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

[Domh245]

I really don't know why people keep banging on about polls though, they didn't predict brexit or a coalition government or a Tory majority.

They didn't predict what happened, but at this stage of parliament last time (Aug 2011) Labour had a massive advantage in the polls and we saw how that ended. Now, Labour is behind and the Tories haven't even had to do anything. The Conservatives should be tanking, having caused the Brexit vote and the surrounding uncertainty.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Pseudo-tories will continue the smear campaign through their media pals until Corbyn is moved on, this makes me support him even more.

I'm not sure who you think is doing the smearing. Most of the media are against Labour and not giving Corbyn a fair hearing - realistically, that's the fate to be suffered by almost any Labour leader - Corbyn is not unique there. Online on social media, within left wing circles, most smearing I see is being done by Corbyn's supporters, using such terms as 'traitors' and 'pseudo-tories' to describe those within Labour who would prefer a different leader. ('pseudo-tories?' have I seen that somewhere before recently...? Oh yes. I've just bolded it in your post above).

Considering voter turnout at the last election (40% ish) and the subsequent 80% ish turnout for Brexit, do you not think that there are lots of voters out there who potentially would vote for Corbyn as he represents a viable alternative?

EDIT: Dynamic Spirit, I am one of those voters, there are quite a lot of us believe it or not. The Corbyn "movement" represents quite a large amount of public opinion. Give them something worth voting for and they will vote, not just Tory A or Tory B

Actually it was 60% at the last election. But look at it this way. Just suppose that thanks to the 'Corbyn movement' a million people who haven't voted for ages turn out and vote Labour. And suppose the dislike for Corbyn amongst more - for want of a better word, moderate Labour voters - causes a million Labour voters to swap to the Conservatives? What's the result? Labour vote is unchanged, Tories go up by a million. That nicely turns the Tories' current tiny majority in Parliament into a massive majority for them. Admittedly I've plucked those numbers out of mid-air, but they don't seem implausible to me. The point here is that, given that many Labour voters are deserting because of Corbyn - and some are moving to the Tories (anyone who's done much canvassing will know that id definitely happening), Labour needs a much higher number of previous non-voters coming in. Mathematically, for every voter who swaps to the Tories, you need two previous non-voters, or previous LibDem/Green/other party voters for Labour to just stand still electorally - even before you start thinking of actually - umm - gaining Conservative seats in order to end the current awful Government.

 

[asylumxl]

Adding some news to this thread, the appeals court has overturned the decision to allow new members to vote in the leadership election.

 

[Domh245]

Adding some news to this thread, the appeals court has overturned the decision to allow new members to vote in the leadership election.

The words "Laughing Stock" come to mind

 

[Harbornite]

Adding some news to this thread, the appeals court has overturned the decision to allow new members to vote in the leadership election.

So much for democracy...

 

[Tetchytyke]

Adding some news to this thread, the appeals court has overturned the decision to allow new members to vote in the leadership election.

Shocking decision by the court, who decided that the NEC could change the rules at their leisure. No matter what was promised. Interesting political background of one of the judges- a colleague of Lord Irvine, one of Blair's ministers- too.

But mostly stupid decision making by the NEC to try that stunt in the first place. It makes the party a laughing stock and will worsen the schism not make it better. I can see it turning into all-out civil war now. Stupid decision.

 

[asylumxl]

Shocking decision by the court, who decided that the NEC could change the rules at their leisure. No matter what was promised. Interesting political background of one of the judges- a colleague of Lord Irvine, one of Blair's ministers- too.

But mostly stupid decision making by the NEC to try that stunt in the first place. It makes the party a laughing stock and will worsen the schism not make it better. I can see it turning into all-out civil war now. Stupid decision.

Exactly. They're completely out of touch and then they wonder why nobody will vote for them, irrelevant of who's at the helm.

 

[Busaholic]

So much for democracy...

It may not be decided yet, though - the Supreme Court may be called upon for a definitive judgment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Shocking decision by the court, who decided that the NEC could change the rules at their leisure. No matter what was promised. Interesting political background of one of the judges- a colleague of Lord Irvine, one of Blair's ministers- too.

But mostly stupid decision making by the NEC to try that stunt in the first place. It makes the party a laughing stock and will worsen the schism not make it better. I can see it turning into all-out civil war now. Stupid decision.

Agree with you about the decision. It puts me in mind of the various court rulings in the 1980s on such matters as bus fares in London and against the NUM, usually under the aegis of the octogenarian Lord Denning.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Exactly. They're completely out of touch and then they wonder why nobody will vote for them, irrelevant of who's at the helm.

Sounds like Jeremy Corbyn. Completely out of touch with the majority of the country. Sadly Jeremy and his friends are going to find out the hard way.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This country needs some socialism, Corbyn gives that, yet he needs to clean his party of pseudo-tories before he can start to achieve that.

So would you rather that my wife and I were kicked out of the Labour Party for being sensible moderates? A simple yes or no answer will do here.

Plenty of new members have joined Labour and yet I don't see any of them having the courage to start canvassing / knocking on doors or dipping into their pockets to help fund campaigns. Kick out my wife and I and all the other moderates and you will lose a lot of Labour Party foot soldiers. Clearly that is what you would like to see. It's all very well attending local party meetings and Jeremy Corbyn rallies but that is not furthering the cause of the Party.

Last winter I invited half a dozen new members to volunteer for a few hours a week at hostel for the homeless where I manage to give a few hours of my time at weekends. And yet not one of them were in the slightest bit interested, despite having plenty of free time. It's fine to bang on about tackling poverty but actions speak louder than words. And yet they are happy to criticize me because I've had the audacity to make money out of capitalism.

 

[asylumxl]

Sounds like Jeremy Corbyn. Completely out of touch with the majority of the country. Sadly Jeremy and his friends are going to find out the hard way.

Perhaps. It seems to me both sides of the party are rather out of touch. But hey, lets not miss an opportunity to bash "Jeremy and his friends".

So would you rather that my wife and I were kicked out of the Labour Party for being sensible moderates? A simple yes or no answer will do here.

In another thread you said you'd happily nuke another innocent family in Russia in "vengeance" (your actual choice of words) for a hypothetical nuclear attack on yours. Sensible moderate indeed.

Plenty of new members have joined Labour and yet I don't see any of them having the courage to start canvassing / knocking on doors or dipping into their pockets to help fund campaigns. Kick out my wife and I and all the other moderates and you will lose a lot of Labour Party foot soldiers. Clearly that is what you would like to see. It's all very well attending local party meetings and Jeremy Corbyn rallies but that is not furthering the cause of the Party.

Put your money where your mouth is and cite figures to prove that new members have not been doing these things.

Last winter I invited half a dozen new members to volunteer for a few hours a week at hostel for the homeless where I manage to give a few hours of my time at weekends. And yet not one of them were in the slightest bit interested, despite having plenty of free time. It's fine to bang on about tackling poverty but actions speak louder than words. And yet they are happy to criticize me because I've had the audacity to make money out of capitalism and because I don't wear some trashy t-shirt to attend meetings.

Then they are hypocrites. But you're also stereotyping all new members and tarnishing them with the same brush.

 

[RichmondCommu]

In another thread you said you'd happily nuke another innocent family in Russia in "vengeance" (your act choice of words) for a hypothetical nuclear attack on yours. Sensible moderate indeed.

Where as of course Jeremy Corbyn would rather send a strongly worded letter of complaint after a nuclear attack. And if you're going to quote me where did I use the word "happily"? Oh wait I didn't, still why let that get in the way of the facts?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Then they are hypocrites. But you're also stereotyping all new members and tarnishing them with the same brush.

Yes because these are the only new members that I've met. Bright young things that wouldn't know poverty if they fell over it and have happy secure futures.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Put your money where your mouth is and cite figures to prove that new members have not been doing these things.

I'm speaking from personal experience. I couldn't careless if that isn't good enough for you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps. It seems to me both sides of the party are rather out of touch. But hey, lets not miss an opportunity to bash "Jeremy and his friends".

Jeremy Corbyn is leading us into electoral oblivion. Everyone can see this apart from Jeremy and his friends. Do you think the Labour Party can win an election with Jeremy Corbyn as it's leader?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But mostly stupid decision making by the NEC to try that stunt in the first place. It makes the party a laughing stock and will worsen the schism not make it better. I can see it turning into all-out civil war now. Stupid decision.

If it was a case of "stupid decision making" by the National Executive Committee, why did they choose the legal redress to define their decision which currently has ruled in their favour.

Just in case you are unaware of their role, the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party are the governing body and the administrative authority. They oversee the overall direction of the party and the policy-making process.

 

[asylumxl]

Where as of course Jeremy Corbyn would rather send a strongly worded letter of complaint after a nuclear attack. And if you're going to quote me where did I use the word "happily"? Oh wait I didn't, still why let that get in the way of the facts?

Did I say you used happily? I said you used "vengeance". Vengeance is hardly a sensible course of action.

Yes because these are the only new members that I've met. Bright young things that wouldn't know poverty if they fell over it and have happy secure futures.

I'm speaking from personal experience. I couldn't careless if that isn't good enough for you.

So what you're saying is you have no real evidence to support your gross generalisation of new members.

I'd certainly say the majority of young people certainly do not have "happy secure futures". Even many bright graduates struggle to find employment and when earning a decent salary are still unable to get on the property ladder. Then there's delightful things such as zero hour contracts to contend with too.

You want them to contribute to campaigns, what if they do not have the time or financial means to? You talk about tackling poverty and unfairness, should these people not have a voice in the Labour party?

Jeremy Corbyn is leading us into electoral oblivion. Everyone can see this apart from Jeremy and his friends. Do you think the Labour Party can win an election with Jeremy Corbyn as it's leader?

It won't win with any candidate that's been proposed in the last 6 years. The party as a whole is completely out of touch with its support base, lurching around clumsily, trying to win votes by attempting to appeal to a far too broad spectrum of people.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If it was a case of "stupid decision making" by the National Executive Committee, why did they choose the legal redress to define their decision which currently has ruled in their favour.

I suggest you look at how the original decision was reached- in very controversial circumstances- not to mention the decision to appeal the original court decision that was not in their favour.

It is idiotic because it won't undermine Corbyn but it does make them look anti-democratic and out of touch. My view is they should be setting out to beat Corbyn fairly, as anything else will just prolong matters and will damage the party. Also this is Not quite the look you want when you're a political party reliant on subscription fees from members...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It won't win with any candidate that's been proposed in the last 6 years. The party as a whole is completely out of touch with its support base, lurching around clumsily, trying to win votes by attempting to appeal to a far too broad spectrum of people.

Nothing remotely wrong with trying to appeal to a broad spectrum of people. On a practical level, doing so is essential to winning elections. You'll never form a Government if you only appeal to 20% of even 30% of the electorate. But there's also a moral issue: If you want to Govern, you should be aiming to help - as near as possible - all the people. Obviously in practice, helping literally everyone is probably impossible, but as an ideal, it's what you should be aiming to try to get close to if you want to form a Government that is actually going to do good, and not end up dividing the country.

The Conservatives have amply shown us the alternative time and time again: Appeal to just enough people to get elected and then work on the basis that everyone else can get stuffed - you find reasons to view other people as somehow undeserving, and then what does it matter if you totally wreck their lives in the process of Governing only for your supporters? That's the Conservative approach and to my mind it is utterly immoral - because all people's lives matter.

But if you take the approach that Corbyn seems to be taking - of trying to appeal to only your core supporters, and not seeking to communicate with those who don't already agree with you, not seeking to understand their concerns, to see how you can come up with policies and a message that serves those people as well as your core supporters, then it seems to me that what you're doing is morally not much different from what the Conservatives have been doing for decades. (As well as being less practical, because there almost certainly aren't nearly enough Corbyn supporters to elect a Government in the first place).

 

[AlterEgo]

Labour are not dead, they are just in transition, due to their party being full of pseudo-tories, of which Owen Smith is one.

Labour haveto provide an alternative and that alternative is Jeremy Corbyn - Socialist/Republican.

Watching Labour try and copy the tories is like watching all the failed attempts by English football teams at copying Barcelona, excruciatingly embarassing.

I really don't know why people keep banging on about polls though, they didn't predict brexit or a coalition government or a tory majority.

They are complete b()ll$h1t, manipulated to provide the result the publisher requires. Considering that there is only 1 newspaper that openly supports labour, I think it's fair to say that any polls are going to be unfairly skewed in the tory favour.

*headdesk*

 

[asylumxl]

Nothing remotely wrong with trying to appeal to a broad spectrum of people. On a practical level, doing so is essential to winning elections. You'll never form a Government if you only appeal to 20% of even 30% of the electorate. But there's also a moral issue: If you want to Govern, you should be aiming to help - as near as possible - all the people. Obviously in practice, helping literally everyone is probably impossible, but as an ideal, it's what you should be aiming to try to get close to if you want to form a Government that is actually going to do good, and not end up dividing the country.

The Conservatives have amply shown us the alternative time and time again: Appeal to just enough people to get elected and then work on the basis that everyone else can get stuffed - you find reasons to view other people as somehow undeserving, and then what does it matter if you totally wreck their lives in the process of Governing only for your supporters? That's the Conservative approach and to my mind it is utterly immoral - because all people's lives matter.

But if you take the approach that Corbyn seems to be taking - of trying to appeal to only your core supporters, and not seeking to communicate with those who don't already agree with you, not seeking to understand their concerns, to see how you can come up with policies and a message that serves those people as well as your core supporters, then it seems to me that what you're doing is morally not much different from what the Conservatives have been doing for decades. (As well as being less practical, because there almost certainly aren't nearly enough Corbyn supporters to elect a Government in the first place).

I was rather referring to how some elements of the Labour party wish to try and appeal to voters further right than would usually be the case for Labour, particularly in regards to austerity and immigration. The party is supposed to be to the left or left of centre, depending on whom you ask.

I don't think winning votes off the likes of the Tories or UKIP should come before your principles.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

*headdesk*

If you disagree with the poster in question you could consider posting a constructive reply to his points and, if needed, provide factual sources to support your point of view. Just an idea.

 

[AlterEgo]

If you disagree with the poster in question you could consider posting a constructive reply to his points and, if needed, provide factual sources to support your point of view. Just an idea.

You've not read the whole thread then.

 

[Domh245]

I don't think winning votes off the likes of the Tories or UKIP should come before your principles.

Lol. Winning votes off the Tories and UKIP is exactly what you need to do if you want to get into power. To paraphrase something I saw in a comments section somewhere "Try telling the single Mum from Sunderland that it's alright whilst her benefits are cut again because you stuck by your principles and let the Tories back into power"

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I was rather referring to how some elements of the Labour party wish to try and appeal to voters further right than would usually be the case for Labour, particularly in regards to austerity and immigration. The party is supposed to be to the left or left of centre, depending on whom you ask.

I don't think winning votes off the likes of the Tories or UKIP should come before your principles.

I realize that's what you mean, but I disagree, and I think it's an important point. Personally I see myself as very left wing and I very fundamentally disagree with much of what the Tories and UKIP stand for. But that does NOT mean I would wish to ignore all their voters. To me, all people are important. All people, no matter what their political views, deserve to have a Government that seeks to make their lives better. And that means that you need to listen to and communicate with Conservative/UKIP voters in order to find out what their concerns are, and see in what manner that is consistent with your principles you can seek to improve their lives. That's not abandoning your principles - that's making sure that your policies are well thought through and based on making sure they are likely to create a better society that does not leave any groups of people behind. In some cases (austerity and immigration both come to mind), it may mean communicating with Conservative/UKIP supporters to explain why you believe they are misinformed, and how what you want to do will actually help them. But the point is you are talking to these people, listening to them, and making an effort to address their needs.

In the end I would say that if your principles are causing you to just write off the lives/concerns/views of millions of people, then there is something very wrong with your principles. For that reason alone, you should always be reaching out to supporters of other parties. And that's even before you consider the practicalities that you do need some of their votes if you are ever to get to Government and change anything!

 

[asylumxl]

I realize that's what you mean, but I disagree, and I think it's an important point. Personally I see myself as very left wing and I very fundamentally disagree with much of what the Tories and UKIP stand for. But that does NOT mean I would wish to ignore all their voters. To me, all people are important. All people, no matter what their political views, deserve to have a Government that seeks to make their lives better. And that means that you need to listen to and communicate with Conservative/UKIP voters in order to find out what their concerns are, and see in what manner that is consistent with your principles you can seek to improve their lives. That's not abandoning your principles - that's making sure that your policies are well thought through and based on making sure they are likely to create a better society that does not leave any groups of people behind. In some cases (austerity and immigration both come to mind), it may mean communicating with Conservative/UKIP supporters to explain why you believe they are misinformed, and how what you want to do will actually help them. But the point is you are talking to these people, listening to them, and making an effort to address their needs.

Never said to ignore them. Thing is, more often than not, there is no further communication beyond sound bites and spin. In the case or immigration, it's a matter in which there's very little effort by the main political parties to correct people's misconceptions. It's toxic and only fuels the flame of xenophobia and encourages hate crime.

In the end I would say that if your principles are causing you to just write off the lives/concerns/views of millions of people, then there is something very wrong with your principles. For that reason alone, you should always be reaching out to supporters of other parties. And that's even before you consider the practicalities that you do need some of their votes if you are ever to get to Government and change anything!

So, it'd be just like writing off new members votes in the Labour leadership election?

 

[PHILIPE]

Regarding my Post #1293, the BBC News service has now spoken of Tom Watson's warning re Trots but Corbyn appears to be in denial. denying Tom Watson's remarks as fact. I've also picked up that a prominent Militant Tendency member from the 80s who was banned from the Labour Party is now hopeful of now being able to rejoin.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Never said to ignore them.

But you did say:

trying to win votes by attempting to appeal to a far too broad spectrum of people.

That seems to imply that you think the party should be attempting only to appeal to a limited range of people, which in turn appears to imply ignoring the rest of the people.

Thing is, more often than not, there is no further communication beyond sound bites and spin. In the case or immigration, it's a matter in which there's very little effort by the main political parties to correct people's misconceptions. It's toxic and only fuels the flame of xenophobia and encourages hate crime.

I largely agree with that.

So, it'd be just like writing off new members votes in the Labour leadership election?

Well, I think there are issues about how the 6-month membership requirement was imposed retrospectively, and the way that it looks like it was done for political reasons. But this is not 'writing off' members, and as a matter of principle, I don't see that it's remotely relevant to the question of, that all voters matter and the party leader should therefore be attempting to listen to the concerns of/communicate with/appeal to all voters.

These are after all internal party elections, not public parliamentary elections. You would therefore expect the electorate to consist of people who are committed to the party. In that context, requiring 6 month's membership doesn't seem unreasonable or onerous. If the 6-month rule remains in place, then all the people affected by it will be able to vote in all internal party elections once they've been members for 6 months - which means whoever wins the current leadership election will still have good reason to be motivated to listen to their views.

 

[asylumxl]

But you did say:



That seems to imply that you think the party should be attempting only to appeal to a limited range of people, which in turn appears to imply ignoring the rest of the people.

My apologies, should have been more clear and elaborated further. I think it's fair to say most things in this world require a balance to be struck. I just don't feel votes should be won at the cost of fueling hatred is all, that's just my personal opinion.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

My apologies, should have been more clear and elaborated further. I think it's fair to say most things in this world require a balance to be struck. I just don't feel votes should be won at the cost of fueling hatred is all, that's just my personal opinion.

Ah, fair enough. In that case, apologies from me too for apparently having misunderstood you!

 

[Busaholic]

I like to throw things in to the mix from time to time which others may have not noticed or considered, sometimes because they're not regarded as relevant. This time I'm focussing on Tom Watson's charge that Trotskyite elements are exercising an undue influence on the Labour Party, with Jeremy Corbyn's quick dismissal of the claim as 'rubbish'. I've just been reading obituaries for Bob Kiley, the American who was brought in by London mayor Ken Livingstone to run the Underground, and went on to become London's first Traffic Commissioner. He was quoted as saying how ironic that he, an ex-CIA operative, had been hired by a Trotskyite mayor! Livingstone, a good friend of Corbyn's, remains on Labour's national executive committee. Watson probably has a point!

 

[PHILIPE]

Leadership candidate, Owen Smith, has, according to the Guardian, proposed that talks should take place with IS to resolve the issue. Even Jeremy Corbyn , previous appeaser to terrorist organisations has disagreed. You can't negotiate with groups like IS.

 

[Harbornite]

Leadership candidate, Owen Smith, has, according to the Guardian, proposed that talks should take place with IS to resolve the issue. Even Jeremy Corbyn , previous appeaser to terrorist organisations has disagreed. You can't negotiate with groups like IS.

The best way to negotiate with the likes of ISIS is to use brimstone missiles.

 

[southern442]

Leadership candidate, Owen Smith, has, according to the Guardian, proposed that talks should take place with IS to resolve the issue. Even Jeremy Corbyn , previous appeaser to terrorist organisations has disagreed. You can't negotiate with groups like IS.

I'm a staunch Corbyn supporter, but I will admit that Owen Smith displays better leadership qualities. However underneath all that he hasn't got a bloody clue whereas Corbyn does.

 

[ExRes]

Livingstone, a good friend of Corbyn's, remains on Labour's national executive committee.

Are you sure about that?, I don't see his name listed on the Labour Party site