Jeremy Corbyn & Tom Watson elected leader and deputy leader of the Labour Party

[DarloRich]

Whether or not you are "interested" in Christianity is irrelevant. Britain has been a Christian country for more than a thousand years and any debate on the role of marriage has to accommodate that fact.

accommodate as part of the wider discussion. Not pander to entirely at the expense of all other view points. That is something the squadders seem keen to overlook.

BTW I am one of those awful modern amoral liberals who, scandalously, think that you should be free to practice and express your religion and it's odd (to my mind) views without sanction. However, in return, I expect you to accept my right to say that you are a simple minded, deluded fool devoting all of your spare time and lots of your money to a fairy tale told to you by a man in a dress and a silly hat.

Quite what this has to do with the Labour Party I don't know - perhaps it should have a thread of it's own.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Quite what this has to do with the Labour Party I don't know - perhaps it should have a thread of it's own.

It does appear that you are correct in this view, but off-thread matters do seem to be a law unto themselves, until our revered moderators bring out "the big stick" as a warning to those posting miscreants...:roll:

 

[miami]

I sincerely hope I'm not bigoted, as for intolerant, guilty as charged

Clearly you are "One who is strongly partial to one's own ... politics and is intolerant of those who differ.", given that you next say "Completely intolerant of the depths so-called liberalism has plunged the country into."

You believe that people should not have the rights to do things (get married) that in no way affect you.

My final words on the subject would be I'm a Catholic whore, currently enjoying congress out of wedlock with my black Jewish boyfriend who works at a military abortion clinic. Hail Satan, and have a lovely afternoon.

 

[Greenback]

Please remember the subject of this thread is Jeremy Corbyn and Tom Watson as leaders of the Labour Party.

I've split the discussions of marriage off into a new thread.

 

[meridian2]

Quite what this has to do with the Labour Party I don't know - perhaps it should have a thread of it's own.

Someone back down the thread asked was social conservatism was. Someone else replied, and one of their criteria was moral conservatism. I pointed out that amid the party bunfight it should be remembered that Britain is an institutionally Christian country (check out the coronation of our head of state), which seems to come as a shock for people otherwise versed in the minutiae of politics.

One can be a social conservative without being Christian, or even religious (and I'm selling neither), but if morals or ethics rear their head people had better have a consistent philosophy, or a very loud gob, to navigate British statehood without either.

 

[ainsworth74]

Enough. Would everyone please remember that this thread is about Jeremy Corbyn and Tom Watson as leaders of the Labour Party. The discussion around marriage has been taken to a separate thread. I ask that anyone who wishes to discuss wider topics such as religion and its place in society do so on a new thread. You could start off the new thread by quoting a post from this thread if there is one you wish to reply to specifically.

 

[meridian2]

Glad to see it back on topic. The problem for Corbyn is his brand of socialism became devalued when Labour leaders Foot to Kinnock found their party terminally unelectable by offering variations of it to the country. Within party membership its language makes perfect sense, but it has never enjoyed a leader who can translate it for the general public. Corbyn seems to be a kind of 80s revival act, down to the geography teacher's beard and sandals, and enjoys a similar kind of revivalist support from young people who think selling Militant in an Ian Curtis coat is cutting edge street politics.

I don't believe Corbyn is entirely wrong, I think many of his policies make perfect sense, but even he suffers cognitive dissonance over the simplest decisions (EU et al), unsure whether to storm Wapping or court the City. He's basically a tribute act, and unlikely to pass himself off as the real thing, sadly for the Labour Party.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Glad to see it back on topic. The problem for Corbyn is his brand of socialism became devalued when Labour leaders Foot to Kinnock found their party terminally unelectable by offering variations of it to the country. Within party membership its language makes perfect sense, but it has never enjoyed a leader who can translate it for the general public. Corbyn seems to be a kind of 80s revival act, down to the geography teacher's beard and sandals, and enjoys a similar kind of revivalist support from young people who think selling Militant in an Ian Curtis coat is cutting edge street politics.

I don't believe Corbyn is entirely wrong, I think many of his policies make perfect sense, but even he suffers cognitive dissonance over the simplest decisions (EU et al), unsure whether to storm Wapping or court the City. He's basically a tribute act, and unlikely to pass himself off as the real thing, sadly for the Labour Party.

Yet there are still those who see the revival of Socialist Utopia as the type of country in which they would be the happiest, but many of these have never lived in any of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and seen what life was like for the working class there...:roll:

 

[meridian2]

Yet there are still those who see the revival of Socialist Utopia as the type of country in which they would be the happiest, but many of these have never lived in any of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and seen what life was like for the working class there...:roll:

True enough. Unfortunately Blair's third way fizzled out in free market narcissism. I don't accept Trotskyism or post-Thatcherism (aka Blairism) exhaust the potential of the Labour project, but my opinions on its future direction seems to promote Pavlovian reactions. When UKIP has nicked its dinner and its pudding too, the party may come to review its roots, or we may simply become a permanent one party Tory state.

 

[southern442]

Corbyn supporter and journalist Owen Jones has made this video addressing the Labour situation at the moment. I thought it might be interesting to several of us on here.

 

[Busaholic]

Corbyn supporter and journalist Owen Jones has made this video addressing the Labour situation at the moment. I thought it might be interesting to several of us on here.

Or should that be ex-Corbyn supporter? He obviously feels that Corbyn and co. are partly culpable for Labour's dire political situation, along with the Burnhams and Coopers with their soundbite offerings masking their lack of gravitas or any real understanding of what is needed. Jones will certainly get a lot of stick from the Momentum crowd, but it's good that he's prepared to jump ship. I regret that I share his opinion, though, that Corbyn won't quit before he's led Labour into their worst General Election result in almost a century.

 

[meridian2]

I regret that I share his opinion, though, that Corbyn won't quit before he's led Labour into their worst General Election result in almost a century.

Sadly that's how party politics work. Ideologues hang on to their world view long after the world has stopped listening, even if it compromises the very people they claim to help - the working class. In a real Marxist state the government would get itself a new electorate, but deprived of that possibility their viewpoint has to hit an electoral rock bottom before the party think the unthinkable.

Whatever Labour do now it's unlikely to change the outcome of the next general election (unless the government seriously drop the ball), because the public are fascinated with how the Brexit negotiations turn out, and the Tories gifted them the vote. The most likely outcome is two parliamentary terms of rebuilding and the hope leaving Europe is utterly disastrous, in which case Labour will succeed by doing absolutely nothing. That's providing UKIP haven't become a more professional outfit and nicked the working class in the meantime. I stand by my social conservative role as Labour's (and possibly society's) only hope of turning things round.

 

[bramling]

Or should that be ex-Corbyn supporter? He obviously feels that Corbyn and co. are partly culpable for Labour's dire political situation, along with the Burnhams and Coopers with their soundbite offerings masking their lack of gravitas or any real understanding of what is needed. Jones will certainly get a lot of stick from the Momentum crowd, but it's good that he's prepared to jump ship. I regret that I share his opinion, though, that Corbyn won't quit before he's led Labour into their worst General Election result in almost a century.

All very well jumping ship now, but it's the people who supported Corbyn in the first place, like Jones, that have got Labour in to this mess in the first place. Anyone should have known Corbyn was always going to be a disaster, for the simple reason that the majority of votes lie in the centre ground, and Corbyn was never going to occupy that position. It doesn't help that Labour are also horribly divided, which is also an electoral turn-off. In the shorter term, they also have a big problem that there is little alternative quality leadership talent on tap.

 

[Tetchytyke]

All very well jumping ship now, but it's the people who supported Corbyn in the first place, like Jones, that have got Labour in to this mess in the first place. Anyone should have known Corbyn was always going to be a disaster, for the simple reason that the majority of votes lie in the centre ground, and Corbyn was never going to occupy that position.

I don't think it is as clear cut as that. Corbyn the raging lefty is comfortably to the right of where David Owen was when he led the Gang of Four out to the Social Democrats. The problem is that the Overton Window has lurched so far to the right that ideas such as keeping the NHS and the trains in public ownership are now seen as basically communist. It's not like Corbyn is going on about five year plans and the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, is it?

We saw this where the media tried to portray Ed Miliband as "red Ed", despite being nothing of the sort. Anyone who thinks David Miliband would have escaped the same fate is living in cloud cuckoo land.

I think it is too easy to say Corbyn was preaching to the converted: he wasn't, look how many came back to Labour from the Greens and the Lib Dems. Corbyn wasn't preaching to the UKIP racists and the Tory right-wingers, that much is true, but who really expected him to? Ed Miliband tried that and look where that got him.

I never thought Corbyn was going to be a strong enough leader, though I hoped to be proved wrong because it was good to see a politician speak about social welfare as though it wasn't a dirty word for once.

But when you have the UKIP poster boy slagging off Douglas Carswell- yes, Douglas Carswell- for not being sufficiently anti-immigration, and you have the two biggest selling newspapers in the UK both with their tongues so far up Farage's backside they could lick his tonsils clean, of course this message isn't getting across. Hell, we're in times when even the Pope is seen as a dangerous lefty because he's saying that we should try being nice to our fellow humans for a change.

 

[DarloRich]

As I keep saying to the Clownbynian supporters - it isnt, really, the policy that is the issue but the man. He isnt up to it. He never has been and the public regard him as a joke.

 

[Tetchytyke]

As I keep saying to the Clownbynian supporters - it isnt, really, the policy that is the issue but the man. He isnt up to it. He never has been and the public regard him as a joke.

I'd agree with that. He was great sitting on the backbenches throwing brickbats at everyone and everything. But, like Dennis Skinner, letting him anywhere near the controls was and is a bit of a silly idea.

The question, though, is who'd replace him. Sadiq Khan is settled as London Mayor and won't be in the running for a bit. And Chuka Umunna very clearly didn't want to go anywhere near the leadership. Both, let's face it, will also struggle to appeal to the UKIP demographic for obvious reasons.

Beyond them, who else? I quite like Emily Thornberry but she'd get ripped to shreds and to a lesser extent so would Stella Creasy.

 

[meridian2]

I don't think it is as clear cut as that. Corbyn the raging lefty is comfortably to the right of where David Owen was when he led the Gang of Four out to the Social Democrats. The problem is that the Overton Window has lurched so far to the right that ideas such as keeping the NHS and the trains in public ownership are now seen as basically communist. It's not like Corbyn is going on about five year plans and the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, is it?

We saw this where the media tried to portray Ed Miliband as "red Ed", despite being nothing of the sort. Anyone who thinks David Miliband would have escaped the same fate is living in cloud cuckoo land.

I think it is too easy to say Corbyn was preaching to the converted: he wasn't, look how many came back to Labour from the Greens and the Lib Dems. Corbyn wasn't preaching to the UKIP racists and the Tory right-wingers, that much is true, but who really expected him to? Ed Miliband tried that and look where that got him.

I never thought Corbyn was going to be a strong enough leader, though I hoped to be proved wrong because it was good to see a politician speak about social welfare as though it wasn't a dirty word for once.

But when you have the UKIP poster boy slagging off Douglas Carswell- yes, Douglas Carswell- for not being sufficiently anti-immigration, and you have the two biggest selling newspapers in the UK both with their tongues so far up Farage's backside they could lick his tonsils clean, of course this message isn't getting across. Hell, we're in times when even the Pope is seen as a dangerous lefty because he's saying that we should try being nice to our fellow humans for a change.

It's more nuanced and complex than that. Old ideas of right and left have all but lost their meaning, except perhaps for Marxists. One survey showed a majority of right wing voters in favour of returning to a nationalised railway. It's more of a battle between traditionalism, which is a cross party instinct, versus free market liberalism, which is also non-party. Aspects of Labour are to the traditional side of modern Toryism, and some ideas of the Conservative Party are indistinguishable from a Labour manifesto.

The biggest divide is Oxbridge PPE graduates, sons and daughters of the establishment who make up the ideological bedrock of all parties, versus people who've seen life outside a debating chamber. These used to come from public service (Labour) and the military (Tory), but such people are fast tracked into the Lords leaving the Commons a pragmatic desert of debating society smarter*es scoring points by day and scoring drinks from one another by night. It's politics reduced to its horrific essentials, institutionalised hypocrisy for fulltime newspaper columnists and bloggers and part time politicians to spinwash history.

 

[pemma]

The problem is that the Overton Window has lurched so far to the right that ideas such as keeping the NHS and the trains in public ownership are now seen as basically communist.

Burnham proposed a gradual moving of railways in to public ownership (as franchises ended or using break clauses where available) but said non-franchised operators like Grand Central would also be allowed to operate on the railways.

Corbyn proposed cancelling franchises immediately and compulsory purchase orders to get rolling stock back from ROSCOs, which gives the impression he is irrational and would do things and think about the consequences afterwards (like Donald Trump) or would promise things he wouldn't deliver.

look how many came back to Labour from the Greens and the Lib Dems.

Voters 'came back to Labour from the Lib Dems' at the 2015 General Election. However, since the EU referendum membership of the Lib Dem party has reached a record high and the Lib Dems have increased their share of the votes at each by-election for a MP over what they got at the 2015 general election share (except Batley and Spen for obvious reasons), while the Labour share of voters has gone down in each by-election (again with the same obvious exception.)

Replacing a Blarite with a pro-Corbyn supporter in Stoke-on-Trent central saw Labour's vote share go down by 2.2%, not go up.

 

[meridian2]

However, since the EU referendum membership of the Lib Dem party has reached a record high and the Lib Dems have increased their share of the votes at each by-election for a MP over what they got at the 2015 general election share (except Batley and Spen for obvious reasons), while the Labour share of voters has gone down in each by-election.

That's pure opportunism on the LibDems part, attracting every disgruntled Remainer under one cause whatever the contents of the rest of the manifesto.

 

[pemma]

That's pure opportunism on the LibDems part, attracting every disgruntled Remainer under one cause whatever the contents of the rest of the manifesto.

The point I was making is their membership has gone up and they're getting a greater proportion of votes in elections, so there's no evidence that Corbyn is attracting voters who switched to the Lib Dems back and if anything the evidence is suggesting Corbyn is losing voters to the Lib Dems.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That's pure opportunism on the LibDems part, attracting every disgruntled Remainer under one cause whatever the contents of the rest of the manifesto.

Well, there are two who voted Remain in this residence who felt that this was our view on what was offered by the referendum, who would both see Hell freeze over before moving our political allegiances from the Conservative Party to the "LibDems"..:roll:

 

[meridian2]

Well, there are two who voted Remain in this residence who felt that this was our view on what was offered by the referendum, who would both see Hell freeze over before moving our political allegiances from the Conservative Party to the "LibDems"..:roll:

I'm not sure what your point is. Mine, for what it's worth, is the LibDems are the biggest bunch of unaccountable promise monkeys imaginable, and standing on a Remain ticket would be entirely in keeping with their opportunistic instincts on things like tuition fees (promise: cut to zero, outcome: increase to £9k). On that basis a commitment to the EU would result in a naval blockade in the channel.

 

[bramling]

The point I was making is their membership has gone up and they're getting a greater proportion of votes in elections, so there's no evidence that Corbyn is attracting voters who switched to the Lib Dems back and if anything the evidence is suggesting Corbyn is losing voters to the Lib Dems.

Can the point be made that the elections you speak of are by-elections, including one in particularly unusual circumstances in Richmond. Past experience shows it's very hard to infer much from mid-term elections. I seem to remember in the Blair years the Conservatives did quite well in local and European elections, yet failed dismally in a general election. People make different choices in by-elections because they know the government isn't going to change hands. Likewise the Lib-Dem vote has proved notoriously erratic over the years.

 

[bramling]

That's pure opportunism on the LibDems part, attracting every disgruntled Remainer under one cause whatever the contents of the rest of the manifesto.

Yes and IMO it's not an intelligent strategy as there's unlikely to be a general election before 2020 (May would be mad to call one with the Brexit process in full swing), and by then we should have formally left the EU. So the only Remain votes will be the hardcore protest vote. That may get them a few votes in 2020, but the issue should certainly have disappeared by 2025. Similar to the Iraq war - doubtlessly it got them votes at the time, but salience of issues changes over time, and votes gained by a particular issue are just as quickly lost -- especially in tougher economic times.

 

[bramling]

As I keep saying to the Clownbynian supporters - it isnt, really, the policy that is the issue but the man. He isnt up to it. He never has been and the public regard him as a joke.

Yes. He comes over as clumsy, unintelligent, and inflexibly latched on to a particular set of beliefs.

However I think things run a little deeper than that.

For a start he is surrounded by people who are inexperienced, and in many cases deeply unattractive even to elements of his core vote. For example Diane Abbot may have some appeal in London, but she doesn't offer much to regions like the north-east or South Yorkshire, let alone more marginal areas. Meanwhile he struggles even to fill his shadow cabinet.

The party is badly divided. The Conservatives were bitterly divided over Europe in the 1990s, and this was a strong factor in their historic 1997 defeat. Labour's divisions now are more fundamental as the party is divided over its core direction, plus some pretty important issues like defence. No one seems to know what Labour's position is on Europe, is Corbyn pro Brexit or not? No one really knows.

The policies may not be too bad, but because the presentation is so appallingly bad, the general population don't really have a clue what the policies actually are. It doesn't help that most of the shadow cabinet are names no one has heard of, and in any case they keep changing on a revolving basis.

Every election is won in the centre ground, this is why Labour lost so badly in the 1980s, and the Conservatives lost so badly in 2001. Tony Blair and David Cameron, love them or hate them, understood this very well, and I strongly suspect Theresa May does too. People may sympathise with elements of Corbyn's politics, but when it comes to the privacy of the polling booth people will be thinking of things like the economy, defence, perhaps immigration, competence to govern, taxation, et cetera, and in all these areas Corbyn is not in the centre ground. If anything the centre ground has shifted slightly to the right in recent years, which derailed even the reasonably centre-ist Gordon Brown, and meant Ed Miliband lost badly. Unless something else changes, Labour has been heading in precisely the wrong direction -- with Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband being rejected by the electorate, the worst thing to do was to pick someone more to the left.

The problem is, who replaces him? There's no obvious candidate who appears electorally viable, and the likelihood is a candidate with similar views would be chosen. The fact that the prospect of Tony Blair or David Miliband returning has actually been seriously suggested shows how bad things are for Labour. Things go full circle however, so I wouldn't necessarily write Labour off, but they are in big trouble.

 

[pemma]

I'm not sure what your point is. Mine, for what it's worth, is the LibDems are the biggest bunch of unaccountable promise monkeys imaginable, and standing on a Remain ticket would be entirely in keeping with their opportunistic instincts on things like tuition fees (promise: cut to zero, outcome: increase to £9k). On that basis a commitment to the EU would result in a naval blockade in the channel.

The Lib Dems delivered on their top manifesto promise - the £10k personal allowance - something Labour wouldn't agree to and something that Vince Cable did well to get included as part of a coalition agreement with the Conservatives when David Cameron was against it.

The Conservatives also promised to drop tuition fees when they next got in to government but it was them who changed their mind and came up with the idea of £9k fees. Yet they have big donors so pay top PR consultants and manage to successfully convince the voting public that the Conservatives delivered a popular (Lib Dem) policy and the Lib Dems failed miserably in their campaign to get rid of tuition fees (something that was an even bigger failure for them) and that Labour was to blame for the 2008 global economic downturn, to successfully get elected as a majority government in 2015. The party who can't be trusted are the Conservatives. Which is worrying when the party who stand the best chance of removing them from government is led by Mr Corbyn!

 

[pemma]

The problem is, who replaces him? There's no obvious candidate who appears electorally viable, and the likelihood is a candidate with similar views would be chosen. The fact that the prospect of Tony Blair or David Miliband returning has actually been seriously suggested shows how bad things are for Labour. Things go full circle however, so I wouldn't necessarily write Labour off, but they are in big trouble.

If it wasn't for rogue tabloid journalists stalking family members of people standing for Labour leader then Chuka Umunna may have finished up being Labour leader, who would have stood a much better chance of getting votes from non-Labour party members.

 

[bramling]

The Lib Dems delivered on their top manifesto promise - the £10k personal allowance - something Labour wouldn't agree to and something that Vince Cable did well to get included as part of a coalition agreement with the Conservatives when David Cameron was against it.

The Conservatives also promised to drop tuition fees when they next got in to government but it was them who changed their mind and came up with the idea of £9k fees. Yet they have big donors so pay top PR consultants and manage to successfully convince the voting public that the Conservatives delivered a popular (Lib Dem) policy and the Lib Dems failed miserably in their campaign to get rid of tuition fees (something that was an even bigger failure for them) and that Labour was to blame for the 2008 global economic downturn, to successfully get elected as a majority government in 2015. The party who can't be trusted are the Conservatives. Which is worrying when the party who stand the best chance of removing them from government is led by Mr Corbyn!

I still don't really understand why the Lib-Dems were so heavily punished in 2015. They were a minority partner in a *coalition* government, so were never going to be able to deliver anything more than a few flagship "red lines". Surely their voters should have understood this? What makes things even more strange is the way the vote seems to have shifted to the Conservatives, witness the total wipe-out in traditionally Lib-Dem areas like the south-west. This makes me think that other factors were at play -- for example the younger people who voted Lib-Dem on the back of the Iraq war growing up and re-aligning towards the Conservatives, or just the Conservatives transforming themselves into a credible and attractive government-in-waiting as opposed to a bunch of freaks bickering over Europe (1990s and early 2000s!).

 

[pemma]

I still don't really understand why the Lib-Dems were so heavily punished in 2015. They were a minority partner in a *coalition* government, so were never going to be able to deliver anything more than a few flagship "red lines". Surely their voters should have understood this? What makes things even more strange is the way the vote seems to have shifted to the Conservatives, witness the total wipe-out in traditionally Lib-Dem areas like the south-west. This makes me think that other factors were at play -- for example the younger people who voted Lib-Dem on the back of the Iraq war growing up and re-aligning towards the Conservatives, or just the Conservatives transforming themselves into a credible and attractive government-in-waiting as opposed to a bunch of freaks bickering over Europe (1990s and early 2000s!).

A lot of people also forget that the Lib Dems got the Conservatives to change the repayment terms for the new student loans to be more favourable. If they had managed to block the Conservatives' changes to student finances when in coalition and the Conservatives still got a majority government in 2015 then the Conservatives' changes would have gone ahead a couple years later than planned without the Lib Dem amendments.

I thought the Conservatives were still bickering about Europe and the 2 MPs defecting to UKIP probably help convince Cameron an EU referendum was the right approach (for the Conservative Party.)

 

[Senex]

That may get them a few votes in 2020, but the issue should certainly have disappeared by 2025.

Why should the issue certainly have disappeared by 2025? The Brexiteers never let the issue disappear after the referendum 41 years ago, even though the majority against them was vastly stronger that their winning figure in 2016.