mcgruff wrote:

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.

Labour grass roots is leaving anyway as they either get richer, older or move to openly racist parties.

I would rather Labour chased richer and older than racist (and poorer)

mrjonno wrote:

mcgruff wrote:

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.

Labour grass roots is leaving anyway as they either get richer, older or move to openly racist parties.

I would rather Labour chased richer and older than racist (and poorer)

Doomed!

Scotland is the region stuck with a government that it doesn't want, England got its choice. I would be more concerned north of the border

chairman bill wrote: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.

I did say "recent elections", meaning the last two. They need to win back seats they lost to the Tories in 2010. Plus, given our electoral system, overall vote share means fuck all, it's where those votes are cast.

Again, I would say Scotland is a unique case, mainly because we have our own parliament, so I don't think lessons learnt by Scottish Labour necessarily apply to the rest of the UK.

OlivierK wrote: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.

He's certainly less weird than Miliband, but I don't think he is playing well with the type of voters that will win you elections. There is a reason why Tories are signing up to join the Labour party just to vote for Corbyn.

OlivierK wrote: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.

It may do but my point is voters won't switch back to Labour whilst the economy is doing well (which it is, comparitively) especially seen as people have bought into the narrative of Labour overspending when they were last in power.

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

Well, it's a bit of a tightrope they need to walk. Appeal to broader voters and keep the base on side. But simply giving the base their chosen extremist candidate is not going to be a good idea for the party.

Beatsong wrote:I also think it's unfair to people who have paid their subs and properly worked for the party over a period of time, to have the same vote as someone who just pays £3 to take the piss.

Isn't that what many taxpayers say about those on benefits who contribute nothing towards our democracy? Surely an egalitarian believes in one person, one vote.

Strontium Dog wrote:Isn't that what many taxpayers say about those on benefits who contribute nothing towards our democracy?

No, not many. Just a minority of entitled dickheads making sweeping statements about people.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Beatsong wrote:I also think it's unfair to people who have paid their subs and properly worked for the party over a period of time, to have the same vote as someone who just pays £3 to take the piss.

Isn't that what many taxpayers say about those on benefits who contribute nothing towards our democracy? Surely an egalitarian believes in one person, one vote.

Having the general public vote for a party makes as much sense as the customers/staff of Mcdonalds vote for its CEO

The CEO runs Mcdonalds and if people stop eating (or voting) at Mcdonalds he gets the sack

I hear that Corbyn wants to see a unified Ireland.

Any chance you can clean up the mess you made first?

HughMcB wrote:I hear that Corbyn wants to see a unified Ireland.

Any chance you can clean up the mess you made first?

How about focusing on a unified England first? Rather than the increasingly disparate nation, divided between the north, the south and London.

Jeremy Corbyn has just published a policy document outlining proposals for gender equality:
http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/working_with_women

I haven't had time to read it yet but I don't think anyone else has made this a specific issue.

Its not a bad bit of policy, although I hope he has better luck with his 50% female shadow cabinet then Ed Millband had with the near all female front bench image that got trotted around a while back.

I mean, it is achievable. There are some excellent female MPs in the Labour party, bright, principled, decent people, who would be an asset to any cabinet. Not the sort of thing Ed Milliband wanted though, judging by the bevvy of incompetent, media fixated, nutters he had.

chairman bill wrote:But in reality, Labour lost very few votes to the Tories.

Yes and No.

It's true that very few ex-Labour voters voted tory (2%, and made up for elsewhere). But what nailed the majority for the tories was all the ex-Libdem voters. Let's face it we expected most of those to go to Labour (since they seemed to have left the lib dems due to anger at coalition with the tories) and they didn't. I was struck when I looked at some of the seats that changed hands just how pervasive this pattern was, and just how many seats it gave the tories.

I still can't make sense of why people who had stopped supporting the lib dems due to their partnerships with the tories, would then vote for the tories. But that's what happened. It probably had a lot to do with not believing in Miliband, maybe buying into the tory narrative about Labour's spending, maybe SNP-fear. I dunno, but that's what happened: it was a large pool of centrist votes that were up for grabs, they should have been Labour's for the taking and we didn't take them.

Now that those people have taken the step of voting tory, it's hard to imagine how Labour can ever win them over. A sharp downturn in the economy might help, but I'd imagine the most that could be expected would be that they'd vote lib dem again.

OTOH it's only a 12-seat majority and as I read recently, it's hard to see where the tories go from here. Most of the seats Labour still hold they hold comfortably. The tories got their majority by winning over ex-libdems, and there aren't many more of those to increase that majority.

Personally I think a Labour majority at the next election is all but impossible, but a working coalition or deal between anti-tory parties (primarily Labour + SNP) might not be. Of course that's more likely to happen if Labour actually ARE an anti-tory party.

I find it quite amusing, that Jeremy Corbyn's suitability as a possible future Labour leader, is being presented in some quarters not on the basis of his actual competence in the role, or his possession of actual principles to bring to the post. Instead, much of the verbal diarrhoea being let loose in the public arena on the subject, centres upon the fact that because he isn't a personality-free zone in a suit, this somehow magically means that he'll automatically be a disaster.

Well, we've had plenty of personality-free zones in suits in positions of power over the past decade, and indeed, the Tory cabinet is littered with them. Chinless Hoorays such as Jeremy Hunt, whose recent duplicitous public denigration of hard-working NHS staff, whilst enjoying time off they'll never see in a million years, not to mention that 10% pay rise back-dated to May that again, they'll never see in a million years, exposes not so much that he's divorced from reality, but never had much of a connection thereto from the beginning. Or George Osborne, who at the age of 22, whilst most of the rest of us were struggling to place our feet on the lowest rungs of the career and property ownership ladders, was spending his leisure time snorting cocaine off a hooker's breasts, in an era when cocaine was £2,000 per ounce. Or Cameron himself, whose ineptness in the position of Prime Minister is such, that cartoonists depict him as having an inflated condom for a head. The only figure in the current Tory lineup who exudes hints of having a personality is Iain Duncan Smith - unfortunately, the personality in question is that of a psychopath and would-be war criminal.

As for principles, well, it's pretty obvious what "principles" the Tories all possess. Which can be summed up as "how much money I can hand to my rich friends in exchange for a seven-figure 'non executive directorship' once my political career is over". In order to put their "principles" into action, they're prepared to take a wrecking ball to everything that makes this country a decent, civilised, humane place to live, in order to turn it into a giant money trough for their tax-avoidance bonus banker friends to stick their pig snouts in. If this results in misery, suffering and premature death for those despised by these "electable" politicians as serfs and plebs, then these same "electable" politicians clearly regard this not as a stain on themselves and this nation, but as some sort of perverse bonus result.

Clearly, the word "electable" is now, thanks to these people, synonymous with "venal, corrupt and irredeemably criminal to the core".

If that's what constitutes an "electable" politician, then I for one would be bloody glad that Jeremy Corbyn isn't "electable" in that same sense.

Calilasseia wrote:I find it quite amusing, that Jeremy Corbyn's suitability as a possible future Labour leader, is being presented in some quarters not on the basis of his actual competence in the role, or his possession of actual principles to bring to the post. Instead, much of the verbal diarrhoea being let loose in the public arena on the subject, centres upon the fact that because he isn't a personality-free zone in a suit, this somehow magically means that he'll automatically be a disaster.

Well, we've had plenty of personality-free zones in suits in positions of power over the past decade, and indeed, the Tory cabinet is littered with them. Chinless Hoorays such as Jeremy Hunt, whose recent duplicitous public denigration of hard-working NHS staff, whilst enjoying time off they'll never see in a million years, not to mention that 10% pay rise back-dated to May that again, they'll never see in a million years, exposes not so much that he's divorced from reality, but never had much of a connection thereto from the beginning. Or George Osborne, who at the age of 22, whilst most of the rest of us were struggling to place our feet on the lowest rungs of the career and property ownership ladders, was spending his leisure time snorting cocaine off a hooker's breasts, in an era when cocaine was £2,000 per ounce. Or Cameron himself, whose ineptness in the position of Prime Minister is such, that cartoonists depict him as having an inflated condom for a head. The only figure in the current Tory lineup who exudes hints of having a personality is Iain Duncan Smith - unfortunately, the personality in question is that of a psychopath and would-be war criminal.

As for principles, well, it's pretty obvious what "principles" the Tories all possess. Which can be summed up as "how much money I can hand to my rich friends in exchange for a seven-figure 'non executive directorship' once my political career is over". In order to put their "principles" into action, they're prepared to take a wrecking ball to everything that makes this country a decent, civilised, humane place to live, in order to turn it into a giant money trough for their tax-avoidance bonus banker friends to stick their pig snouts in. If this results in misery, suffering and premature death for those despised by these "electable" politicians as serfs and plebs, then these same "electable" politicians clearly regard this not as a stain on themselves and this nation, but as some sort of perverse bonus result.

Clearly, the word "electable" is now, thanks to these people, synonymous with "venal, corrupt and irredeemably criminal to the core".

If that's what constitutes an "electable" politician, then I for one would be bloody glad that Jeremy Corbyn isn't "electable" in that same sense.

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

If this results in misery, suffering and premature death for those despised by these "electable" politicians as serfs and plebs

To be fair UK life expectancy is a bit ahead of the EU27 average.

As for principles, well, it's pretty obvious what "principles" the Tories all possess. Which can be summed up as "how much money I can hand to my rich friends in exchange for a seven-figure 'non executive directorship' once my political career is over". In order to put their "principles" into action, they're prepared to take a wrecking ball to everything that makes this country a decent, civilised, humane place to live, in order to turn it into a giant money trough for their tax-avoidance bonus banker friends to stick their pig snouts in. If this results in misery, suffering and premature death for those despised by these "electable" politicians as serfs and plebs, then these same "electable" politicians clearly regard this not as a stain on themselves and this nation, but as some sort of perverse bonus result.

So easy to blame politicians, this country will turn into whatever its people want it turn into it. If its shit it will be because its people are.

One of the most popular comments on the BBC site is how we should be machine gunning any Calais immigrants, that's not Tory MP's that's Tory/UKIP voters saying that

mrjonno wrote:Labour grass roots is leaving anyway as they either get richer, older or move to openly racist parties.

Evidence?

Strontium Dog wrote:Isn't that what many taxpayers say about those on benefits who contribute nothing towards our democracy?

Those on benefits contributing nothing? SD, you account has been hacked by Iain Duncan Smith! Quick! Someone warn the mods.

chairman bill wrote:

mrjonno wrote:Labour grass roots is leaving anyway as they either get richer, older or move to openly racist parties.

Evidence?

There's a blog about comments about what someone saw someone say on twitter somewhere, that's been quoted a few times in other blogs, that totally makes this a factual representation of events.

Or something.

Oh, well in that case, I'm convinced

Sendraks wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

mrjonno wrote:Labour grass roots is leaving anyway as they either get richer, older or move to openly racist parties.

Evidence?

There's a blog about comments about what someone saw someone say on twitter somewhere, that's been quoted a few times in other blogs, that totally makes this a factual representation of events.

Or something.

Comments on twitter are unimportant because there's lots of comments on twitter and most comments want more favorites than the others so their favorites get to fuck over the other favorites and that's fair because there's more favorites.