certainly would - now it just looks like somebody is lying and I don't know who.

They thought they'd try to make the best of it, work with the new leader, support him, etc - as the Corbynistas wanted. They gave it a good go. It didn't work. So they left at a time which seemed reasonable. ie when their position became no longer tenable. I don't think anyone's lying, this is just how things work surely?

I actually thought you were trolling at first, then decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Who gave it a good go? What a bunch of absolute fucking bollocks. The plotting and backstabbing began from day one. How about the constant sniping and briefing from these same members of the shadow cabinet to the press on a regular basis? He was never even given a chance. Consider the fact that Owen Smith was sounding out MPs for a leadership challenge 6 months ago, but obviously called it off and decided to wait for later. Or the fact that the coup plotters decided to wait until after the EU referendum so they could inflict maximum damage on Corbyn (and by default, the country, by depriving it of an effective opposition)

How does this tenableness thing work? Is there a scale of 0-10 and you resign when you get to 7? spare me

[tomtom]

Secret ballots are quite a sordid way to conduct democracy IMHO.

Blimey Twig - to me that's quite a shocking statement.

Should people show their hands so they can be taken to one side by the commissars afterwards if they voted the wrong way?

One of the reasons why we have secret ballots for our GE and indeed referendums is to prevent intimidation and bullying.

[Oldmanmatt]

Don't we have to write our vote on a shard of broken pottery?

Or am I showing my age again?

Anyway, Themistocles for PM! 



All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. Looking at you, here, Dense.

[Bonjoy]

 Saw Owen Smith on TV last night saying he would maintain 2% spending on defence and 'would push the nuclear button'. I really dont see how this is any different to saying you would do what Hitler did, but worse. Murdering millions innocents is never justified. I understand the bollocks about credible deterence, but why can't this be satisfied by refusing to answer the question?