Jeremy Corbyn.

[Bold Seagull]

The sheer volume, you say. I don't know the numbers but do recall a post saying that since his coronation, there had been 30,000 who had joined. This may be impressive in such a short period of time, but is still a very small number for a country of this size. All I am saying is that the many posts from people of left wing persuasion demonstrate (from their perspective) understandable euphoria, and they let their feelings run riot. What has been, in the grand scheme of the numbers game, a large trickle, has been interpreted as a torrent.

And those of right wing persuasion tend to use phrases like 'shambolic' and let their subjective contempt run riot.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Point taken but in my defence I posted this way back in May in response to Mustafa trying to big up Russell Brand as some sort of saviour and long before Corbyn's name had been mentioned regarding the leadership:



so it's not like I'd never heard of him or his politics before now. I think I was the first in the thread to mention McDonnell's name too in regards the shadow chancellor position as I was well aware of his despicable comments regarding Bobby Sands. I find politics fascinating.

That is a quality bounce. Whether we agree or not, can't say you don't know your shit!

 

[Hastings gull]

[MENTION=1877]supaseagull[/MENTION] doesn't say everyone is energised, he says many of those who left the political world behind, as [MENTION=409]Herr Tubthumper[/MENTION] points out the numbers joining the Labour party as new members suggests this is a fair enough opinion. What he has breathed life into is that a leader of a main political party doesn't have to be a preselected chosen set of career politicians who have carefully picked their way through their political world set up for a top job. The irony in your own response is that you've been far more selective than Supaseagull was!

This is the leader of the Labour Party - so of course it is mainly to do with the left at this point, why would anyone think anyone from the right is energised by it!? If you look at the top 10 post counts from this thread, it's mainly from people who lean to the right...funny that.

The numbers joining may be impressive but in terms of the electorate or the population as a whole, it is pretty small fry. This is the point. I have to say that I don't totally see the relevance of the bold statement as a response to my post. I am simply questioning the numbers game, and I can see that as a general principle, there is merit in what you say, though if you are saying that Labour politicians do not carefully pick their way etc, then that is stretching human nature rather too far!
Your final para does not seem to make sense -who has said that the right would be energised?

 

[Bold Seagull]

The numbers joining may be impressive but in terms of the electorate or the population as a whole, it is pretty small fry. This is the point.

Small fry - how do you know? It's only Labour members who have voted so far, other than some perception polls, your point is just that, 'your point', you or I have no idea on the impact he will make on the population as a whole yet. You seem certain it is small fry already, 5 days into the job, giving your opinion on it being all a shambles, and then telling others their opinion is selective or exaggerated. Come back in 6 months and you maybe right, it might be small fry, but you don't know right now.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The numbers joining may be impressive but in terms of the electorate or the population as a whole, it is pretty small fry. This is the point. I have to say that I don't totally see the relevance of the bold statement as a response to my post. I am simply questioning the numbers game, and I can see that as a general principle, there is merit in what you say, though if you are saying that Labour politicians do not carefully pick their way etc, then that is stretching human nature rather too far!
Your final para does not seem to make sense -who has said that the right would be energised?

I think we all understand the numbers re-joining and joining, compared to the electorate, is small. And we all understand that this alone will not win the election. The point, which I think you're missing, is that this surge might be indicative and representative of something bigger. Of course no one will know until 5 years time. Whether you choose to think this way is another matter. Personally, I feel we're on the cusp of something quite different. But this is based on hope as much as anything as not only is data limited the last election demonstrated its currently foolish to extrapolate. This won't stop me believing or debating though.

 

[Hastings gull]

I think we all understand the numbers re-joining and joining, compared to the electorate, is small. And we all understand that this alone will not win the election. The point, which I think you're missing, is that this surge might be indicative and representative of something bigger. Of course no one will know until 5 years time. Whether you choose to think this way is another matter. Personally, I feel we're on the cusp of something quite different. But this is based on hope as much as anything as not only is data limited the last election demonstrated its currently foolish to extrapolate. This won't stop me believing or debating though.

With respect that is not the point as yet articulated, just that we have heard so much of surges etc etc. It is rather your opinion detailing speculation that it might be indicative of something bigger, and for all I and anyone else knows, you may be right. But I do agree that we do not know the future. Quite why you end with saying that it won't stop you debating is hard to fathom out - has anyone said you should?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Quite why you end with saying that it won't stop you debating is hard to fathom out - has anyone said you should?

No. It's a caveat to my comment about no one, including me, having any meaningful data or idea about how things will pan out.

 

[Hastings gull]

Small fry - how do you know? It's only Labour members who have voted so far, other than some perception polls, your point is just that, 'your point', you or I have no idea on the impact he will make on the population as a whole yet. You seem certain it is small fry already, 5 days into the job, giving your opinion on it being all a shambles, and then telling others their opinion is selective or exaggerated. Come back in 6 months and you maybe right, it might be small fry, but you don't know right now.

The figure quoted of those rushing to join is indeed small fry, as you know. That is all I am saying in response to those who claim that the country is rejoicing! You are now introducing another element, notably what the future might well hold. I have made no comment about that and you are quite right in that we don't know what impact he will or will not have. Read first what people write in your haste to criticise. Furthermore I did not claim that it is all a shambles - I gave a concrete example in response to another post who claimed thus, as to why this might be interpreted as such.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

With respect that is not the point as yet articulated, just that we have heard so much of surges etc etc.

Oh come on. It is obviously the point and surely goes without saying?

 

[Castello]

In my experience (I'm vice-chair for membership at a local CLP) it seems to be young activist types that felt apathetic towards politics, not necessarily hardcore lefties, but a section of young socially aware people. The issue will be that I feel these people only represent a very small section of the electorate, the challenge is going to be adapting the Corbynite message which is very much based on the rights and wrongs of socioeconomic policy to the every day lives of your average man on the street, and that average person on the street needs to know that his or her circumstances will improve.

The centre ground of the electorate that he needs is currently socially conservative, even selfish but it does have some compassion, will Corbyn's message resonate with these people? I feel this is the only way Labour can win, the strategy of winning by improving turnout won't help them as a) there isn't much evidence to suggest the apathetic are left leaning, could it be they just don't care? and b) quite often constituencies with low turnout are Labour constituencies anyway, so you'd only be increasing the majorities in seats already held rather than taking more seats.

Personally speaking, I'm not a fully paid up Corbynite, I didn't vote for him, but I do like Jeremy Corbyn. He has conviction and a macroeconomic policy that is radically different, if somewhat utopian. He has clearly inspired swaves of people and he is reviving the Labour movement- that can only be a good thing. My problem is, I'm not convinced he'll improve Labour's chances in 2020, but let's see. Rumour is that he'll run until 2019, focusing on reforming the party and the way politics is done and then a candidate for the general election will be picked- that for me makes sense.

You sound so like what my sister says who is also a member in Hove. A couple of pointsthough. You are right that young people are being politically engaged from apathy whereas the left hadnt stopped being political. However a large number of the left whilst still political have been alienated from the labour party. Scotland is a good example but its mirrored across the uk. True some of this will only lead to bigger majorities in safe seats like Tottenham, where I live and know a lot of people moving back to Labour, but remember having 600000 members is an army of recruiters and canvassers they didnt have before. They can be used in neighbouring marginal seats, like in my case Southgate and Finchley, both of which are target seats for Labour.

I dont agree people are socially conservative or selfish. It doesnt explain whole aspects of altruism. I dont think they are naturally altruistic either. I think we are social creatures with a survival instinct. This explains the herd instinct. If as a herd they believe the election of a labour party will harm their self interest they will vote against, If they agree and see the herd voting labour, theyll move with the herd. I know thats a rather crude illustration of an extremely complex subject of human nature but you get the point. I think its all to play for. I certainly think 5 years of the personal abuse,he is currently suffering, will alienate a lot of people from both the media and the tories. There really is little that annoys the british as much as an upper class bully. particularly when the victim is a sweet elderly gentleman.

Finally I dont know if you read my post a few pages back, but I also think he's preparing the ground for a younger more vibrant successor to run in a new reformed, more open and democratic leftward looking party. You dont pull off the win hes just had without some very good strategic thinking in place. Only a fool writes off Jeremy Corbyn. Several of them are licking their wounds, in PLP.

 

[FREDBINNEY]

To me, in the context he provided it seems reasonable. He also mentioned his words at the time were clumsy.

He told a hardcore Republican audience in 2003 that ‘it’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle’, he was not (as he claimed last night) arguing for peace. When he said, ‘it was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table’ he was not the voice of the Good Friday agreement.
On last night’s Question Time McDonnell explained these words by saying ‘I went out and argued for the peace process’. But he uttered the words complained of in 2003. The Good Friday agreement was signed in 1998. There was no reason in 2003 to think that if an obscure backbencher with no involvement in any peace process praised Republican murderers this would advance that Agreement one jot. Indeed I would like to know what exactly it was McDonnell thought was happening that meant that the peace process was likely to fall apart unless an obscure backbencher went out and praised IRA murderers. The claim is risible. He was praising the IRA because he had sympathy with them. It really is – as with Corbyn – as simple as that. If you doubt that then consider Tony Blair or any of the other senior figures actually involved in negotiating the peace process and see if they ever ‘had’ to utter the sort of things McDonnell volunteered so effortlessly. Scour Tony Blair’s speeches back in 1998 when the peace process was actually happening and you will search vainly.

 

[Bold Seagull]

He told a hardcore Republican audience in 2003 that ‘it’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle’, he was not (as he claimed last night) arguing for peace. When he said, ‘it was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table’ he was not the voice of the Good Friday agreement.
On last night’s Question Time McDonnell explained these words by saying ‘I went out and argued for the peace process’. But he uttered the words complained of in 2003. The Good Friday agreement was signed in 1998. There was no reason in 2003 to think that if an obscure backbencher with no involvement in any peace process praised Republican murderers this would advance that Agreement one jot. Indeed I would like to know what exactly it was McDonnell thought was happening that meant that the peace process was likely to fall apart unless an obscure backbencher went out and praised IRA murderers. The claim is risible. He was praising the IRA because he had sympathy with them. It really is – as with Corbyn – as simple as that. If you doubt that then consider Tony Blair or any of the other senior figures actually involved in negotiating the peace process and see if they ever ‘had’ to utter the sort of things McDonnell volunteered so effortlessly. Scour Tony Blair’s speeches back in 1998 when the peace process was actually happening and you will search vainly.

The NI Assembly was suspended from Oct '02 to May '07 with a break down in relations between parties and power returning to the Northern Ireland Office. That is the context McDonnell was referring to in order to maintain the peace process and get all parties back round the table. I'm not defending him or saying he's right, but that is the context.

 

[Buzzer]

You're a right wing Labour career politician like Yvette Cooper?

"Tory, Tory, Tory. You’re a Tory.’ The level of hatred directed by the Corbyn left at Labour people who have fought Tories all their lives is as menacing as it is ridiculous."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9637452/why-ive-finally-given-up-on-the-left/



*It's an interesting viewpoint, not aimed at you particularly, Sim, but definitely at those who never supported Labour in the last election but now want to join the Party and drive out long-established party activists because they're too right-wing.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I also think he's preparing the ground for a younger more vibrant successor to run in a new reformed, more open and democratic leftward looking party. You dont pull off the win hes just had without some very good strategic thinking in place. Only a fool writes off Jeremy Corbyn. Several of them are licking their wounds, in PLP.

Ed Miliband was young, perceived to be about as left-wing as you could get and still remain vaguely electable. That didn't work, and I can't see out of Shadow Cabinet who is likely to be Phil Taylor to Corbyn's Eric Bristow.

An inherent problem with the Corbyn regime is that not only will he be 70 at the next General Election, but if he nominates a successor then that person is likely to run into one or more of the more mainstream Chuka Umunna, Dan Jarvis or David Miliband in 2020 and the dynasty will be at an end.

John Smith apart, you can see how the Labour Party has lurched between right and left, and how it is likely to continue lurching for many years to come. The Labour Left will also continue to be reminded that the right-wing Blair is the only Labour leader to have won an general election since 1976, so 44 years by the time of the next election.

 

[Bold Seagull]

"Tory, Tory, Tory. You’re a Tory.’ The level of hatred directed by the Corbyn left at Labour people who have fought Tories all their lives is as menacing as it is ridiculous."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9637452/why-ive-finally-given-up-on-the-left/



*It's an interesting viewpoint, not aimed at you particularly, Sim, but definitely at those who never supported Labour in the last election but now want to join the Party and drive out long-established party activists because they're too right-wing.

I thought this was a particularly good quote:
The US leftist-turned-neocon Irving Kristol set the pattern for the pattern-baldness theory of politics when he opined that a conservative is a liberal who has been ‘mugged by reality’.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Ed Miliband was young, perceived to be about as left-wing as you could get and still remain vaguely electable. That didn't work, and I can't see out of Shadow Cabinet who is likely to be Phil Taylor to Corbyn's Eric Bristow.

An inherent problem with the Corbyn regime is that not only will he be 70 at the next General Election, but if he nominates a successor then that person is likely to run into one or more of the more mainstream Chuka Umunna, Dan Jarvis or David Miliband in 2020 and the dynasty will be at an end.

John Smith apart, you can see how the Labour Party has lurched between right and left, and how it is likely to continue lurching for many years to come. The Labour Left will also continue to be reminded that the right-wing Blair is the only Labour leader to have won an general election since 1976, so 44 years by the time of the next election.

Is it just about left and right? I'm not convinced it is right now. I've spoken to Labour member friends who voted for Corbyn because they just didn't want someone tainted from previous office, someone who represented a change. In all honesty they are concerned Corbyn is too left, but buy into a fresh start for the party and will wait to see how new policy direction emerges.

If, as [MENTION=5200]Buzzer[/MENTION]'s post suggests there is left baiting to the right of the party and vice versa, then whoever is in charge is in trouble. If however Corbyn can lead the party to a position that does get more unilateral support from MP's and members, then Labour might move forward to a better debate on what constitutes their ideology and how they can encompass a range of opinion. This would certainly set them up for a new leader to come into a party more receptive to new ideas rather than the seemingly either Blairite or Brownite philosophy we effectively had in the lead up to this contest.

 

[Castello]

Ed Miliband was young, perceived to be about as left-wing as you could get and still remain vaguely electable. That didn't work, and I can't see out of Shadow Cabinet who is likely to be Phil Taylor to Corbyn's Eric Bristow.

An inherent problem with the Corbyn regime is that not only will he be 70 at the next General Election, but if he nominates a successor then that person is likely to run into one or more of the more mainstream Chuka Umunna, Dan Jarvis or David Miliband in 2020 and the dynasty will be at an end.

John Smith apart, you can see how the Labour Party has lurched between right and left, and how it is likely to continue lurching for many years to come. The Labour Left will also continue to be reminded that the right-wing Blair is the only Labour leader to have won an general election since 1976, so 44 years by the time of the next election.

Ed Miliband was young, but believe me he wasnt percieved as left wing by anyone but the right and centre. Im not suggesting Corbyn will nominate a successor. That would be an anaethma to a democratic socialist. I'm suggesting that there will be a left wing grouping within the PLP, as there is at the moment, and they will select a candidate between them, as they did with Corbyn.

All the rightwing candidates you name could have stood this time, they would have been defeated. They will also have spent 5 years in the political wilderness. David Milliband wont even be an MP. Of course its possible that the left will be defeated, but its unlikely to be by David Milliband. The other point of course is that if JC does a good job the left candidate will inherit his kudos and if he doesnt they wont be elected anyway.

And just to show what a smart arse know it all, I am, there was no general election in 1976, it was 1974. I know that makes it even longer, but I dont accept the premise of " just because it hasnt happened for a long time it cant happen in the future".

 

[Buzzer]

I thought this was a particularly good quote:
The US leftist-turned-neocon Irving Kristol set the pattern for the pattern-baldness theory of politics when he opined that a conservative is a liberal who has been ‘mugged by reality’.

Yup, although I guess people like Nick Cohen are saying is that it's not him who has changed but his party. I do think there is a very serious point to this. (Alleged) comedian Mark Steel whined and whined in the Independent of the unfairness of it all because he had been banned from voting in the leadership elections but that Tony Blair had not. It does seem a bit rich for Mark Steel to get uppity at the Labour Party getting wise to his opportunism. Steel was down in Brighton campaigning for another political party that stood against Labour in May. Blair, for all his faults, gave up a lot of time and money in support of Labour candidates. Therefore who has more right to a say in Labour's future? A long-standing supporter (albeit from the right of the party) or a Johnny-come-lately who wants to morph a party that he apparently had no qualms about campaigning against into something more of his own ideals?

The change from a Michael Foot-type Labour party to a Blairite leadership was made so much easier because Kinnock had already tackled the hard-left and there was at least 10 years of internal debate, compromise, elections and reality to ease the transition. This volte face back to Foot-era politics will be so much harder for the Labour Party because there's no easing in time and certainly no middle ground and that will alienate a lot of centre-left Labour supporters. There's a lot of very, very good soft-left Labour politicians for example who every time they voice dissent probably feel a bit like Bukharin in the Moscow show trials.

I'm still waiting to see if Corbyn does want to unify the Labour Party or whether he carries on allowing his supporters to make life so uncomfortable for those on the right that they leave.

 

[Castello]

Is it just about left and right? I'm not convinced it is right now. I've spoken to Labour member friends who voted for Corbyn because they just didn't want someone tainted from previous office, someone who represented a change. In all honesty they are concerned Corbyn is too left, but buy into a fresh start for the party and will wait to see how new policy direction emerges.

If, as [MENTION=5200]Buzzer[/MENTION]'s post suggests there is left baiting to the right of the party and vice versa, then whoever is in charge is in trouble. If however Corbyn can lead the party to a position that does get more unilateral support from MP's and members, then Labour might move forward to a better debate on what constitutes their ideology and how they can encompass a range of opinion. This would certainly set them up for a new leader to come into a party more receptive to new ideas rather than the seemingly either Blairite or Brownite philosophy we effectively had in the lead up to this contest.

I agree, although I am of the left, I have consistently said in this thread, I dont believe what is happening is about left or right. I believe politics is realligning across the world and old ideas of left and right will no longer be useful. I know many people on the left who I have as little time for as the conservatives and would dread being elected. I know many who dont share all the same views as I do, but am very able to work well and constructively with to achieve a shared objective.

I think this is the key to what is happening, and so many are wedded to old ideas of left versus right, they cant see the wood for the trees.

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

You sound so like what my sister says who is also a member in Hove. A couple of pointsthough. You are right that young people are being politically engaged from apathy whereas the left hadnt stopped being political. However a large number of the left whilst still political have been alienated from the labour party. Scotland is a good example but its mirrored across the uk. True some of this will only lead to bigger majorities in safe seats like Tottenham, where I live and know a lot of people moving back to Labour, but remember having 600000 members is an army of recruiters and canvassers they didnt have before. They can be used in neighbouring marginal seats, like in my case Southgate and Finchley, both of which are target seats for Labour.

I dont agree people are socially conservative or selfish. It doesnt explain whole aspects of altruism. I dont think they are naturally altruistic either. I think we are social creatures with a survival instinct. This explains the herd instinct. If as a herd they believe the election of a labour party will harm their self interest they will vote against, If they agree and see the herd voting labour, theyll move with the herd. I know thats a rather crude illustration of an extremely complex subject of human nature but you get the point. I think its all to play for. I certainly think 5 years of the personal abuse,he is currently suffering, will alienate a lot of people from both the media and the tories. There really is little that annoys the british as much as an upper class bully. particularly when the victim is a sweet elderly gentleman.

Finally I dont know if you read my post a few pages back, but I also think he's preparing the ground for a younger more vibrant successor to run in a new reformed, more open and democratic leftward looking party. You dont pull off the win hes just had without some very good strategic thinking in place. Only a fool writes off Jeremy Corbyn. Several of them are licking their wounds, in PLP.

That approach won't get Labour elected.
The Labour movement is now a shadow of it's former self, b*stardised into New Labour which was always just a vehicle to appeal to the electorate by taking the best bits of the Tory policy and loosely attaching them to some of the Labour ideals of yore.
Corbyn's policies have a place in politics but not in a Labour Party that evolved so.
He's in the wrong party for both him, the Labour Party and the electorate who need an alternative viable opponent to the Tories. Labour isn't that alternative with Corbyn in charge.