Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
John Drake

Labour leadership contest

Which of the candidates would make you more likely to vote Labour if they win the leadership?  

55 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of the candidates would make you more likely to vote Labour if they win the leadership?

    • Andy Burnham
      13
    • Yvette Cooper
      13
    • Jeremy Corbyn
      14
    • Liz Kendall
      7
    • I would never vote Labour
      8
  2. 2. Did you vote Labour in the 2015 General Election?

    • Yes
      26
    • No
      29
  3. 3. Do you have a vote in the Labour leadership election?

    • Yes
      11
    • No
      44
  4. 4. Who would you vote for in the Labour leadership election?

    • Andy Burnham
      15
    • Yvette Cooper
      13
    • Jeremy Corbyn
      18
    • Liz Kendall
      9


Recommended Posts

The Torygraph with a headline article that's surely just outrageous.  It's just so, well, Fox News...  What's worse is that it's an editorial slot, not a comment piece.

Its so juvenile from the the labour party though to allow this type of voting

Suppose its better though than some union leader holding a card up saying  1;5 million votes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Labour lurch hard left with Corbyn then they are finished. Truly. Have a look around Europe and see how other left of centre parties are doing. In the modern era left wing politics doesn't work with people's sense of genuine fairness, it rewards the wrong behaviours and fails those with aspiration.


I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Labour lurch hard left with Corbyn then they are finished. Truly. Have a look around Europe and see how other left of centre parties are doing. In the modern era left wing politics doesn't work with people's sense of genuine fairness, it rewards the wrong behaviours and fails those with aspiration.

 

The problem the Labout party has is that apart from Corbyn the Labour leader contestants look a lilly livered lot

It needs someone with guts to challenge the Tories on things.

I'm no fan of the SNP but give credit where credit due in that the party and its leader have the guts to challenge the Tories on issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem the Labout party has is that apart from Corbyn the Labour leader contestants look a lilly livered lot

It needs someone with guts to challenge the Tories on things.

I'm no fan of the SNP but give credit where credit due in that the party and its leader have the guts to challenge the Tories on issues.

But they have nothing to lose by doing this in the Westminster Parliament.  The more left wing and anti Engish they are the better their electors like it.  This is not the case with Labour.  As I stated some time ago.  What Labour need in order to get into power is a repeat of Black Wednesday in 1992.  The Tories had just got back against the polls (like now) and were looking confident, when suddenly the wheels came off and they never looked that way again for years.  Blair, often lauded as the great Labour leader was lucky.  I'm sure Gordon, or John Smith had he lived would have done just as well.  But that's the thing about life, you never know about the might have beens,


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.  Osborne and Cameron, with minor supporting acts from IDS and cronies, are proper signpost MPs (using Black's terminologies) who genuinely believe in what they're doing.  That's undoubtedly why they've been so successful against a Labour party of weathercock MPs and shadow ministers who change their minds on their way forward based on the latest focus group.

 

It's beyond dispute that Labour lurched to the right. At the recent election, they promised to at least match the Tory policies on business and were criticised as business-unfriendly despite them agreeing with the biggest corporate real terms and undisputed tax cuts in multiple generations.  They also had a minister promise, and backed more subtly via manifesto, to  out-Tory the Tories on cutting the welfare state (not welfare fraud, welfare).  I could go on.  Labour in 2015 were much further right-wing in their policies and statements than even Maggie Thatcher was in the 80s.  Yet, the current shadow leadership are berating themselves and us for not going even further right.

 

At a certain point the terms 'right' and 'left' become fairly meaningless, but I do find it surprising that you think it is "beyond dispute" that Labour lurched to the right.

 

I'm sure Ed Miliband, if he were a poster on this forum, would have something to say about that.

 

Labour did have to face the fact at the last election that the country's finances still needed to be sorted out, so to have any credibility they had to have some policies that would deal with that issue.

 

If you think that makes them right wing, then so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Torygraph with a headline article that's surely just outrageous.  It's just so, well, Fox News...  What's worse is that it's an editorial slot, not a comment piece.

 

I agree with you that it's a stupid thing for the Telegraph to do.

 

Unfortunately, though, Labour have invited responses like this with an election process that is open to precisely this sort of manipulation.

 

The right to vote in the leadership election should have depended on someone being a member on the day the candidates were confirmed.

 

On the one hand you have Tories paying their £3 to vote for Corbyn, and on the other hand you have Owen Jones encouraging his readers to pay £3 also to vote for Corbyn. The trouble is they are all acting legitimately within the rules of the election.

 

And who can deny that if the Tories were having a leadership election with the same rules and with their equivalent of Corbyn standing - let's say someone like Godfrey Bloom, if he were a member of the Conservative Party - Labour sympathisers, including their media supporters, would be flocking to try to get voting rights to get him elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corbyn appears to believe in homeopathy... That should mean instant disqualification from the contest.


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to paper today Corbin is winning the leadership vote.

Apparently tory voters are paying the £3 to vote Corbyn Maybe a big mistake by LP if this is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corbyn appears to believe in homeopathy... That should mean instant disqualification from the contest.

 

That's a bit unfair.

 

The faeries at the bottom of the garden told him that homeopathy works...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour won't win an election under Corbyn that's for sure, but I would say in might encourage some in the Labour party to grow a spine and start to attack some Tory polices and have no fear of the Tory loving newspapers.

You can be sure that if Corbyn was elected he wouldn't suck up to the Tory loving media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/16/tim-farron-lib-dem-leader
Choosing Corbyn and the wilderness might be exciting – certainly for journalists and for mega-rich hedge-fund Tory donors. But not for all those about to have their tax credits and sickness pay sliced away. Not for the young, and not for the future of the NHS, social care, Sure Start and FE colleges for the half of students not destined for university.
Freedom to stand for everything you believe in is a fine thing – but not at the expense of ever holding power to implement anything.

 

That last line sums up the eternal dilemma facing the Labour Party.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Corbyn standing, and doing well even without the ridiculous trolling of the Telegraph and Toby Young, has actually been a really god thing for the Labour Party. It has certainly woken the PLP up to the fact that there is absolutely no appetite whatsoever within the membership for a Blairite / New Labour re-run of the 1997 election - which is quite clearly what some wanted. It's also proven conclusively that that particular wing of the party is in reality only a small grouping and has for a long time now been dominating the PLP in a way that doesn't reflect it's wider support base. I think there are signs amongst the backbenchers, councillors and wider membership that they are realising this and are becoming more confident in speaking up (witness the amendment tabled on the Welfare Bill against Harman's wishes).

 

Corbyn's not going to come anywhere close to winning but he's allowing an awful lot of people within Labour to find their voices once more. And that's a very good thing indeed.  


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."

Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a certain point the terms 'right' and 'left' become fairly meaningless, but I do find it surprising that you think it is "beyond dispute" that Labour lurched to the right.

 

I'm sure Ed Miliband, if he were a poster on this forum, would have something to say about that.

 

Labour did have to face the fact at the last election that the country's finances still needed to be sorted out, so to have any credibility they had to have some policies that would deal with that issue.

 

If you think that makes them right wing, then so be it.

When you say "last election" are you referring to the one in 2010 or the one in 2015?


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Corbyn standing, and doing well even without the ridiculous trolling of the Telegraph and Toby Young, has actually been a really god thing for the Labour Party. It has certainly woken the PLP up to the fact that there is absolutely no appetite whatsoever within the membership for a Blairite / New Labour re-run of the 1997 election - which is quite clearly what some wanted. It's also proven conclusively that that particular wing of the party is in reality only a small grouping and has for a long time now been dominating the PLP in a way that doesn't reflect it's wider support base. I think there are signs amongst the backbenchers, councillors and wider membership that they are realising this and are becoming more confident in speaking up (witness the amendment tabled on the Welfare Bill against Harman's wishes).

 

Corbyn's not going to come anywhere close to winning but he's allowing an awful lot of people within Labour to find their voices once more. And that's a very good thing indeed.  

 

I'm fairly sure that George Osborne would be delighted if what you say is correct.

 

He could have written your last paragraph himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Corbyn's not going to come anywhere close to winning but he's allowing an awful lot of people within Labour to find their voices once more. And that's a very good thing indeed.  

Exactly what use is being in opposition for the next 20+ years? Because that's all will happen with people like him.

 

You say there's no appetite for Blair style Labour, yet there doesn't seem to be much for the present one.

Edited by Johnoco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a certain point the terms 'right' and 'left' become fairly meaningless, but I do find it surprising that you think it is "beyond dispute" that Labour lurched to the right.

 

I'm sure Ed Miliband, if he were a poster on this forum, would have something to say about that.

 

Labour did have to face the fact at the last election that the country's finances still needed to be sorted out, so to have any credibility they had to have some policies that would deal with that issue.

 

If you think that makes them right wing, then so be it.

But how urgently do the country's finances need to be sorted? Not that urgently if Osborne's is anything to go by.  He's already failed to hit his target for deficit reduction and now he's put the target back by another year. It seems to me that the "deficit crisis" although important is not really a crisis.  Just another of Osborne's red herrings.  We've had deficits before.  Perhaps Labour could raise the really important deficit.  The £100bn trade deficit which, according to Dave on Wednesday is Gordon Brown's fault despite his not having been n office for over 5 years.


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about Jeremy Corbyn is he takes extremist positions on a lot of issues that no normal working class person would share. I have no issue with someone wanting to nationalise trains or raise the top rate of tax but do Labour really need a candidate who is sympathetic to Islamic extremists and anti-Semites, who wants to hand back Northern Ireland in it's entirety to Ireland (triggering a civil war) and allow open border immigration

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how urgently do the country's finances need to be sorted? Not that urgently if Osborne's is anything to go by.  He's already failed to hit his target for deficit reduction and now he's put the target back by another year. It seems to me that the "deficit crisis" although important is not really a crisis.  Just another of Osborne's red herrings.  We've had deficits before.  Perhaps Labour could raise the really important deficit.  The £100bn trade deficit which, according to Dave on Wednesday is Gordon Brown's fault despite his not having been n office for over 5 years.

 

The trouble is that in politics it's often the perception rather then the reality that counts, along with who can define the agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about Jeremy Corbyn is he takes extremist positions on a lot of issues that no normal working class person would share. I have no issue with someone wanting to nationalise trains or raise the top rate of tax but do Labour really need a candidate who is sympathetic to Islamic extremists and anti-Semites, who wants to hand back Northern Ireland in it's entirety to Ireland (triggering a civil war) and allow open border immigration

I think what Labour wants is a leader who challeges the Tory lies which Corbyn would do.

They also want a leader who resonates with a majority of the public, which Corbyn won't.

None of the contenders in the Labour leadership contest inspire with with much confidence.

Unfortunatly for Labour they lost a few MP's at the General Election who in my opinion would have been better Labour leaders than are now contesting the leadership election

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what Labour wants is a leader who challeges the Tory lies which Corbyn would do.

They also want a leader who resonates with a majority of the public, which Corbyn won't.

None of the contenders in the Labour leadership contest inspire with with much confidence.

Unfortunatly for Labour they lost a few MP's at the General Election who in my opinion would have been better Labour leaders than are now contesting the leadership election

A lot of the problem is that many nominal socialists have lost interest in more than sound bites about inequality and instead have adopted nonsense ideas about identity politics and an irrational love of radical Islam. Ken Livingstone, George Galloway and Jeremy Corbyn a few of the biggest offenders but the ideas run deep and really do nothing to connect these people with actual working class people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fairly sure that George Osborne would be delighted if what you say is correct.

 

He could have written your last paragraph himself.

You're going to have to explain to me why it's a bad thing for Labour to have these conversations.

 

Corbyn is not someone I would ever vote for, and I agree very much with Bowes' comments on him and a certain element on the left, but that doesn't mean you shut down those in the party with these views. That's exactly what the Blairites did for 15 years and it created a PLP dominated by one wing of the party - a wing that doesn't appear to be particularly big within the membership if the current election is any guide. Which probably explains the nonsense coming out of Chuka Umunna who assumed a Miliband defeat meant a return to him and his ilk being in charge. 


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."

Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're going to have to explain to me why it's a bad thing for Labour to have these conversations.

 

Corbyn is not someone I would ever vote for, and I agree very much with Bowes' comments on him and a certain element on the left, but that doesn't mean you shut down those in the party with these views. That's exactly what the Blairites did for 15 years and it created a PLP dominated by one wing of the party - a wing that doesn't appear to be particularly big within the membership if the current election is any guide. Which probably explains the nonsense coming out of Chuka Umunna who assumed a Miliband defeat meant a return to him and his ilk being in charge. 

 

It isn't a bad thing for Labour to have those conversations. They are necessary to determine the future direction of the party.

 

But what the Tories fear is someone who can occupy the middle ground as Blair did.

 

The Tories are currently planning a strategy of how to consolidate their position in the centre ground and to appeal to disaffected Labour and other voters.

 

The Labour Party, although it's early to say this before the party has a new leader, seems to be focussing on a strategy of appealing more to its voters and potential voters on the left.

 

Which party do you think is likely to enjoy the most success with these approaches?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't a bad thing for Labour to have those conversations. They are necessary to determine the future direction of the party.

 

But what the Tories fear is someone who can occupy the middle ground as Blair did.

 

The Tories are currently planning a strategy of how to consolidate their position in the centre ground and to appeal to disaffected Labour and other voters.

 

The Labour Party, although it's early to say this before the party has a new leader, seems to be focussing on a strategy of appealing more to its voters and potential voters on the left.

 

Which party do you think is likely to enjoy the most success with these approaches?

 

I suppose the answer to that comes down to numbers; if there are more of those than the center-leftists they will do well. It is a fact that there are a huge number of non voters, if they can be swayed to vote for whoever that party will do very well. Personally, I think the Labour party needs to attract as wide a spectrum as possible. We live in a diverse society, a truly representative political party should reflect that. Much easier said than done though. 


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose the answer to that comes down to numbers; if there are more of those than the center-leftists they will do well. It is a fact that there are a huge number of non voters, if they can be swayed to vote for whoever that party will do very well. Personally, I think the Labour party needs to attract as wide a spectrum as possible. We live in a diverse society, a truly representative political party should reflect that. Much easier said than done though. 

 

It isn't just numbers.

 

It's how people perceive their own lives and how that relates to what the parties are saying and doing.

 

I think there is a great danger for Labour at the moment of simply looking irrelevant.

 

This article illustrates it to some extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...