Jump to content
aberdeen-music
Sign in to follow this  
TR!ΔNGL€ T€€TH

Jeremy Corbyn

Recommended Posts

I'm cautiously excited about his leadership. I like his policies and I like how much the Daily Mail fucking hate him. Slagging off his socks being pulled up to try to draw attention away from his policies and so on. It's a continuation of the much needed shake-up that the IndyRef started. Now, even a vote between the two big parties represents a choice between Left and Right wing, rather than just being a choice between Right and Centre-Right.

 

I shall be watching eagerly over the coming weeks.

 

xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much as I like Jeremy Corbyn and enjoy the total panic that his win has sent the media into - I can't see one man moving Labour from their blind devotion to Blairism and appeasement of UKIP/Daily Mail readers that's brought the Party to where they are now.

 

Moving the party from centre-right back to the left wing of British politics would be a great achievement - I worry that too many members of the Labour Party are too comfortable disagreeing just a little bit with the Tories to move back to outright opposition. 

 

Still it's got to be better than the other prospective leaders would have been, so that's good.

 

And i'm definitely looking forward to seeing how Cameron deals with PMQ's,  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find interesting is the number of Labour folks that are throwing toys out of the pram. I think they're doing Corbyn a massive favour - they're thinning the party ranks of the pseudo-Tories and making room for new people to get into the top jobs in the party.

 

Dunno how successful it's gonna be, could be that by the next election Corbyn is just a memory.. but I have my fingers crossed. It's an uphill fight ahead, but it's a promising time for British politics.

 

xx

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(sorry but:)

 

I think it's plainly a disaster for the Labour Party, Labour voters (not the same thing, let alone "potential Labour voters") and anyone whose main political concern (which I would unscientifically guestimate is "a fucking lot of people") is a moderate, viable alternative to the Tories (one understandably hears a lot of "Tory-lite", or whatever, levelled at nu-Labour; but from another angle, the desire for an economically right-of-centre party, without the archaic bigotry that pervades some of the Tories, the most brutal anti-benefits policies, etc., I can also see is pretty understandable).

 

All Corbyn's "Yes we did" victory shows is that there a couple of hundred or so hard lefties in the UK who are sufficiently strong in their views (fair enough) to join the party and vote for Corbyn against other Labour members. (which incidentally I think is a amusingly ironic example both of a determined niche group - a clique, one could almost say... - shafting the apathetic majority, and of the free market concept of a price hurdle...)

 

That is not the same thing as the general electorate being willing to vote for a party with a hard left leader and hard left policies, against the rest of the general electorate. I agree with those who have labelled him unelectable and it probably doesn't need elaborating why. Aside from that, from the admittedly little attention I've paid, he just seems like a total donkey, doesn't understand even the fundamentals of his flagship policies and is literally advocating printing money to fund infrastructure, a bigger bureaucracy and so on. Christ. It's also depressing to have to say it, but he's probably not Eurosceptic enough to get back the arseholes lost to UKIP (and too Eurosceptic for my liking, methinks).

 

I have a colleague who is a strong Marxist-communist and who, before the last general election, said Miliband and his policies were pathetically not-socialist-enough. A couple of us in the staff room (including a former Labour member...) opined that he was too socialist and was going to lose because of it. He said: so what, better to have a vociferous, genuine opposition than two election-winning machines which are the same (this guy is now both celebrating Corbyn's win, and cautioning against optimism because of New Labour MPs who won't vote with him, incidentally) and that is actually, as I'd predict it, the most likely disaster in itself - Corbyn will stand there and tell the Tories "Your policies are evil and socialism is the answer!" (not far from what Miliband did) and the Tories will smile and nod (or laugh and jeer) and do whatever the fuck they want, because the opposition is no electoral threat.

 

As someone who hasn't voted for 2 general elections, would probably never vote for either of the main parties, and thinks (excepting the Lib Dems) the protest parties are yet even worse, I'm not sure whether to just indulge in shadenfreude, be depressed at the thought of Tory impunity, or actually hopeful that the Labour Party tanks into oblivion and is replaced by a genuine, all-round liberal opposition party. :S

Edited by scottyboy
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although the voting procedures for the Labour Party are beyond my ken, it was definitely more than a 'couple of hundred or so hard lefties'.  Apparently Corbyn received a quarter of a million votes to be leader:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_%28UK%29_leadership_election,_2015

That's quite a big mandate for a party leader.

 

Corbyn seems all right to me.  I quite like it that he seems a pleasant, principled guy and not like some kind of career politician simulacrum dreamed up by a focus group.  That's a refreshing change from most other party leaders.

 


All Corbyn's "Yes we did" victory shows is that there a couple of hundred or so hard lefties in the UK who are sufficiently strong in their views (fair enough) to join the party and vote for Corbyn against other Labour members. (which incidentally I think is a amusingly ironic example both of a determined niche group - a clique, one could almost say... - shafting the apathetic majority, and of the free market concept of a price hurdle...)

 

 

Edited by Mr Owl PhD
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Total membership of the Labour Party = 325k

Votes cast in leadership ballot = 422k

Votes for Corbyn = 251k

Even if the 97 THOUSAND people that joined the Labour Party as supporters (not members) hadn't voted he would still have won by a large margin. And that assumes that all of those people voted Corbyn in the first place.

Whatever has happened it's definitely not a niche group. It was the rank and file Labour membership (the not so apathetic majority) giving their party a mandate for change.

Whether that change can be accomplished in the face of the current senior party members and MP's is the question.

Edited by colb
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this whole thing is going to be pretty interesting, but I can't seem to get excited about the future of the Labour Party when it still contains a large quantity of massive Blairite arseholes. I think it'll take a long time for the party to find unity and although I can see them gaining more support in the next general election, I'm not sure if they'll win because they'll be made out to be really unstable in the press and by the Tories. That being said, I think that Labour is so broken at present that even if Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall had won, they still wouldn't be elected in 2020 because, to use a phrase that I dislike when applied to politics, "they're all the same". That can't really be said about Corbyn right now.

 

Hopefully Tom Watson will be a good deputy, but I'm kind of torn. His work on the phone hacking scandal was ace, but he was one of the coward Labour MPs who abstained from voting against the Welfare Bill, which makes me distrust him. Party loyalty isn't as important as the lives of those being fucked over by welfare reform and it was sad that he obviously felt differently.

 

I'm sad that Scottish Labour can't seem to go the same way as Labour are trying to. I doubt I'll ever vote SNP, but at the moment, I'd lean more towards them than Scottish Labour because they're bothering to at least pose as a left-wing party.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

went to see Mr Corbyn at the Arts Centre, was inspired like everybody else aged aged from 13 or so  to 80or so. A politician who was only interested in politics & policy...so very refreshing. The labour party after two defeats of new labour clothing would have trundled along to another defeat, so a move to the left is the best thing possible & remember this labour opposition has a new advantage in communities with all these new enthusiastic helpers doing the SNP thing all over the UK..    

Edited by chilli
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So less than a hundred thousand then. From what I've read, Corbyn got a minority of the votes from "fully paid-up members" and won the leadership from votes from other groups. I'd imagine that "fully paid-up members" are those who've paid at least a year's full membership (and who I'd think of as the "rank and file", as it happens) and at the opposite end are those who paid one month's sub of 3-4 pounds to vote for Corbyn. Presumably there must at least one other section (less than a year's membership/payment, lower rates or whatever).

 

Which is beside the point, in that people willing to join the Labour Party and vote is not the same thing as the general electorate (the "apathetic majority" to which I referred). I'm pretty incredulous at the notion that Labour has been "New Labour" for 2 elections and has been losing because of that; Miliband was way to the left of that, easily "left of centre" if not further, and I'd say lost because of it, (and the same thing pre-Blair).

 

If anyone disagrees, though, and wants to go vote for Corbyn, fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So less than a hundred thousand then. From what I've read, Corbyn got a minority of the votes from "fully paid-up members" and won the leadership from votes from other groups.

You read wrong then. He would have won even if only full members had voted. It was widely reported that he got a bigger mandate from the party than even Blair did when elected leader.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to summarise then Scottyboy:

 

You've paid little or no attention to Corbyn - but you don't like him or his policies.

 

You don't really know anything about the election, who voted in it and how the votes and different tiers of membership in the Labour Party work - but you're sure that Corbyn being elected with 170k more votes than his nearest rival is the result of a niche group of hard lefties hijacking the election.

 

You think that Corbyn getting 49.5% of the fully paid up members votes in a 4 person race is a minority result. 

 

Replace Corbyn with Obama and you sound an awful lot like Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin.....

Edited by colb
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to summarise then Scottyboy:

 

You've paid little or no attention to Corbyn - but you don't like him or his policies.

 

You don't really know anything about the election, who voted in it and how the votes and different tiers of membership in the Labour Party work - but you're sure that Corbyn being elected with 170k more votes than his nearest rival is the result of a niche group of hard lefties hijacking the election.

 

You think that Corbyn getting 49.5% of the fully paid up members votes in a 4 person race is a minority result. 

 

Replace Corbyn with Obama and you sound an awful lot like Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin.....

 

No, I think that the votes for Corbyn within the Labour Party leadership election are a small niche vis-a-vis the general electorate; as I thought I made painfully clear a few times.

 

Like I said, 250k votes and 170k votes more than his nearest rival, compared to a c. 200k membership before the race, 50% increase in membership during the race, etc., again just looks to me as evidence that people with hard-left views joined the party to vote for Corbyn, and that he owes his win to that. I'm assuming a high level of causation between a huge increase in membership after a wildly unexpected candidate got into the race (merely by people "wanting to widen the debate") and him winning the race (with numbers that couldn't have occurred with the previous membership). Duh.

 

As if it matters. I haven't said that a "niche group hijacked the election" though. I think that Corbyn won the LABOUR LEADERSHIP ELECTION fair and square, within the party's own rules. I just happen (like pretty much all other Corbyn detractors) to think that they have shafted Labour's chances at the GENERAL ELECTION. A. different. thing.

 

(Corbyn isn't proverbial rocket science either).

Edited by scottyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm aware (if anyone can correct me on the timeline feel free...) Corbyn got into the leadership (for which he needed support of MPs, particularly) just barely, and via people who did not actually support him, but wanted a token hard left candidate for old labour diehards (or to "widen the debate"). There was then the huge surge in membership, and at the end of surge/contest, this just-scraped-in, wildly-different candidate won. It seems to me clear that those new members were fervent socialists who wanted to vote for Corbyn (fair enough).

 

Now, you can take that as evidence that there is a huge well of left-wing voters that just needed a candidate to vote for (and that there are yet more out there who will carry the next general election), as I guess Colb (not Corb, sorry) Stroopy etc. would. Much more likely, to me, however, is that it's just another example of the phenomenon that the further you get away from a general election, the less apathetic voters take part and the more weight more strongly-held and more extreme views are able to carry. See protest parties doing better in local and EU elections. See the US Primaries (originally instituted after one instance of a party-insider darling chosen over the people's man too many) - primary voters are more extreme (at either end) than those only voting in the presidential, so you have unedifying spectacle of candidates trying to pander to the nutcases and then trying to haul themselves back to the centre a year later (or you have sops-to-the-extremists like Sarah Palin getting on the ticket, amusingly enough...). And that Corbyn's Labour will not appeal to the general electorate, probably even less than Miliband's, and will tank accordingly.

 

There isn't any way to prove either of these, though, so there's limited use in arguing about it. Though, I can at least point to the fact that centrist Blairite New Labour won elections, even post-war-criminality, and everyone anywhere to the left, for years either side, lost.

Edited by scottyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't any way to prove either of these, though, so there's limited use in arguing about it. Though, I can at least point to the fact that centrist Blairite New Labour won elections, even post-war-criminality, and everyone anywhere to the left, for years either side, lost.

 

Everyone everywhere to the left? Like who? The only "real" option has been the Greens until fairly recently. As soon as the SNP started presenting themselves as a viable left-wing party they absolutely cleaned house.

 

xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone everywhere to the left? Like who? The only "real" option has been the Greens until fairly recently. As soon as the SNP started presenting themselves as a viable left-wing party they absolutely cleaned house.

 

xx

 

Cleaned house in Scotland. Corbyn could probably do so too (except that now the fact that he has to contend with a stronger SNP in a formerly safe region is yet another headache). So what?

 

I mentioned Miliband as someone well to the left of Blair, a couple of times; even Brown was to the left of Blair; and on the other side of Blair, Neil Kinnock managing to lose to Major is the notorious archetype of centre-left Labour inevitably losing to a centre-right Tories.

 

I get that you don't agree with that narrative; and that yours is that Miliband, Blair, Brown and Cameron (Kinnock?) are so similar that literally no one can be fucked to choose between them, and that it would take someone much further to the left to do so. (and if you must have someone as socialist as the Greens, then that is way, way to the left and even less credible as electorally viable, to me). And it's not something we can test in a lab, but there you go.

Edited by scottyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably worth remembering that the Conservatives hemorrhaged votes to UKIP at the GE, and only kept up their share of the vote due to former Lib Dem and Labour voters opting for a more centrist party. A shift to the left for Labour may bring in some who were previously non-voters or aligned to parties such as the Greens and Respect, but they're going to lose a lot more of what has been considered their "base" in the last fifteen years if they continue down that path.It's a high-risk strategy.

On the question of winning the majority of the party vote and how that corresponds to electoral success, bear in mind that Iain Duncan Smith won the Conservative leadership in 2001 with over 60% of the party vote, but failed to command anything like that kind of support amongst the parliamentary party.

 

Losing some of their racists to UKIP hasn't made the current Tory platform in any way centrist. It's just made the leadership even more pandering, fear mongering, selfish cunts than they used to be  - not quite the same thing...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in effect, you're saying that the way to win elections is to be more right wing, rather than centrist or left wing?

 

No, i'm just saying the Tories are cunts and not centrist, the 2015 GE is hardly a textbook for how to win elections.

 

The Tories won the last election by shamelessly stirring up fear and panic about foreigners in a knee jerk reaction to UKIP - while at the same time Labour and the Lib Dems imploded trying to do exactly the same thing by pandering to what they wrongly perceived as their base, turning their back on their core supports and both fighting a battle they couldn't win in Scotland.

 

By presenting themselves as racism-lite The Tories won more votes than they lost to UKIP. 

Edited by colb
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing remotely racist about he Conservative's manifesto, or their actions in government prior to and after the election. Your analysis continues to suggest that they won by moving to the right, though, and that the other parties followed them. So, really, what we have, according to you, is a situation where 27 million people in an electorate of 46 million voted for parties extolling a centre-right or fully right wing agenda. Of the 19 million remaining less than three million voted for nationalist or Green alternatives. That leaves 16 million who voted for minority parties, or who didn't vote at all. Do you seriously think the can be motivated en masse to vote for Corbyn along with the rump of left wingers that can be dislodged from the group that voted for the four main parties in sufficient numbers to win him an election. And, supplementary question, do you think that calling the people who disagree with the platform Corbyn and his ilk stand on "cunts" and "racists" is an effective strategy to bring that situation about?

 

Do you really want to get into the nonsense spoken by May, Cameron etc about immigration and the completely made up threats of radical Islam, migrants, foreigners stealing our jobs/houses/benefits etc. both leading up to and after the election? We have by and large turned into a centre right voting country for the moment - I imagine that we'll come to our senses eventually, but it's where we are now. 

 

And no, I don't think that Corbyn can do any of that - as I said in my first post it'll be a miracle if he even gets the Labour party back to centre left.

 

As it happens I don't particularly agree with a huge amount of the platform Corbyn stands on myself, although I think he's an honourable guy his ideals are a bit dated - he seems willing to listen to the people though and that'll make a refreshing change from the leadership we've had of any party in the last couple of generations.

 

I am more than comfortable calling the Tory leadership cunts and racists. Which is what I did, NOT just anyone that disagrees with Corbyn - the Tory leadership. Why would you say i'd done anything else? 

 

Might be a plan for you to quote people a bit more accurately going forward...maybe you could take a leaf out of Corbyn's book and listen to what people are saying before steamrollering in :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...