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

A superb overall summary from Andrew Sparrow at the Guardian

What does the Oldham result really tells us Jeremy Corbyn's leadership? A Q&A
Almost all the media reporting from Oldham suggested that Labour was facing a real challenge from Ukip, partly because some traditional supporters had doubts about Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. Yet Labour won handsomely. Is that because the journalists were all just biased and wrong, as the Corbyn camp suggests? (See 10.26am.) Or were there other factors at play?

Here’s a Q&A that may untangle some of these issues.

Q: All this stuff about Corbyn being unpopular - did the journalists just get it wrong, or make it up?

No. Sometimes journalists do distort things to fit a political agenda but over the last few weeks there have been multiple reports from serious, reputable journalists who have either witnessed first-hand Oldham Labour-leaning voters criticising Corbyn, or reported Labour figures echoing these concerns. For example, there wasBagehot in the Economist, this report in the Daily Telegraph, Rafael Behr in the Guardian, George Eaton in the New Statesman and Helen Pidd in the Guardian.

I did not arrive in Oldham until yesterday afternoon but I was curious about this and I spent about an hour and a half talking to people in the Spindles shopping centre and I encountered the same phenomenon too. For example, Norman Davies, a retired Royal Mail worker, told me.

I’m generally a Labour man but unfortunately I won’t vote for them this time, not while they’ve got this idiot at the helm, this guy who would cut our defence, no way ... I don’t like him at all. He’s doing more harm than good for this country. He’s a no, no for them.

If Labour really thought Corbyn was an asset here, he would have played a part in the campaign. But, apart from one visit early on, he stayed away, and he did not feature much on Labour campaign leaflets either.

Q: So, if Corbyn really is unpopular with some voters, why didn’t that make any difference?

I can think of think of three reasons.

1) Corbyn’s leadership never became an issue. Ukip tried to make it the issue of the campaign but they failed to persuade the electorate that this was what the contest was about. Opposition parties like Ukip win byelections by identifying a grievance and invited voters to use the poll to express their feelings about this. People use byelections to rhetorically kick the prime minister. But they don’t use them to get involved in opposition leadership feuds.

2) But the identify of the local candidate was an issue - and Labour’s was excellent.

3) Corbyn may alienate some voters, but he attracts others too. I discovered this in my short spell in the shopping centre. For example, Nigel Jones, a former publican, told me:

I’ve been a card carrying Labour supporter for 33 years and I’m quite leftwing, so Corbyn is my ideal leader in a way.

And a district nurse who did not want to give her name told me.

[Corbyn’s] interesting, in a good way. You feel that he answers things. He does not talk like other politicians. They never answer anything.

The Corbyn effect may help to explain why the Greens did so badly. At the general election they got 839 votes (1.9%). Last night they got just 249, and their share of the vote was 0.9%.

Q: Are there any other factors that made a difference?

There weren’t any polls carried out in Oldham (because political polling is rather out of favour at the moment, given what happened at the general election). If there had been polling showing Labour clearly ahead, journalists would have recalibrated their expectations.

And Labour may have chosen to downplay expectations, on the grounds that it is much easier to get activists to campaign if they think there is a risk of their party losing. This happened in the Glenrothes byelection in 2008 and Oldham is similar. In Glenrothes the SNP thought they had a real chance of taking this safe Labour seat, but on the night Labour held on with a majority of almost 7,000, which was much larger than the pundits expected.

Q: So what lessons should we learn from Oldham?

The usual ones, that in byelections candidates matter, and that being organised matters even more. Nigel Farage’s complaints about postal voting are a tribute to the efficiency of the Labour machine. In addition we can add, that the opposition can win byelections even when it is divided at Westminster so long as the fundamentals on the ground are sound.

Q: And are there any lessons we shouldn’t take away from Oldham?

Yes. This contest was neither an endorsement or a rejection of Corbyn’s politics because his leadership never became the issue. At a general election his leadership and his policies will be deciding factors, and Oldham tells us next to nothing about what impact they might have.

And, although Oldham was spectacularly bad for Ukip, it would be too soon to conclude that the Ukip threat to Labour in working class areas in the north is fading. Stephen Bush was very good on this at the Staggers yesterday. Glenrothes was a serious setback for the SNP. But seven years later it took the seat - and most of the rest of Scotland too.
Click to expand...
 
The Guardian have turned into a bit of a joke right now. They ran an embarrassing special where one of their obnoxious 'journalists' went into Oldham and selectively interviewed folks calling Corbyn a 'nobhead', while discussing the downfall of the Labour party with Nigel feckin Farage. :wenger:

It was painful viewing and a new low for the paper:



They look pretty stupid now.
 
Corbyn may alienate some voters, but he attracts others too.
Click to expand...

Well no shit, Sherlock. This is as bad as those 'Five Bloody Obvious Things We Supposedly Learned' football items.
 
SteveJ said:
Well no shit, Sherlock. This is as bad as those 'Five Bloody Obvious Things We Supposedly Learned' football items.
Click to expand...
No need to take it out on Mockney.
 
:lol:
 
sun_tzu said:
I'm quite surprised by the margin - but I still expect him to be gone within a year... May elections to come, trident maingate next year as well so I don't think its going to get any easier for him.
Click to expand...
I'm not .Your hatred of all things Corbyn as blinded you of that.The only poll that matters is the one at the ballot box and all he as to do is to keep on engaging with the people while the media continue with their scaremongering .
 
Drifter said:
I'm not .Your hatred of all things Corbyn as blinded you of that.The only poll that matters is the one at the ballot box and all he as to do is to keep on engaging with the people while the media continue with their scaremongering .
Click to expand...
I dont hate corbyn... I think he is probably a nice enough chap - he is not a credible leader though in my opinion and I still think that he wont last the year - May elections and trident maingate will be very tough for him... and the fact that in Oldham there was a candidate who is as blairite as they come and who voted for liz kendal plus they kept corbyns name / picture off all the literature that went out in Oldham suggests that perhaps its not quite so clear cut that this was a vote for the left - furthermore the demographic breakdown of the area certainly (and thankfully imo) did not help UKIP but it remains to be seen how the may elections will go (particularly with the likleyhood being that in Feb / March an EU settlement will be reached so in April / May the in / out campaigns will gather pace.
The recent you gov polls give an indication as to how polarising a figure he is seen and whilst your right the ballor box will be the ultimate judge a bad set of local elections and a civil war over trident and he may well not get to be tested in a general election
 
sun_tzu said:
I dont hate corbyn... I think he is probably a nice enough chap - he is not a credible leader though in my opinion and I still think that he wont last the year - May elections and trident maingate will be very tough for him... and the fact that in Oldham there was a candidate who is as blairite as they come and who voted for liz kendal plus they kept corbyns name / picture off all the literature that went out in Oldham suggests that perhaps its not quite so clear cut that this was a vote for the left - furthermore the demographic breakdown of the area certainly (and thankfully imo) did not help UKIP but it remains to be seen how the may elections will go (particularly with the likleyhood being that in Feb / March an EU settlement will be reached so in April / May the in / out campaigns will gather pace.
The recent you gov polls give an indication as to how polarising a figure he is seen and whilst your right the ballor box will be the ultimate judge a bad set of local elections and a civil war over trident and he may well not get to be tested in a general election
Click to expand...
I still have hope he'll be gone before that.
 
I hope he sticks around as he makes for great entertainment.
 
There's nothing to learn from the Oldham result, labour could have a bionic clone of Stalin and Pol Pot as leader and fielded a sack of potatoes with a sign stuck on it saying "Golf Sale this way" and would of still cleaned up.
 
Ducklegs said:
There's nothing to learn from the Oldham result, labour could have a bionic clone of Stalin and Pol Pot as leader and fielded a sack of potatoes with a sign stuck on it saying "Golf Sale this way" and would of still cleaned up.
Click to expand...

But it does contradict the claims that Corbyn's leadership was going to be costly for Labour in this by-election, which was being suggested by a number of people.
 
Listening to voters being interviewed it was clear that many had no faith in Corbyn and had put their faith in local guy McMahon.
 
It's fair to say the Oldham result can hardly be called a ringing endorsement of Corbyn.

But…

It is pretty funny given the commentators were lining up to say Oldham would be very close / or even a disastrous loss thanks to the Corbyn leadership. It's all very well to look at it now and say "Corbyn never became an issue" but that wasn't being said on Monday.
 
Labour loses Oldham or a narrow win - Corbyn making Labour unelectable.

Labour wins convincingly - Meh, Skeletor could have won it, doesn't tell us anything.

Jesus wept.
 
Kaos said:
Labour loses Oldham or a narrow win - Corbyn making Labour unelectable.

Labour wins convincingly - Meh, Skeletor could have won it, doesn't tell us anything.

Jesus wept.
Click to expand...

Like on Sky News when announcing the results of the Syria air strike vote as it came in.

Line 1: (Breaking) Politicians have voted in favour of airstrikes in Syria
Line 2 straight away: This means up to X number of Labour MP's voted against Corbyn!

Not the significance or implications of bombing another country, a war on IS or further joining the biggest conflict on Earth currently.. no.. this day will be known as the day Corbyn lost! Ha! Looooser!
 
Kaos said:
Labour loses Oldham or a narrow win - Corbyn making Labour unelectable.

Labour wins convincingly - Meh, Skeletor could have won it, doesn't tell us anything.

Jesus wept.
Click to expand...

But only one of those results was ever going to realistically happen as someone who obviously follows politics you would know this.
Also, I don't remember ever working for a newspaper and writing an article saying it was doubtful labour would win the seat in Oldham.


There are just some seats around the country that it doesn't matter who stands in them for either side, they just won't flip no matter what.

When people say he is unelectable, people refer to the fact that he won't hold any of his marginal seats, won't make any gains in conservative marginal seats and therefore won't win enough seats to win an election.

But you already know this.
 
Ducklegs said:
But only one of those results was ever going to realistically happen as someone who obviously follows politics you would know this.
Also, I don't remember ever working for a newspaper and writing an article saying it was doubtful labour would win the seat in Oldham.


There are just some seats around the country that it doesn't matter who stands in them for either side, they just won't flip no matter what.

When people say he is unelectable, people refer to the fact that he won't hold any of his marginal seats, won't make any gains in conservative marginal seats and therefore won't win enough seats to win an election.

But you already know this.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a personal dig at you if that's what you were insinuating.

It was rather the fact that regardless of the outcome, the media had found a way to spin this against Corbyn. The same outlets, so called journalists and media personalities who we're dooming and glooming over the possibility that Oldham would have been awkward for Labour and Corbyn are now dismissing it was even a contest and were very quick to downplay its significance. I mean had they gone with that angle from the beginning it would have been fair enough (and probably true), but its the backtracking that is pathetic.
 
Jeremy Corbyn to sack shadow cabinet ministers who disagree with his anti-war policies

Jeremy Corbyn's allies warn he will reshuffle his senior team to remove his enemies from positions of power

By Tim Ross, Senior Political Correspondent
05 Dec 2015

Jeremy Corbyn’s close associates are secretly planning to purge the shadow cabinet of moderate MPs who disagree with his radical, anti-war policies, as he seeks to impose his will on the Labour Party.

In the aftermath of the Commons vote on bombing Syria last week, allies of the Labour leader warned that he would reshuffle his senior team to remove his enemies from positions of power.

The clear-out of the moderates could come as soon as next month, in a New Year reshuffle, as part of a four-pronged strategy to strengthen the Labour leader’s grip on his MPs.

Critics warned the leadership’s revenge mission would lead to “permanent war” inside Labour.

One moderate front-bench MP said: "We are on a war footing now. We know they are coming for us and we're ready for them."

Mr Corbyn was offered some respite on Friday when Labour held the seat of Oldham West and Royton at a by-election, with an increased share of the vote.

But his aides and allies have vowed to act after he suffered a damaging revolt from 66 Labour MPs who defied his call to oppose air strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria, voting instead with the Tories to back military action.

Mr Corbyn stepped back from trying to impose a “whip” ordering his MPs to vote against air strikes, but he maintained that Labour’s official party policy was officially anti-bombing.

Despite Mr Corbyn’s declaration of opposition to air strikes, 21 MPs in his own frontbench team voted for the action, including three Labour whips charged with enforcing party discipline.

Even the Opposition Chief Whip, Rosie Winterton, chose to abstain rather than back her leader’s call to oppose the military action.

Now, Mr Corbyn’s associates have begun devising a strategy for revenge. The four key elements of the plan, which began to emerge in back-room discussions at Westminster after the Syria vote, include:

An overhaul of the whips, after Ms Winterton abstained, while Alan Campbell, the deputy chief whip, along with his fellow whips Conor McGinn and Holly Lynch, voted in favour of air strikes.
A shadow Cabinet reshuffle, with senior figures including Maria Eagle, the shadow defence secretary, Angela Eagle, the shadow business secretary, and even Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary praised for his impassioned pro-air strikes speech, regarded as vulnerable for their support for bombing.
Local constituency parties selecting more Left-wing candidates, with the controversial pressure group Momentum already moving to “deselect” prominent Blairites such as Chuka Umunna with harder Left candidates for the 2020 election.
Exploiting the overhaul of parliamentary boundaries, in which the total number of constituencies will fall from 650 to 600. MPs on all sides will be fighting for seats to stand in at the 2020 election, giving Mr Corbyn’s enforcers what one called “a valuable opportunity" to "get rid of" Mr Corbyn's critics.

One senior MP loyal to Mr Corbyn said the threat of losing seats in the boundary reforms would be a potent way to convince many current Labour MPs who are not signed up to his agenda to come “on board”.

“There are not enough Left-wing MPs in the parliamentary Labour party and we need to change that,” the source said.

“We can do that before 2020. There are ways to persuade them to change their views.

“Every constituency is going to be redrawn so we can protect some people and get rid of others.”

The senior figure said the row over air strikes in the shadow cabinet must not be allowed to happen again. The next likely flashpoint will be the vote on renewing Britain’s Trident nuclear weapons, which is now expected in the New Year.

“The Shadow Cabinet is dictating policy to the leader and that should not ever happen,” the senior figure said.

“There’s only one way to deal with it and that is to clear them out at the next reshuffle.”

Other sources inside the party’s Westminster operation believe Mr Corbyn’s aides do not trust all the whips. One said that the leader’s office had deployed its own “shadow whipping operation” during the Syria vote, alongside the official party whips.

John Mann, the Labour MP for Bassetlaw, said he expected a shadow cabinet purge of some kind to follow but warned Mr Corbyn not to try to eradicate his internal critics from the Commons.

“If they want permanent war they will carry on with the deselection talk. I would advise them not to do that and to try to build a consensus,” Mr Mann said.

“Jeremy Corbyn and (shadow chancellor) John McDonnell have both said there are not going to be any deselections in the Labour Party. There will be plenty of vacancies for new candidates at the next election. If there are people they want to promote, they will have the opportunity to put them forward.

“But the idea of deselecting any Labour MPs now would just create civil war.”

Younger Labour MPs were said to have been targeted by Mr Corbyn's office and warned not to vote for military action.

Mr Corbyn and his aides summoned MPs who were elected for the first time in May to put pressure on them to oppose air strikes.

The Labour leader was said to have played "good cop" during the discussions while his political secretary, Katy Clark, demanded to know how MPs would account for their decisions to their local party members. Only a handful of the 53 newly elected Labour MPs voted for air strikes on Wednesday.

One shadow minister warned Mr Corbyn would achieve nothing by sacking moderates who disagreed with him. The MP said: "If Jeremy sacked me it would be a relief. The only reason I took the job was for the sake of the party and if he throws that back in my face, all it will do is strengthen my position in my constituency and the parliamentary party."

A Labour Party spokesman said: "Jeremy has repeatedly condemned threats and talk of deselection.

"All Labour members and representatives are expected to uphold the highest standard of conduct at all times.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-who-disagree-with-his-anti-war-policies.html
 
It will as the article make it an all out war within the party
But Trident is looming and another free vote would look poor... As would most of his shadow cabinet abstaining or voting with the government
So it's either change his stance or change the shadow cabinet
The big problem will be finding good credible mps willing to serve in his shadow cabinet... That and looking a bit petty if those who exercised a "free" vote are punished for it
 
Kaos said:
It wasn't a personal dig at you if that's what you were insinuating.

It was rather the fact that regardless of the outcome, the media had found a way to spin this against Corbyn. The same outlets, so called journalists and media personalities who we're dooming and glooming over the possibility that Oldham would have been awkward for Labour and Corbyn are now dismissing it was even a contest and were very quick to downplay its significance. I mean had they gone with that angle from the beginning it would have been fair enough (and probably true), but its the backtracking that is pathetic.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. In any case, it was always likely that the popular local leader of the Council was going to be safe. It's not as if someone had been parachuted in from the London suburbs.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
"Even the Opposition Chief Whip, Rosie Winterton, chose to abstain rather than back her leader’s call to oppose the military action."
Click to expand...

Typically high standards from The Telegraph. That is convention on a free vote.
 
So Corbyn's Labour is doing well then. Excellent result in Oldham. This will be a horrible thing for some reason the Tory press has yet to figure out.
 
Cheesy said:
But it does contradict the claims that Corbyn's leadership was going to be costly for Labour in this by-election, which was being suggested by a number of people.
Click to expand...
By a number of people in this thread. Funny, really.
 
Seumas Milne was talking about a purge of the moderates in the cabinet before he became chief of strategy, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was true. Not sure whether this has come out from Corbyn's side or his opponents though. But it's almost certain to happen at some point.

Untied said:
Typically high standards from The Telegraph. That is convention on a free vote.
Click to expand...
It's by no means essential, for example the equal marriage bill had both the Tory chief whip Sir George Young, and his shadow Rosie Winterton both voting yes. It's also instructive that the rest of the shadow whip's office voted yes on Syria.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
So if noone got sacked, what was your point?
Click to expand...

IF someone was to be sacked for not following their leader after being told they could vote as they saw fit then the free vote they were given would not be very free as it clearly came with consequences.
 
Marching said:
IF someone was to be sacked for not following their leader after being told they could vote as they saw fit then the free vote they were given would not be very free as it clearly came with consequences.
Click to expand...

Sure. Sure sure sure. Sure sure sure sure.

But noone was...

So, what was your point? Seriously like.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
Here was the exchange. You're clearly trying to infer something, for reasons I can't fathom.
Click to expand...
Have you actually read the article that sparked this discussion? You can choose whether to believe it or not, but Marching isn't exactly plucking it out of thin air.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
I do. It was a very free vote. You were trying to cast an aspersion, god knows why.
Click to expand...

i don't believe in God so he/she/it is not going to help you.

I didn't realise there was a free vote and a very free vote but either way if someone who exercised their free/very free vote which presumably means they can vote however they choose but then lost their job if that vote didn't suit their boss the vote given to them doesn't seem very free.
 
Ubik said:
Have you actually read the article that sparked this discussion? You can choose whether to believe it or not, but Marching isn't exactly plucking it out of thin air.
Click to expand...

Sure, the article is there on that page in the thread. It's all hearsay and noone has been sacked, and as has been pointed out it's convention for the whip to abstain in a free vote, which they attached a doom-and-gloom "even" to.
 
Marching said:
i don't believe in God so he/she/it is not going to help you.

I didn't realise there was a free vote and a very free vote but either way if someone who exercised their free/very free vote which presumably means they can vote however they choose but then lost their job if that vote didn't suit their boss the vote given to them doesn't seem very free.
Click to expand...

And still, noone has been fired.

Congrats too by the way on getting a full 50 or 60 words out of my choice of modifier, you're well on the way to the king of the pedants title. :D
 
unchanged_lineup said:
Sure, the article is there on that page in the thread. It's all hearsay and noone has been sacked, and as has been pointed out it's convention for the whip to abstain in a free vote, which they attached a doom-and-gloom "even" to.
Click to expand...
And I just pointed out there are plenty of occasions where the chief whips don't abstain (in government and opposition), so if it's a convention it's weakly adhered to. And the article in question states such firings would happen next month. This is a discussion forum, Marching's point is that should people be fired for their position in a free vote, it would not have been a free vote.
 
Ubik said:
And I just pointed out there are plenty of occasions where the chief whips don't abstain (in government and opposition), so if it's a convention it's weakly adhered to. And the article in question states such firings would happen next month. This is a discussion forum, Marching's point is that should people be fired for their position in a free vote, it would not have been a free vote.
Click to expand...

Fine. Let's come back to it in a month then. For now, it's total conjecture from "sources".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.