Labour Party leadership election 2015

[Leftbehind]

The Corbyn camp would hope to lead the left in the britain in a massive protest, the greens, the SNP, TUSC and all the rest would somehow float over to labour and the 40% who didn't vote will all come out for Corbyn. They see it as one last charge against austerity, and quite frankly there's a large portion who hope that it will 'purge the blairites' and reduce the labour party to a socialist party that get's 25% of the vote.

The Corbyn camp are supporting a largely social democratic platform, not a million miles (domestically) away from Germany or what's seen in Scandinavia. No-one seems to have noticed that Corbyn's platform is much moderated from Benn's (which got closer to 28% - "but we can moderate and get 30%!!"), with his conditional support for the EU a sign of it.

The Blairites at this point have usually followed Blair's direction of travel since resigning and are now more or less right-wingers who are utterly hostile to any hint of socialism ("I'd rather Cameron than Miliband"; "I wouldn't stand on it even if I knew it was a vote winner", as the Progress audience claps at dat pragmatism) and the unions.  Who forget that they've no longer got the Left sown up so marching off to the new Thatcherite settlement is no longer acceptable without losing votes that way (as we seen in Scotland).

[Leftbehind]

Yeah, Corbyn seems basically to be in line with the left wing of the Danish SD (which is small, but not considered radical) and to the right of the left wing of Icelandic SDA. I am pretty sure he would fit in nicely on the left flank of Norwegian Labour and Swedish SDA as well.

So it is a bit funny for someone this side of the North Sea that he is considered a "Socialist" (of course you can argue that all forms of Social Democracy are an expression of Democratic Socialism) and a radical.

I suppose his critical view of the UK still trying to play the great power game despite dwindling resources is controversial in a British context, whereas his view of foreign policy would be quite normal for a leftist SD in a small country.

Interesting; I'm curious is this comparison done with Corbyn's platform in mind, or his actual views (that are much closer to Bennism, but for the sake of appeal/his campaign have been somewhat diluted).

No-one seems to have noticed that Corbyn's platform is much moderated from Benn's...

Well other than all the people on the soft Left who are supporting him who doubtless wouldn't be were that not the case.

Yeah, by no-one I mean the people I see on TV every night talking f**king sh**te.

[Leftbehind]

The problem is that this leadership debate is not really about policy, it's about how/what we want the party to be.

We'll some policy has come up, but just social policy (benefits and stuff) and (in a vague sense) some economic stuff. And on those issues even Corbyn The Backbencher is well within the Labour mainstream, let alone Corbyn The Candidate (as several people have noted the irony of this campaign is that the candidate who has modified and moderated his positions the most is... er... Corbyn). But, yes, the issue is that the things on which he has rather more... er... alternative views have not featured.

He can simply argue (like Benn did) quite correctly that he's simply a conduit of the party, it's not just about what he personally supports, but what the party have voted for - and they've voted for the stuff he's campaigned on*. It's about democracy (and I imagine one of his first movements will to be reinstate a lot of that within the party), and the Labour movement, not President Corbyn's thoughts. He's already done this with his republicanism. He knows monarchist sentiment is too strong, so it's not a hill he's going to die on. Similarly, he's arguing for a conditional support of EU because he knows to campaign, like Benn, to leave would see threaten his support within the party.

*Unilateral nuclear disarmament, a raft of nationalisations, removal of any private involvement in education and the NHS, higher taxes on business and the wealthy, rent caps, the return of council housing in force etc

[Leftbehind]

Bizarre how many articles there are about Corbyn's supposed sex appeal based entirely off a couple of comments off Mumsnet.

Also McTernan, Chukka, Blair, Mann et al get to sound off about Corbyn and their supporters, but Burnham jumps in to warn of Dave Ward's language splitting the party!

[Leftbehind]

Nationalisations and housing construction will actually save money (it's why they recieve overwhelming public support). Rent caps cost nothing. If you think the majority pay corporation tax or high-rate income tax then I'm wasting my time here.

Any nuclear bombing of the UK (the only time you'd actually need them) would automatically involve mainland Europe (which is why Canada and Germany are not seen as some sitting ducks).

[Leftbehind]

The electorate isn't necessarily always right, though. Most here will favour gay marriage. California of course voted to ban gay marriage just seven years ago; views have dramatically changed since then, partly due to generational shifts but also due to effective arguments and persuasion by the pro-gay marriage side.

Well firstly I don't know how much stock we should put in the fact that a different platform lost in a different era. Secondly, Labour were crucified during the 1980's because of a right-wing split. Unless that repeats itself with just as much effect then, again, we're comparing apples and oranges. Lastly there are a number of things that were seen as politically unviable for the Tories to do, because of the overwhelming opposition, and they've done it on each (thanks in large part to the Lib Dems for giving them an unearned supermajority and free reign to do as they pleased). As you say, these things change through action and persuasion, not to write them off as impossibilities and then wring our hands as "we didn't do enough" after 13 years in stasis.

Of course not but perception is king in politics.

The Conservatives banged on about Labour causing the financial mess the country was in at the end of their period of office and the public largely agreed with that assessment.

Personally I think about 70% of the financial crisis lies squarely on the shoulders of banks themselves but Brown also failed in his regulation of them which made matters much worse.

If Labour is led by Corbyn in the 2020 general election you can bet your bottom dollar they will bang on about a hike in tax for most people to pay of their proposed policies however much Labour denied that would be the case.

Quite similar to what happened during the 1992 general election in fact.

Your own analysis has Labour at some blame for the banking crisis, demonstrating how easy it was to blame Labour for it. It's completely different convincing people that they're paying taxes that they're not paying. "Are you a corporation?", "do you earn over 150K a year?". Two simple questions showing exactly who will be paying both. When majorities polled support higher taxes on the wealthy that's exactly who they have in mind.

It'd be quite ironic for the Tories to use the same tactic as 1992, given they've a) raised taxes on ordinary people (VAT), b) lied about not doing so, c) claimed it was imperative they done so, d) lowered taxes for the rich (top-rate, inheritance, corporation).

[Leftbehind]

Does that mean you don't regard Gordon Brown to be at least partly responsible for what happened during the financial crisis?

No, I'm saying it simply isn't as black and white a picture as is the question who will be paying more tax.

On the general issue of personal taxation the bar is set lower for the Conservatives as their general philosophy is to try and keep taxes as low as possible. They may fail to do so in practice a lot of the time but their instincts are for a low tax small state economy.

The Labour Party's instincts are largely in the opposite direction.

You may say that's unfair but it's the way it is in British politics which is why Labour are usually on the defensive on this issue.

I'm not saying it's unfair, I'm saying it's easily rebutted. You're suggesting the Tories main attack line, and something they would be victorious from, would be a) something that they had demonstrably done themselves & couldn't be easily pointed out b) unanswerable, because Labour would be somehow unable to convince the electorate that when they say the top-rate & corporation tax would go up that it wouldn't be all taxes for all people. I don't buy it.  

[Leftbehind]

Christ, a Blair and Clegg coalition? I mean, why even bother at that point? Even if it were theoretically possible.

Well 2015 been's the first election year I've actually followed (General Elections are the only ones that count IMO) and it's going to be pretty crap if we have Labour getting crushed at the may election losing their Shadow Chancellor and Foreign Secretary, and then going on to elect someone who is going to be the worse leader since well ever.  

Tony Blair resigns and is replaced by:

Gordon Brown who is more to the left of Blair... who goes on to lose... who is then replaced by:

Ed Miliband who is more to the left of Brown... who goes on to lose... who is then replaced by:

Jeremy Corbyn who is more to the left of Miliband... who goes on to...

You can guess the rest I think

Obviously Brown was only very moderately more to the left of Blair but he was a more traditional tax and spend Labour right winger than "Third Way" Blair ever was.

It's funny I've noticed the same folk who are entirely equivocal about Scotland's results, and warn how terribly complex it is, are to be found wheeling out this tripe in the next breath.

"Brown was a milimetre to the left of Blair, clearly another rejection of the Left! Not New Labour!"

If you don't think Miliband's (and Balls') in many cases timid opposition to the Tories disappointed and disillusioned any left-wingers I'm not sure what to say. But you're right, "we'll cut, but nicer" was a great rallying cry for the Left and SNP & the Greens surge took no strength from that.

Tell me, was Blair winning elections and leading in the polls for Labour at the time of his departure? Before the financial crash, remember.

[Leftbehind]

Hope this isn't some elaborate ruse from Kellner to energise the Right...

[Leftbehind]

I see there is a Survation poll that comes across well for Corbyn but voters won't see one clip of him, they will see four and a half years worth of media coverage, some of which will be very negative.

It's not as if there hasn't been plenty of that already. Even the Marr interview that they reportedly played, that went down well, had Marr trying to tie him down as a Marxist!

Reading earlier about it in the Guardian, the article also mentioned another poll:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I went to check and the opposite is the case: Corbyn does better in the C2DE. I assume they just felt it worth noting that he led the pack amongst the ABC1's, perhaps contrary to their assumptions?

[Leftbehind]

Here's the thing. Today is the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. Between then (the 1945 election was before VJ Day) and 1997, Labour won precisely one working majority.

If New Labour proved anything, it was that huge majorities are meaningless with a leader not willing to do anything with them. Speaking of meaningless, the idiosyncrasies of FPTP rewards are not reflective of actual desire. See how it robbed Attlee in 1950 & 1951 whilst rewarding Blair in 2005 and the Tories this year.

Also, I read the transcript of Corbyn's interview. Answering a question "Are you a Marxist?" with "I'm not sure" is not likely to help win over Middle England.

Foot was leading the polls pretty handsomely before the split, and he was happy to tell news reporters he was a Marxist.

Labour is unlikely to win 40 seats in Scotland unless the SNP self-destructs; 20 is a realistic goal. To get an overall majority in a 600-seat Commons, Labour has to pick up 80 seats in England - and they'll pretty much all have to be from the Tories.

Labour is unlikely to win a majority in the first place, Curtice has made it perfectly plain that unless Labour take back Scotland they need in excess of a 13 point lead to take enought seats from the Tories. I maintain Corbyn is the best leader to help do that in Scotland, and with those you're then looking at a more realistic prospect for Tory marginals. Many of which can be won back with just the reversal of the Greens and disillusionment. 

[Leftbehind]

Yeah, the assumption in 2010 was that Ed connected well with the voters, and basically got rid of the bad new labour stuff. There's serious concerns over his links to anti-Semitic groups, and despite the noise from the left I don't think this country prefers Hamas over Israel. It will be absolutely brutal-if people like me can find stuff on Corbyn through a quick google search no doubt the tories will find some bad comments. Likewise look at how much of a liability Ed Balls was, someone like John Mcdonnell or Dianne Abbot ( I just forgot she was in the SC for 3 years, and she didn't even get sacked for racist comments!)

These serious concerns are a bit overblown. Israel/Palestine generate a lot of heat and noise, but the general public aren't interested, and appear to be slightly more sympathetic to the Palestinians. I don't think it's the death knell that the Right believe it is - and the charges usually amount to little more than guilt by association and ungenerous readings of his comments.

But remember the 40% who don't vote will all vote for Corbyn because austerity is bad, all students will vote for him because he'll cancel student debt and he's not actually that left wing

It's a fairly uncontroversial statement that Labour is hit disproportionately by abstention, and that the prospect of removal of £30K debt is a good incentive for youth turnout. Corbyn's left-wing, but for the most part, his platform isn't - and is actually closer to the public than Blairites on a number of issues (and even on stuff it isn't - immigration etc, isn't significantly worse).

[Leftbehind]

look as a member of the LGBT community it's clear that Blair did a lot of good with his 150 seat majority-repealed section 28, introduced gay adoption and civil partnerships and appointed the first gay cabinet member. If we want to expand that it's concerning that labour members have such blinkered views- minimum wage, house of lords reform, maternity leave doubled, paternity leave introduced, crime cut by 32%, 14,000 new police officers, double funding for each school child, peace in north Ireland, Sierra Leon saved, Milosevic stopped in Kosovo, increased rights at work, child tax credits, inner city schools rebuild, the Olympics brought to London and the NHS reborn with 85,000 new nurses and 35,000 new doctors. Blair did a lot of good

It's been 8 years since he resigned, and we're still arguing over it

Well I didn't actually mean to argue over this, it's been done to death. I was simply putting to bed the notion that you needed whopping majorities to enact meangingful change, when it's a fairly accepted fact (and one this government's reportedly took on board) is that New Labour to a large extent wasted their time in power - and there's no denying past Labour governments with more tenuous power have got plenty done.

Foot was an awful leader and quite frankly that's the one election where I would have struggled to vote Labour because you can't run on leaving the EU and scrapping Trident during the Cold War-I'm not even a hawk but that's too far.

Well I could make a similar case about how awful Blair was to vote for, but, again, I'd rather not waste my breath.

We need to stop seeing Scotland as this far away socialist paradise because frankly we can't build our strategy around winning it back if we lose 80-100 of our target seats in England. Tbh as awful as it I'd support a progressive unionist party in scotland under a federal system but that's another day. Scotland has become this promised land for the left of the party when its a combination of nationalism, FPTP (SNP only had 50%) and the indy ref. Sure SNP voters are probably more left wing but we can't win scotland on the lazy analysis of muh socialism. We hadn't been doing voter ID since 2011 and we wondered why people didn't connect. There isn't a short answer for scotland, and even if if it is winning every seat in Scotland is pointless if we get fail in England and Wales.

In the same breath you argue this, you reduce England & Wales down to 'muh Thatcherism'. SNP only had 50% - what do you imagine the Tories had?! Cake and eat it, or what. Through clinging to welfare policies now extinct in the England, and the principle of universalism, they've managed to position themselves to the left of Labour in the eyes of Scottish voters. But having a rump of SNP seats in parliament is never going to help their cause for independence, but a Labour government - of Corbyn's ilk - could make their life in the UK far more rewarding - and the prospect of neoliberal UK was a clear impetus for the relative success of nationalism there.

I don't have the polling on me but it's another myth that all green voters will come back to labour when there's 50% of them who thought Labour are too pro-welfare, and wanted to vote green to put a finger up the establishment. I'm skeptical again of the idea that Corbyn will simply just unite the left because we heard that Miliband in 2010 would pick up all the Lib dem vote.

Well already I've seen polling that shows Corbyn is more attractive to Greens, and your polling does seem to run counter to everything I've seen so far (and you could quite easily make the point that Corbyn does represent a finger up to the establishment - hence why they're never off the TV telling us not to vote for him.

Labour taking back Scotland is a hard ask; there is a significant number of people who voted SNP because they're Scottish nationalists who want independence.

The SNP got 50% of the Scottish vote and Labour got 24.3% in 2015; there was a 24% swing or thereabouts from Labour to the Nationalists. Not very likely to be reversed in one election, if ever.

There were huge, unlikely swings that are unlikely to be reversed? I think that's far too pesimistic. If nationalism was such an appealing prospect why has it taken so long? The fact is Salmond & Sturgeon are canny leaders who've managed to blossom in the fertile landscape of an unappealing SLab & Liberals. It is a hard ask, but then are you arguing that a UK lead of 13% isn't? Either route's going to have its difficulties, but I could far more imagine Corbyn winning back Scotland than Cooper.

There is no path to a Labour government, majority or minority, that does not involving flipping Conservative held marginals in England. Here is the current Labour list, again the boundaries will change a lot before 2020. We need to probably flip 60 marginals in England to get an overall majority -  we don't want a minority government, because there is every chance we won't get a second term at any rate (Labour has only increased its majority by a significant amount once - in 1966) - and probably more like 80 for a working majority. I strongly doubt that there are 6,526 non-voters in Crawley who are just waiting to cast their first vote for Corbyn.

My post mentioned that you're talking at least 50 odd gains from the Tories, though it's not really a case of what we want, it's a case of what we can get. As I mentioned I don't think encouraging 6% of Crawley, who'd previously abstained, to turnout for Labour is any less a realistic prospect than winning 2020 with a >13% lead over the Tories.

In addition, while Corbyn may well hoover up Greens and the SNP, there is a real risk he looses white working class voters with right-leaning views to UKIP or the Tories.

He may well, but there's also possibility he can attract some with economic populism. We won't know, and I think he's hinted he'll dispose of himself if he becomes an electoral liability, but with an empowered conference that could reinstate many of his more attractive policies.

Emulating Syriza may seem a good idea, but Syriza got 36.34% of the vote in a PR system... and wouldn't have even been able to form a government without that 50 seat bonus. 36% may have won us a General Election in 2005, but I doubt it will be enough in 2020.

Frankly if any system is going to reward little over a third, I think FPTP has conclusively shown that it is that. But I don't think Corbyn is aiming for a SYRIZA government in the first place.

Foot had already erased Labour's lead even prior to the Falklands war: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1979-1983

Nothing at all to do with the Limehouse declaration!

[Leftbehind]

Foot had already erased Labour's lead even prior to the Falklands war: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1979-1983

Nothing at all to do with the Limehouse declaration!

An event which of course happened for no reason and struck a nerve with the voters for no reason.

There were a number of reasons SDP took off - media support, high-profile leaders, claims of being the moderation/centrist force with none of the baggage of the main two. But my original contention remains true: Foot was leading the polls pretty handsomely before the split.

[Leftbehind]

Sorry but the idea that Labour lost the 1983 election due to the SDP and the Falklands War is absolute nonsense. Analysis (see Appendix) of second preferences showed that Liberal/SDP voters were more likely to favour Thatcher's Conservatives than Labour in 1983 (43% to 36%). Let that sink in more a moment.

You speak as if that's some great "aha!" revalation: the Alliance voters were always likely to favour the Tories, being a party of liberals. It actually speaks to the SDP vote that the Tories only had a 7% lead in that constituent. "Absolute nonsense" - what's that there, oh it's a polling graph showing nosedives and astronomical recovery tht just so happens are timed with two events.

If the SDP had never happened, it's likely that Labour's defeat would have been even worse - as middle class voters who opted for the SDP in 1983 would have gone for Thatcher instead.

What? Thatcher's recovery was built upon those that flirted with the SDP to return to the Tory fold. The Alliance surge in the end was overwhelmingly from formally Labour-inclined voters.

The Conservatives were recovering in the polls before the Falklands War, as the temporary surge of the Alliance due to by-election victories inevitably slid away and the economy began to recover. There's a reason that Thatcher called the election in 1983 and not in 1984 - she knew she was going to win.  I think that Labour could have done slightly better if the War had never happened - but in this case Thatcher would have delayed the election a year, and with the economy in good shape, it's likely the result would have been similar.

Plenty of governments have seen their economy recover only to be booted out (think of one?), Thatcher seen her popularity - thanks to the Falklands - rocket to the highest levels it'd been since she formed her government and that her opposition was at its worst - hopelessly divided. But you're right 1980-1983 was famed for its economic miracle(!)

Polls mid-Parliament are always a referendum on the current government and not an accurate reflection of voting choices. Thatcher's government was very unpopular, but when it came to voting, many felt there was no alternative. Polls always move back towards the government towards the election...otherwise Mr. Miliband would be Prime Minister now (even assuming that the final polls were off to the same degree!).

Well thanks for stating the obvious re discontent with the government shapes mid-term elections, as things get closer government support tends to strengthen, but the fact of the matter is that there was nothing inevitable about Thatcher's win, she only recieved low fourties for all your TINA assertions and two events more so than anything else caused it.

Miliband had lost his lead long before the election - they were predicting a hung parliament. Labour vote turnout come election day ensured they didn't even get that. Who knew the "limited offer" could depress enthusiasm?

Labour won just 27% in 1983. Labour were still blamed for the Winter of Discontent and trade union militancy. The Bennite insurgency of 1979-81 completely destroyed the constitutional balance in the Party and left the Party a shambles - who could possibly vote for a Labour leadership that couldn't control its own Party, let alone the country?

Labour were leading the polls in 1980, so for their WoD legacy was clearly preferred to Thatcher's Britain (as you admit, she was very unpopular) but a campaign (albeit a bitter one) for greater democracy is not an "insurgency". Nor was the "constitutional balance", some God given right. As SDP shown, a lot of those people would not be elected without Labour voters and if they can't bear to represent them the moment the Left control the party then - and break off, then it was they who left the party a shambles. It's quite a convenient trick that - cause a major break away of the Right that steals votes from Labour and then blame the Left for a poor result, and how "that way can't win".

 

Labour lost the election well before the Limehouse Declaration and the Falklands War.

As I say, assertions betrayed by polling.

Burnham hasn't ran the best campaign but his tactics of recent days are probably clever; he could well win quite a few soft Corbynites over.

He's re-won my second preference, after a few backs retracting his statement that Corbyn would have a place in his cabinet in stereotypical Burnham fashion. I've seen mention of Indecisive Dave and it's hilariously on point.

If Labour don't take this opportunity to elect it's first woman leader Lord alone knows when they ever will

Kinda funny to see the Blairites highlighting this now, I can't remember them pushing for Dianne?

Agreed that it's going to be a complete bloodbath when he's elected. The Conservative press are going to rip him to shreds every week. Listening to him on World at One, it's clear that he has a thin skin and is easily rattled, so expect some memorable car crash interviews. Every policy he tries to announce will be immediately denounced by all the grandees of the Labour Right (Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt have already formed a splinter group). The Left will become defensive and paranoid, and the Party will collapse further into in-fighting. Given Corbyn's evident lack of passion for holding the position of leader, I wouldn't be surprised if he resigns after a few months, leading to another contest. The Left will cry betrayal and they'll probably be mass defections to the Greens.

He'll probably get the party reforms through so that even if he is hobbled by a mutinous right-wing PLP and the press have reduced his standing to toxic he can stand down knowing with party support he'll get a left-wing platform anyway without the headache. He's made it very plain that this is a "we" / movement effort, and he is just one person in that.
 

Ohnoes! If we elect somebody vaguely left-wing and willing to believe in a few things and change a few things, the evil right-wing media and politicians will destroy him in the media and in politics!

Unprecedented cuts! Beaten by Osborne on the Living Wage! Tuition reduced to 20K! Instinctively rules out nationalisations! It does make me laugh how convenient it has become to portray Miliband as a rejected left-winger (you'll no doubt stick one of the architects of New Labour in there as well?)

Corbyn has beliefs, right, but they're nuts. Nationalising the energy companies? Raising money through a tax gap of which one sixth is actually collectable? This isn't real change that people can seriously believe in, it's blind hope. It will lead to even more disillusionment with politics when people realise that Labour is completely impotent and untrustworthy and that the Tories are effectively a one party state.

"Nuts" but popular with the public, strangely? Maybe not everyone's as enamored with neoliberalism as you clearly are?

[Leftbehind]

Got some thoughts about the race, and they are probably the exact opposite of what I've said before.

1-Corbyn is the only one proposing policy-this is a complete myth, and something I saw during the General election. Kendall has proposed raising inheritance tax... Burnham opposed academies, a UCAS for apprenticeships, a separate EU campaigning group, rail nationalisation... Cooper has had universal childcare. I'd argue it's more that Corbyn is proposing left wing policies, and these are the only policies that many people want

I agree with this, other candidates have raised some attractive policies - free childcare, National Care Service, rail nationalisation etc but that's pretty much - or at least it appears that way - as the extent of their great vision.

2-Corbyn is bad because he's un-electable  - He's bad because he's proposing some absolutely awful policies that we'd heavily attack the tories for- leaving NATO, supporting a United Ireland, calling for a 'party of peace', associating  with anti Semites and that's just his foreign policy.

I'd be pretty surprised if we were leading the charge against those, tbh. Even the anti-Semites suggest you're entangled in the Palestine camp - an unfortunate reality. The Tories have associated with all sorts of these types in their Eurosceptic grouping, btw. Foreign policy is clearly his most radical, and controversial part of his platform - outside of that, "absolutely awful" to Labour voters? I doubt it.

3-Corbyn is just proposing a moderate centre left policy-again see above, these policies haven't been part of mainstream labour opinion since the 1930's (IIRC even Foot was an establishment left winger in the mould of Miliband)  Printing money to invest in infrastructure, re-opening the coal mines and becoming a party of peace isn't credible. The argument that's it's popular is true, however I'd point to the fact that for the last 20 years the Death Penalty was popular-also people don't vote on single issues it's all part of a package. If you present a package with massive tack hikes on middle england people won't support it because they said they like rail nationalization-it's like saying that gay voters will vote Tory because of gay marriage

He was very equivocal about coal mine reopening, dependent on its viability, and there's always been a significant anti-war influence in Labour (Iraq only passed with Tory support, for instance) and the wider public are more receptive to that idea than ever, as well. A lot of his positions were mainstream Conservative opinion thirty years ago, and can be found in the many European countries surrounding us.

As a member of the 'Milifandon' Miliband had a clear left wing stance, and this revisionist claptrap that we didn't offer enough in 2015 has already started-I've seen the mantra that Miliband was held back by the Blairites but let's look at what we were offering- An elected House of Lords, increased Bank Levy,  regional investment banks, 50p tax rate, mansion tax, getting rid of non doms, a joined up health and social care, cutting tuition fees to 6,000 and so on. It was actually quite a big package of reform

Of course Miliband was held back. His platform was almost schizophrenic at times, depending on week to week what you were actually getting. Balls certainly seems to be proud of that fact.

£6,000 is double of what they were offering last time. HOL reform, whilst welcome, doesn't impassion anybody, and would likely end up the same sort of piecemeal effort that much of his leadership suffered from. Did he finally commit to the 50p tax? At the time it would've actually been clear - when it was removed - he wouldn't dare do so, and that bank levy was used to pay for everything - even to sympathetic ears it didn't sound credible especially since they were promising massive cuts.

Even as someone who was initially a supporter (check my posting history), because I thought he would at least offer a social democratic answer I basically gave up defending him by 2013.

The argument that's it's popular is true, however I'd point to the fact that for the last 20 years the Death Penalty was popular-also people don't vote on single issues it's all part of a package. If you present a package with massive tack hikes on middle england people won't support it because they said they like rail nationalization-it's like saying that gay voters will vote Tory because of gay marriage

"Buh death penalty is popular!" isn't actually an incentive to disregard public wishes, especially when they align with yours. Actually that is one stand out thing that is clear from Corbyn - it is a package of reforms that will return us to a social democratic mixed economy. I don't remember hearing him announce massive tax hikes on middle England? I did hear him announce tax rises on the wealthy and public ownership for hard-pressed commuters being fleeced, though.

The thing is the Left choose to believe otherwise because it means they don't have to sully themselves by winning over people who voted for other parties - they can just ~expand the electorate~ on a left-wing platform and win comfortably. Note an outright Trot maniac like Zanas above saying Miliband was some kind of Tory sellout.

Unprecedented austerity and cuts imposed to the welfare state because of a banking sector bailout, promises of iron discipline and a following of Tory spending plans, as well as a very lukewarm defence of public spending - with with ministers he appointed in a race to show who's "toughest" with the unemployed, the unions etc.

Although, unlike many on here, I don't believe you're even a social democrat - you're at best an Orange Booker, so I can see why this all looks LOOONEY LEFT to you.

Has anyone here read A Very British Coup? I'm reading it at the moment.

Yep, read it and even watched the aforementioned TV drama. Needless to say, I loved it. I don't know which ending I liked the best to be honest.

[Leftbehind]

As lame as it sounds after following Palenstinian Solidarity on facebook for a month I realized how absolutely awful it's membership it, it's ugliest form was the type of stuff we had going on with George Galloway. Corbyn has got some pretty deep ties with these groups, and when it's added to his comments about Hamas and ISIS the charge that 'he's pro-terrorist' is going to stick with the public

The tories use to have their wacko's in the Ian Smith groups, and thus it Corbyn would be similar to Neil Hamilton in that he has strong links to groups that go against the fundamentals of being a labour member IMO. I know that Foreign Policy isn't that important but it's going to tie into the package that our leader isnt a credible PM, regardless of whether we keep him until 2020 I'd want us to pick someone who we can at least pretend is credible with running the country.

We'll have to wait and see - I don't think his ties are that deep tbh, but I don't keep abreast of this aspect, so I may be wrong. I do know it'd have been worth it to get some democratic reforms so we on the left have other avenues.

But it's those kind of comments that just come across as loony left esque-like the old urban legand about Islington banning black bin bags. Although  the other candidates already have there-Yvette Balls, Andy 'Flip Flop' Burnham and Liz 'Tory' Kendall.

The Tory press has much less reach these days, and it's easier to attack a council and make sh**t up about a council that refuses to talk to the media than it is a national leader with an immediate response.

I agree that they were conservative positions 30 years ago-the key is 30 years ago. Apart from rail nationalization which I'm lukewarm towards there's a reason why they were tory policies 30 years ago and not today. We can't run an election being economically illiterate and counter it by saying it was conservative policy 30 years ago. There's also policies like massive QE in economic uptimes that were never mainstream. I'm not an economist at all but Keynes never called for QE during economic growth

Neither am I, but I do know a number of respected economists have come out to defend the idea, and a lot of that economic growth is just reinflating the housing bubble - - unemployment has just went up, for instance. It was a Conservative policy for decades that an ideological privatisation (much like the Royal Mail) seen a reversal of - something Tory voters bitterly regret. I don't share your pessimism on this.

IIRC he run his 2010 campaign based on keeping the 50p rate, and it was something he was always clear about defending. It was certainly one of the clearer areas of reform. The impression of our flagship policies was that they were all taxes- 50p tax, mansion tax, bank tax, energy tax etc

No, I distinctly remember at the time it was headline news, Labour were refusing to say it'd be their stated policy to keep the 50p for 2015.

It is, I take a rather arrogant and probably misguided view that the public opinion on single issues is often misguided, misread and even on top of that not that important. As I've said before something like 75% agreed with our Non-Dom removal but it didn't translate into voters

Because it was popular, but it didn't actually address the cost of living making it much easier to forget. How are you simultaneously able to argue that public doesn't matter on nationalisations etc but must be listened to on foreign policy?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a tax hike for middle england imo, when my Dad had a leadership position in his school he earned over 50,000. I suppose I'm a brownite in that I prefer non-direct taxes rather than increasing income tax rates

You're mistaken

[Leftbehind]

That's precisely why we on the Left can work with him. He's secured my first preference.

As far as I know oakvale makes no claim of any affiliation with the left.

Fair enough, just wanted it to point out I felt out it was as meaningful an indictment of any extremism as a Tory suggesting it.

I've cast my vote. I did not use all of my preferences. I've also voted in the other contests.

It's always exciting being able to vote for the conference committee!

Hell will freeze over before it happens but I'd love to see the reaction from Corbyn supporters if Kendall beat say Burnham due to the boast of 'no 2nd preference' from corbyn voters.

I think I watched a British Coup about 4 years ago on Gold at about 7 in the morning before I had any understanding of politics beyond Britain=Good

I disagree with my fellow Corbynites on this. Corbyn & Burnham's supporters must work together to stave off a civil war. Blairites, whatever Corbyn does, will try and destabilise.

Just look at recent Corbyn hustings at our town hall - Andy McDonald sat on the panel, warmly welcomed him, admitted he wasn't his choice but stressed unity was important to fight the Tories. Compare that to Tom Blekinsop whose only input was to tell the Gazette many of the attendees were enemies of the Labour party, who only supported Corbyn, and caused the 2015 loss.

[Leftbehind]

Wheee!

https://archive.is/QQl5m

'Labour supporters have expressed their anger at being barred from the leadership vote, as the party steps up efforts to weed out those suspected of not being genuine supporters.
It is understood that Labour sent out a fresh batch of emails to supporters this morning informing them that their applications have been rejected and that they will not be able to vote in the leadership election.'

Joke. Just wondering why you're archiving it?

[Leftbehind]

It appears the witch-hunt has, in a very real sense, spread from members of other parties to voters of them now. But purging scores of legitimate members is a small price to pay to root out a tiny minority of Tories & Trotskyists!

Makes me wonder if they're trying to make this election a farce specifically to undermine its results, or even better, to call it off.

[Leftbehind]

Looks like Sadiq Khan is going to win the mayoral race as I heard that Corbyn surrogates/staff were handing out his literature at the events in London this week. Not sure how I feel about him-ideologically he's fine but he lacks that vision thing'-although it's a rare asset in the party now

Colour me skeptical on every front of this.

[Leftbehind]

Voted:-  1. Corbyn 2. Burnham

1. Watson 2. Eagle

(as well as the leftists for the CAC & North's NPF).

[Leftbehind]

Following the 'weeding out', the electorate is down to 553,954 (previously 610,753). However, most of the reduction comes from the affiliates (41,521) rather than the £3ers.

.. and mostly because they weren't on the electoral register, had signed up in more than one category, or hadn't paid their membership fees rather than because they were "infiltrators".  The number removed because they were considered not to be real Labour supporters was about 3000, of whom more than half were Greens.

I've seen plenty of cases posted where people have been refused because they weren't on the electoral register, when they clearly are. Look at this fella here, for instance. Nearly 10% gone, and how many of them will successfully appeal before the vote?

Oh dear, Fox News has something to say.

The amount of high-profile Blairites found regularly retweeting Hodges through this has taught me there's absolutely no reason not to regard them as political enemies.

[Leftbehind]

They certainly intended to entice supporters of other parties into Labour. That someone voted Green and encouraged others to do so in May doesn't violate this in any way, otherwise the term infiltrators is now being selectively redrawn to mean voters of other parties and not members.

[Leftbehind]

It was reborn, packaged with OMOV, for a certain goal by some - to open up the membership and dilute certain sections of the Labour Party's influence - and of course Falkirk was their non-justification. But now we're landed with that piss-poor system, it's no good starting a witch-hunt now it's so open that it attracts voters for other parties - Harman seemed to relish that prospect when announcing it. She speaks warmly about bringing the public in (unless that public has voted Green?).

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind if Corbyn hadn't made the ballot none of this would be getting questioned.