• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Jeremy Corbyn

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2015/aug/19/jeremy-corbyn-coalition-labour

After years of handwringing about declining participation in party politics, you might imagine the political class would be delighted at this grassroots surge. Not a bit of it. The political and media establishment has linked arms to resist it. This is one of Her Majesty’s parties of government, after all. The idea of it falling into the care of someone outside the boundaries of political acceptability is unthinkable.

But the more New Labour’s college of cardinals brands the Corbyn surge a self-indulgent spasm, the more it exposes official politics as a closed system whose rules of what is credible and electable are set by the powers that be rather than by voters or party members.
 
That is a well-written piece. I am an outsider to this election, but it seems to me that the Blairite majority of the parliamentary labour party want to lord it over the choice of the grass roots membership that are voting for something they don't like. Down that road lies "all men are equal but some are more equal than others".
 
Templeton Peck said:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2015/aug/19/jeremy-corbyn-coalition-labour

After years of handwringing about declining participation in party politics, you might imagine the political class would be delighted at this grassroots surge. Not a bit of it. The political and media establishment has linked arms to resist it. This is one of Her Majesty’s parties of government, after all. The idea of it falling into the care of someone outside the boundaries of political acceptability is unthinkable.

But the more New Labour’s college of cardinals brands the Corbyn surge a self-indulgent spasm, the more it exposes official politics as a closed system whose rules of what is credible and electable are set by the powers that be rather than by voters or party members.
Click to expand...

Labour seems comfortable with limiting the parameters on policy which is evident from their voting in the house of commons. I think the people are asking for a far wider debate which they are struggling to accept.
 
He said MPs are "not the entirety of the Labour Party", adding: "I want to see real democracy so this election gives a very strong mandate for change within our society."

Mr Corbyn, who has voted against the Labour leadership on hundreds of occasions since his election as the MP for Islington North, in London, in 1983, said he had always rebelled on a point of principle.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34000994
 
Would be interesting to see how he deals with it if he becomes leader and his mp's do it to him....
 
It's because he's rebelled on matters of principle that he's now so popular. Not sure he'd be packing out halls preaching against benefit cuts and wars when he'd voted for all of it.

The truth is the Labour party will have to split at some point as it currently contains people like Liz Kendall on the far right of the party and some near-Marxists on the far left. These two positions will never marry. The election of Corbyn might accelerate this process.

We also desperately need PR now as the system doesn't allow for the spectrum of political opinions held by both public and politicians. The Conservatives could easily be 2 or 3 distinct parties. PR would solve a lot of these issues but given how well the system works for Lab and Con I'm not holding my breath.
 
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/22/jeremy-corbyn-economists-backing-anti-austerity-policies-corbynomics

More than 40 leading economists, including a former adviser to the Bank of England, have made public their support for Jeremy Corbyn’s policies, dismissing claims that they are extreme, in a major boost to the leftwinger’s campaign to be leader.
...
But with just under three weeks until Ed Miliband’s replacement is announced, Corbyn’s credibility receives a welcome endorsement as 41 economists make public a letter defending his positions.

In the letter to which David Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee is a signatory, the economists write: “The accusation is widely made that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have moved to the extreme left on economic policy. But this is not supported by the candidate’s statements or policies. His opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics, even backed by the conservative IMF. He aims to boost growth and prosperity.”
Click to expand...
 
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/22/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-strategic-state

To succeed, we need to build shared economic growth. This government is failing to reform the economy, and hoping that the same failed economic neglect that led to the crash will somehow lead to a different result this time. We need a strategic state, not an absentee government. This absence is producing yawning inequality, which the OECD says is stunting our growth.

In November, the chancellor will set out his comprehensive spending review to close the deficit within five years. Five years ago, in June 2010, he set out an emergency budget to close the deficit within five years.
Click to expand...
Think it was wolvensam who eloquently advised that at least with Corbyn, you know what his platform is. The others are standing on an "I'm not Corbyn" platform.
 
Gordon Brown has confirmed that he will be backing Yvette Cooper in the leadership election.

Looking in from the outside, my biggest concern is that the Labour party will do all it possibly can to prevent Jeremy Corbyn from winning. I think that is wrong, and I am also somewhat sceptical about claims that lots of Conservatives have joined up just to vote for Corbyn. Personally I think Corbyn would give Cameron a much tougher time than the other three candidates.
 
The point is a Corbyn win might result in a complete schism of the labour party into two separate entities that cannibalise each others' votes and keep the Conservatives in power ad infinitum.
 
Paddingtonwolf said:
The point is a Corbyn win might result in a complete schism of the labour party into two separate entities that cannibalise each others' votes and keep the Conservatives in power ad infinitum.
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, the EU referendum causes a schism of the Conservative Party in turn, which is quite possible given the number of babbling loons who think it is still 1925.
 
Oh precisely correct Dan. I was just trying to explain why Conservatives might sign up to vote Corbyn. I do think the extreme right of the Conservative party may well branch off somewhere over the European question. It is a real possibility.
 
And as for 1925. They way some of them go on about Europe you would think we had just won Crecy.
 
In 1943, the Tory MP Quintin Hogg warned that “If you don’t give the people social reform, they will give you social revolution” [9]. This is as relevant today as it was then.

It’s therefore in nobody’s interest that wages are kept depressed and the unemployed and sick are continually made to suffer. The fact they continue to suffer unnecessarily is the reason why a political space has opened up for the likes of Jeremy Corbyn to move into.

http://cultureandpolitics.org/2015/...gma-seen-as-mainstream-but-corbynism-extreme/
 
Latest intervention from everyone's favourite war criminal:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/29/tony-blair-labour-leadership-jeremy-corbyn


'...reason is an irritation, evidence a distraction, emotional impact is king and the only thing that counts is feeling good about it all.' From the man that says that regardless of the absence of WMD in Iraq he doesn't regret it because he 'genuinely believed it was the right thing to do'.

Rest of his argument hinges on:
1. Me, Kinnock and Brown know best. Hmmm.
2. We did this before in 1983 and it failed. No. Ironically, Corbyn's policies are a lot closer to the 1983 SDP manifesto than the Labour one.
3. Miliband lost because he was too left wing. Any politician that fundamentally accepts the need for 'austerity' cannot ever be called left of centre.
4. Miliband lost because he had no deficit reduction plan. Miliband had agreed to cut the deficit but at a slower pace than the Tories.

Essentially then the same old - we need to get Tories to vote for us to win elections. The Observer's analysis (https://archive.is/t0zLU) of May 2015 suggested that those people who voted Labour in 2010 but then switched to Tory in 2015 would not vote Labour again until they had proved themselves in govt. So the deserters will never vote Labour again until Labour get in, but in pursuing them Labour can only alienate its core vote, making sure it never does.

So regardless of whatever your personal beliefs might be, the ONLY sane conclusion supported by the empirical evidence is that Labour MUST find the millions of voters it needs from somewhere other than the Conservatives.

So who can Labour attract?

Lib Dems? Almost no voters left to capture.
SNP? They won on an anti-austerity platform and benefited from a belief that Labour were the same as the other Westminster parties.
UKIP? Did well in some Labour strongholds which suggests that blaming immigrants for low wages and poor housing is very successful.
Non-voters? 8m of them stopped voting during the Blair years. Disillusioned, disenchanted, apathetic.

To agree with Blair I'd need to be convinced that Burnham, Cooper and Kendall are better placed to win over these people than Corbyn. Just can't see it.
 
FrankMunro-371 said:
Tony Blair wades in again, that should increase support for Corbyn...
Click to expand...

Trouble is he's not thinking when he does so. His analysis is based on the premise that Miliband fought the election on a left wing platform when he didn't. Once you put that aside its hard to take the rest of it very seriously. Blair is also mistaken in seeing Corbyn as some lefty radical - if you look at his policies he really isn't. He's essentially centrist which ironically is exactly where Blair and his ilk say Labour needs to be. Blair, Kendall's and Umunna's definition of the 'centre ground' may differ from mine though!
 
Well i never received a ballot paper, so either, the rules have changed since Ed was elected, Uncle Len has voted for me, or Harriet has identified me as a fifth columnist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Del Woppio
Top strikers - the early years.
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Deutsch Wolf
Deutsch Wolf
D
They Wore The Shirt launch
Replies
0
Views
2K
dwarfio
D
Back
Top