Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I'm unusual where I live as I'm not a Labour supporter. However I am in the minority and essentially a Gorilla could campaign and would win if he was the Labour candidate...

As a party leader however Corbyn is divisive and could break Labour for a long time to come.

He appeals to the hard left - but they were already voting Labour. His appeal to the centre ground - where they need to win votes is far more limited. While the Tory under Teresa May are at least talking the talk of taking more of the centre vote.

They've tried to oust Corbyn and failed. I think it will take one more ala Brexit type defeat, and there will be a split in Labour.

Despite not being a Labour supporter, I do think the government needs a real and credible opposition. At the moment it does not exist.
 
I'm unusual where I live as I'm not a Labour supporter. However I am in the minority and essentially a Gorilla could campaign and would win if he was the Labour candidate...

As a party leader however Corbyn is divisive and could break Labour for a long time to come.

He appeals to the hard left - but they were already voting Labour. His appeal to the centre ground - where they need to win votes is far more limited. While the Tory under Teresa May are at least talking the talk of taking more of the centre vote.

They've tried to oust Corbyn and failed. I think it will take one more ala Brexit type defeat, and there will be a split in Labour.

Despite not being a Labour supporter, I do think the government needs a real and credible opposition. At the moment it does not exist.

I would agree with this but would add that despite the party machine papering over the cracks quite effectively there is still a huge rift in the Conservative party over how Brexit will be handled. In the absence of an effective opposition it does give free reign for internal division [ no enemy to have to unify against] and Teresa May will have her hands full as April 2017 approaches.
 
Actually, I object to the stereotyping of Brexit voters as (delete as applicable) grey voters / xenophobes / anti-immigrant / I'll-educated blue collar workers / the great unwashed.

Grober mentioned "The Common Market" and the referendum for same. Perhaps it's appropriate to consider that those who voted for membership of the Common Market perhaps didn't vote for the ever convergent political and economic union that the EU became? The corrupt, unauditable, self serving group driving the "European Project" that the EU has muted into over the last 40 years?

The European Dream of a common currency a has hamstrung pretty much every economy but Germany's - which has benefitted extraordinarily as a result of a grossly undervalued currency. France tries to play the "joint engine of Europe" card while in reality it's an economic basket case, while Germany straight jackets the economies of the Southern European countries with unrealistic deficit demands.

The reality is that the European Dream is exactly that: a dream. The current President of the Commission - Juncker - is a serial facilitator of tax avoidance for multinational companies. Yet he has the gall to lecture us on how we must suffer as a result of having the audacity to leave his corrupt club.

But according to some, those who voted out are morons :dk:
 
Actually, I object to the stereotyping of Brexit voters as (delete as applicable) grey voters / xenophobes / anti-immigrant / I'll-educated blue collar workers / the great unwashed.

Grober mentioned "The Common Market" and the referendum for same. Perhaps it's appropriate to consider that those who voted for membership of the Common Market perhaps didn't vote for the ever convergent political and economic union that the EU became? The corrupt, unauditable, self serving group driving the "European Project" that the EU has muted into over the last 40 years?

The European Dream of a common currency a has hamstrung pretty much every economy but Germany's - which has benefitted extraordinarily as a result of a grossly undervalued currency. France tries to play the "joint engine of Europe" card while in reality it's an economic basket case, while Germany straight jackets the economies of the Southern European countries with unrealistic deficit demands.

The reality is that the European Dream is exactly that: a dream. The current President of the Commission - Juncker - is a serial facilitator of tax avoidance for multinational companies. Yet he has the gall to lecture us on how we must suffer as a result of having the audacity to leave his corrupt club.

But according to some, those who voted out are morons :dk:

My issue with out was and remains that no-one actually knows what it means. How can anyone vote in an informed way without knowing what the end result is?
 
My issue with out was and remains that no-one actually knows what it means. How can anyone vote in an informed way without knowing what the end result is?
I don't think anyone is (or was) in a position to paint an accurate picture of what the world will be like for the UK outside the EU.

However, its a bit like being in a marriage that's failing with a partner who lies, cheats and is absolutely going in a different direction to you. Do you stay and try to make it work (unlikely) on the basis that you have no certainty about what will happen if you leave, or do you make the leap of faith that life will be better when you do?
 
I don't think anyone is (or was) in a position to paint an accurate picture of what the world will be like for the UK outside the EU.

However, its a bit like being in a marriage that's failing with a partner who lies, cheats and is absolutely going in a different direction to you. Do you stay and try to make it work (unlikely) on the basis that you have no certainty about what will happen if you leave, or do you make the leap of faith that life will be better when you do?

Well let's hope we are currently in the 'mourning' phase, and that leap of faith is worthwhile...
 
As a party leader however Corbyn is divisive and could break Labour for a long time to come.

But what makes you think that?

Which of his policies scare you?

"Most people say the Tories have the best policies on the economy, but the largest share of people prefer ideas actually espoused by Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour, according to a new poll."

(Jeremy Corbyn's Policies More Popular Than The Tories' - But Only If They Aren't Linked To Labour, Poll Suggests | Huffington Post)

So are the electorate being brainwashed by a media scared of change?

(from the above article)

"There have been repeated studies suggesting the media is biased against Corbyn, with the London School of Economics finding that 75% of press articles in one month “failed to accurately report his views”.

Media commentator and Guardian columnist Roy Greenslade agreed that Labour’s policies under Corbyn had not been reported in detail, and the most of the media was “antagonistic, and sometimes openly hostile” to the Labor leader."
 
Being popular and being electable are not necessarily the same thing.

To be able to implement these popular policies, first Labour have to get into power. They are fundamentally missing this important bridge.

My political views are generally centre right to right, but the current situation is not healthy. Any democratically elected government (whatever their leaning) should have a competent opposition to keep them on thier toes and stop them doing anything fundamentally daft.

Labour currently seem to be so occupied by squabbling amoung their own membership that they aren't holding the govt to account and don't appear to have a hope in hell of replacing the current encumbents.

If Labours MP's in Westminster are not representative of the party as a whole then why on earth are the membership voting for them?
 
Last edited:
...Media commentator and Guardian columnist Roy Greenslade agreed that Labour’s policies under Corbyn had not been reported in detail, and the most of the media was antagonistic, and sometimes openly hostile to the Labor leader."

I think that the core issue between the media and Corbyn is not based on his policies but on his personality.

He does have some interviews where he comes across favourable and even likeable, but there is far to much footage of him hurrying annoyed and grumpy-faced past waiting journalists, of snapping back at someone in return to an annoying question.

Compare this to Blair's press conferences (during his early 'golden years') and you will see how as a natural charmer he often totally disarms the press with a light-hearted comment in return to a difficult question. .

What the media tends to do once they discover that a politician is irritable is simply poke him/her repeatedly in order to elicit the newspaper-selling picture or quote.

So while Blair (mostly) played the press, the media seems to be playing Corbyn.

Incidentally, Corbyn's Virgin Trains fiasco is not unprecedented - remember David Cameron claiming to have eaten Cornish Pasty in Leeds station? Well he was caught making up a story but then handled it well and managed to shrug the whole thing off.

Corbyn in comparison turned a small PR fiasco into a big PR disaster with his (PR's team) ever weirder and often contradictory 'explanations', making him look more and more like a cantankerous old man, culminating in threatening Virgin Trains with legal action over the Data Protection Act which also added 'vindictive' to the mix.

In summary I think the media are what they are, and journalists do what they have always done, it's Corbyn that made himself an easy prey, perhaps due to inexperience rising very quickly to the top and into the lime light, or by choosing the wrong PR advisors, or both. Either way the fact remains that it is very easy for the media to pick holes at Corbyn himself even before you get to look at his policies.
 
If Labours MP's in Westminster are not representative of the party as a whole then why on earth are the membership voting for them?

The problem of chosen ones parachuted into safe seats is a bit of a bitchslap across the chops of the electorate.

It assumes that you can field anyone in a safe seat and they'll win by just being the right colour.

See tristram hunt.

But that does seem to be changing as some the more guilty parachutists are facing the real risk of deselection.
 
The problem of chosen ones parachuted into safe seats is a bit of a bitchslap across the chops of the electorate.

It assumes that you can field anyone in a safe seat and they'll win by just being the right colour.

See tristram hunt.

But that does seem to be changing as some the more guilty parachutists are facing the real risk of deselection.

So don't vote for them, that's the whole idea of democracy.

What you've just highlighted here is people will vote for any monkey with a red rosette. The bigger problem is the puppet that's currently figureheading the opposition, placed there by hard core left wing unions stuck in the 1970's that have simply lost comprehension of how much politics has changed.

"Evolve or die" couldn't be more apt.

Even more disturbing is Crony B Lair appears to be posturing for a return, how much poo is Labour in that the Tone has to come back?
 
I think that the core issue between the media and Corbyn is not based on his policies but on his personality.

So while Blair (mostly) played the press, the media seems to be playing Corbyn.

Which would the electorate rather have?

A multi millionaire war criminal with a nice smile in a sharp suit, or someone who is genuinely on their side?

Incidentally, Corbyn's Virgin Trains fiasco is not unprecedented - remember David Cameron claiming to have eaten Cornish Pasty in Leeds station? Well he was caught making up a story but then handled it well and managed to shrug the whole thing off.

Turned out he was telling the truth about the trains though.
 
The bigger problem is the puppet that's currently figureheading the opposition, placed there by hard core left wing unions stuck in the 1970's that have simply lost comprehension of how much politics has changed.

As far as I'm aware he was put there by the party members?

And I can't help thinking that he's there because politics has changed, and in a forwards direction?

Much of his success seems to be due to using grass-roots supporters and social media to mobilise the previously apathetic?
 
Which would the electorate rather have?

A multi millionaire war criminal with a nice smile in a sharp suit, or someone who is genuinely on their side?

My post was about how the media were dealing with Corbyn (in response to your post on the same topic), not about the electorate.

I posted earlier that his 'unelectability' is due to Labour under Corbyn moving to the fringes where there are simply less voters to be had, and not due to his personality.

Turned out he was telling the truth about the trains though.

Which makes things even worse.... DC's PR team managed to get him out of an outright lie, while Corbyn and his PR team managed to turn the truth into a dog's breakfast?

Again, I am not referring to his ideology or policies, just to his relationship with the media - it is mostly Media 1, Corbyn 0, and of his own making.

The media are not anti-left as a whole, but they are predators and where they see an opening they'll go for it... and Corbyn never fails to deliver.
 
My post was about how the media were dealing with Corbyn (in response to your post on the same topic), not about the electorate.

I posted earlier that his 'unelectability' is due to Labour under Corbyn moving to the fringes where there are simply less voters to be had, and not due to his personality.

But what are these fringe policies that so alienate the voters?


Which makes things even worse.... DC's PR team managed to get him out of an outright lie, while Corbyn and his PR team managed to turn the truth into a dog's breakfast?

Hostile press was never going to make it easy.
 
Incidentally... re the Virgin Train issue.... the 'truth' is not the issue here but how Corbyn and his team handles the media.

At some point his team said that individual seats were available but he wanted to sit next to his wife, while Corbyn himself was saying that he did not insist on sitting with his wife and would have used a single seat if one was available.

Obviously journalists had a field day over this... there are many other examples.

My point is that while press coverage of Corbyn seems mostly unfavourable, it is not because of any inherent anti-left tendencies, but simply because Corbyn just does not know how to handle the press and makes rookie mistakes.
 
But what are these fringe policies that so alienate the voters?...

Corbyn wants to invest heavily in infrastructure (£500 billion, by some reports) to include transport, energy, as well as the NHS, a new NHS-style free-for-all education system, affordable housing, and also renationalisation of the trains.

The money will come in part from tax increases (reinstating 50p top tier, increasing Corporation Tax, and clamp down on British dependency tax havens), but also in great part though borrowing.

But... I member Gordon Brown pointing at David Cameron and saying "He wants to take 6 billion out of the economy". Just before losing the elections.

So regardless of whether this is a good plan or a bad plan.... the electorate has already rejected it once. Experience tells us that the majority of British people just won't vote for a plan to reinvigorate the economy though heavy borrowing.

Corbyn is moving Labour away from where the majority of voters are. It may be a great plan, and Corbyn may be the smartest man alive, but none of this matters because unless Corbyn manages to work-out what the British voters will actually vote for, he won't get elected.
 
Incidentally... re the Virgin Train issue.... the 'truth' is not the issue here but how Corbyn and his team handles the media.

At some point his team said that individual seats were available but he wanted to sit next to his wife, while Corbyn himself was saying that he did not insist on sitting with his wife and would have used a single seat if one was available.

Obviously journalists had a field day over this... there are many other examples.

My point is that while press coverage of Corbyn seems mostly unfavourable, it is not because of any inherent anti-left tendencies, but simply because Corbyn just does not know how to handle the press and makes rookie mistakes.

Here it seems your making the argument that votes rely somewhat on charisma (handling pressure in public etc) and to some extent I could agree with you.

However the very rise of Corbyn may be signalling a new age of politics. People now know a lot more about any given person than ever before thanks to social media, and young people are more in touch with this. It is a lot easier to see right through lies and genuine sincerity has it's shine, whereas in the past this would have been harder to see. In the past we have relied more heavily on the government controlled media for information without much alternative (Tony Blair's days for example, not that long ago if you think about it). Social media makes it easier to see a clearer picture of the truth and this, imo, is starting to reveal that people are more interested in character, rather than those who are good at scoring brownie points.

I don't know about all of you, but watching some of the nonsense that goes on in Parliament really makes me wonder if the state of British politics today really does need a breath of fresh air. When people resort to these ridiculous digs and theatrical pantomimes - I just find it irritating. There are people on the poverty line in this country, many wars we are engaged in which most people don't know the details of, and it just seems to be a ridiculous diversion.

Corbyn is definitely is a breath of fresh air this is what I believe has catapulted him into Labour leadership. I'm really glad to be British and be part of a country that sees someone like Corbyn as the alternative, rather than Trump in the US for example. What a nightmare. Corbyn's policies and character make Trump look, well, non-existent.

Corbyn wants to invest heavily in infrastructure (£500 billion, by some reports) to include transport, energy, as well as the NHS, a new NHS-style free-for-all education system, affordable housing, and also renationalisation of the trains.

The money will come in part from tax increases (reinstating 50p top tier, increasing Corporation Tax, and clamp down on British dependency tax havens), but also in great part though borrowing.

But... I member Gordon Brown pointing at David Cameron and saying "He wants to take 6 billion out of the economy". Just before losing the elections.

So regardless of whether this is a good plan or a bad plan.... the electorate has already rejected it once. Experience tells us that the majority of British people just won't vote for a plan to reinvigorate the economy though heavy borrowing.

Corbyn is moving Labour away from where the majority of voters are. It may be a great plan, and Corbyn may be the smartest man alive, but none of this matters because unless Corbyn manages to work-out what the British voters will actually vote for, he won't get elected.

That's just it though, he appeals to the lower, lower-middle and probably a reasonable amount of middle class in the country, which thanks to the Conservatives, have definitely increased. As soon as the bad air clears from the media I think people actually start realising what he is about and hopefully their views of him will change.
 
I think that there are several issues here:

1. Corbyn's relationship with the media - I don't believe the media are anti-left, as I said I just don't think he is a very good media person, nor does he seem to have good PR advisors.

2. Corbyn's electability based on his personality - this is where he does well, by appealing to the 'man in tbe street', which is what you would expect from a Labour leader, and by claiming to bring in a new style of politics.

3. The Labour's electability based on Corbyn's policies - from what I read online (e.g. : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/w...policies-in-the-labour-leadership-contes/amp/ ), his manifesto sounds like a Socialist text book and his policies are uncompromising. Nothing wrong with that, apart from the fact that the majority of British people do not seem to be willing to vote for it. Some give-and-take and movement to the centre-left would no doubt help Labour's popularity among voters - this is how Blair won elections in the past.

4. Corbyn's internal policies within the Labour party - some say that his methods of securing power within the party are unorthodox and possibly even undemocratic. But the overall issue is that the internal feuding prevents Labour from being an effective fighting opposition party.

5. And last, clawing-back Scottish voters from Nicola Sturgeon is another uphill struggle in itself, but nevertheless an essential one if Labour are to ever get back into government.


Each of the above merits its own discussion.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom