Labour party of the coal miners, manufacturing and the public sector and poor. All of which are shrinking, going and gone.
Marx was right about class war he but was very wrong about which side was going to win

Labour need to change where they get their votes from (and non existent voters don't count either)

mrjonno wrote: (and non existent voters don't count either)

People that don't exist rarely matter. Its like worrying about how "god" might vote. its a non-question.

People who can vote but don't, do matter. After all, if you can get them to vote for you, that's something the other candidates haven't achieved.

35% of the electorate is a lot of votes. Maybe they'd vote for a Corbyn? After all, its not like they're attracted to voting for the neo-liberal fuckwits that are out there.

A lot of young people aren't voting, because they fail to see any party doing anything for them. A lot of young people are seeing Jeremy Corbyn as a politician who is interested in them. A lot of poor people don't vote, and a lot of ethnic minority people don't vote. Guess what? They've got a lot in common with those young people - they don't see any party being particularly concerned with them either. Then along comes Jeremy Corbyn.

Young people don't vote partly because they can't be arsed there are more fun things to do but also partly because they are heavily outnumbered by people with very different interests.

The young people student loans for example are paying for the elderly inheritance tax cuts and subsidised old age care. If I was young I would be very pissed off and if I was old I would be thinking I was getting a very good deal. Classic conflict between tribal interests with definite winners and losers.

The young should still vote not because it will actually change anything now but because they will have the experience of losing which may make them reconsider when they get older and can actually change things. I doubt if it will through as they will be as keen to screw those younger than they are as much as the previous generation was

Bollocks. I know a fair few older people who are concerned more about their grandchildren being saddled with debt, and not getting the chances they got as young adults, than they are with their own needs & wants. Corbyn would quite possibly appeal to them too.

chairman bill wrote:A lot of young people aren't voting, because they fail to see any party doing anything for them. A lot of young people are seeing Jeremy Corbyn as a politician who is interested in them. A lot of poor people don't vote, and a lot of ethnic minority people don't vote. Guess what? They've got a lot in common with those young people - they don't see any party being particularly concerned with them either. Then along comes Jeremy Corbyn.

Indeed. For young people who are not cynical and left wing in their thinking, there isn't really a lot out there to motivate their political interests. They don't see politicians as having any interest in what sort of world the young voter might want to live in, they feel disenfranchised.

Even if the disenfranchised youth represent only 20% of the electorate that didn't vote, that is potentially enough of a vote share to swing an election.

as well as wanting to provide access to education to all - with an end to fees, and reinstated grants paid for by wealth taxes - corbyn also has a lot of support from muslims for his brave and pragmatic stance on palestine, in addition to the whole 'not wanting to drive around in vans telling them to go home like the tory parties did' thing.

I see he's now the bookies' favourite to win. I'm kicking myself for not putting a whimsical speculative bet on him when he was at 100/1.

chairman bill wrote:Bollocks. I know a fair few older people who are concerned more about their grandchildren being saddled with debt, and not getting the chances they got as young adults, than they are with their own needs & wants. Corbyn would quite possibly appeal to them too.

And there are brave aid workers who will risk their lives to got to save people in the 3rd world, they called heroes due to the fact they are so rare.

The more intelligent elderly will be leaving their houses to their kids to give them a chance, which of course leaves kids who won't be getting an inheritance totally screwed, but life isn't fair and no one on top is ever going to vote for it to be fair either

You're obviously right mrjonno. Old people are all selfish bastards. I'm off out to kill a granny or three.

I was amazed during the LBC hustings that two of the other three candidates said they wouldn't be willing to serve under Jeremy.
If any of our Lib-dems said that about any other I'd be appalled.

CarlPierce wrote:I was amazed during the LBC hustings that two of the other three candidates said they wouldn't be willing to serve under Jeremy.
If any of our Lib-dems said that about any other I'd be appalled.

And rightly so.
I'd be very surprised if many Labour party members are not equally appalled by this behaviour.

You're right, Carl. I think it was appalling behaviour.

CarlPierce wrote:I was amazed during the LBC hustings that two of the other three candidates said they wouldn't be willing to serve under Jeremy.
If any of our Lib-dems said that about any other I'd be appalled.

There are some very compelling practical reasons for that though; firstly each individual yellow tory MP represents 12.5% of the entire commons party, and secondly it would result in a very awkward tandem ride back to teletubbyland.

I just see it as a dirty way to try to undermine corbyn, which only backfired as corbyn looks increasingly like the leader and the others don't even look like frontbenchers as a result (even if they hadn't ruled themselves out). Personally speaking cooper probably lost my 2nd pref vote with that, and certainly that was gone by the time she started lying about something someone-or-other in the burnham camp had said that was supposedly sexist (saying that she didn't have what it takes to lead, without any reference to gender at all). She just comes across as shabby.

The other one, she's a tory anyway so fuck what she says.

As the process drags on, I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with everyone but Corbyn. I may not bother with the second preference vote at all; Corbyn, followed by 'none of the others'.

Burnham seemed ok. I argue that the best for Labour electorally would be him, while Jeremy would be best to energise the grass roots.

chairman bill wrote:You're right, Carl. I think it was appalling behaviour.

I also thought he handled it in an expert way. Raising my opinion of him.

chairman bill wrote:As the process drags on, I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with everyone but Corbyn. I may not bother with the second preference vote at all; Corbyn, followed by 'none of the others'.

It doesn't harm your first preference to name a second, but not naming a second is basically abstaining.

So you could abstain from voting for burnham, and then write an opinion piece in the graun the very next day saying how very committed you are to supporting him...

ED209 wrote:So you could abstain from voting for burnham, and then write an opinion piece in the graun the very next day saying how very committed you are to supporting him...

CarlPierce wrote:Sadly being a decent guy won't count for much once the muck racking press start their character assassination.

But one factor to take into account here, is that Corbyn is already familiar with the tactics. He's been pretty much on the receiving end of Murdoch-inspired demonisation since the 1980s. As a corollary, he'll have answers to their lies ready to hand, to deliver at a moment's notice. Which is something Ed Milliband plainly didn't have. Corbyn will be expecting a knife fight, and will almost certainly relish the opportunity to start taking his own weapons to the Murdoch lies machine.

The other candidates strike me as being nothing more than machine politicians, the same sort of personality-free walking suits that infect the Tory Party. In my view they will be a disaster for Labour, because they don't know how to perform in a knife fight, and give the impression of being all too eager to avoid one if they can help it. If Labour is ever going to be an effective opposition to the Tories, it needs a leader who will take the fight to them. It needs a leader who understands that the a good offence is the best form of defence, and who will pound Tory lies tirelessly from day one in the job.