Labour Party leadership election 2015

[tpfkaw]

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What are the chances of Corbyn becoming party leader at this point?

It's one of those funny situations where it will happen for sure or won't.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Received an email from Dan Jarvis (who has barely said a dickie bird during this campaign)

Appropriate for a Barnsley MP, don't you think?

[Phony Moderate]

Brown to intervene today. A ComRes poll apparently shows that, according to the public, Corbyn would be the best and worst leader electorally. It also shows that David Miliband is more popular than any of them; given that the average journalist almost certainly has a giant framed photograph of him on their bedroom ceiling, this isn't surprising.

[Phony Moderate]

Brown speaking now. Started off well but now going off on a weird tangent about Nelson Mandela's 90th birthday celebrations.

[Phony Moderate]

Didn't endorse anyone. Lots of stuff about 'electability' and 'the need for power' early on but not so much in the latter stages. Ended it by quoting Bevan.

[afleitch]

Typical Gordon.

I'd rather hear Kinnock's opinion. At last had to deal with the same sort of sh-t when he was leader.

[Hnv1]

Brown speaking now. Started off well but now going off on a weird tangent about Nelson Mandela's 90th birthday celebrations.

I would have assumed he would back Cooper, she and Balls always stroke me as Brownites

[Phony Moderate]

Brown speaking now. Started off well but now going off on a weird tangent about Nelson Mandela's 90th birthday celebrations.

I would have assumed he would back Cooper, she and Balls always stroke me as Brownites

Balls is practically his political son.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I like that Brown decides to go for a 'statesmanlike' intervention shortly after Blair goes for a petty factionalist one: why do I get the impression that at least 50% of the motivation for the style of the former was a direct response to the latter? Those two have a weird relationship...

[afleitch]

I like that Brown decides to go for a 'statesmanlike' intervention shortly after Blair goes for a petty factionalist one: why do I get the impression that at least 50% of the motivation for the style of the former was a direct response to the latter? Those two have a weird relationship...

While like some government archive, we won't quite get the full story from either of them or a third party probably until one or both are dead.

[Phony Moderate]

The Independent on Sunday has learned that, if he wins, Corbyn intends to make John McDonnell Shadow Chancellor and put Tom Watson in a 'party management' role.

[Blair]

I really don't know much about John McDonnell apart from him leading the SCG, trying to run in 2007 and recently writing a guardian piece that screamed shadow Chancellor. IMO Corbyn has two options for his Shadow Cabinet-full leftist or fake unity.

[Simfan34]

Would Watson suggest full leftist?

[Phony Moderate]

Would Watson suggest full leftist?

Watson is a right-winger who has appeal across the party.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Watson is a unionist, which for some media people automatically means "raging leftie"

[Phony Moderate]

Watson is a unionist, which for some media people automatically means "raging leftie"

They should take a look at the voting breakdown of the 1981 deputy contest.

[Blair]

I've heard that Watson is going to be both a key player in removing Corbyn and in protecting him. Whilst I'm voting for him I don't know where the media myth that he's a great political mover comes from when his only claim to fame is his rather pathetic attempt at removing TB in 2006.

[Blair]

Forgot to say-part of me would love to have a shadow chancellor who said he'd want to assassinate Thatcher

[Suburbia]

Imagine a meeting between President Bernie Sanders, Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn. Not impossible.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Watson is a walking, talking cliché of a West Midlands Labour Right machine politician, right down to the paunch and the thick framed glasses.

[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!

[tpfkaw]

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.

[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.

[Dan the Roman]

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.

Governments in the UK seem to spend a lot of time behind. Thatcher was behind most of her tenure, as was Wilson, and Cameron for that matter. Blair was sort of the modern exception.

I think Foot was always going to suffer in a campaign because of a squeeze on one of the anti-Labour parties. 1983 very much had an anti-Labour majority, much as 2015 did, and evidence shows that when such exists, boundaries, UNS, pre-election polling, all tend to pale into insignificance.

Foot was DOA because he was not someone people could take seriously as a potential PM. His policies contributed to this impression(ie. things like the EU/Trident made him look unserious) but were not in isolation his problem. The same will be true of Corbyn. The problem with his views on the IRA/Hamas/Banning Private schools is not that they are unpopular but that they make him appear unserious as 95% of the political figures who hold those positions are unserious people( generally either student or post-student activists).

As a consequence the individual appeal of, say his economic message, will not matter all that much, because it will not be viewed in isolation, but as part of a package.

I think going Left, especially on economic issues makes sense for Labour, but Corbyn is the wrong man to take it to Downing Street. He might well pave the way for someone else, but like Moses he can never enter the promised land. And in all honesty I suspect he knows that.