Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[redsquirrel]

Damaged Goods.

Send em back

 

[treelover]

Nobody will vote for Corbyn because he's unelectable because nobody will vote for him because he's unelectable... repeat ad nauseam for years on end.

Hell, I could do that. And with more compelling prose too. I should write to the Guardian demanding they give me Freedland's job. I could use the flawless logical framework of: Jonathan Freedland is a cunt because he's obviously a cunt and nobody wants to read columns written by a cunt and Freedland is a cunt so give me his job.

Its relentless, especially with Freedland, its not criticism, its character assassination

btw, i agree, McDonnell has been superlative in his response, Corbyn same, but he missed the big one, the NI debacle.

 

[William of Walworth]

Havan't seen McDonnell's stuff yet.

But I was fucking furious with Freedland's article. As was obvious, it was an anti-Corbyn rant disguised as some sort of Budget 'analysis'

But did Corbyn really miss Hammond's National Insurance debacle (for the self employed)???

 

[treelover]

McDonnell missed his flight to get to QT last night, bit of a shame.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

I mean how I see it is that centre left = left wing. Not left wing = right wing. So if you are saying Labour even if not left wing then you are saying Labour even if right wing, which makes no sense to me. You meant it differently obviously but that's why I said right wing.

Like Mikey said, the centre shifts, I don't see New Labour as centre left anyway, they are centre right but the more you argue for that position the more you solidify the centre as being right wing, and the more extreme/radical left wing positions appear. It's not that I'm against a slightly less awful party but I think that if you argue for centre positions what you do is uphold the status quo (which is always going to lean right in capitalism, as wealth ~= power) and make an actually left wing government less likely to come into power in the future. I don't see it being worth spending time/energy arguing/campaigning directly for this, as I think it pushes a proper left wing government further away, not brings it closer.

That amounts to arguing that the next two, three generations or even more need to be sacrificed for something which might possibly emerge sometime in the future. No thanks.

Also, there’s no guarantee that if or when the electorate permanently reject toryism, they’ll choose to replace it with socialism. It’s impossible to predict what will happen to sway opinion between now and then despite how much we try to make it positive.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

it won't happen because you can't vote a fairer and more equal society into being.

next.

So people like Big Tom are wasting their time trying to shift public opinion?

Do you have a way of changing government which doesn’t involve democracy??

 

[BigTom]

So people like Big Tom are wasting their time trying to shift public opinion?

Do you have a way of changing government which doesn’t involve democracy??

No, I agree with pickmans.

That amounts to arguing that the next two, three generations or even more need to be sacrificed for something which might possibly emerge sometime in the future. No thanks.

Also, there’s no guarantee that if or when the electorate permanently reject toryism, they’ll choose to replace it with socialism. It’s impossible to predict what will happen to sway opinion between now and then despite how much we try to make it positive.

No it doesn't, and as I had the courtesy to explain, briefly at least, how I see it leading to a left wing govt, please can you explain how you see supporting a not left wing party ever leads to a left wing government, because I don't think it ever will or can so as far as I'm concerned it's you who is abandoning everyone for indefinite toryism.
(I never said anything about permanent either, whatever gains we make we'll have to fight to keep, I agree with pickmans btw, we get what we get because of action outside the ballot box, which gives us something of an actual choice when voting comes around)

 

[Pickman's model]

Do you have a way of changing government which doesn’t involve democracy??

Yes

 

[kebabking]

...But did Corbyn really miss Hammond's National Insurance debacle (for the self employed)???

Yup, he did. Shades of Milliband and the deficit.

Contrary to reports, Corbyn did not give a superlative performance, he simply made speech 'A' - his domestic policy speech - one of two he has been making for the last 30 years. It was certainly passionate, and it was a withering criticism of where our society and economy has ended up, but it wasn't a response to the budget, it contained no dissection of the budget, it made no reference to errors, broken promises or black holes in the thinking. It was simply Corby making the same speech he always makes.

If you want the same opinion from a Corbynite, Rachel Bailey-Long was on Radio 5 in the afternoon after the budget and was asked why Corbyn had made no reference to the NIC increase in his speech. She said that Labour had only heard the budget at the same time as everyone else while his speech had been prepared beforehand - she was saying that he could not be expected to either think on his feet or respond to something that had only been announced 20 minutes previously.

Vote Jeremy, he only takes 24 hours to react to anything...

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Yup, he did. Shades of Milliband and the deficit.

Contrary to reports, Corbyn did not give a superlative performance, he simply made speech 'A' - his domestic policy speech - one of two he has been making for the last 30 years. It was certainly passionate, and it was a withering criticism of where our society and economy has ended up, but it wasn't a response to the budget, it contained no dissection of the budget, it made no reference to errors, broken promises or black holes in the thinking. It was simply Corby making the same speech he always makes.

If you want the same opinion from a Corbynite, Rachel Bailey-Long was on Radio 5 in the afternoon after the budget and was asked why Corbyn had made no reference to the NIC increase in his speech. She said that Labour had only heard the budget at the same time as everyone else while his speech had been prepared beforehand - she was saying that he could not be expected to either think on his feet or respond to something that had only been announced 20 minutes previously.

Vote Jeremy, he only takes 24 hours to react to anything...

Still quicker than you (and the PM for that matter).

Seriously it's the shadow chancellor who responds in detail; the leader of the opposition delivers a prepared speech...and Corbyn's wasn't bad at all.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Mr Moose]

Yes

One likely to happen?

 

[Pickman's model]

One likely to happen?

I'd expect so

 

[Mr Moose]

I'd expect so

In the U.K? Any sort of timeframe. Years or in geological periods?

 

[Pickman's model]

In the U.K? Any sort of timeframe. Years or in geological periods?

yes and yes

 

[Mr Moose]

yes and yes

So essentially that's a 'no' then.

 

[Pickman's model]

So essentially that's a 'no' then.

by no means: but i wouldn't expect a change of government to take years or indeed a geological era.

ask a meaningful question or fuck off, i've indulged you quite enough.

 

[DownwardDog]

Now 19 points behind in the polls. Nobody else would do any better. Remember, that's the line.

 

[Mr Moose]

by no means: but i wouldn't expect a change of government to take years or indeed a geological era.

ask a meaningful question or fuck off, i've indulged you quite enough.

Indulged lol. You do appear to have an inflated sense of your wisdom.

You know exactly what I'm asking, it's not a new one, whether the left puts it's efforts into Parliamentary democracy or in building for something beyond. Neither have satisfactory answers, but that doesn't generally stop you from assuming one has the high ground.

 

[William of Walworth]

Now 19 points behind in the polls. Nobody else would do any better. Remember, that's the line.

The Tories' biggest threat could well be their own complacency ....

Three years is a long time in politics (assuming there really won't be another GE until 2020, which admittedly isn't a safe bet).

 

[Pickman's model]

Indulged lol. You do appear to have an inflated sense of your wisdom.

You know exactly what I'm asking, it's not a new one, whether the left puts it's efforts into Parliamentary democracy or in building for something beyond. Neither have satisfactory answers, but that doesn't generally stop you from assuming one has the high ground.

you assume there is high ground to be had.

 

[mikey mikey]

Now 19 points behind in the polls. Nobody else would do any better. Remember, that's the line.

Odd. A Tory voter ridiculing Corbyn's chances of winning a GE in 2020. You'd think he'd/se'd want jeremy to stay leader.

And also: Why do so many Tory Newspaper editors and political want rid of jeremy, if he is supposedly going to ensure perpetual Conservative governments?

 

[Mr Moose]

you assume there is high ground to be had.

No I'm assuming you assume it.

 

[Pickman's model]

No I'm assuming you assume it.

yeh. well you're wrong.

 

[Mr Moose]

Odd. A Tory voter ridiculing Corbyn's chances of winning a GE in 2020. You'd think he'd/se'd want jeremy to stay leader.

And also: Why do so many Tory Newspaper editors and political want rid of jeremy, if he is supposedly going to ensure perpetual Conservative governments?

Cake and eat it.

But also they do understand that even Labour's mildly left policies appeal to millions of voters. They are more concerned about them than they like to let on. So they must be trashed.

It's also because they are triumphalist right wing cnuts who think they have won some mighty victory.

 

[mikey mikey]

I don't completely buy that. I would if the stories were not as frequent and wildly exaggerated. Nope, I think Tories would be happiest knowing that should the unthinkable Conservative defeat ever happen, a sensible (i.e. Tory-Lite) party would temporarily replace them. Somebody like Tristram, Dan or Liz would fit their world-view of Right & Proper in the way that Downton Abbey or Sid James does. Help them sleep at night.

 

[kebabking]

...And also: Why do so many Tory Newspaper editors and political want rid of jeremy, if he is supposedly going to ensure perpetual Conservative governments?

Three reasons, one honest, two scheming: the first is that you will find any number of Tories in the media who will echo William of Walworth in thinking that any Government that doesn't have an effective opposition nipping at its heels and regularly landing punches will soon get lazy and complacent, eventually becoming its own worst enemy and in the end losing an election because its supporters just get sick of the endless screw ups and drift.

The second is they know their audience: they know how easy it is to bait the left in to doing what they want. The more they slag Corbyn down the tighter the membership will cling on to him regardless of what the polls say and what their own experiences on the doorsteps tell them.

The third is selfish: if, as the GE of 2020 approaches, the Tories are on a solid 40% and Labour are barely touching 30% with the swing seats in the Midlands utterly unwinnable and Corbyns personal ratings in the toilet, the editors and proprietors of those newspapers will have no great influence over the government. The media have influence when the govt needs them to swing an election, but little when that government could be filmed drowning puppies and it would still cruise to a 100 seat majority.

 

[DownwardDog]

Odd. A Tory voter ridiculing Corbyn's chances of winning a GE in 2020. You'd think he'd/se'd want jeremy to stay leader.

I'm not ridiculing Corbyn's chances, I'm ridiculing the Corbynite old believers who continue to maintain that nobody else could do any better. McDonnell would probably only be 15 behind just because he's less lazy and stupid than Corbyn.

 

[rutabowa]

"lazy and stupid", that's a new one.

 

[mikey mikey]

"Common wisdom" amongst the Liberal media is that the bad press that Hillary got meant she lost her lead over Trump. They don't blame Clinton, they blame Putin/Russia/Alt-Right fake news.

Yet, in some act of Orwellian doublethink that would have O'Brien applauding, such excuses are not afforded Jeremy Corbyn, who "allows himself" apparently to be lied about. Now, if somebody as powerful as Hillary, with her popularity amongst pundits, celebs and Dem-backing channels like MSNBC etc. cannot win in the face of Right Wing fake news and spin, what chance does ANY left, centre-left or centre candidate have?

Your faith in the New Hope candidat might be misplaced in what is just a pipe dream.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Fantastic NS piece today about tactics for challengers to Corbyn - How to win the next Labour leadership election in 8 easy steps - but this is probably the best bit:

Every analysis of the phenomenon of Jeremy Corbyn’s support talks about the appeal of his principles. Every criticism of it, at some point, talks about electability.

Future leadership contenders should pay heed to the numbers: few swing members value moderate totems like “moving the party to the centre” or “understanding what it takes to win an election”. While it’s tempting to dismiss these voters, the evidence suggests that when it comes to Jeremy, the swing voters are there for the movement, not the man.

This is where challengers should focus their energy - people who put a premium on electability are already in the bag. That means showing a bit of passion, having principles, and painting in primary colours on the issues that matter to swing voters. You don’t build (or co-opt) a movement by equivocating.

"Voters don't appreciate the real issues like centrism. We know you don't care about them, but you have to pretend to have principles. I dunno, have a simplistic rant about stuff, that's what they like."