Beatsong wrote:

ED209 wrote:

Beatsong wrote:Good points, I can see all that yes.

But I think it's stupid idea precisely because of the Torygraph thing. I knew that would happen right at the start. As it turns out, the tories are joining to back the candidate I prefer, but that doesn't change the principle. The system shouldn't allow for cynical anti-votes at all; it dilutes the effectiveness of the electoral system in representing the true will of the membership.

But there's no sign that is having any effect. The numbers of £3 supporters are still tiny compared to other class of members.

Are they? I had thought that was the case by I read somewhere recently that there had been many more. That might have just been scaremongering though. After all I also read that Jeremy Corbyn was a Militant paedophile-protector, that Labour MPs would stage a "coup" against him and that Andy Burnham had said something meaningful.

Actually not really I was working to old information of ~12k supporters among 250k members.

However I just watched that corbyn (PBUH) clip on the andrew marr show and he says it's now up to 50k supporters. He also said that he would look to re-jig the membership fees to make the party a mass popular organisation rather than rely on funding from wealthy backers, which would be a good thing politically for labour and for democracy in general. Not least because the labour party hasn't been very effective at attracting wealthy backers (compared to the tories) anyway.

ronmcd wrote:

mrjonno wrote:Bear in mind Blair wasn't popular among his party but that didnt stop him winning elections, Labour need someone to lead them not be loved by them

That's not the point, what the party likes isnt even the most important thing.

Actually contrary to mrjonno's point, what the party members like IS important because Labour relies hugely on the unpaid work of those members to win elections. They don't have the kinds of rich backers that the tories or UKIP have that can get things done just by throwing money at them. All they have is armies of people out every day knocking on doors, running local party branches etc. etc.

Anyone that can motivate and energise the party membership the way Corbyn has has got to be good news in this respect. The comparison with Blair isn't accurate because party membership then was already twice what it is now (the massive increase in general public disillusionment with politics that we discussed before not having happened yet), the left and the working class didn't have anywhere else to go, and the new Labour project was new and untried so people were prepared to give it a go, even if they disagreed with it. All those factors are very different now.

If Burnham or Cooper win I'll probably stay in the party, but I can't see myself being inspired to put much effort into it. Multiply that by 250,000 members (and rising), and the Corbynhype brings a huge value to the party.

Labour has or at least has had millionaire backers before, you aren't going to get mass movements these days are people prefer getting far in comfort watching TV

Beatsong wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

mrjonno wrote:Bear in mind Blair wasn't popular among his party but that didnt stop him winning elections, Labour need someone to lead them not be loved by them

That's not the point, what the party likes isnt even the most important thing.

Actually contrary to mrjonno's point, what the party members like IS important because Labour relies hugely on the unpaid work of those members to win elections. They don't have the kinds of rich backers that the tories or UKIP have that can get things done just by throwing money at them. All they have is armies of people out every day knocking on doors, running local party branches etc. etc.

Anyone that can motivate and energise the party membership the way Corbyn has has got to be good news in this respect. The comparison with Blair isn't accurate because party membership then was already twice what it is now (the massive increase in general public disillusionment with politics that we discussed before not having happened yet), the left and the working class didn't have anywhere else to go, and the new Labour project was new and untried so people were prepared to give it a go, even if they disagreed with it. All those factors are very different now.

If Burnham or Cooper win I'll probably stay in the party, but I can't see myself being inspired to put much effort into it. Multiply that by 250,000 members (and rising), and the Corbynhype brings a huge value to the party.

Corbyn will hopefully inspire the Labour activists to get out and cmapaign, but more importantly the ordinary voters who aren't party members but who decide elections will perhaps be motivated to vote. Thats what happened in 97, and what happened in Scotland, with participation and interest in politics going up massively.

In 1997 Tory Lite with a nice smile got elected, even Blair's enemies seem to think that

mrjonno wrote:In 1997 Tory Lite with a nice smile got elected, even Blair's enemies seem to think that

Again, that's through the prism of the intervening years.

If Greece is any example, even if Corbyn wins he'll just backtrack anyway.

duvduv wrote:If Greece is any example, even if Corbyn wins he'll just backtrack anyway.

The example of Greece is a the majority voting for something is impossible doesn't make it any less impossible

ronmcd wrote:

smudge wrote:Corbyn on Marr this morning.
Reasonable, sensible, bright, thoughtful chap. He could probably do with some coaching in terms of media skills (lift your head up and wear less beige perhaps!)...But hell; what's not to like?

I had the tv on but wasn't watching, just listening, and I thought he was excellent. Not sure if what he was wearing would have made a difference

I agree.
A long robe, floppy hat and wizards staff I would find worrying. Beige, I personally dislike, but hey, it's no deal breaker.
If he wins he will get flack for it however. And his sandwich eating skills will need to be closely looked at (in 'some' quarters these things matter as much as policy).

smudge wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

smudge wrote:Corbyn on Marr this morning.
Reasonable, sensible, bright, thoughtful chap. He could probably do with some coaching in terms of media skills (lift your head up and wear less beige perhaps!)...But hell; what's not to like?

I had the tv on but wasn't watching, just listening, and I thought he was excellent. Not sure if what he was wearing would have made a difference

I agree.
A long robe, floppy hat and wizards staff I would find worrying. Beige, I personally dislike, but hey, it's no deal breaker.
If he wins he will get flack for it however. And his sandwich eating skills will need to be closely looked at (in 'some' quarters these things matter as much as policy).

I don't know, I think his attitude might work well in countering the image obsessed media. Miliband tried too hard to look presentable and 'statesmanlike', and as a result his image problems were an easy target. Corbyn doesn't try, he's just himself, and if people make comments he just says "I'd rather concentrate on the issues" and brushes it off easily.

Under the current climate there is no chance Corbyn could win and I'm surprised so many people have voted saying they think he can. Although, having said that, a lot can change in five years and we don't know what the political landscape will look like. In 2005, how many people were predicting that at the 2010 election we would have a coalition, and not only that, but a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition?

Byron raised the possibility earlier that Labour could carry out a left-wing vote grab in the manner of the SNP in Scotland. Again, whilst possible, I think this is very unlikely. The political conditions in Scotland were very different and their rise has been about a lot more than simply being anti-austerity.

More generally, I don't think it's a good idea when a party tries to choose a leader that appeals to it's base rather than regular voters. This is not just a problem with the left having to shift rightwards to win. If you look a David Cameron, he is a very centrist Tory, despised by much of his party. I mean, hell, he brought in gay marriage. Hardly a traditional conservative policy. In the US, this has been a problem for the right in recent years, with the Republicans often backing extreme candidates.

Also, I think if Corbyn wins, he won't last until the next election as he doesn't seem to have much support (in fact, it's bordering on contempt) from his fellow MP's and would find it difficult to get much done.

A sharp polling boost would fix that.

Who says Corbyn only appeals to the core Labour vote?

chairman bill wrote:Who says Corbyn only appeals to the core Labour vote?

I'm not saying he only appeals to the core labour vote but he is certainly from the left of the party. He may win some votes from those who voted Green, but I doubt he'd win back those voters that labour has lost to the Tories in recent elections. Those votes are the key to winning the next election.

OlivierK wrote:A sharp polling boost would fix that.

And how will he achieve that?

To be honest, I think the economy is the most important factor in elections. Labour were doing well with voters for more than a decade until the banking crisis and now people are looking at the situation saying Labour will be out of power for at least another decade.

TheMidnightBarber wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Who says Corbyn only appeals to the core Labour vote?

I'm not saying he only appeals to the core labour vote but he is certainly from the left of the party. He may win some votes from those who voted Green, but I doubt he'd win back those voters that labour has lost to the Tories in recent elections. Those votes are the key to winning the next election.

But in reality, Labour lost very few votes to the Tories. In fact, Labour increased its vote. Labour lost because the media painted Ed Miliband as an incompetent nerd, Labour appointed a Blairite to lead the Labour Party in Scotland, Labour didn't stand firmly against austerity, didn't defend itself against ToryDem lies about the economy, and left too many people thinking that voting wouldn't make any bloody difference. None of that was about being too left wing.

TheMidnightBarber wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Who says Corbyn only appeals to the core Labour vote?

I'm not saying he only appeals to the core labour vote but he is certainly from the left of the party. He may win some votes from those who voted Green, but I doubt he'd win back those voters that labour has lost to the Tories in recent elections. Those votes are the key to winning the next election.

Why not? I'm sure there are plenty who voted Tory but aren't hugely pleased with Osborne's abortion of a budget, who may well have not voted Labour because they thought Miliband was a wet fish. Labour doesn't need to win over everyone who voted Tory, just a small percentage. The least-Tory-of-Tory-voters, as it were.

TheMidnightBarber wrote:

OlivierK wrote:A sharp polling boost would fix that.

And how will he achieve that?

Well he seems to be doing better than Miliband at present, wouldn't you say? He's more articulate, more charming, less awkward, and drawing crowds.

TheMidnightBarber wrote:To be honest, I think the economy is the most important factor in elections. Labour were doing well with voters for more than a decade until the banking crisis and now people are looking at the situation saying Labour will be out of power for at least another decade.

Why on earth should the economy not do well under Corbyn's policies? Especially as compared to Osborne, who's trying to cut his way to growth.

Why not? I'm sure there are plenty who voted Tory but aren't hugely pleased with Osborne's abortion of a budget

I'm sure there are some landlords that aren't happy about the cuts in tax relief but I hardly think Labour are going to change that are they.

The Tory budget was exactly what the Tories said it would be, why would Tory voters be upset by it, unless you think people who voted for a party who couldn't give a shit about the poor are suddenly going to start for some strange reason

Usual lack of empathy of this forum, try to understand how Tories think instead of how you feel

Corbyn has already put more in the way of policy forwards than any of the other candidates, and his policies on the economy are strong and focused on investment. He's also putting forwards ideas focusing on education as a collective good, to invest in the knowledge and skills of the workforce, and strong proposals for gender equality.

He's gathering broad support by being truly committed to principles and policies that already have broad support.

TheMidnightBarber wrote:More generally, I don't think it's a good idea when a party tries to choose a leader that appeals to it's base rather than regular voters.

There is no choice. If a party ignores its own grass roots it will lose them, get hollowed out, and then die.