Did you back him because you thought he would appeal to those people or because he represented your views?
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Did you back him because you thought he would appeal to those people or because he represented your views?
The latter, but with some idealistic hope that he could ignite some genuine (much needed) change.
Corbyn's first few months were particularly inept and have allowed a negative narrative to be set. He didn't manage the transition from appealing to 60% of Labour members to appealing to and addressing the general electorate well at all.
His first few months were always going to be the most difficult, and the ones where he needed his party behind him most. Not sure anyone voted him for his PR-savvy ways and that was the tide he was facing.
Unfortunately the stage is set now and there is little that can be done. The fear his opponents will have had is that he quietly got on with things and then had his big moment that really brings him into the minds of the public in a positive light. The early efforts to set the narrative around him were partly to make sure this didn't happen. He certainly didn't help things but that's not why I wanted him.
I want the public to decide whether they want to discuss issues or to carry on with the same old CBB bollocks. It looks like we as a country are happy with the latter and so we will get the appropriate government.
Do you have a preferred candidate that you'd have instead? I get the feeling that a good number of Corbyn voters would like someone on that side of the argument economically but without all the extra baggage.
That would be the ideal but there doesn't seem to be an obvious candidate. I mean who actually is there? Clive Lewis? Rebecca Long-Bailey?
I actually find Clive Lewis more annoying than I find Corbyn, but he's at least served in the army so would be less vulnerable on the defence side (although he's also unilateralist, but then maybe that's a good way of that argument being listened to?). Trouble is, there seems to be a large gap even between the soft-left and the Corbyn group. It highlights how annoying FPTP is, because there's clearly two different parties trying to operate under one banner.
Just his manner? Or has he said or done something particular? Both are gaining front-bench experience, and Long-Bailey was promoted to the NEC. Lewis has media experience and I think comes across quite well,
Those seem to be the only two gaining front-bench experience. As you say the military background is a real political plus.
The gap does seem pretty large at the moment (there would be separate parties under a PR system) but it will be interesting to see how the soft-left attempts to bridge it: they need to appeal to a genuinely left membership if they are to regain control of the party. Maybe Dan Jarvis is intending to attempt that somehow?
[Jarvis is clearly being pushed as a candidate. It's actually quite fascinating seeing the political/media machinery work with a number of puff pieces last week despite his fairly limited political career*. I'd love to know what goes one behind the scenes, although I should probably just rewatch The Thick of It.]
*He's no more qualified than just about any front-bencher, including the two I mentioned. That's not to say he'd be a bad leader, just that it's interesting seeing him being built up.
Bemoaning political stupidity when backing Corbyn is the height of it.
Labour suspends activist Vicki Kirby over antisemitism claims
Be it in regard to the marginalisation of Muslim women or recurring accusations of anti-Semitism, the Labour Party would appear to be struggling with institutional prejudice in various areas. More worryingly, it has to be questioned whether the leadership/party apparatus is committed to its eradication. Not quite the blatant hostility favoured by Trump perhaps, yet a definite undercurrent is present.
We have both past and current party members here on the forum, have any of you come across such views in an official capacity? Or among fellow members at conference?
Be it in regard to the marginalisation of Muslim women or recurring accusations of anti-Semitism, the Labour Party would appear to be struggling with institutional prejudice in various areas. More worryingly, it has to be questioned whether the leadership/party apparatus is committed to its eradication. Not quite the blatant hostility favoured by Trump perhaps, yet a definite undercurrent is present.
We have both past and current party members here on the forum, have any of you come across such views in an official capacity? Or among fellow members at conference?
Last edited:
Can anyone explain why Labour is getting so many new members since Corbyn has become the party leader?
Because the stances it takes under Corbyn are much more in touch with the 'grass roots' support of the party.
Do people talk about that at all in GB? This rise in membership for an established party is imo unprecedented in Western Europe in the last 40 years. All I hear is, that the party is divided and usually Corbyn gets slandered by most commentators. This development would suggest, that he could be successful.
Last edited:
Yeah, the problem though, is that it won't be enough for GE. Labour need the Tories to monumentally feck up in order to have a chance of winning with Corbyn as leader.
Divided, meaning most of the MP's dislike Corbyn and McDonell. The members aren't as much. Classic case of politicians being out of touch with the people who vote for them.
Looks that way. Boris is capable of a monumental feck up, though, and Osborne could just bore the Tory minded electorate in to a coma, thus they forget to vote.
Anyway, it's our turn. We gave the 'centrist' leadership a fair go and weren't overly happy with the results. Now us 'loony lefties' get our chance to show we're still useless at politics. Has to happen every now and then.
Last edited:
Tbf, their current leader looks like an owl and they still manage to take him seriously.
Including his acceptance of female party members being persecuted in Muslim communities, so it's not all good.
Owls are associated with wisdom you know.
Think you may have already mentioned that one, Nick.
At least we gave the centrists a fair crack at it :/
Yeah, I do wonder if the centrists underestimate how much they're alienating us lefties with the instant public disdain showed. They may get the leadership back before long but they'll need people to knock on doors.
Basically Corbyn.
Indeed so, although worth repeating. It is a problem that some in Labour circles would rather brush under the carpet, yet such a policy only fosters discrimination within their midst and serve as a slap in the face for victims.
Was it worth repeating in response to my answer to a generic question about new membership though? Cause it's a bit annoying when people randomly push their own cause on to you, when you're trying to discuss something else, because they're annoyed no one's paying attention to their previous posts on it.
EDIT - Budget day makes me grumpy...
I won't deny that i am pushing the issue, nor that it was arguably a cynical use of your post rather than a truly constructive reply. It wasn't fair to you and i am sorry for that.
Equally, i can't help but find Corbyn to be a damned hypocrite.
Whilst that is likely true, particularly for the returnees, you also have to wonder how removed the new intake are from the bulk of the electorate.
Not even the bulk of the electorate, the Labour 2015 vote is quite different to the present membership. Also worth noting that those who cancelled their direct debit in September are still included as members in the figures for another couple of months yet.
Because it's cool to be a self-righteous dickhead and vote for a total underdog who represents your victimhood fetish.
Or, ya know, people signed up because they liked Corbyn's political views and thought he was worth supporting.
We also have to consider the impact of the election result: at the very least Labour were expected to be the senior party in a coalition government, not only did this fail to materialise but the Tories were now in overall control. It's a bit like in centuries past when in times of trouble people would turn to more orthodox forms of religion. One could also draw parallels with the anti-establishment sentiment behind the rise of UKIP, as voters had come to distrust the received wisdom of Blairites/Brownites.
Last edited:
There was also the quality (or lack of) his competition, and a number of other circumstances that will have pissed off many Labourites like the welfare bill.
This actually amounts to a trend now!
Woo at this rate we'll be at 100% by September.
Polls are meaningless - the last election showed it for the UK, current polls show it in the US. Their only purpose seems to be so the press can write stories about how someone/some party or other 'defied the polls'. Maybe the first couple of times that was a credible and vaguely interesting story, but surely not now. May as well get Paul the Octopus on the case and compare results against his predictions (yeah, I know, Paul died, but no doubt that wouldn't affect his clairvoyant predictive ability if up against any political pollster.
I miss Paul the Octopus. He would have prepared us for last May.
It would affect his ability to swim to a picture of Boris's head though.
Unelectable, eh?
Just realised that Corbyn got a new suit.
He's conforming to the establishment. Should've strolled into parliament topless, with a new red Labour tattoo across his chest and a can of Tennents in his hand.
John McDonnell gave a strong interview on Breakfast this morning he gave straight answers to all the questions, which I admire from politicians.