Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[sun_tzu]

You jest, but you might actually be right. If the PLP really is as centre right as it seems then maybe it is the time us old lefties moved to another home, it won't make Labour any more electable but at least a strong leftist party might get some of their points back on the parliamentary agenda to oppose the right wing voices that are almost celebrated in the media. As I said before, I've not felt my voice really belonged with the Labour party since John Smith's death and despite enjoying the cantankerousness of the likes of Ken Livingstone and Tony Benn, the majority of Labour MPs and policy turn my stomach more than the Tories as at least the Tories can't be arsed with the faux sympathy for the working classes while merrily selling our remaining industry down the river for a back hander.

its time for PR -
UKIP, Conservatives, Libs, New labour, old labour,greens - that would about cover it (though you would probably have to find better working titles than new and old labour) - but it would allow a better spread of opinions - better debate and may actually engage more people into voting (im assuming the scottish just leave - infact can the whole of the UK vote in their next refferendum)

 

[Shamwow]

Two members of my family voted for Corbyn, and they seem to represent the two poles of Corbyn support. My 20-something year old cousin, who is a fully fledged Corbynista. And his dad, who though Cooper and Burnham were nothing candidates, though Kendall was a Tory, realised we weren't going to win 2020, and figured if we weren't going to win then we may as well have the nice bloke talking the proper socialist talk for the next 5 years.

My cousin is still fully behind Corbyn. Meeting him invariably ends in a very long conversation about the untimely death of the post war consensus. He'll support Corbyn for a long time I suspect.

But talking to my uncle, he knows its not working and is even more pessimistic than he was before the leadership campaign started, because he can see its not working. He wouldn't vote for a centrist, but I suspect he'd vote for someone who looked like they could unite the party.

I'd come under the same category as your Dad.

So does that mean that when when Blair was made leader by members, Corbyn was spitting in their face for speaking out against him?

I don't agree with this line of reasoning. First of all I'm not old enough to know if Corbyn did anything on the day Tony was elected to the Labour leadership. If people started rebelling a year down the line I could understand that but there was stuff going on before he had a chance to do anything - which to me is more of a statement against those who voted for him than Corbyn himself.

Secondly, this is fine if all your care about is personal poltiics but it isn't very good for the party. The membership chose Corbyn - that's what the PLP have been handed and I believe they should have done more to respect that.

Finally, you are always going to get dissenting back benchers but what is happening here seems to be involving those higher up in the party and seems much more pre-empted, much more organised and much less based on specific policy princinples.

 

[Shamwow]

No he stormed the last election - but it was almost him vs the others - I just think that one on one it would have been closer

So which one of Kendall, Cooper and Burnham would have beat him in a 1v1 election?

 

[Cheesy]

I dont see it ending enything but badly for Corbyn and the whole party as the inevitable splits and infighting wont be good for anybody.

Perhaps the final nail in the cofin though will be the scottish election vote - if the SNP get a large majority and push for independence (possibly with the conservatives getting close to the votes labour does) then realistically the party has to look at how to win power based on english + welsh votes alone and honestly do you think there is any other option than centrist policies? - or do you want to remain a party of opposition

I think it'll do the party some good in the long-term, probably. There's only so long a party can function when it's got a weird blend out outright centrists, people inbetween, and proper socialist lefties. I'm all for parties with a broad range of views, but it's a bit bizarre right now: the parties essentially only exists in its current form to try and be an alternative to the Tories, as opposed to out of any set ideological position.

The Scottish elections won't do too much damage. The implosion of Scottish Labour has nothing to do with Corbyn whatsoever - Dugdale's a dreadful leader and Labour already destroyed their hopes in Scotland long ago. There's not much Corbyn can do for the 2016 election, because if he tries to get overly involved then he'll be seen as an outside interference from a UK party leader, which isn't always welcomed.

 

[Ubik]

I think it'll do the party some good in the long-term, probably. There's only so long a party can function when it's got a weird blend out outright centrists, people inbetween, and proper socialist lefties. I'm all for parties with a broad range of views, but it's a bit bizarre right now: the parties essentially only exists in its current form to try and be an alternative to the Tories, as opposed to out of any set ideological position.

The Scottish elections won't do too much damage. The implosion of Scottish Labour has nothing to do with Corbyn whatsoever - Dugdale's a dreadful leader and Labour already destroyed their hopes in Scotland long ago. There's not much Corbyn can do for the 2016 election, because if he tries to get overly involved then he'll be seen as an outside interference from a UK party leader, which isn't always welcomed.

Of course they will.

 

[sun_tzu]

But talking to my uncle, he knows its not working and is even more pessimistic than he was before the leadership campaign started, because he can see its not working. He wouldn't vote for a centrist, but I suspect he'd vote for someone who looked like they could unite the party.

I suspect there is quite a few who think like that
I personally voted kendal, but I put corbyn second - on the basis that mrs ed balls and that smarmy c**t burnham would loose the election anyway so we might as well get the inevitable internal war for the soul of the labour party on the agenda as early as possible.
I think within 18 months pretty much anybody who can re-unify the party will carry a lot of support

 

[sun_tzu]

I think it'll do the party some good in the long-term, probably. .

100% agree - Iwas talking short term

 

[Cheesy]

Of course they will.

How so? The SNP have been widely expected to get a majority for a long time, and Corbyn is the least of Scottish Labour's problems. None of the other prospective Labour leaders would've been able to reverse what will almost certainly happen next May, because any UK Labour leader who gets too involved in Scottish Labour will only be seen as an outside interference by SNP voters. If Corbyn had done anything to make Labour's woes in Scotland worse, then I'd understand, but he's not done too much wrong up north. I'm not sure if anything would turn a lot of SNP voters back to Labour at this rate.

 

[sun_tzu]

The Scottish elections won't do too much damage. The implosion of Scottish Labour has nothing to do with Corbyn whatsoever - Dugdale's a dreadful leader and Labour already destroyed their hopes in Scotland long ago. There's not much Corbyn can do for the 2016 election, because if he tries to get overly involved then he'll be seen as an outside interference from a UK party leader, which isn't always welcomed.

hasnt he pledged to be up in scotland a lot in the run up to the elections though - wont reflect well on him if they do very badly (last poll I saw they were 3% ahead of the tories - imagine that - finishing third to the conservatives in scotland)

 

[Cheesy]

hasnt he pledged to be up in scotland a lot in the run up to the elections though - wont reflect well on him if they do very badly (last poll I saw they were 3% ahead of the tories - imagine that - finishing third to the conservatives in scotland)

He'll probably have a bit of involvement, but he's not going to be fronting the campaign or anything. Finishing third would be a disaster for Scottish Labour, but it's not particularly systematic of Corbyn's leadership. The prospect of that occurring would still be there if Burnham, Cooper, Kendall, Blair, Kim Jong-Un or Katie Hopkins had been in charge of the party. The damage was done to Scottish Labour a long time ago.

 

[Ubik]

How so? The SNP have been widely expected to get a majority for a long time, and Corbyn is the least of Scottish Labour's problems. None of the other prospective Labour leaders would've been able to reverse what will almost certainly happen next May, because any UK Labour leader who gets too involved in Scottish Labour will only be seen as an outside interference by SNP voters. If Corbyn had done anything to make Labour's woes in Scotland worse, then I'd understand, but he's not done too much wrong up north. I'm not sure if anything would turn a lot of SNP voters back to Labour at this rate.

Because one of his supposed selling points was that in turning the party left he'd at least bring back Scotland. If that doesn't happen, he's a paper tiger. He's going to lose a lot of votes in England, so Scotland staying solidly SNP would basically confirm that he's going to be an electoral disaster.

 

[sun_tzu]

He'll probably have a bit of involvement, but he's not going to be fronting the campaign or anything. Finishing third would be a disaster for Scottish Labour, but it's not particularly systematic of Corbyn's leadership. The prospect of that occurring would still be there if Burnham, Cooper, Kendall, Blair, Kim Jong-Un or Katie Hopkins had been in charge of the party. The damage was done to Scottish Labour a long time ago.

possibly - its why I think labout just needs to assume scotland will be independent within a decade and they need to reposition the party to be able to win based on english and welsh votes - and that means moving to the centre rather than to the left

 

[Cheesy]

Because one of his supposed selling points was that in turning the party left he'd at least bring back Scotland. If that doesn't happen, he's a paper tiger. He's going to lose a lot of votes in England, so Scotland staying solidly SNP would basically confirm that he's going to be an electoral disaster.

Well, yeah...by 2020, perhaps. And even then, I don't think anyone believed that he'd completely reverse the fortunes of Labour. Just that he'd at least partly cut down the SNP's lead.

Again, he's not really responsible for the 2016 campaign. He'll be mildly involved, I'm sure, but Scottish Labour have to try and promote themselves as being different from UK Labour if they want to be taken at all seriously. Kezia Dugdale's going to be fronting the Scottish Labour campaign, and the problem is that she's woeful.

 

[Ubik]

Well, yeah...by 2020, perhaps. And even then, I don't think anyone believed that he'd completely reverse the fortunes of Labour. Just that he'd at least partly cut down the SNP's lead.

Again, he's not really responsible for the 2016 campaign. He'll be mildly involved, I'm sure, but Scottish Labour have to try and promote themselves as being different from UK Labour if they want to be taken at all seriously. Kezia Dugdale's going to be fronting the Scottish Labour campaign, and the problem is that she's woeful.

This is 21st century politics, you don't get five years to allow disastrous numbers to improve. I've posted this a few times before but it takes more than a 10% swing for Labour to start winning seats back from the SNP. Conversely, they need only lose a few percent to the Tories in order to lose 25+ seats. Once this fairly basic political truth sinks in to the membership and they realise how screwed they'll be if Corbyn stays, he's a goner.

 

[Cheesy]

possibly - its why I think labout just needs to assume scotland will be independent within a decade and they need to reposition the party to be able to win based on english and welsh votes - and that means moving to the centre rather than to the left

We won't be independent in 10 years. The SNP talked a lot about how this was a generational vote, and it'd be very sketchy to suddenly launch another independence movement when the majority voted No. An EU referendum in which we voted in while the UK voted out might change things, but even then, I'm not so sure.

It's worth nothing that we're not even that much more left than the UK; right now is an example of that. Corbyn's significantly further left than the SNP, but still isn't winning a lot of support for them. We're fairly centre-left as a nation, but it's not particularly Labour's economic policies which stopped us from voting for them; it's their general attitude that Scotland is theirs and that we're all expected to vote for them, as well as the fact that they've given us some incredibly untrustworthy politicians that relates to why Scotland no longer votes Labour.

 

[Cheesy]

This is 21st century politics, you don't get five years to allow disastrous numbers to improve. I've posted this a few times before but it takes more than a 10% swing for Labour to start winning seats back from the SNP. Conversely, they need only lose a few percent to the Tories in order to lose 25+ seats. Once this fairly basic political truth sinks in to the membership and they realise how screwed they'll be if Corbyn stays, he's a goner.

But the problem with this assessment is that, in next year's elections, Corbyn isn't going to be the frontman for the Scottish Labour campaign. He'll have some involvement, but he'll be fairly distant, and it'd be ridiculous to blame the results on him when Labour were already comprehensively beaten up here both in 2011 and 2015. As I've already said, Scottish Labour's problems stretch back far beyond Corbyn, and to expect him to have Labour controlling Holyrood again from a gap of nearly 30% when he's not even going to be the main person in the campaign is just a ridiculous ask.

 

[sun_tzu]

We won't be independent in 10 years. The SNP talked a lot about how this was a generational vote, and it'd be very sketchy to suddenly launch another independence movement when the majority voted No. An EU referendum in which we voted in while the UK voted out might change things, but even then, I'm not so sure.

It's worth nothing that we're not even that much more left than the UK; right now is an example of that. Corbyn's significantly further left than the SNP, but still isn't winning a lot of support for them. We're fairly centre-left as a nation, but it's not particularly Labour's economic policies which stopped us from voting for them; it's their general attitude that Scotland is theirs and that we're all expected to vote for them, as well as the fact that they've given us some incredibly untrustworthy politicians that relates to why Scotland no longer votes Labour.

all they need to do is open the vote up to the whole of the UK next time and independence is virtually guaranteed

didnt the snp say there would be a list of triggers for another referendum vote? (im not sure what these triggers are but basically if they think they can win they will push for the vote I think)

A list of “triggers” for a second referendum on Scottish independence will be set out in the SNP’s Holyrood manifesto, according to Nicola Sturgeon, raising the possibility of another poll by 2021.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...scotland-considering-second-independence-vote

 

[Cheesy]

all they need to do is open the vote up to the whole of the UK next time and independence is virtually guaranteed

didnt the snp say there would be a list of triggers for another referendum vote? (im not sure what these triggers are but basically if they think they can win they will push for the vote I think)


http://www.theguardian.com/politics...scotland-considering-second-independence-vote

The EU referendum would be the main one, but I still think it'd be silly for the SNP to go for another referendum right now considering support isn't that much stronger than it was back last September.

 

[Ubik]

But the problem with this assessment is that, in next year's elections, Corbyn isn't going to be the frontman for the Scottish Labour campaign. He'll have some involvement, but he'll be fairly distant, and it'd be ridiculous to blame the results on him when Labour were already comprehensively beaten up here both in 2011 and 2015. As I've already said, Scottish Labour's problems stretch back far beyond Corbyn, and to expect him to have Labour controlling Holyrood again from a gap of nearly 30% when he's not even going to be the main person in the campaign is just a ridiculous ask.

Never said controlling, some improvement would be a start, but the latest polls are a re-tread of the last general election. He's got worse approval ratings in Scotland than in England. If the SNP get another majority, he'll be under massive pressure immediately, not sure how that can be denied.

 

[sun_tzu]

Never said controlling, some improvement would be a start, but the latest polls are a re-tread of the last general election. He's got worse approval ratings in Scotland than in England. If the SNP get another majority, he'll be under massive pressure immediately, not sure how that can be denied.

It may actually be the conservatives who save him (or at least prolong his demise) - If they do push for a 2016 EU referendum as the speculation is they might (october has been mentioned) to avoid french / german elections in 2017 then perhaps Corbyn will get a stay of execution?

The labour leadership election lasted about 3 months and the run up to the EU referendum is likely to be about 3 months of it dominating the political cycle completely... so there may not be time after a mauling in Scotland to replace him without it interfering with the EU referendum preparations... he might limp on into 2017 (still cant see him lasting 18 months from now though)

 

[Cheesy]

Never said controlling, some improvement would be a start, but the latest polls are a re-tread of the last general election. He's got worse approval ratings in Scotland than in England. If the SNP get another majority, he'll be under massive pressure immediately, not sure how that can be denied.

Of course he will be. It's hardly going to help. At the same time though, I'm not sure anyone for Labour would've been able to prevent another SNP majority - there problems run far deeper up here than the leader.

 

[Ubik]

Of course he will be. It's hardly going to help. At the same time though, I'm not sure anyone for Labour would've been able to prevent another SNP majority - there problems run far deeper up here than the leader.

I agree, in which case Corbyn's argument for leader looks extremely fragile.

 

[Shamwow]

I agree, in which case Corbyn's argument for leader looks extremely fragile.

His "argument" is that the party membership overwhelmingly voted for him to represent them as their leader. If you want to disregard that as the membership being stupid then that's your prerogative but the PLP should be making more effort to listen to its core supporters, who in my view are the membership.

 

[Ubik]

His "argument" is that the party membership overwhelmingly voted for him to represent them as their leader. If you want to disregard that as the membership being stupid then that's your prerogative but the PLP should be making more effort to listen to its core supporters, who in my view are the membership.

I've frequently said in this thread that he shouldn't be removed until the membership want him to go, which in my view will happen once his unelectability becomes clear to see for them.

 

[Shamwow]

I've frequently said in this thread that he shouldn't be removed until the membership want him to go, which in my view will happen once his unelectability becomes clear to see for them.

That's understandable but to me it looks like many in the party are trying to help make him as unelectable as possible. I think the PLP should still be doing more to support him - regardless of whether they like the man - because a lot of people might not see it as his fault when that day does come. I'm certainly leaning that way.

That's not to disregard Corbyn's failings. I am just frustrated that he's clearly never been given a chance.

As I've said before in the thread, a fragmented party will never be elected. Those who are influential in the PLP should have recognised this from the start and done more to try and unite with the 60% of the membership that Corbyn represents - I am confident that compromises would have come from both sides. Instead they have largely undermined him from the start - what does that say to the 60% who voted for him?

I wonder whether a book or two comes out after all is over. Would make interesting (but not pretty) reading to find out what has actually been going on behind the scenes.

 

[Cheesy]

I agree, in which case Corbyn's argument for leader looks extremely fragile.

His argument for being leader doesn't solely rest on Scotland, though. I'm struggling to think of anyone who could possibly win Scotland back, and as has been well-documented, regaining Scotland might not guarantee any sort of victory...as May showed.

 

[bishblaize]

His argument for being leader doesn't solely rest on Scotland, though. I'm struggling to think of anyone who could possibly win Scotland back, and as has been well-documented, regaining Scotland might not guarantee any sort of victory...as May showed.

But if you take Scotland out of the equation, the argument for choosing a far left leader is even weaker. There's no sign of any appetite for a lefty in England.

 

[Cheesy]

But if you take Scotland out of the equation, the argument for choosing a far left leader is even weaker. There's no sign of any appetite for a lefty in England.

And, again, this is part of the ideological problem Labour faces. Their argument for who should be leader (from some of those who don't support Corbyn) isn't based on any sense of what the party believes in and who is best set to represent those believes, because the party hasn't got a clue as to what those actually are, since they vary every time someone new comes in. Its almost entirely rooted in what the general electorate might like. Which is all well and good, for a time, but the problem is that if you base your beliefs entirely on what the electorate might like to get rid of the Tories, then you simply become a party who is there to oppose another, instead of existing in their own right.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not necessarily saying Corbyn's lefty approach is the way forward for Labour, since it's almost certainly going to fail, but the party needs to actually forge its own beliefs and then spread that message to convince others to vote for them, instead of looking at the public and thinking, "Yeah, they might like that."

 

[Shamwow]

And, again, this is part of the ideological problem Labour faces. Their argument for who should be leader (from some of those who don't support Corbyn) isn't based on any sense of what the party believes in and who is best set to represent those believes, because the party hasn't got a clue as to what those actually are, since they vary every time someone new comes in. Its almost entirely rooted in what the general electorate might like. Which is all well and good, for a time, but the problem is that if you base your beliefs entirely on what the electorate might like to get rid of the Tories, then you simply become a party who is there to oppose another, instead of existing in their own right.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not necessarily saying Corbyn's lefty approach is the way forward for Labour, since it's almost certainly going to fail, but the party needs to actually forge its own beliefs and then spread that message to convince others to vote for them, instead of looking at the public and thinking, "Yeah, they might like that."

I've been trying to work out how to put this for a good few minutes and you've got it spot on for me.

Going into the 2015 leadership election I couldn't tell you what Labour stood for. Their entire image was defined by being weak on the economy - something that they seemed to almost agree with. Kendall and Burnham would have done nothing to change that. Cooper may have, her campaign was weak though.

 

[Bury Red]

I've been trying to work out how to put this for a good few minutes and you've got it spot on for me.

Spot on for me too. Labour needs someone from the old left banging the drum and pointing out how the British working man is being sold down the river by the Tories in complicity with multinational and overseas corporations who see profit as the only laudable goal in life. Labour have lost as many if not more voters to the likes of UKIP as they have to the tories, who both appeal to the disenfranchised working classes with their misrepresentations of hordes of foreigners invading our shores stealing our jobs. It's about time someone stood by the few industries left and pointed out that the right are perfectly happy to sell out what's left to overseas companies to break up.

If the PLP stood behind Corbyn and allowed him time to gain confidence and take to the pulpit with that sort of message then they might stand a chance of pulling a few percentage points back and stopping the rot, especially if one or two media bodies outside of the Grauniad and Socialist Worker came onside. Instead the PLP look happy to sharpen their knives in the background and set Corbyn up for a fall seemingly ignorant of the damage that will do to the long term prospects of Labour ever being elected again no matter who leads them.

 

[bishblaize]

And, again, this is part of the ideological problem Labour faces. Their argument for who should be leader (from some of those who don't support Corbyn) isn't based on any sense of what the party believes in and who is best set to represent those believes, because the party hasn't got a clue as to what those actually are, since they vary every time someone new comes in. Its almost entirely rooted in what the general electorate might like. Which is all well and good, for a time, but the problem is that if you base your beliefs entirely on what the electorate might like to get rid of the Tories, then you simply become a party who is there to oppose another, instead of existing in their own right.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not necessarily saying Corbyn's lefty approach is the way forward for Labour, since it's almost certainly going to fail, but the party needs to actually forge its own beliefs and then spread that message to convince others to vote for them, instead of looking at the public and thinking, "Yeah, they might like that."

You can't take any old ideology, simply because it is an ideology, and superimpose it on the party and expect success. That's as bound to fail as Miliband's pick and mix approach to policy. Labour certainly needs to find its role all over again, but that process cannot be in the absence of the public. Understanding the electorate has to be the starting point for any process of soul searching for the party, or you face irrelevance.

 

[Shamwow]

You can't take any old ideology, simply because it is an ideology, and superimpose it on the party and expect success. That's as bound to fail as Miliband's pick and mix approach to policy. Labour certainly needs to find its role all over again, but that process cannot be in the absence of the public. Understanding the electorate has to be the starting point for any process of soul searching for the party, or you face irrelevance.

The labour membership is part of the public. The PLP is doing nothing to understand them as a electorate - that should be the starting point and grow from there.

 

[Ubik]

And, again, this is part of the ideological problem Labour faces. Their argument for who should be leader (from some of those who don't support Corbyn) isn't based on any sense of what the party believes in and who is best set to represent those believes, because the party hasn't got a clue as to what those actually are, since they vary every time someone new comes in. Its almost entirely rooted in what the general electorate might like. Which is all well and good, for a time, but the problem is that if you base your beliefs entirely on what the electorate might like to get rid of the Tories, then you simply become a party who is there to oppose another, instead of existing in their own right.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not necessarily saying Corbyn's lefty approach is the way forward for Labour, since it's almost certainly going to fail, but the party needs to actually forge its own beliefs and then spread that message to convince others to vote for them, instead of looking at the public and thinking, "Yeah, they might like that."

I'll agree that no recent candidate has managed to put a coherent and modern message together that has the potential to appeal to wide sections of the electorate, but I'd disagree completely that no-one knows what Labour stands for, or at least any more than you could say of other parties to an equal extent. Social liberalism, strong public services, using the state to improve the prospects of the lower paid, trade unionism, equality of opportunity, these are all objectives of any Labour government from Blair back to Attlee. What you're saying is that there isn't an agreed strategy in which to pursue those objectives, which is entirely different to not knowing what they believe in. Blair and Brown didn't decide to carry on with Tory spending plans purely because the electorate would like it, they did it because they recognised they could use the large amount of tax revenue received in order to pursue traditional Labour objectives like public service investment and helping the low-paid (through tax credits). But the electorate liking it has to be an essential part of policy making because otherwise, what's the point of being a political party?

 

[Cheesy]

You can't take any old ideology, simply because it is an ideology, and superimpose it on the party and expect success. That's as bound to fail as Miliband's pick and mix approach to policy. Labour certainly needs to find its role all over again, but that process cannot be in the absence of the public. Understanding the electorate has to be the starting point for any process of soul searching for the party, or you face irrelevance.

Of course it does. But at the same time, you have to have a message or ideology that you can give to the public which they can then think, "Yeah, that's actually quite good. I might vote for that." If you just continually change your beliefs to pander to the public, then you are even more of an irrelevance than a party who blindly sticks to their beliefs.

For what it's worth, Labour doesn't necessarily need to stick to one extreme ideology: they can have a blend, but at their core, they must have a central, strong message which voters can agree with.

Part of Labour's reasoning for backing down on opposing the Tories for certain cuts when Harman was in charge was that the public had spoken, and didn't agree with Labour. That may be true to an extent, but a party has to convince the public that what they're saying makes the most sense. That's the whole point of an opposition campaign. To tackle a party in power, recognise that they have more support than you, but then campaign on your own message and make it sound more appealing than what the bunch in power have.

Right now, many Labour people seem to be holding getting into power as a priority instead of holding their own message...but why? Other than opposing the Tories, what do they actually believe in that makes them support Labour in particular, as opposed to any opposition against the Tories?

 

[Bury Red]

Of course it does. But at the same time, you have to have a message or ideology that you can give to the public which they can then think, "Yeah, that's actually quite good. I might vote for that." If you just continually change your beliefs to pander to the public, then you are even more of an irrelevance than a party who blindly sticks to their beliefs.

For what it's worth, Labour doesn't necessarily need to stick to one extreme ideology: they can have a blend, but at their core, they must have a central, strong message which voters can agree with.

Part of Labour's reasoning for backing down on opposing the Tories for certain cuts when Harman was in charge was that the public had spoken, and didn't agree with Labour. That may be true to an extent, but a party has to convince the public that what they're saying makes the most sense. That's the whole point of an opposition campaign. To tackle a party in power, recognise that they have more support than you, but then campaign on your own message and make it sound more appealing than what the bunch in power have.

Right now, many Labour people seem to be holding getting into power as a priority instead of holding their own message...but why? Other than opposing the Tories, what do they actually believe in that makes them support Labour in particular, as opposed to any opposition against the Tories?

Spot on. Their cause is not exactly helped by the news media either which has almost unanimously lurched to the right with Fox/Murdoch leading the way whilst the few that held their ground appear stranded on the loony left and don't exactly help their cause with some of the campaigns they pick.

What Labour should look at is the paranoia the right has about the entertainment media, be it Hollywood, the BBC, Film 4, comedy, music or the arts and recognise that much of what we choose to watch or listen to by way of entertainment is still closer to Old Labour's core values than the news media will ever be and re-target the party to address those issues. There's no tory equivalent to the films of Ken Loach, Paul Greengrass, Edward Zvick, Kevin Smith, Tarantino, Trey Parker, hell even George Lucas. We all root against the evil empire in our leisure time, we'd be more likely to do it at a political level too if we had any feeling that the force was strong enough in the leader of the resistance. Labour's problem is that they seemed to give in when they were beaten by one Saatchi ad campaign and have since believed that the media spin game was the only way to play when in reality they're utterly crap at it and only stand a chance when the tories are even worse.

 

[Cheesy]

I'll agree that no recent candidate has managed to put a coherent and modern message together that has the potential to appeal to wide sections of the electorate, but I'd disagree completely that no-one knows what Labour stands for, or at least any more than you could say of other parties to an equal extent. Social liberalism, strong public services, using the state to improve the prospects of the lower paid, trade unionism, equality of opportunity, these are all objectives of any Labour government from Blair back to Attlee. What you're saying is that there isn't an agreed strategy in which to pursue those objectives, which is entirely different to not knowing what they believe in. Blair and Brown didn't decide to carry on with Tory spending plans purely because the electorate would like it, they did it because they recognised they could use the large amount of tax revenue received in order to pursue traditional Labour objectives like public service investment and helping the low-paid (through tax credits). But the electorate liking it has to be an essential part of policy making because otherwise, what's the point of being a political party?

You've got a point, but the problem is that a lot of these are sort of general ideas that even parties outside of Labour generally follow. Any government will generally pride itself in strong public services (even the Tories will at least try to create the perception they care), the links between the trade union and upper echelons of the party seem quite tenuous when you consider the variance in views on Corbyn, and equality of opportunity is generally going to be promoted by any party who realistically wants to be in government.

Of course the electorate have to like policy - otherwise a party isn't going to get elected. But at the same time, a party should be able to convince the electorate that their policies are the best, and that they're the most worthy of being voted for. Not just change them about every time it looks like they're vaguely unpopular, as Labour have often been doing in recent times. That doesn't mean a party can't change policy. Views evolve, and I'm not expecting that the Labour party be an exact replica of their old socialist ones. But I do expect it to be one which has a core ideology, and that core ideology comes across primarily. If a party is saying, "Who's the most electable?", as opposed to, "Who is genuinely the leader that best suits the party?", then they can end up becoming an irrelevance because they merely exist to be in government ahead of whoever they're against, instead of actually being a party who want to get into power because they feel their policies best suit the nation.

Of course, I do get that you and many others did believe in candidates other than Corbyn, but one of the central problems I saw with Labour was that many simply didn't like Corbyn because they didn't feel he'd get into power. For some, it wasn't about policy, but instead about who's just the most likely to get elected. And that can work occasionally in a pragmatic sense, but it eventually becomes tiring because the electorate see right through it.

 

[Shamwow]

#Cheesy4LabourLeader

 

[Cheesy]

#Cheesy4LabourLeader

I'm not even a member, too.

 

[bishblaize]

You've got a point, but the problem is that a lot of these are sort of general ideas that even parties outside of Labour generally follow. Any government will generally pride itself in strong public services (even the Tories will at least try to create the perception they care), the links between the trade union and upper echelons of the party seem quite tenuous when you consider the variance in views on Corbyn, and equality of opportunity is generally going to be promoted by any party who realistically wants to be in government.

Of course the electorate have to like policy - otherwise a party isn't going to get elected. But at the same time, a party should be able to convince the electorate that their policies are the best, and that they're the most worthy of being voted for. Not just change them about every time it looks like they're vaguely unpopular, as Labour have often been doing in recent times. That doesn't mean a party can't change policy. Views evolve, and I'm not expecting that the Labour party be an exact replica of their old socialist ones. But I do expect it to be one which has a core ideology, and that core ideology comes across primarily. If a party is saying, "Who's the most electable?", as opposed to, "Who is genuinely the leader that best suits the party?", then they can end up becoming an irrelevance because they merely exist to be in government ahead of whoever they're against, instead of actually being a party who want to get into power because they feel their policies best suit the nation.

Of course, I do get that you and many others did believe in candidates other than Corbyn, but one of the central problems I saw with Labour was that many simply didn't like Corbyn because they didn't feel he'd get into power. For some, it wasn't about policy, but instead about who's just the most likely to get elected. And that can work occasionally in a pragmatic sense, but it eventually becomes tiring because the electorate see right through it.

Unfortunately for people like me in Labour, we have a problem. The Corbyistas have been so successful in poisoning the centre ground that any school of thought that sits there is Tory-lite and therefore not even as good as the Tories. I'm still firmly from the Anthony Giddens school of political thinking, which is the dominant ideology of the right of the Labour Party, but has been so denigrated by the left that it now apparently doesn't even count as an ideology at all!

Of course the irony is that Corbyn is far from a deep thinker himself. If you read or listen to Tony Benn, he was genuinely reimagining the left of the party as his thinking progressed during the 70s. Corbyn on the other hand merely repeats received wisdom, with no real personal insight added.

Anyway, the regular changing of policy was only the fault of Ed Miliband, not any wing of the party. He took the decision to go for one last heave in 2010 and try and quickly get back in power. Not unreasonable given the unpopularity of the coalition, but wrong in retrospect. He should have taken that moment to develop Labour thinking, but missed the opportunity. It was also his fault to leave so soon before our policy work was completed, which meant that when people like Cruddas came out with superb pieces of work about understanding Labour's long term problems and separation from its core vote, it was too late to take them into account.

The labour membership is part of the public. The PLP is doing nothing to understand them as a electorate - that should be the starting point and grow from there.

Here's the problem with that argument.

Spoiler

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ing-data-shows-challenge-facing-jeremy-corbyn

 

[Shamwow]

Here's the problem with that argument.

Spoiler

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ing-data-shows-challenge-facing-jeremy-corbyn

I swear if an opinion poll told you to walk off a cliff you'd do it.

I'm well aware that the general public does not currently seem to be aligned with Corbyn's views. We currently have a Conservative majority government.

That doesn't mean that those in Labour who don't consider themselves left wing can look to marginalise 60% of the membership. Especially not with underhand tactics as we have seen.

My point was - use the 60% as a starting point. If it can't respect its own members who voted for it then frankly I don't see how the public should be expected to trust it. Then the party should look at where it should compromise in order to make its platform more desirable to the general public. Some of this will be changing policies, some simply how those policies are marketed.

It just seems like many in the PLP are sticking their fingers in their ears, screaming, and refusing to play along. It's not constructive in any way, shape, or form.