Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Corbyn - connecting with the traditional labour vote...

Are we sure that the 'needing to be protected' thing isn't just some more hostile PR bullshit?

Certainly sounds like it ...

I don't believe a single thing I read at the moment.

For example, after having been explicitly refuted by both Burnham and Lewis, journos on The Sunday Politics were just rolling out the same complete lies that both of them had been trying to get a meeting with Corbyn to resign. Again, despite both of them explicitly coming out and saying "no, that is a lie."

But they don't care. Truthiness.
 
Meanwhile, do the psephologists among us think the analysis here makes sense?

Here's Why A Pro-EU Party Could Be Screwed At The Next General Election

The suggestion is that most of the seats Labour need to win are more or less strongly 'leave' but that their hold seats, at least the big urban ones, tend more to 'remain'

People who voted leave are split though between diehard racists for whom any immigration is too much and those who merely want change. Offer real change and the latter maybe won't care about leave. It was always bs after all.

To reach these people Labour has to generate some kind of progressive populism.
 
otoh he clearly lacks 'real political authority', a 172-40 sort of lack, so his objective position is too weak to provide any authoritative leadership. Nor does he have the luxury of time to build it or the resources to put together a proper shadow cabinet to form any sort of effective parliamentary opposition with coherent policies. That's a position May or Leadsome or whoever will be delighted to exploit.

Labour is as you point out split 172 - 40. But that is not the problem. The real problem with Corbyn is that he lacks 'real political authority' even within the minority who on paper support him. If the 40 had an internal election tomorrow they would chose someone - anyone - else to represent their postion.
 
Labour is as you point out split 172 - 40. But that is not the problem. The real problem with Corbyn is that he lacks 'real political authority' even within the minority who on paper support him. If the 40 had an internal election tomorrow they would chose someone - anyone - else to represent their postion.

And your insider source for this is...
 
and to be fair the plp is not the party. Thats the essential argument going on. Does the dog wag the tail or the tail wag the dog
 
Who in their right mind would opt for a spokesman, that would need to be surrounded by numerous minders, for fear of what he might say?

I don't know, is there a spokesman who definitely (ie. as fact, not rumour) needs numerous minders to stop him talking that you're aware of? I take it there is no insider source then.
 
Labour is as you point out split 172 - 40. But that is not the problem. The real problem with Corbyn is that he lacks 'real political authority' even within the minority who on paper support him. If the 40 had an internal election tomorrow they would chose someone - anyone - else to represent their postion.
and if the membership was given the choice tomorrow there would be a rather different set of candidates for the next election.

I can't source that either :)

What do you see as the chances of a split, with most of the PLP, a bunch of councillors and the rump of the membership going off to form their own vehicle for success?
 
Meanwhile, do the psephologists among us think the analysis here makes sense?

Here's Why A Pro-EU Party Could Be Screwed At The Next General Election

The suggestion is that most of the seats Labour need to win are more or less strongly 'leave' but that their hold seats, at least the big urban ones, tend more to 'remain'
it's the wrong question, surely? By the time the next election arrives the question will be (I think) Single Market or Control Immigration. If the Tories elect a leader focused on protecting their anti-immigrant vote from UKIP, Labour could hoover up a lot of votes.
 
it's the wrong question, surely? By the time the next election arrives the question will be (I think) Single Market or Control Immigration. If the Tories elect a leader focused on protecting their anti-immigrant vote from UKIP, Labour could hoover up a lot of votes.
Yeh cos ukip never take votes from labour
 
Yeh cos ukip never take votes from labour
do you see the next LP manifesto saying out of the single market in order to control immigration? I don't. I think they'll stand on Single Market including free EU movement, which will automatically lose them some votes to UKIP but win most of the 48% and some of the 52%. Not that everyone will vote of course.
 
They're in an awful place at the moment.

Demographics within both the 48% and the 52% are incredibly diverse, but within those groups they'll need (and want, presumably) to target the liberal remainers scared about brexit (those on the march yesterday), and could theoretically be well-placed to scoop them up if they make the right noises before the Lib Dems do.

At the same time, their biggest complaint is losing a lot of working class support in other parts of the country, and what works for the city-dwelling liberals doesn't necessarily work for for them. It's pretty obvious what, in a perfect world, they should do -- and that's provide a real voice for the working class... but that's easier said than done when a) that working class isn't homogeneous, b) the structures that bound working class communities together have been systematically broken down, and c) it's at odds with the liberal middle class (even upper working and lower middle - if we can still even think in those terms) want and Labour have been providing for the past 20 years.

The sooner we get PR the better. Split the party, get PR, let people campaign on issues rather than around fudged party lines/ideologies, and let this suddenly burgeoning and potentially positive grassroots influx coalesce around campaigns and actual work rather than duking it out in a battle for the heart of the party at the expense of the people the party is meant to represent.
 
I don't know, is there a spokesman who definitely (ie. as fact, not rumour) needs numerous minders to stop him talking that you're aware of? I take it there is no insider source then.
No insider source. No insider source needed either. The evidence is all there if you want to see it.
 
Back
Top Bottom