I am no fan of Corbyn, but curious to mount the no experience argument.
Having been in parliament for 32 years he has arguably more experience than Blair (14yrs) and Cameron (4yrs) when they became leader. He hasn't been a shadow minister, but in terms of the metrics you raise like participation in ceremonial duties or number of PMQ questions asked he is clearly ahead.
Only a tory would say he is popular with the wrong people and it is bizarre to say his attraction is superficial. Many of his supporters are fellow travellers from CND who have stuck with him for over 30 years. That is not superficial. And whether you agree or disagree with them, their votes count as much as yours or mine.
As for timing. He is clearly having more success than most politicians cam dream of, so he is probably doing something right that many could learn from.
Blair had been a shadow minister for 7 years, and an effective one. Cameron had worked in the leader's office although he hadn't held a shadow brief for long. He also worked for a time outside politics (admittedly as a PR consultant).
Corbyn has never been a shadow minister (or any other sort of minister, or even a PPS). He has never had a job. He has never, so far as I know, even worked as a union organiser. He has never done any practical administration in his life - he boasts of his experience on Islington's housing committee! To go straight from that, to the huge, complicated and stressful executive job of leader of the Opposition is a massive ask.
Lord George Bentinck would be just about the only parallel to such a case - and he lasted 18 months before resigning on a point of principle, during which time he was reliant on Disraeli to keep him afloat in the Commons, and admitted that he took his lead from Stanley in the Lords.
This is why Tom Watson will have such a key role to play. He does know the internal Labour ropes backwards and can either help Corbyn move the party way to the left, or seek to frustrate his efforts. He'll also set the rules for the new leadership election when Corbyn is forced out or resigns some time in the next two years. I can't see the £3 experiment being repeated.
Tom Watson's already had to resign twice from frontbench roles for internal Labour politicking. I see no reason to think it won't become three times.
It's hard to think of a more dangerous man for Labour to have as deputy leader.
"Removing all privatisation from the NHS to make it completely publicly run"
What does that even mean?
Will the NHS be making mattresses, or surgical gloves now?
Presumably he will be nationalizing GP services as well.
Argh. It annoys me so much.
Instead of a sensible conversation about whether we should:
- "buy in" particular services, or conduct them in house; - create an internal market within a publicly funded organisation/between such organisations; - encourage new providers whether private, charity, mutual, joint venture, etc.; - maintain or restrict a system free at the point of use;
I am no fan of Corbyn, but curious to mount the no experience argument.
Having been in parliament for 32 years he has arguably more experience than Blair (14yrs) and Cameron (4yrs) when they became leader. He hasn't been a shadow minister, but in terms of the metrics you raise like participation in ceremonial duties or number of PMQ questions asked he is clearly ahead.
Only a tory would say he is popular with the wrong people and it is bizarre to say his attraction is superficial. Many of his supporters are fellow travellers from CND who have stuck with him for over 30 years. That is not superficial. And whether you agree or disagree with them, their votes count as much as yours or mine.
As for timing. He is clearly having more success than most politicians cam dream of, so he is probably doing something right that many could learn from.
Blair had been a shadow minister for 7 years, and an effective one. Cameron had worked in the leader's office although he hadn't held a shadow brief for long. He also worked for a time outside politics (admittedly as a PR consultant).
Corbyn has never been a shadow minister (or any other sort of minister, or even a PPS). He has never had a job. He has never, so far as I know, even worked as a union organiser. He has never done any practical administration in his life - he boasts of his experience on Islington's housing committee! To go straight from that, to the huge, complicated and stressful executive job of leader of the Opposition is a massive ask.
Lord George Bentinck would be just about the only parallel to such a case - and he lasted 18 months before resigning on a point of principle, during which time he was reliant on Disraeli to keep him afloat in the Commons, and admitted that he took his lead from Stanley in the Lords.
This is why Tom Watson will have such a key role to play. He does know the internal Labour ropes backwards and can either help Corbyn move the party way to the left, or seek to frustrate his efforts. He'll also set the rules for the new leadership election when Corbyn is forced out or resigns some time in the next two years. I can't see the £3 experiment being repeated.
Tom Watson's already had to resign twice from frontbench roles for internal Labour politicking. I see no reason to think it won't become three times.
It's hard to think of a more dangerous man for Labour to have as deputy leader.
Well, he's all Labour's got standing in the way of a far-left takeover.
@rcs1000 claims that Corbyn's "disastrousness will be so plainly evident so rapidly, that he will step down as leader". Perhaps, but the far left will claim that this was merely because Corbyn compromised with bourgeois capitalism, or "neoliberalism" while leader, and the circus will go on.
" ... embedded is that truly embarrassing interview with Channel 4 where he is simply cannot keep his temper:"
His fans will lap it up. But "truly embarrassing" is an accurate description. Imagine Jezza meeting any Head of State - we'd be at war the next day. Apart from his 'friends' in Hezbollah, of course.
This is why Tom Watson will have such a key role to play. He does know the internal Labour ropes backwards and can either help Corbyn move the party way to the left, or seek to frustrate his efforts. He'll also set the rules for the new leadership election when Corbyn is forced out or resigns some time in the next two years. I can't see the £3 experiment being repeated.
If of course he is elected. Not one of the others would be capable of playing that game - they are either too inexperienced or too incompetent.
While I agree he could do all those things, remember Watson may well also prove to be more trouble than he's worth in other ways - he's rude, arrogant and has the reputation for being slightly lazy and casual. As deputy to a complete novice, he would have no hiding place for those drawbacks.
I don't think a Corbyn-Watson partnership will frighten the Tory leadership.
Corbyn will fall apart soon after winning because his lala land brand of politics never has and never will stand up to scrutiny, it's nothing to do with smearing. Equality and freedom are incompatible, the socialist desire for equality (however they wish to define it) can only be at the expense of freedom and we value that above all else.
It's odd that he's got to his age without that dawning on him, we all gravitate to where we're comfortable, I suspect that as a veggie teetotal he spends the majority of his time with likeminded people. There's clearly plenty like him within labour happy to have him as labour but the country at large won't accept it. Regardless of what you think of the new labour sycophants, they know it too.
"Equality and freedom are incompatible"
That sounds like rubbish to me. Care to explain?
All politicians,indeed all people, use these kinds of argument to get them through the day. Life is too short to argue every point from first principles.The politicians that are dangerous are the ones who actually believe them like Benn and Thatcher.
It's more than that. Absolute equality and absolute freedom are both impossible: the serious question is how much relative freedom and equality are compatible? Not that many people come here to consider, let alone discuss, serious questions.
It is comforting to believe we value freedom, but the evidence is mixed.
A sad, but probably correct point.
On Cameron's successor, which was raised, I too though Osborne would be happier in the grand vizier role, unlike brown he's seemed a supportive, natural no.2, and he's groomed allies he could fill that role for.
But time in office, improved personal ratings and now disorganised opposition may have convinced him perhaps he really could make it as PM. That people even consider it would not have been the case a couple of years ago, so even if unlikely it is a possibility, and I think he's going for it now.
Interesting example of superficiality and its attractions at our tea table last night. My daughter is going to join a group next weekend that is going across to the camps in Calais to distribute food, children's clothing, sleeping bags and tents to migrants there. She points out, correctly, these people have nothing and very few seem to care. She is delighted that they are going across on the back of Daily Mail vouchers (for a rather different purpose I suspect) and are promised a free bottle of wine, from the paper apparently, on their return.
I tried to explain that making these camps more bearable and meeting these undeniable needs simply makes the camps and the journey more attractive, that it would ultimately aggravate the problem rather than solve it, that France should be processing these migrants and identifying the refugees from those that simply (and entirely understandably) want a better life for themselves and their families and that we had to find ways of discouraging this mass movement of people and all the misery that it causes.
I genuinely believe that is right but even listening to myself I wondered when does a lack of superficiality simply become a lack of compassion? When does superficiality become human decency? I am actually proud of her and not at all unhappy that she thinks that way.
I am no fan of Corbyn, but curious to mount the no experience argument.
Having been in parliament for 32 years he has arguably more experience than Blair (14yrs) and Cameron (4yrs) when they became leader. He hasn't been a shadow minister, but in terms of the metrics you raise like participation in ceremonial duties or number of PMQ questions asked he is clearly ahead.
Only a tory would say he is popular with the wrong people and it is bizarre to say his attraction is superficial. Many of his supporters are fellow travellers from CND who have stuck with him for over 30 years. That is not superficial. And whether you agree or disagree with them, their votes count as much as yours or mine.
As for timing. He is clearly having more success than most politicians cam dream of, so he is probably doing something right that many could learn from.
Blair had been a shadow minister for 7 years, and an effective one. Cameron had worked in the leader's office although he hadn't held a shadow brief for long. He also worked for a time outside politics (admittedly as a PR consultant).
Corbyn has never been a shadow minister (or any other sort of minister, or even a PPS). He has never had a job. He has never, so far as I know, even worked as a union organiser. He has never done any practical administration in his life - he boasts of his experience on Islington's housing committee! To go straight from that, to the huge, complicated and stressful executive job of leader of the Opposition is a massive ask.
Lord George Bentinck would be just about the only parallel to such a case - and he lasted 18 months before resigning on a point of principle, during which time he was reliant on Disraeli to keep him afloat in the Commons, and admitted that he took his lead from Stanley in the Lords.
This is why Tom Watson will have such a key role to play. He does know the internal Labour ropes backwards and can either help Corbyn move the party way to the left, or seek to frustrate his efforts. He'll also set the rules for the new leadership election when Corbyn is forced out or resigns some time in the next two years. I can't see the £3 experiment being repeated.
Tom Watson's already had to resign twice from frontbench roles for internal Labour politicking. I see no reason to think it won't become three times.
It's hard to think of a more dangerous man for Labour to have as deputy leader.
Well, he's all Labour's got standing in the way of a far-left takeover.
It is a little amusing, but an unprincipled bruiser, as is his reputation though I could not speak to its accuracy, may well be best for the party and the country right now.
Mr. CD13, deeply unfair and inaccurate comment. If Corbyn met the head of state of Argentina I'm sure they'd be delighted by his policy on the Falklands.
We have a series of treats to look forward to and which Corbynites such as Nick Palmer can enjoy as their unspun, straight-talking hero triumphs: The first Andrew Neil interview. The first PMQ The first Conference speech as leader The first Remembrance Sunday The first Budget response The 100 year anniversary of the Easter Rising And so on.
It should be invigorating stuff as The British public learns more about the man the Labour party believes should be the next Prime Minister.
What I find genuinely sickening is the seeming willingness of the likes of Nick Palmer to brush off Corbyn's close associations with people who have openly and repeatedly called for the murder of British soldiers, the killing of all Jews and the enslavement of women. These are not colourful "details" or "irrelevancies", they are fundamental to what nice, unspun, straight-talking Jeremy Corbyn is all about - he is a lifetime opponent of the British state and a willing friend to all those who oppose it, whatever they stand for.
Forget the insane, unworkable economics, the deeply flawed class-based analysis of society and the serial disloyalty if you like, but this man has consistently stood shoulder to shoulder with enemies of this country for the last 40 years. Shame on all those who know that (like Nick) and still back him. Not only are they providing succour to some very evil groups and individuals, but they are also consigning those who they claim to care about to a decade or more of Tory rule. The lacklustre campaigns run by Burnham, Cooper and Kendall do not excuse ignoring that. There are good people in the Labour party, but they seem to be outnumbered by clueless fools.
And yes, of course, David is right.
My dear Southam, I couldn't have put it better myself. This is the first, and probably the last time I will be agreeing with you wholeheartedly on a subject. The rise of Der Fuhrur (British Style) is something to abhor and worry about. I see Labour splitting wildly if Corbyn does indeed claim the leadership. And won't British politics be in a ferment then!
I am no fan of Corbyn, but curious to mount the no experience argument.
Having been in parliament for 32 years he has arguably more experience than Blair (14yrs) and Cameron (4yrs) when they became leader. He hasn't been a shadow minister, but in terms of the metrics you raise like participation in ceremonial duties or number of PMQ questions asked he is clearly ahead.
Only a tory would say he is popular with the wrong people and it is bizarre to say his attraction is superficial. Many of his supporters are fellow travellers from CND who have stuck with him for over 30 years. That is not superficial. And whether you agree or disagree with them, their votes count as much as yours or mine.
As for timing. He is clearly having more success than most politicians can dream of, so he is probably doing something right that many could learn from.
His timing for winning the Labour leadership is perfect, though by chance rather than design: he didn't wait for this moment then reach to grab it as part of a career plan.
His attractiveness to the far left, those who are still members of CND and the like, is of course not superficial but that was always his core vote; his attractiveness to the Labour mainstream, never mind the floating voters, is another matter.
And these two points tie together as it's not his popularity now that matters in the big picture; it's his popularity with swing voters in 2020 or whenever the election is.
Surely we're better off trying understand the Corbyn phenomenon than dismiss it. Whilst it delights Tories, it part of a wider trend that we could all do with understanding.
The fact that Corbyn can do this at all is a big deal for all parties, not just Labour. It is part of the same trend that sees the LibDems on 8 seats, the SNP controlling Scotland and UKIP winning the Euros. There is a desire to kick back against the established order.
It is luck and electoral cycle that has seen the Tories untouched so far. If they were to lose office, who knows what would happen.
TBH, I think the notion that the hard-Left need to be shocked by their own defeat won't work. If you hold hard-Left beliefs - you'll simply move your caravan on/blame evil forces da-de-da.
The same people seem to move almost seemlessly between Greenies/SWP/StopTheWar/Occupy/AN Other micro parties/38Degree petitions.
Labour needs to repel them, if they don't want to become a very large protest group with MPs bolted on the side. Her Maj's Loyal Opposition is supposed to be capable of becoming HMG.
On FPT, you said something like "skipping a generation normally means going ahead one, not moving back two" - spot on.
Tyson described Kendall as Bonkers HYUFD described the left having won the social argument having failed to win the economic one. BJK=EICIPM =JCICILL.
Perhaps the comment that the extreme left wing view needs to be tried and tested to utter destruction to bring Labour to its senses is right. What will remain of the party at that point is debatable but win or lose I just cannot see either wing of Labour reconciling after this and a parting of ways becomes more inevitable by the day. We will see SDP mk2.. As for what the shadow front bench will look like and even if JC can even get enough to serve.....who knows?
The next few years though with Labour will be so appalling bad it will only be able to be safely viewed in a shocked state from behind a sofa, while biting down firmly on knuckles.
It's getting more and more like the plot of "Being There" where a simple minded gardener is in the right place at the right time ...
"Public opinion polls start to reflect just how much his "simple brand of wisdom" resonates with the jaded American public." Replace the last two words with "Labour electorate."
Mr. CD13, deeply unfair and inaccurate comment. If Corbyn met the head of state of Argentina I'm sure they'd be delighted by his policy on the Falklands.
Perhaps not - what would they bring up periodically as a political distraction when domestic trouble hits?
We have a series of treats to look forward to and which Corbynites such as Nick Palmer can enjoy as their unspun, straight-talking hero triumphs: The first Andrew Neil interview. The first PMQ The first Conference speech as leader The first Remembrance Sunday The first Budget response The 100 year anniversary of the Easter Rising And so on.
It should be invigorating stuff as The British public learns more about the man the Labour party believes should be the next Prime Minister.
Mr. L, it's nice to be nice, and clever to be clever.
Encouraging the problem worsens it. I'm sure it'll make your daughter feel better, and those she helps feel better. But that sort of action will only make the problem worse.
The solution is actually enforcing border controls, proper approval or deporting of asylum seekers, and trying to foster wider stability and prosperity so that people are safe in their own countries and have a way of getting on there.
And don't forget, those people are in France. Obviously, that's not as good as being in England, but they're not in Syria or Libya.
Good article DH. Corbyn looks nailed on, and given the lacklustre alternatives perhaps not surprisingly. One of the biggest problems will not be Corbyn's politics so much as his (lack of) organising and networking skills. That may default to Watson who may well be the Beria to Corbyn's Trotsky.
There is a strong desire to lob a large mangy tomcat at the westminster pigeons, should be fun but not a very effective way of improving things. The Labour Conference is going to be a hoot..
@rcs1000 claims that Corbyn's "disastrousness will be so plainly evident so rapidly, that he will step down as leader". Perhaps, but the far left will claim that this was merely because Corbyn compromised with bourgeois capitalism, or "neoliberalism" while leader, and the circus will go on.
I think "forecasts" or "predicts" would be more accurate than "claims".
Mr. kle4, hmm. Maybe they'll claim the Channel Islands?
Mr. Jonathan, attributing the Conservative victory solely to luck is a serious mistake. Compare the performance in Con-Lab marginals. That was not luck.
"Would a new leader in war be better if they'd been groomed for leadership for a few years, or if they'd been a foot soldier for a couple of decades but never had any leadership responsibility whatsoever (and had, in fact, been something of a troublemaker"
I think we have a sort of precedent here with Churchill and Hitler ( though Churchill was a foot soldier as well of course and probably a bit of a troublemaker)
Speaking from a Conservative perspective, I see danger in the Corbyn phenomenon. The dominant narrative on here - that Corbyn will be disastrous for Labour, will tear the party in two and render it unelectable - is seductive and clearly supportable, not least because it is echoed by many within the Labour movement. It feels instinctively right, taking into account the pragmatism of the electorate, political history and the reactionary nature of Corbyn's politics (he essentially espouses the leftist politics of the early 1980s, and has scarcely evolved his politics to meet the challenges facing Britain today). On balance, I think it is likely to prevail; Labour march off to the wilderness, perhaps even over the precipice. It is only the paucity of our imagination that persuades us that Labour must survive.
But there is a not immaterial chance that Corbyn will capture the zeitgeist. Labour's constitution makes it difficult to remove a leader and Corbyn's election by a thumping majority of members would make it even more so. With the influx of energised members, the objections of the parliamentary party become largely irrelevant. Besides, there is no obvious leader for the counter-offensive. Burnham and Cooper, probably the best of the middle-managers left at the top of the party, will be damaged by their defeat. Umunna and Hunt lack the gravitas, character and intellectual heft to lead. The Blairities will be exiled, within or without the party. Brown and Miliband rendered irrelevant by their own failures. Corbyn is likely to be around for a while.
And the UK political field is bare at the moment. The Liberal Democrats are poorly positioned to benefit from Labour's leftwards lurch, having themselves moved leftwards and needing time to come to terms with their defeat and earn relevance. Ukip's focus will be elsewhere in the short-term (Euroref) and if anything they might find a more authentic voice of the conservative left is a challenge to the progress they made at the last election, although this is debatable. Corbyn is going to get a hearing.
And Corbyn has some interesting things to say. His anti-austerity rhetoric will have wide support. His views on nationalisation of the railways and protection of the NHS appear to accord with the electorate's (though David Herdson's point is well made), and his stance on nuclear weapons is not necessarily as toxic as it was in the 1980s. We can all think of former Conservative defence secretaries who now support disarmament. And unlike Ed Miliband, Corbyn can weave these together into a coherent package, with the courage of long-held convictions. Miliband failed not because he was too left wing, but because he was too timid, too tentative. His tepid offerings did little to inspire the left, but enough to make his assertions of economic competence look questionable. His overall package was incoherent. And as a leader, he did not offer anything wildly different from the status quo. Corbyn does.
I am no fan of Corbyn, but curious to mount the no experience argument.
Having been in parliament for 32 years he has arguably more experience than Blair (14yrs) and Cameron (4yrs) when they became leader. He hasn't been a shadow minister, but in terms of the metrics you raise like participation in ceremonial duties or number of PMQ questions asked he is clearly ahead.
Only a tory would say he is popular with the wrong people and it is bizarre to say his attraction is superficial. Many of his supporters are fellow travellers from CND who have stuck with him for over 30 years. That is not superficial. And whether you agree or disagree with them, their votes count as much as yours or mine.
As for timing. He is clearly having more success than most politicians can dream of, so he is probably doing something right that many could learn from.
His timing for winning the Labour leadership is perfect, though by chance rather than design: he didn't wait for this moment then reach to grab it as part of a career plan.
His attractiveness to the far left, those who are still members of CND and the like, is of course not superficial but that was always his core vote; his attractiveness to the Labour mainstream, never mind the floating voters, is another matter.
And these two points tie together as it's not his popularity now that matters in the big picture; it's his popularity with swing voters in 2020 or whenever the election is.
Surely we're better off trying understand the Corbyn phenomenon than dismiss it. Whilst it delights Tories, it part of a wider trend that we could all do with understanding.
The fact that Corbyn can do this at all is a big deal for all parties, not just Labour. It is part of the same trend that sees the LibDems on 8 seats, the SNP controlling Scotland and UKIP winning the Euros. There is a desire to kick back against the established order.
It is luck and electoral cycle that has seen the Tories untouched so far. If they were to lose office, who knows what would happen.
FPTP combined with dysfunctional opposition means they won't lose power.
We have a series of treats to look forward to and which Corbynites such as Nick Palmer can enjoy as their unspun, straight-talking hero triumphs: The first Andrew Neil interview. [will be tough but fun to watch] The first PMQ [will be fine - he'll go soft on Cameron and Cameron will do likewise. It's later ones that will get heated] The first Conference speech as leader [I'd imagine he'll say something unifying and it will be fine again] The first Remembrance Sunday [?? Unless he wears a donkey jacket I can't see how this can go wrong?] The first Budget response [when have Labour been anything other than economically illiterate?] The 100 year anniversary of the Easter Rising [I'd imagine he'll just keep a low profile?] And so on.
It should be invigorating stuff as The British public learns more about the man the Labour party believes should be the next Prime Minister.
So much of the credibility of a leader is just the trappings of office. I think he'll surprise us. It will certainly make politics a fight again that's for sure!
Mr. L, it's nice to be nice, and clever to be clever.
Encouraging the problem worsens it. I'm sure it'll make your daughter feel better, and those she helps feel better. But that sort of action will only make the problem worse.
The solution is actually enforcing border controls, proper approval or deporting of asylum seekers, and trying to foster wider stability and prosperity so that people are safe in their own countries and have a way of getting on there.
And don't forget, those people are in France. Obviously, that's not as good as being in England, but they're not in Syria or Libya.
Made that point too Morris Dancer but their needs are great and undeniable. Quite a lot of them are from Syria apparently. Most will no doubt have come through Italy too.
My broader point is that superficial caring and compassion can be quite potent.
What I find genuinely sickening is the seeming willingness of the likes of Nick Palmer to brush off Corbyn's close associations with people who have openly and repeatedly called for the murder of British soldiers, the killing of all Jews and the enslavement of women. These are not colourful "details" or "irrelevancies", they are fundamental to what nice, unspun, straight-talking Jeremy Corbyn is all about - he is a lifetime opponent of the British state and a willing friend to all those who oppose it, whatever they stand for.
Forget the insane, unworkable economics, the deeply flawed class-based analysis of society and the serial disloyalty if you like, but this man has consistently stood shoulder to shoulder with enemies of this country for the last 40 years. Shame on all those who know that (like Nick) and still back him. Not only are they providing succour to some very evil groups and individuals, but they are also consigning those who they claim to care about to a decade or more of Tory rule. The lacklustre campaigns run by Burnham, Cooper and Kendall do not excuse ignoring that. There are good people in the Labour party, but they seem to be outnumbered by clueless fools.
And yes, of course, David is right.
My dear Southam, I couldn't have put it better myself. This is the first, and probably the last time I will be agreeing with you wholeheartedly on a subject. The rise of Der Fuhrur (British Style) is something to abhor and worry about. I see Labour splitting wildly if Corbyn does indeed claim the leadership. And won't British politics be in a ferment then!
But is it a bad thing if they split? I don't see how it can be.
Mr. kle4, hmm. Maybe they'll claim the Channel Islands?
Mr. Jonathan, attributing the Conservative victory solely to luck is a serious mistake. Compare the performance in Con-Lab marginals. That was not luck.
I am not attributing the victory or the election campaign in 2015 itself to luck at all. It was clearly hard won.
But there is luck at play. You can make small changes to events of the past 10 years and end up with some quite radically different outcomes. I wonder what would have happened if Labour had lost power in 2005 rather than 2010, or won power in 1992 rather than 1997 for example.
It would not take much for Corbyn to pose a serious threat to the Conservatives. Exhaustion after ten years in charge, bitter in-fighting after the Euroref, stage 2 of the global financial crisis, even a bog standard recession, scandal, incompetence. Whatever. I am not saying Corbyn will win, indeed I suspect it is unlikely, but I think we underestimate the chances. This is not, by historical terms, a popular government. The majority was won on the back of the Liberal Democrats' annihilation and outstanding strategising, not on the back of a thumping popular mandate. it would not take much for the political weather to change. Electoral reform, if it comes, could accelerate the process and deprive the Conservatives of the advantage that FPTP offers in the current climate. Yes, it is more likely that Corbyn will pile up support in current Labour strongholds, while driving Worcester woman, Mondeo man, hard working families and all the other notional swing voters into the arms of the Conservatives, but that cannot be taken for granted. The SNP provides a model for a bottom-up campaign that ultimately achieves electoral success (though of course Indyref was a game changer). Corbyn seems to me the kind of character who could approximate that approach, although again David Herdson's points about his lack of organisational experience are well made.
Mr. Jonathan, Cameron did have some luck, but you could equally argue it was Labour incompetence. They couldn't combat the SNP deal line, and the failure to even attempt defenestration of Ed Miliband was a weakness of judgement or nerve.
I am no fan of Corbyn, but curious to mount the no experience argument.
Having been in parliament for 32 years he has arguably more experience than Blair (14yrs) and Cameron (4yrs) when they became leader. He hasn't been a shadow minister, but in terms of the metrics you raise like participation in ceremonial duties or number of PMQ questions asked he is clearly ahead.
Only a tory would say he is popular with the wrong people and it is bizarre to say his attraction is superficial. Many of his supporters are fellow travellers from CND who have stuck with him for over 30 years. That is not superficial. And whether you agree or disagree with them, their votes count as much as yours or mine.
As for timing. He is clearly having more success than most politicians can dream of, so he is probably doing something right that many could learn from.
His timing for winning the Labour leadership is perfect, though by chance rather than design: he didn't wait for this moment then reach to grab it as part of a career plan.
His attractiveness to the far left, those who are still members of CND and the like, is of course not superficial but that was always his core vote; his attractiveness to the Labour mainstream, never mind the floating voters, is another matter.
And these two points tie together as it's not his popularity now that matters in the big picture; it's his popularity with swing voters in 2020 or whenever the election is.
Surely we're better off trying understand the Corbyn phenomenon than dismiss it. Whilst it delights Tories, it part of a wider trend that we could all do with understanding.
The fact that Corbyn can do this at all is a big deal for all parties, not just Labour. It is part of the same trend that sees the LibDems on 8 seats, the SNP controlling Scotland and UKIP winning the Euros. There is a desire to kick back against the established order.
It is luck and electoral cycle that has seen the Tories untouched so far. If they were to lose office, who knows what would happen.
FPTP combined with dysfunctional opposition means they won't lose power.
You are probably right, but people could not predict the 2015 outcome on the day. Who knows what will happen.
Traditionally a majority of 12 is not seen as a working majority.
Morris Dancer, I agree, not on the economy, not today. But what about tomorrow? If there is a second phase to the global financial crisis (which I think is quite likely), what will that do (i) for the Conservatives' reputation for economic competence; (ii) for the politics of "austerity"; and (iii) for the liberal economic model? Is it inconceivable that people will give a fair hearing to an alternative? Corbyn may be doomed by his inability to move on from the early 1980s and embrace the modern economy, but who knows how events will pan out? As globalisation threatens ever more jobs, who is to say that the British electorate will not be tempted anew by protectionism? And don't we always say that governments lose elections?
As an aside, a Corbyn victory will be good for Labour. Not because Corbyn will be a good leader. On the contrary, he will be a disaster...
So, Labour elect a new leader to face, possibly, a new Conservative leader. (Incidentally, I was speaking to a friend of mine a few weeks ago who used to work for Cameron and Osborne when they were on Howard's staff. His view is that Osborne doesn't want the top job - he prefers to be the Grand Vizier, the Peter Mandelson of the Conservatives, and would find a friendly placeman to front for him while he did it, much as he has with Cameron himself. He suggested Sajid Javid, from that point of view, should be the current favourite to replace Cameron. Of course, my friend knew him a while ago and Osborne may have changed his mind.) The first thing that leader will have to do is tear up the policy sheet. The second thing they will have to do is reunite the party. The third thing they will have to do is try to stop people pointing and laughing at them for enthusiastically electing such a numpty in the first place and persuade them to listen to Labour and take them seriously again.
Meanwhile the new Tory leader has more or less a free ride. At that point, to quote the great Shirley Williams, Labour have already lost the next election.
(Also, one other thought occurs - who would be this new Labour leader? Ummuna? Will never get it. Hunt? More brainless and vacuous than Cooper. Jarvis? Doesn't want it. Starmer? He may not even survive that long with the current scandals emerging at the CPS. So where is this excellent alternative to appear from? The most damning thing of the lot for Labour is right now, these three losers are the best that Labour have - and they're rubbish.)
If Corbyn is replaced before 2020 the only acceptable replacement for all wings of the party would be Alan Johnson, who would take the Michael Howard role
I believe that Mr L's daughter would make a better leader than Jezza. Compassion rather than anger, and with maturity, she'd be a far better judge of character than someone who has never grown up.
Hilarious stuff. Those people are genuinely mad. Tory just means bad to them, which is an ok position to hold I guess, but they don't seem to realise that does not mean bad must also just equalTory. How do they reconcile everyone not ideologically pure being Tory with complaints only 27 %, or whatever, voted for the government?
Mr. Jonathan, Cameron did have some luck, but you could equally argue it was Labour incompetence. They couldn't combat the SNP deal line, and the failure to even attempt defenestration of Ed Miliband was a weakness of judgement or nerve.
MD on this point, we are arguing at cross purposes. Of course Labour was complicit in its defeat in 2015.
All I am saying is that govt doesn't really control broader social and economic trends. Events like 2008 or Oct 1992 would have happened regardless who had won the previous election, but cast a long shadow. The events that started in 2008 are still playing out.
It would not take much for Corbyn to pose a serious threat to the Conservatives. Exhaustion after ten years in charge, bitter in-fighting after the Euroref, stage 2 of the global financial crisis, even a bog standard recession, scandal, incompetence. Whatever. I am not saying Corbyn will win, indeed I suspect it is unlikely, but I think we underestimate the chances. This is not, by historical terms, a popular government. The majority was won on the back of the Liberal Democrats' annihilation and outstanding strategising, not on the back of a thumping popular mandate. it would not take much for the political weather to change. Electoral reform, if it comes, could accelerate the process and deprive the Conservatives of the advantage that FPTP offers in the current climate. Yes, it is more likely that Corbyn will pile up support in current Labour strongholds, while driving Worcester woman, Mondeo man, hard working families and all the other notional swing voters into the arms of the Conservatives, but that cannot be taken for granted. The SNP provides a model for a bottom-up campaign that ultimately achieves electoral success (though of course Indyref was a game changer). Corbyn seems to me the kind of character who could approximate that approach, although again David Herdson's points about his lack of organisational experience are well made.
It would take a perfect storm and. A lot of luck, but I'd agree the possibility cannot be discounted entirely. If Tories do do that, they increase the risk they will enable it.
It's the childish naivety of it all that beggars belief.
Not enough money - print it!
War is Bad - ban the bomb, let's all be friends and hug Hamas.
I can indulgently tolerate someone who's under 21yrs thinking like this - or perhaps those who live in convents, but not ANYONE who is pitching to be Prime Minister.
It's beyond absurd. And the hand-waving away of Corbyn's skeletons as something voters *won't notice or be too bothered about* is wishful thinking of the highest order. We'd never expect any other mere mortal to get a free pass on this stuff - why Corbyn?
Spot-on. "Corbyn’s attraction is superficial. His campaign has been superficial because although his campaign has led on policy, those policies themselves are superficial."
Jezza is popular because he says we can have our cake and eat it.
But he is an evidence-free zone. Where we have deficiencies, we just spend more. Job done.
Extra money? .... Trident cancellation, and squeeze those rich bankers, who deserve it all. Why haven't the other politicians done it? Because they're all in it together. They're all Tories. It's a conspiracy, I tell you.
As a bonus, you get some barking mad social policies, but the three stooges can't mention those without losing their socialist credentials. Liz tried early on, but look what happened to her.
The land of milk and honey beckons ... as long as you don't look too closely. And after the trauma of the election, the young, the naive and the Guardian-readers don't want to look too closely.
Hmm. That's possible (that we'll get economic woe and the Conservatives get the blame), but a credible alternative is needed to make headway. There wasn't one in 1992 (despite claims Labour were alright).
What I find genuinely sickening is the seeming willingness of the likes of Nick Palmer to brush off Corbyn's close associations with people who have openly and repeatedly called for the murder of British soldiers, the killing of all Jews and the enslavement of women. These are not colourful "details" or "irrelevancies", they are fundamental to what nice, unspun, straight-talking Jeremy Corbyn is all about - he is a lifetime opponent of the British state and a willing friend to all those who oppose it, whatever they stand for.
Forget the insane, unworkable economics, the deeply flawed class-based analysis of society and the serial disloyalty if you like, but this man has consistently stood shoulder to shoulder with enemies of this country for the last 40 years. Shame on all those who know that (like Nick) and still back him. Not only are they providing succour to some very evil groups and individuals, but they are also consigning those who they claim to care about to a decade or more of Tory rule. The lacklustre campaigns run by Burnham, Cooper and Kendall do not excuse ignoring that. There are good people in the Labour party, but they seem to be outnumbered by clueless fools.
Corbyn should rightly be condemned for supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, but surely of far greater magnitude is the entire British state's continued grovelling before Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest sponsor of terror, originator of 9-11, funder of the radicalisation of Mosques worldwide. Hamas' and Hezbollah's actions, awful as they are do not extend beyond their immediate strategic arena as far as I'm aware. Saudi Arabia's cause our soldiers to be stabbed and our tube trains to be blown up. But where is your righteous fulmination over associating with them?
I cannot stand hypocrisy, and as far as I can see, Corbyn is not being condemned for consorting with evil doers, he's being condemned for consorting with non-approved evil doers as opposed to approved ones.
Given that we employ people on the basis of competence in a previous similar role/aptitude for it - playing roulette with the LotO seems rather courageous in my view.
Being an MP in the same seat for 30yrs doesn't qualify you for much when it comes to running anything. Corbyn hasn't even been on the NEC. He's a useful idiot riding a bow-wave created by others.
Mr. Jonathan, that does raise an interesting question.
Would a new leader in war be better if they'd been groomed for leadership for a few years, or if they'd been a foot soldier for a couple of decades but never had any leadership responsibility whatsoever (and had, in fact, been something of a troublemaker)?
I am - like Junior - all for open-borders (sans benefits). So riddle me this:
These migrants whom pay people-smugglers; are they not funding criminal-activity? Is this not a crime in wodgerlundt France? Or is it classed as politics and gifts...?
Jonathan..Labour would give its left b@ll@ck to have a majority of 12...
Surely it would be more in keeping with Labour principles if they were to give someone elses' left bollock to get that majority. And they'd probably give it to someone on benefits, too.
Edit - I don't actually mean it Labour, but you're easier to tease.
I am no fan of Corbyn, but curious to mount the no experience argument.
Having been in parliament for 32 years he has arguably more experience than Blair (14yrs) and Cameron (4yrs) when they became leader. He hasn't been a shadow minister, but in terms of the metrics you raise like participation in ceremonial duties or number of PMQ questions asked he is clearly ahead.
Only a tory would say he is popular with the wrong people and it is bizarre to say his attraction is superficial. Many of his supporters are fellow travellers from CND who have stuck with him for over 30 years. That is not superficial. And whether you agree or disagree with them, their votes count as much as yours or mine.
As for timing. He is clearly having more success than most politicians cam dream of, so he is probably doing something right that many could learn from.
Blair had been a shadow minister for 7 years, and an effective one. Cameron had worked in the leader's office although he hadn't held a shadow brief for long. He also worked for a time outside politics (admittedly as a PR consultant).
Corbyn has never been a shadow minister (or any other sort of minister, or even a PPS). He has never had a job. He has never, so far as I know, even worked as a union organiser. He has never done any practical administration in his life - he boasts of his experience on Islington's housing committee! To go straight from that, to the huge, complicated and stressful executive job of leader of the Opposition is a massive ask.
Lord George Bentinck would be just about the only parallel to such a case - and he lasted 18 months before resigning on a point of principle, during which time he was reliant on Disraeli to keep him afloat in the Commons, and admitted that he took his lead from Stanley in the Lords.
Speaking from a Conservative perspective, I see danger in the Corbyn phenomenon. The dominant narrative on here - that Corbyn will be disastrous for Labour, will tear the party in two and render it unelectable - is seductive and clearly supportable, not least because it is echoed by many within the Labour movement. It feels instinctively right, taking into account the pragmatism of the electorate, political history and the reactionary nature of Corbyn's politics (he essentially espouses the leftist politics of the early 1980s, and has scarcely evolved his politics to meet the challenges facing Britain today). On balance, I think it is likely to prevail; Labour march off to the wilderness, perhaps even over the precipice. It is only the paucity of our imagination that persuades us that Labour must survive.
But there is a not immaterial chance that Corbyn will capture the zeitgeist. Labour's constitution makes it difficult to remove a leader and Corbyn's election by a thumping majority of members would make it even more so. With the influx of energised members, the objections of the parliamentary party become largely irrelevant. Besides, there is no obvious leader for the counter-offensive. Burnham and Cooper, probably the best of the middle-managers left
And the UK political field is bare at the moment. The Liberal Democrats are poorly positioned to benefit from Labour's leftwards lurch, having themselves moved leftwards and needing time to come to terms with their defeat and earn relevance. Ukip's focus will be elsewhere in the short-term (Euroref) and if anything they might find a more authentic voice of the conservative left is a challenge to the progress they made at the last election, although this is debatable. Corbyn is going to get a hearing.
And Corbyn has some interesting things to say. His anti-austerity rhetoric will have wide support. His views on nationalisation of the railways and protection of the NHS appear to accord with the electorate's (though David Herdson's point is well made), and his stance on nuclear weapons is not necessarily as toxic as it was in the 1980s. We can all think of former Conservative defence secretaries who now support disarmament. And unlike Ed Miliband, Corbyn can weave these together into a coherent package, with the courage of long-held convictions. Miliband failed not because he was too left wing, but because he was too timid, too tentative. His tepid offerings did little to inspire the left, but enough to make his assertions of economic competence look questionable. His overall package was incoherent. And as a leader, he did not offer anything wildly different from the status quo. Corbyn does.
His policies on taxing the rich and rail nationalisation are popular.
But, detailed polling suggests that austerity, while not loved, is considered necessary. His views on defence, immigration, and foreign affairs, are unpopular.
I am no fan of Corbyn, but curious to mount the no experience argument.
Having been in parliament for 32 years he has arguably more experience than Blair (14yrs) and Cameron (4yrs) when they became leader. He hasn't been a shadow minister, but in terms of the metrics you raise like participation in ceremonial duties or number of PMQ questions asked he is clearly ahead.
Only a tory would say he is popular with the wrong people and it is bizarre to say his attraction is superficial. Many of his supporters are fellow travellers from CND who have stuck with him for over 30 years. That is not superficial. And whether you agree or disagree with them, their votes count as much as yours or mine.
As for timing. He is clearly having more success than most politicians cam dream of, so he is probably doing something right that many could learn from.
Blair had been a shadow minister for 7 years, and an effective one. Cameron had worked in the leader's office although he hadn't held a shadow brief for long. He also worked for a time outside politics (admittedly as a PR consultant).
Corbyn has never been a shadow minister (or any other sort of minister, or even a PPS). He has never had a job. He has never, so far as I know, even worked as a union organiser. He has never done any practical administration in his life - he boasts of his experience on Islington's housing committee! To go straight from that, to the huge, complicated and stressful executive job of leader of the Opposition is a massive ask.
Lord George Bentinck would be just about the only parallel to such a case - and he lasted 18 months before resigning on a point of principle, during which time he was reliant on Disraeli to keep him afloat in the Commons, and admitted that he took his lead from Stanley in the Lords.
Exactly. Director of Corporate Affairs means Cameron was the firm's top PR man, whereas PR consultant means sacked PR man looking for odd jobs.
Excellent article Mr Herdson, - We live in interesting times, Corbyn’s appeal is as surprising as it was unexpected and to say he has reinvigorated a long and rather dull leadership campaign, would be an epic understatement.
Simon, not so sure it is surprising , people are fed up to the back teeth with carboard cut out liars in Westminster. It will be very interesting to see how he adapts his skill set and experience to an unfamiliar public role.
An interesting betting point is how unregarded a Corbynista succession is, much as it pains me to say it as someone who can't quite believe the stupidity of a good number of 'supporters' of my party (for how much longer, who knows?). Corbyn must be self aware enough to realise that even if he's swept to victory he has a number of shortcomings as a leader which will make it very difficult to just lead the party like an ordinary leader - not least the fact that a majority of his MPs would want him out. As such if I was him and wanting to safeguard my 'revolution' I'd have two priorities - firstly changing Labour's rules so it becomes the sort of democratic swamp the hard left thrive in. For example, MPs will find it very easy to rebel against Jeremy Corbyn on a policy, but will find it much more difficult if its been voted on by members, ratified by party subcommittee D and the NEC. Second is to ensure a succession to a more charismatic, younger keeper of the flame and put things in place so they can scoop up the same electorate should a challenge come, or having served his purpose in changing Labour he wanted to get away from the nitty gritty and battles of being a party leader (something I doubt even Corbyn ever thought he was cut out for).
Therefore there might be some huge value long shots for next Labour leader - probably among the 48 who voted against the welfare bill, as their apostasy isn't total and can be excused by the Corbynites. A Corbyn win would also remove all the most senior Labour figures from the Shadow Cabinet equation, meaning that favoured sons or daughters could be promoted quickly, gaining experience and public recognition in a shorter period than is traditional. My own outsider tip would be Clive Lewis - former TV presenter, solidly left and black so able to tap into the inevitable desire to break down barriers (esp. on the left). Only arrived in 2015, but these are strange times.
An interesting betting point is how unregarded a Corbynista succession is, much as it pains me to say it as someone who can't quite believe the stupidity of a good number of 'supporters' of my party (for how much longer, who knows?). Corbyn must be self aware enough to realise that even if he's swept to victory he has a number of shortcomings as a leader which will make it very difficult to just lead the party like an ordinary leader - not least the fact that a majority of his MPs would want him out. As such if I was him and wanting to safeguard my 'revolution' I'd have two priorities - firstly changing Labour's rules so it becomes the sort of democratic swamp the hard left thrive in. For example, MPs will find it very easy to rebel against Jeremy Corbyn on a policy, but will find it much more difficult if its been voted on by members, ratified by party subcommittee D and the NEC. Second is to ensure a succession to a more charismatic, younger keeper of the flame and put things in place so they can scoop up the same electorate should a challenge come, or having served his purpose in changing Labour he wanted to get away from the nitty gritty and battles of being a party leader (something I doubt even Corbyn ever thought he was cut out for).
Therefore there might be some huge value long shots for next Labour leader - probably among the 48 who voted against the welfare bill, as their apostasy isn't total and can be excused by the Corbynites. A Corbyn win would also remove all the most senior Labour figures from the Shadow Cabinet equation, meaning that favoured sons or daughters could be promoted quickly, gaining experience and public recognition in a shorter period than is traditional. My own outsider tip would be Clive Lewis - former TV presenter, solidly left and black so able to tap into the inevitable desire to break down barriers (esp. on the left). Only arrived in 2015, but these are strange times
I am no fan of Corbyn, but curious to mount the no experience argument.
Having been in parliament for 32 years he has arguably more experience than Blair (14yrs) and Cameron (4yrs) when they became leader. He hasn't been a shadow minister, but in terms of the metrics you raise like participation in ceremonial duties or number of PMQ questions asked he is clearly ahead.
Only a tory would say he is popular with the wrong people and it is bizarre to say his attraction is superficial. Many of his supporters are fellow travellers from CND who have stuck with him for over 30 years. That is not superficial. And whether you agree or disagree with them, their votes count as much as yours or mine.
As for timing. He is clearly having more success than most politicians cam dream of, so he is probably doing something right that many could learn from.
Blair had been a shadow minister for 7 years, and an effective one. Cameron had worked in the leader's office although he hadn't held a shadow brief for long. He also worked for a time outside politics (admittedly as a PR consultant).
Corbyn has never been a shadow minister (or any other sort of minister, or even a PPS). He has never had a job. He has never, so far as I know, even worked as a union organiser. He has never done any practical administration in his life - he boasts of his experience on Islington's housing committee! To go straight from that, to the huge, complicated and stressful executive job of leader of the Opposition is a massive ask.
Lord George Bentinck would be just about the only parallel to such a case - and he lasted 18 months before resigning on a point of principle, during which time he was reliant on Disraeli to keep him afloat in the Commons, and admitted that he took his lead from Stanley in the Lords.
This is why Tom Watson will have such a key role to play. He does know the internal Labour ropes backwards and can either help Corbyn move the party way to the left, or seek to frustrate his efforts. He'll also set the rules for the new leadership election when Corbyn is forced out or resigns some time in the next two years. I can't see the £3 experiment being repeated.
Tom Watson's already had to resign twice from frontbench roles for internal Labour politicking. I see no reason to think it won't become three times.
It's hard to think of a more dangerous man for Labour to have as deputy leader.
Christ, someone get the smelling salts. SO is hysterical.
Not really. I'll be absolutely fine with 10-15 more years of Tory government as they look after people like me. It's just a shame to see the party that did so much to ensure I got the opportunities I did put itself in a position of unelectability by choosing a leader who is not only economically illiterate but also the serial friend of this country's enemies. That said, if choosing him makrs you feel good about yourself, who am I to argue? Go for it.
Tom Watson apparently has the email addresses of people who applied to join up to vote, but never completed their registrations according to a friend of mine.
He's the only candidate - leader or deputy that has used these to lobby support. Now that could be an admin cock-up by his team. Or maybe not. He sent out communications before the final deadline.
This is why Tom Watson will have such a key role to play. He does know the internal Labour ropes backwards and can either help Corbyn move the party way to the left, or seek to frustrate his efforts. He'll also set the rules for the new leadership election when Corbyn is forced out or resigns some time in the next two years. I can't see the £3 experiment being repeated.
If of course he is elected. Not one of the others would be capable of playing that game - they are either too inexperienced or too incompetent.
While I agree he could do all those things, remember Watson may well also prove to be more trouble than he's worth in other ways - he's rude, arrogant and has the reputation for being slightly lazy and casual. As deputy to a complete novice, he would have no hiding place for those drawbacks.
I don't think a Corbyn-Watson partnership will frighten the Tory leadership.
SeanF "austerity...is considered necessary". Today, yes. But tomorrow? If there is another downturn there will be no shortage of people willing to believe that austerity has not worked, or was even the cause.
Immigration is a harder gap to bridge, but then it is not as like the Conservatives offer anything radical in that respect.
" ... embedded is that truly embarrassing interview with Channel 4 where he is simply cannot keep his temper:"
His fans will lap it up. But "truly embarrassing" is an accurate description. Imagine Jezza meeting any Head of State - we'd be at war the next day. Apart from his 'friends' in Hezbollah, of course.
That is his only mis-step so far. But I remember watching it when it was broadcast and thinking it was a smart move by the others to get someone with no media training in the race. They would look good by comparison. At that point he was still the eccentric joke candidate with not the slightest chance of winning. At about the same time I read an article in the New Statesman by some other left wing luminary. I forget who - such folk are not household names. He was saying that it was probably time for the left to abandon Labour altogether as there was simply no chance of influencing anyone or anything by remaining. I don't think even the Corbyn team had their sights set higher than avoiding total humiliation.
The plain fact is that Corbyn's rise is such an unexpected and certainly unpredicted event it is almost impossible to know what will happen next. Dave's article is very well reasoned and articulate. But he could have written just as good an article only a few weeks ago proving that Corbyn would never make it as Labour leader.
I think his lack of experience would normally be a huge handicap. But given that Labour has to do something remarkable to win the next election, maybe somebody with only a hazy idea of the rule book is the one who will do best?
Christ, someone get the smelling salts. SO is hysterical.
Not really. I'll be absolutely fine with 10-15 more years of Tory government as they look after people like me. It's just a shame to see the party that did so much to ensure I got the opportunities I did put itself in a position of unelectability by choosing a leader who is not only economically illiterate but also the serial friend of this country's enemies. That said, if choosing him makrs you feel good about yourself, who am I to argue? Go for it.
Of course he is facing a Tory party that armed the Saudis, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Suharto and Islamist extremists in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, many of the above hardly being known for pro-Jew or liberal outlooks.
They also actively collaborated militarily with terrorist groups in Ireland, rather than just suggesting talking with them.
We have a series of treats to look forward to and which Corbynites such as Nick Palmer can enjoy as their unspun, straight-talking hero triumphs: The first Andrew Neil interview. The first PMQ The first Conference speech as leader The first Remembrance Sunday The first Budget response The 100 year anniversary of the Easter Rising And so on.
It should be invigorating stuff as The British public learns more about the man the Labour party believes should be the next Prime Minister.
Tbh I can't see what all the fuss was about with Foot's jacket. Indeed the Queen mother noted it was a sensible enough coat...
Corbyn OTOH is likely to be wearing a white poppy as he is a pacifist :P
Speaking from a Conservative perspective, I see danger in the Corbyn phenomenon. [...]
But there is a not immaterial chance that Corbyn will capture the zeitgeist. Labour's constitution makes it difficult to remove a leader and Corbyn's election by a thumping majority of members would make it even more so. With the influx of energised members, the objections of the parliamentary party become largely irrelevant. Besides, there is no obvious leader for the counter-offensive. Burnham and Cooper, probably the best of the middle-managers left [...]
And Corbyn has some interesting things to say. His anti-austerity rhetoric will have wide support. His views on nationalisation of the railways and protection of the NHS appear to accord with the electorate's (though David Herdson's point is well made), and his stance on nuclear weapons is not necessarily as toxic as it was in the 1980s. We can all think of former Conservative defence secretaries who now support disarmament. And unlike Ed Miliband, Corbyn can weave these together into a coherent package, with the courage of long-held convictions. Miliband failed not because he was too left wing, but because he was too timid, too tentative. His tepid offerings did little to inspire the left, but enough to make his assertions of economic competence look questionable. His overall package was incoherent. And as a leader, he did not offer anything wildly different from the status quo. Corbyn does.
His policies on taxing the rich and rail nationalisation are popular.
But, detailed polling suggests that austerity, while not loved, is considered necessary. His views on defence, immigration, and foreign affairs, are unpopular.
Corbyn might hit some winners.
Burnham was practically he definition of mediocrity.
Interesting example of superficiality and its attractions at our tea table last night. My daughter is going to join a group next weekend that is going across to the camps in Calais to distribute food, children's clothing, sleeping bags and tents to migrants there. She points out, correctly, these people have nothing and very few seem to care. She is delighted that they are going across on the back of Daily Mail vouchers (for a rather different purpose I suspect) and are promised a free bottle of wine, from the paper apparently, on their return.
I tried to explain that making these camps more bearable and meeting these undeniable needs simply makes the camps and the journey more attractive, that it would ultimately aggravate the problem rather than solve it, that France should be processing these migrants and identifying the refugees from those that simply (and entirely understandably) want a better life for themselves and their families and that we had to find ways of discouraging this mass movement of people and all the misery that it causes.
I genuinely believe that is right but even listening to myself I wondered when does a lack of superficiality simply become a lack of compassion? When does superficiality become human decency? I am actually proud of her and not at all unhappy that she thinks that way.
These camps are mostly comprised of people seeking to enter the UK illegally. If it was a camp of impoverished self-declared house burglars we wouldn't have qualms about the issue.
Christ, someone get the smelling salts. SO is hysterical.
Not really. I'll be absolutely fine with 10-15 more years of Tory government as they look after people like me. It's just a shame to see the party that did so much to ensure I got the opportunities I did put itself in a position of unelectability by choosing a leader who is not only economically illiterate but also the serial friend of this country's enemies. That said, if choosing him makrs you feel good about yourself, who am I to argue? Go for it.
Of course he is facing a Tory party that armed the Saudis, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Suharto and Islamist extremists in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, many of the above hardly being known for pro-Jew or liberal outlooks.
They also actively collaborated militarily with terrorist groups in Ireland, rather than just suggesting talking with them.
Corbyn has stood shoulder to shoulder with enemies of this country for decades. He has observed minute silences for the murderers of British troops. If you are comfortable with that, so be it.
I am no fan of Corbyn, but curious to mount the no experience argument.
Having been in parliament for 32 years he has arguably more experience than Blair (14yrs) and Cameron (4yrs) when they became leader. He hasn't been a shadow minister, but in terms of the metrics you raise like participation in ceremonial duties or number of PMQ questions asked he is clearly ahead.
Only a tory would say he is popular with the wrong people and it is bizarre to say his attraction is superficial. Many of his supporters are fellow travellers from CND who have stuck with him for over 30 years. That is not superficial. And whether you agree or disagree with them, their votes count as much as yours or mine.
As for timing. He is clearly having more success than most politicians cam dream of, so he is probably doing something right that many could learn from.
Blair had been a shadow minister for 7 years, and an effective one. Cameron had worked in the leader's office although he hadn't held a shadow brief for long. He also worked for a time outside politics (admittedly as a PR consultant).
Corbyn has never been a shadow minister (or any other sort of minister, or even a PPS). He has never had a job. He has never, so far as I know, even worked as a union organiser. He has never done any practical administration in his life - he boasts of his experience on Islington's housing committee! To go straight from that, to the huge, complicated and stressful executive job of leader of the Opposition is a massive ask.
Lord George Bentinck would be just about the only parallel to such a case - and he lasted 18 months before resigning on a point of principle, during which time he was reliant on Disraeli to keep him afloat in the Commons, and admitted that he took his lead from Stanley in the Lords.
Exactly. Director of Corporate Affairs means Cameron was the firm's top PR man, whereas PR consultant means sacked PR man looking for odd jobs.
And he got the job through sheer hard work and talent.
Speaking from a Conservative perspective, I see danger in the Corbyn phenomenon. The dominant narrative on here - that Corbyn will be disastrous for Labour, will tear the party in two and render it unelectable - is seductive and clearly supportable, not least because it is echoed by many within the Labour movement. It feels instinctively right, taking into account the pragmatism of the electorate, political history and the reactionary nature of Corbyn's politics (he essentially espouses the leftist politics of the early 1980s, and has scarcely evolved his politics to meet the challenges facing Britain today). On balance, I think it is likely to prevail; Labour march off to the wilderness, perhaps even over the precipice. It is only the paucity of our imagination that persuades us that Labour must survive.
snip
And Corbyn has some interesting things to say. His anti-austerity rhetoric will have wide support. His views on nationalisation of the railways and protection of the NHS appear to accord with the electorate's (though David Herdson's point is well made), and his stance on nuclear weapons is not necessarily as toxic as it was in the 1980s. We can all think of former Conservative defence secretaries who now support disarmament. And unlike Ed Miliband, Corbyn can weave these together into a coherent package, with the courage of long-held convictions. Miliband failed not because he was too left wing, but because he was too timid, too tentative. His tepid offerings did little to inspire the left, but enough to make his assertions of economic competence look questionable. His overall package was incoherent. And as a leader, he did not offer anything wildly different from the status quo. Corbyn does.
His policies on taxing the rich and rail nationalisation are popular.
But, detailed polling suggests that austerity, while not loved, is considered necessary. His views on defence, immigration, and foreign affairs, are unpopular.
Corbyn may well be popular, but with the wrong people. I know this sounds undemocratic, but he will just end up piling up more votes in safe labour seats IMHO. Under FPTP elections are won and lost in 100 or so marginals, as us PBers well know. If Labour members don't like having to constantly be cautious about policy in order to deal with this then they had a long spell in government when they could have done something about this.
I am no fan of Corbyn, but curious to mount the no experience argument.
Having been in parliament for 32 years he has arguably more experience than Blair (14yrs) and Cameron (4yrs) when they became leader. He hasn't been a shadow minister, but in terms of the metrics you raise like participation in ceremonial duties or number of PMQ questions asked he is clearly ahead.
Only a tory would say he is popular with the wrong people and it is bizarre to say his attraction is superficial. Many of his supporters are fellow travellers from CND who have stuck with him for over 30 years. That is not superficial. And whether you agree or disagree with them, their votes count as much as yours or mine.
As for timing. He is clearly having more success than most politicians cam dream of, so he is probably doing something right that many could learn from.
Blair had been a shadow minister for 7 years, and an effective one. Cameron had worked in the leader's office although he hadn't held a shadow brief for long. He also worked for a time outside politics (admittedly as a PR consultant).
Corbyn has never been a shadow minister (or any other sort of minister, or even a PPS). He has never had a job. He has never, so far as I know, even worked as a union organiser. He has never done any practical administration in his life - he boasts of his experience on Islington's housing committee! To go straight from that, to the huge, complicated and stressful executive job of leader of the Opposition is a massive ask.
Lord George Bentinck would be just about the only parallel to such a case - and he lasted 18 months before resigning on a point of principle, during which time he was reliant on Disraeli to keep him afloat in the Commons, and admitted that he took his lead from Stanley in the Lords.
Exactly. Director of Corporate Affairs means Cameron was the firm's top PR man, whereas PR consultant means sacked PR man looking for odd jobs.
And he got the job through sheer hard work and talent.
It's an inspiring rags to riches story that shows equality of opportunity in action
Christ, someone get the smelling salts. SO is hysterical.
Not really. I'll be absolutely fine with 10-15 more years of Tory government as they look after people like me. It's just a shame to see the party that did so much to ensure I got the opportunities I did put itself in a position of unelectability by choosing a leader who is not only economically illiterate but also the serial friend of this country's enemies. That said, if choosing him makrs you feel good about yourself, who am I to argue? Go for it.
Of course he is facing a Tory party that armed the Saudis, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Suharto and Islamist extremists in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, many of the above hardly being known for pro-Jew or liberal outlooks.
They also actively collaborated militarily with terrorist groups in Ireland, rather than just suggesting talking with them.
And yet but a few short months ago the nation decided that :
Corbyn doesn't seem to have many friends on this site - maybe Mike should be renaming the site ABC Political Betting until 12th September !!
I am amazed to see in the National that Matheson is probably going to get the deputy leader post. A Kez-Gordon ticket just seems like yet another point on the downward curve of the SLab arc. It'll be entertaining to see them forced to say emollient things about Jeremy, mind.
DH - thank you for that scenario - I have been musing over an alternate one.
As @Jonathan says, JC does have experience both of the HoC and even more importantly of life. To date we know very little about his management style - that is if he has one.
Presumably at his age he is aware of his personal strengths and weaknesses and let's assume that these will colour his thinking and actions. He says that he does not do personal remarks and focuses on policies. Also he tends to believe in the good of others (rather than their badness) - so perhaps is he afraid/wary of confrontation?
Also he has said that he wants to debate matters and let all have their say. So does he want to give the Labour party a very different management style? This can only happen if he is a good at delegating and superb at choosing the right people for the right job. Also he will have to be the prime motivator and leader of ideas, whilst using someone like Watson as his consigliere.
How the civil service and the Cabinet Secretary would interact with him (and his ilk) gives rise to some amusing scenes.
However all this is relevant as long as JC wins, and I have a very small inkling that a loose shoelace could trip him up at the last hurdle.
We have a series of treats to look forward to and which Corbynites such as Nick Palmer can enjoy as their unspun, straight-talking hero triumphs: The first Andrew Neil interview. The first PMQ The first Conference speech as leader The first Remembrance Sunday The first Budget response The 100 year anniversary of the Easter Rising And so on.
It should be invigorating stuff as The British public learns more about the man the Labour party believes should be the next Prime Minister.
Tbh I can't see what all the fuss was about with Foot's jacket. Indeed the Queen mother noted it was a sensible enough coat...
Corbyn OTOH is likely to be wearing a white poppy as he is a pacifist :P
The Foot story is a myth. It was a proper coat, not a donkey jacket.
I don't think that Corbyn will be as bad at these things as many people might think. He seems a remarkable calm person who will take these duties seriously.
Ken Livingstone was vilified by the MSM as SO is doing now. Blair tried everything possible to stop him having the chance to become London Mayor.
I at the time thought Ken Livingstone would not be a good choice. However he did some good things for London between 2000 to2008. I was wrong and I could be about Corbyn . These are difficult times to predict.
" ... embedded is that truly embarrassing interview with Channel 4 where he is simply cannot keep his temper:"
His fans will lap it up. But "truly embarrassing" is an accurate description. Imagine Jezza meeting any Head of State - we'd be at war the next day. Apart from his 'friends' in Hezbollah, of course.
That is his only mis-step so far. But I remember watching it when it was broadcast and thinking it was a smart move by the others to get someone with no media training in the race. They would look good by comparison. At that point he was still the eccentric joke candidate with not the slightest chance of winning. At about the same time I read an article in the New Statesman by some other left wing luminary. I forget who - such folk are not household names. He was saying that it was probably time for the left to abandon Labour altogether as there was simply no chance of influencing anyone or anything by remaining. I don't think even the Corbyn team had their sights set higher than avoiding total humiliation.
The plain fact is that Corbyn's rise is such an unexpected and certainly unpredicted event it is almost impossible to know what will happen next. Dave's article is very well reasoned and articulate. But he could have written just as good an article only a few weeks ago proving that Corbyn would never make it as Labour leader.
I think his lack of experience would normally be a huge handicap. But given that Labour has to do something remarkable to win the next election, maybe somebody with only a hazy idea of the rule book is the one who will do best?
Corbyn's rise is like a bubble and as David said nobody in the other three candidates (except possibly Kendall who was blunted before then) has tried to prick Corbyn's bubble.
However the issue is that Labour's selectorate is self-selecting (with the £3 members etc) and the timeline for the race is comparatively short, even if it feels long to us right now.
The election that matters won't be happening for nearly five more years. There's plenty of time for Corbyn's bubble to be popped in the five years coming. Plus the unions can't stuff the ballots with new voters in a general election.
We have a series of treats to look forward to and which Corbynites such as Nick Palmer can enjoy as their unspun, straight-talking hero triumphs: The first Andrew Neil interview. The first PMQ The first Conference speech as leader The first Remembrance Sunday The first Budget response The 100 year anniversary of the Easter Rising And so on.
It should be invigorating stuff as The British public learns more about the man the Labour party believes should be the next Prime Minister.
Tbh I can't see what all the fuss was about with Foot's jacket. Indeed the Queen mother noted it was a sensible enough coat...
Corbyn OTOH is likely to be wearing a white poppy as he is a pacifist :P
The Foot story is a myth. It was a proper coat, not a donkey jacket.
I don't think that Corbyn will be as bad at these things as many people might think. He seems a remarkable calm person who will take these duties seriously.
Has there ever been a pacifist PM or LOTO post WW2 though ?
DH - thank you for that scenario - I have been musing over an alternate one.
As @Jonathan says, JC does have experience both of the HoC and even more importantly of life. To date we know very little about his management style - that is if he has one.
Presumably at his age he is aware of his personal strengths and weaknesses and let's assume that these will colour his thinking and actions. He says that he does not do personal remarks and focuses on policies. Also he tends to believe in the good of others (rather than their badness) - so perhaps is he afraid/wary of confrontation?
Also he has said that he wants to debate matters and let all have their say. So does he want to give the Labour party a very different management style? This can only happen if he is a good at delegating and superb at choosing the right people for the right job. Also he will have to be the prime motivator and leader of ideas, whilst using someone like Watson as his consigliere.
How the civil service and the Cabinet Secretary would interact with him (and his ilk) gives rise to some amusing scenes.
However all this is relevant as long as JC wins, and I have a very small inkling that a loose shoelace could trip him up at the last hurdle.
He's already over the last hurdle and heading towards the line. Probably half the ballots that will be returned will be sent this weekend or in thefirst half of next week.
We have a series of treats to look forward to and which Corbynites such as Nick Palmer can enjoy as their unspun, straight-talking hero triumphs: The first Andrew Neil interview. The first PMQ The first Conference speech as leader The first Remembrance Sunday The first Budget response The 100 year anniversary of the Easter Rising And so on.
It should be invigorating stuff as The British public learns more about the man the Labour party believes should be the next Prime Minister.
Tbh I can't see what all the fuss was about with Foot's jacket. Indeed the Queen mother noted it was a sensible enough coat...
Corbyn OTOH is likely to be wearing a white poppy as he is a pacifist :P
The Foot story is a myth. It was a proper coat, not a donkey jacket.
I don't think that Corbyn will be as bad at these things as many people might think. He seems a remarkable calm person who will take these duties seriously.
He has worn a white (peace pledge union) poppy as well as a red one on previous remembrance commemorations. Not unreasonable in my view. The PPU explains and sells its white poppies here:
Mr. Jonathan, Cameron did have some luck, but you could equally argue it was Labour incompetence. They couldn't combat the SNP deal line, and the failure to even attempt defenestration of Ed Miliband was a weakness of judgement or nerve.
MD on this point, we are arguing at cross purposes. Of course Labour was complicit in its defeat in 2015.
All I am saying is that govt doesn't really control broader social and economic trends. Events like 2008 or Oct 1992 would have happened regardless who had won the previous election, but cast a long shadow. The events that started in 2008 are still playing out.
But how a government prepares for the unknown like 08 or Oct 92 affects how it plays out when it happens.
As the UK was running a major deficit in 08 we had no chance to properly absorb the effects of the crash. In other developed nations that were better managed, like in Canada the government was able to take the events of 08 in its stride and was re-elected subsequently with an increased majority.
I'd agree with all that - if you're going to make the most of the opportunity thrust at you, follow that strategy and implement it as quickly as you can.
Re names to watch - Corbyn's office newbie Cat Smith
Catherine Jane Smith[3] (born 16 June 1985) is a British Labour Party politician. She has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Lancaster and Fleetwood since winning the seat at the general election in May 2015.[4]
Born in Barrow-in-Furness, Smith moved to Lancaster in 2003 where she studied at Cartmel College, Lancaster University,[5] graduating with a BA in Sociology and Gender Studies. Prior to entering Parliament she worked for Jeremy Corbyn MP [6] and as a policy officer for the British Association of Social Workers.[7] She previously contested the Wyre and Preston North constituency in the 2010 general election.[7]
Smith has contributed to publications and news blogs associated with the Labour Party, including LabourList and Tribune.[8][9] She identifies herself as a Christian, socialist, feminist, republican and trade unionist.[10] She is one of twenty-seven LGBTI MPs elected in the 2015 general election,[11] identifying as bisexual; she is engaged to a man called Ben.[12]
Therefore there might be some huge value long shots for next Labour leader - probably among the 48 who voted against the welfare bill, as their apostasy isn't total and can be excused by the Corbynites. A Corbyn win would also remove all the most senior Labour figures from the Shadow Cabinet equation, meaning that favoured sons or daughters could be promoted quickly, gaining experience and public recognition in a shorter period than is traditional. My own outsider tip would be Clive Lewis - former TV presenter, solidly left and black so able to tap into the inevitable desire to break down barriers (esp. on the left). Only arrived in 2015, but these are strange times
Ken Livingstone was vilified by the MSM as SO is doing now. Blair tried everything possible to stop him having the chance to become London Mayor.
I at the time thought Ken Livingstone would not be a good choice. However he did some good things for London between 2000 to2008. I was wrong and I could be about Corbyn . These are difficult times to predict.
There is a very big difference between choosing a mayor, even for a city as large as London, and choosing a government and prime minister.
"He may well have finally put the brakes on the SNP juggernaut up here in Scotland, he is certainly drowning out the usually North Korean style SNP PR machine in the local news with some positive media attention of his own"
Fitalass wrong again. I know that is not news :-)
Assuming a Corbyn victory, his opposition to any meaningful further devolution will render a surge in Scotland pretty much dead on arrival.
Even if he were popular in Scotland, the political incompetence of both of the SLAB leadership contenders in condemning him before he became hot favourite will be used widely by the "SNP PR machine".
Further, as Corbyn has indicated that he would be kind enough to accept SNP support to put Labour in power, why would anyone bother to switch from SNP to Labour at GE 2020?
SeanF "austerity...is considered necessary". Today, yes. But tomorrow? If there is another downturn there will be no shortage of people willing to believe that austerity has not worked, or was even the cause.
Immigration is a harder gap to bridge, but then it is not as like the Conservatives offer anything radical in that respect.
We have a series of treats to look forward to and which Corbynites such as Nick Palmer can enjoy as their unspun, straight-talking hero triumphs: The first Andrew Neil interview. The first PMQ The first Conference speech as leader The first Remembrance Sunday The first Budget response The 100 year anniversary of the Easter Rising And so on.
It should be invigorating stuff as The British public learns more about the man the Labour party believes should be the next Prime Minister.
Tbh I can't see what all the fuss was about with Foot's jacket. Indeed the Queen mother noted it was a sensible enough coat...
Corbyn OTOH is likely to be wearing a white poppy as he is a pacifist :P
The Foot story is a myth. It was a proper coat, not a donkey jacket.
I don't think that Corbyn will be as bad at these things as many people might think. He seems a remarkable calm person who will take these duties seriously.
He has worn a white (peace pledge union) poppy as well as a red one on previous remembrance commemorations. Not unreasonable in my view. The PPU explains and sells its white poppies here:
You think a pacifist organisation trying to hijack the Royal British Legion's poppy memorial to push a political agenda is not unreasonable?
The traditional poppy isn't about militarism or pacifism it is about both remembering those who lost their lives in war and aiding those who've served (or their families) are are affected by it.
We have a series of treats to look forward to and which Corbynites such as Nick Palmer can enjoy as their unspun, straight-talking hero triumphs: The first Andrew Neil interview. The first PMQ The first Conference speech as leader The first Remembrance Sunday The first Budget response The 100 year anniversary of the Easter Rising And so on.
It should be invigorating stuff as The British public learns more about the man the Labour party believes should be the next Prime Minister.
Tbh I can't see what all the fuss was about with Foot's jacket. Indeed the Queen mother noted it was a sensible enough coat...
Corbyn OTOH is likely to be wearing a white poppy as he is a pacifist :P
The Foot story is a myth. It was a proper coat, not a donkey jacket.
I don't think that Corbyn will be as bad at these things as many people might think. He seems a remarkable calm person who will take these duties seriously.
The Foot story is an excellent example of how an image already held of someohe can be reinforced by a new half-truth. Corbyn doesn't need to do something lunatic left to be vilified by the Mail for it. He has enough history that anything he does that can be portayed in that light will bebelieved and, as with Foot, one or two images will become iconic.
The election that matters won't be happening for nearly five more years. There's plenty of time for Corbyn's bubble to be popped in the five years coming. Plus the unions can't stuff the ballots with new voters in a general election.
Also at the next GE are the population really going to elect someone who is 71 (and therefore has at least a reasonable chance of dying in office) over someone probably in their mid or late 40s ? Can't see it to be honest.
" ... embedded is that truly embarrassing interview with Channel 4 where he is simply cannot keep his temper:"
His fans will lap it up. But "truly embarrassing" is an accurate description. Imagine Jezza meeting any Head of State - we'd be at war the next day. Apart from his 'friends' in Hezbollah, of course.
That is his only mis-step so far. But I remember watching it when it was broadcast and thinking it was a smart move by the others to get someone with no media training in the race. They would look good by comparison. At that point he was still the eccentric joke candidate with not the slightest chance of winning. At about the same time I read an article in the New Statesman by some other left wing luminary. I forget who - such folk are not household names. He was saying that it was probably time for the left to abandon Labour altogether as there was simply no chance of influencing anyone or anything by remaining. I don't think even the Corbyn team had their sights set higher than avoiding total humiliation.
The plain fact is that Corbyn's rise is such an unexpected and certainly unpredicted event it is almost impossible to know what will happen next. Dave's article is very well reasoned and articulate. But he could have written just as good an article only a few weeks ago proving that Corbyn would never make it as Labour leader.
I think his lack of experience would normally be a huge handicap. But given that Labour has to do something remarkable to win the next election, maybe somebody with only a hazy idea of the rule book is the one who will do best?
Corbyn's rise is like a bubble and as David said nobody in the other three candidates (except possibly Kendall who was blunted before then) has tried to prick Corbyn's bubble.
However the issue is that Labour's selectorate is self-selecting (with the £3 members etc) and the timeline for the race is comparatively short, even if it feels long to us right now.
The election that matters won't be happening for nearly five more years. There's plenty of time for Corbyn's bubble to be popped in the five years coming. Plus the unions can't stuff the ballots with new voters in a general election.
Perfectly logical and reasonable. Probably right. But bubbles are irrational. Peak Corbyn might have been 2 weeks ago - but it could be five years in the future.
We have a series of treats to look forward to and which Corbynites such as Nick Palmer can enjoy as their unspun, straight-talking hero triumphs: The first Andrew Neil interview. The first PMQ The first Conference speech as leader The first Remembrance Sunday The first Budget response The 100 year anniversary of the Easter Rising And so on.
It should be invigorating stuff as The British public learns more about the man the Labour party believes should be the next Prime Minister.
Tbh I can't see what all the fuss was about with Foot's jacket. Indeed the Queen mother noted it was a sensible enough coat...
Corbyn OTOH is likely to be wearing a white poppy as he is a pacifist :P
The Foot story is a myth. It was a proper coat, not a donkey jacket.
I don't think that Corbyn will be as bad at these things as many people might think. He seems a remarkable calm person who will take these duties seriously.
He has worn a white (peace pledge union) poppy as well as a red one on previous remembrance commemorations. Not unreasonable in my view. The PPU explains and sells its white poppies here:
You think a pacifist organisation trying to hijack the Royal British Legion's poppy memorial to push a political agenda is not unreasonable?
The traditional poppy isn't about militarism or pacifism it is about both remembering those who lost their lives in war and aiding those who've served (or their families) are are affected by it.
The white poppy is to commemorate all victims of war, military and civilian, and to remember them by trying to eliminate the causes of war.
OT: I've made it onto a course for Mathematics and Computer Science (MSci) at Birmingham University. Despite obviously disliking the tuition fees I recognise their necessity and am grateful to the Tories for lifting the student number cap. If Labour get back into power in 2020 (in some crazy parallel universe) I'll be burdened with higher taxes and will still have the student debt burden. Worst of both worlds. Student debt made me into a conservative.
Corbyn doesn't seem to have many friends on this site - maybe Mike should be renaming the site ABC Political Betting until 12th September !!
I think you'll find Jeremy Corbyn has lots of friends on this site until 12 September. We're all keenly invested in him.
Indeed. As a newly registered supporter of the Labour Party, I have just this morning received my first official email from the Corbyn Campaign.
Let's hope people return the favour when it comes to the next Tory leadership election.
If the Conservative Party offers £3 entryists a vote then they'd deserve the favour to be returned.
Its upto parties to write their own rules. The fact the Labour Party couldn't even organise a whelk stall or a leadership race for their members let alone the country is not SeanT's fault.
OT: I've made it onto a course for Mathematics and Computer Science (MSci) at Birmingham University. Despite obviously disliking the tuition fees I recognise their necessity and am grateful to the Tories for lifting the student number cap. If Labour get back into power in 2020 (in some crazy parallel universe) I'll be burdened with higher taxes and will still have the student debt burden. Worst of both worlds. Student debt made me into a conservative.
Jezza has promised to end tuition fees and wipeout existing student debt. You may want to reconsider your vote!
OT: I've made it onto a course for Mathematics and Computer Science (MSci) at Birmingham University. Despite obviously disliking the tuition fees I recognise their necessity and am grateful to the Tories for lifting the student number cap. If Labour get back into power in 2020 (in some crazy parallel universe) I'll be burdened with higher taxes and will still have the student debt burden. Worst of both worlds. Student debt made me into a conservative.
Comments
It's hard to think of a more dangerous man for Labour to have as deputy leader.
Instead of a sensible conversation about whether we should:
- "buy in" particular services, or conduct them in house;
- create an internal market within a publicly funded organisation/between such organisations;
- encourage new providers whether private, charity, mutual, joint venture, etc.;
- maintain or restrict a system free at the point of use;
we get one word. "Privatisation."
@rcs1000 claims that Corbyn's "disastrousness will be so plainly evident so rapidly, that he will step down as leader". Perhaps, but the far left will claim that this was merely because Corbyn compromised with bourgeois capitalism, or "neoliberalism" while leader, and the circus will go on.
" ... embedded is that truly embarrassing interview with Channel 4 where he is simply cannot keep his temper:"
His fans will lap it up. But "truly embarrassing" is an accurate description. Imagine Jezza meeting any Head of State - we'd be at war the next day. Apart from his 'friends' in Hezbollah, of course.
While I agree he could do all those things, remember Watson may well also prove to be more trouble than he's worth in other ways - he's rude, arrogant and has the reputation for being slightly lazy and casual. As deputy to a complete novice, he would have no hiding place for those drawbacks.
I don't think a Corbyn-Watson partnership will frighten the Tory leadership.
On Cameron's successor, which was raised, I too though Osborne would be happier in the grand vizier role, unlike brown he's seemed a supportive, natural no.2, and he's groomed allies he could fill that role for.
But time in office, improved personal ratings and now disorganised opposition may have convinced him perhaps he really could make it as PM. That people even consider it would not have been the case a couple of years ago, so even if unlikely it is a possibility, and I think he's going for it now.
I tried to explain that making these camps more bearable and meeting these undeniable needs simply makes the camps and the journey more attractive, that it would ultimately aggravate the problem rather than solve it, that France should be processing these migrants and identifying the refugees from those that simply (and entirely understandably) want a better life for themselves and their families and that we had to find ways of discouraging this mass movement of people and all the misery that it causes.
I genuinely believe that is right but even listening to myself I wondered when does a lack of superficiality simply become a lack of compassion? When does superficiality become human decency? I am actually proud of her and not at all unhappy that she thinks that way.
The first Andrew Neil interview.
The first PMQ
The first Conference speech as leader
The first Remembrance Sunday
The first Budget response
The 100 year anniversary of the Easter Rising
And so on.
It should be invigorating stuff as The British public learns more about the man the Labour party believes should be the next Prime Minister.
This is the first, and probably the last time I will be agreeing with you wholeheartedly on a subject.
The rise of Der Fuhrur (British Style) is something to abhor and worry about. I see Labour splitting wildly if Corbyn does indeed claim the leadership. And won't British politics be in a ferment then!
The fact that Corbyn can do this at all is a big deal for all parties, not just Labour. It is part of the same trend that sees the LibDems on 8 seats, the SNP controlling Scotland and UKIP winning the Euros. There is a desire to kick back against the established order.
It is luck and electoral cycle that has seen the Tories untouched so far. If they were to lose office, who knows what would happen.
The same people seem to move almost seemlessly between Greenies/SWP/StopTheWar/Occupy/AN Other micro parties/38Degree petitions.
Labour needs to repel them, if they don't want to become a very large protest group with MPs bolted on the side. Her Maj's Loyal Opposition is supposed to be capable of becoming HMG.
On FPT, you said something like "skipping a generation normally means going ahead one, not moving back two" - spot on.
"Public opinion polls start to reflect just how much his "simple brand of wisdom" resonates with the jaded American public." Replace the last two words with "Labour electorate."
Encouraging the problem worsens it. I'm sure it'll make your daughter feel better, and those she helps feel better. But that sort of action will only make the problem worse.
The solution is actually enforcing border controls, proper approval or deporting of asylum seekers, and trying to foster wider stability and prosperity so that people are safe in their own countries and have a way of getting on there.
And don't forget, those people are in France. Obviously, that's not as good as being in England, but they're not in Syria or Libya.
Mr. Jonathan, attributing the Conservative victory solely to luck is a serious mistake. Compare the performance in Con-Lab marginals. That was not luck.
"Would a new leader in war be better if they'd been groomed for leadership for a few years, or if they'd been a foot soldier for a couple of decades but never had any leadership responsibility whatsoever (and had, in fact, been something of a troublemaker"
I think we have a sort of precedent here with Churchill and Hitler ( though Churchill was a foot soldier as well of course and probably a bit of a troublemaker)
But there is a not immaterial chance that Corbyn will capture the zeitgeist. Labour's constitution makes it difficult to remove a leader and Corbyn's election by a thumping majority of members would make it even more so. With the influx of energised members, the objections of the parliamentary party become largely irrelevant. Besides, there is no obvious leader for the counter-offensive. Burnham and Cooper, probably the best of the middle-managers left at the top of the party, will be damaged by their defeat. Umunna and Hunt lack the gravitas, character and intellectual heft to lead. The Blairities will be exiled, within or without the party. Brown and Miliband rendered irrelevant by their own failures. Corbyn is likely to be around for a while.
And the UK political field is bare at the moment. The Liberal Democrats are poorly positioned to benefit from Labour's leftwards lurch, having themselves moved leftwards and needing time to come to terms with their defeat and earn relevance. Ukip's focus will be elsewhere in the short-term (Euroref) and if anything they might find a more authentic voice of the conservative left is a challenge to the progress they made at the last election, although this is debatable. Corbyn is going to get a hearing.
And Corbyn has some interesting things to say. His anti-austerity rhetoric will have wide support. His views on nationalisation of the railways and protection of the NHS appear to accord with the electorate's (though David Herdson's point is well made), and his stance on nuclear weapons is not necessarily as toxic as it was in the 1980s. We can all think of former Conservative defence secretaries who now support disarmament. And unlike Ed Miliband, Corbyn can weave these together into a coherent package, with the courage of long-held convictions. Miliband failed not because he was too left wing, but because he was too timid, too tentative. His tepid offerings did little to inspire the left, but enough to make his assertions of economic competence look questionable. His overall package was incoherent. And as a leader, he did not offer anything wildly different from the status quo. Corbyn does.
[Point of order: in the 1930s/40s, 'vegetarian' was used a bit more loosely. Hitler did eat some types of meat].
Mr. Flockers, not on the economy. If there were a lefty Zeitgeist Miliband would've got it. That said, Corbyn is capable of speaking human.
My broader point is that superficial caring and compassion can be quite potent.
What matters is trying to do what reduces the harm the most effectively in the long term.
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, it's a bit People's Front of Judea.
But there is luck at play. You can make small changes to events of the past 10 years and end up with some quite radically different outcomes. I wonder what would have happened if Labour had lost power in 2005 rather than 2010, or won power in 1992 rather than 1997 for example.
It would not take much for Corbyn to pose a serious threat to the Conservatives. Exhaustion after ten years in charge, bitter in-fighting after the Euroref, stage 2 of the global financial crisis, even a bog standard recession, scandal, incompetence. Whatever. I am not saying Corbyn will win, indeed I suspect it is unlikely, but I think we underestimate the chances. This is not, by historical terms, a popular government. The majority was won on the back of the Liberal Democrats' annihilation and outstanding strategising, not on the back of a thumping popular mandate. it would not take much for the political weather to change. Electoral reform, if it comes, could accelerate the process and deprive the Conservatives of the advantage that FPTP offers in the current climate. Yes, it is more likely that Corbyn will pile up support in current Labour strongholds, while driving Worcester woman, Mondeo man, hard working families and all the other notional swing voters into the arms of the Conservatives, but that cannot be taken for granted. The SNP provides a model for a bottom-up campaign that ultimately achieves electoral success (though of course Indyref was a game changer). Corbyn seems to me the kind of character who could approximate that approach, although again David Herdson's points about his lack of organisational experience are well made.
Traditionally a majority of 12 is not seen as a working majority.
I believe that Mr L's daughter would make a better leader than Jezza. Compassion rather than anger, and with maturity, she'd be a far better judge of character than someone who has never grown up.
All I am saying is that govt doesn't really control broader social and economic trends. Events like 2008 or Oct 1992 would have happened regardless who had won the previous election, but cast a long shadow. The events that started in 2008 are still playing out.
Not enough money - print it!
War is Bad - ban the bomb, let's all be friends and hug Hamas.
I can indulgently tolerate someone who's under 21yrs thinking like this - or perhaps those who live in convents, but not ANYONE who is pitching to be Prime Minister.
It's beyond absurd. And the hand-waving away of Corbyn's skeletons as something voters *won't notice or be too bothered about* is wishful thinking of the highest order. We'd never expect any other mere mortal to get a free pass on this stuff - why Corbyn?
Hmm. That's possible (that we'll get economic woe and the Conservatives get the blame), but a credible alternative is needed to make headway. There wasn't one in 1992 (despite claims Labour were alright).
I couldn't agree more that Corbyn's support for the IRA is despicable, but what about all the secret pardons given to the IRA under supposedly patriotic Governments? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2619221/The-secret-royal-pardons-IRA-terrorists-MP-attacks-cover-revealed-365-people-given-amnesties-Northern-Ireland-1979.html What about Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness in their best black tie rubbing shoulders with the Queen?
Corbyn should rightly be condemned for supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, but surely of far greater magnitude is the entire British state's continued grovelling before Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest sponsor of terror, originator of 9-11, funder of the radicalisation of Mosques worldwide. Hamas' and Hezbollah's actions, awful as they are do not extend beyond their immediate strategic arena as far as I'm aware. Saudi Arabia's cause our soldiers to be stabbed and our tube trains to be blown up. But where is your righteous fulmination over associating with them?
I cannot stand hypocrisy, and as far as I can see, Corbyn is not being condemned for consorting with evil doers, he's being condemned for consorting with non-approved evil doers as opposed to approved ones.
Being an MP in the same seat for 30yrs doesn't qualify you for much when it comes to running anything. Corbyn hasn't even been on the NEC. He's a useful idiot riding a bow-wave created by others.
These migrants whom pay people-smugglers; are they not funding criminal-activity? Is this not a crime in
wodgerlundtFrance? Or is it classed as politics and gifts...?Edit - I don't actually mean it Labour, but you're easier to tease.
But, detailed polling suggests that austerity, while not loved, is considered necessary. His views on defence, immigration, and foreign affairs, are unpopular.
Therefore there might be some huge value long shots for next Labour leader - probably among the 48 who voted against the welfare bill, as their apostasy isn't total and can be excused by the Corbynites. A Corbyn win would also remove all the most senior Labour figures from the Shadow Cabinet equation, meaning that favoured sons or daughters could be promoted quickly, gaining experience and public recognition in a shorter period than is traditional. My own outsider tip would be Clive Lewis - former TV presenter, solidly left and black so able to tap into the inevitable desire to break down barriers (esp. on the left). Only arrived in 2015, but these are strange times
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33942238
Corbyn doesn't seem to have many friends on this site - maybe Mike should be renaming the site ABC Political Betting until 12th September !!
He's the only candidate - leader or deputy that has used these to lobby support. Now that could be an admin cock-up by his team. Or maybe not. He sent out communications before the final deadline.
Immigration is a harder gap to bridge, but then it is not as like the Conservatives offer anything radical in that respect.
The plain fact is that Corbyn's rise is such an unexpected and certainly unpredicted event it is almost impossible to know what will happen next. Dave's article is very well reasoned and articulate. But he could have written just as good an article only a few weeks ago proving that Corbyn would never make it as Labour leader.
I think his lack of experience would normally be a huge handicap. But given that Labour has to do something remarkable to win the next election, maybe somebody with only a hazy idea of the rule book is the one who will do best?
They also actively collaborated militarily with terrorist groups in Ireland, rather than just suggesting talking with them.
Corbyn OTOH is likely to be wearing a white poppy as he is a pacifist :P
Burnham was practically he definition of mediocrity.
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
It'll be entertaining to see them forced to say emollient things about Jeremy, mind.
As @Jonathan says, JC does have experience both of the HoC and even more importantly of life. To date we know very little about his management style - that is if he has one.
Presumably at his age he is aware of his personal strengths and weaknesses and let's assume that these will colour his thinking and actions. He says that he does not do personal remarks and focuses on policies. Also he tends to believe in the good of others (rather than their badness) - so perhaps is he afraid/wary of confrontation?
Also he has said that he wants to debate matters and let all have their say. So does he want to give the Labour party a very different management style? This can only happen if he is a good at delegating and superb at choosing the right people for the right job. Also he will have to be the prime motivator and leader of ideas, whilst using someone like Watson as his consigliere.
How the civil service and the Cabinet Secretary would interact with him (and his ilk) gives rise to some amusing scenes.
However all this is relevant as long as JC wins, and I have a very small inkling that a loose shoelace could trip him up at the last hurdle.
I don't think that Corbyn will be as bad at these things as many people might think. He seems a remarkable calm person who will take these duties seriously.
Blair tried everything possible to stop him having the chance to become London Mayor.
I at the time thought Ken Livingstone would not be a good choice.
However he did some good things for London between 2000 to2008.
I was wrong and I could be about Corbyn .
These are difficult times to predict.
However the issue is that Labour's selectorate is self-selecting (with the £3 members etc) and the timeline for the race is comparatively short, even if it feels long to us right now.
The election that matters won't be happening for nearly five more years. There's plenty of time for Corbyn's bubble to be popped in the five years coming. Plus the unions can't stuff the ballots with new voters in a general election.
http://www.ppu.org.uk/whitepoppy/
As the UK was running a major deficit in 08 we had no chance to properly absorb the effects of the crash. In other developed nations that were better managed, like in Canada the government was able to take the events of 08 in its stride and was re-elected subsequently with an increased majority.
Re names to watch - Corbyn's office newbie Cat Smith
"He may well have finally put the brakes on the SNP juggernaut up here in Scotland, he is certainly drowning out the usually North Korean style SNP PR machine in the local news with some positive media attention of his own"
Fitalass wrong again. I know that is not news :-)
Assuming a Corbyn victory, his opposition to any meaningful further devolution will render a surge in Scotland pretty much dead on arrival.
Even if he were popular in Scotland, the political incompetence of both of the SLAB leadership contenders in condemning him before he became hot favourite will be used widely by the "SNP PR machine".
Further, as Corbyn has indicated that he would be kind enough to accept SNP support to put Labour in power, why would anyone bother to switch from SNP to Labour at GE 2020?
Excellent article David H.
The traditional poppy isn't about militarism or pacifism it is about both remembering those who lost their lives in war and aiding those who've served (or their families) are are affected by it.
If Labour get back into power in 2020 (in some crazy parallel universe) I'll be burdened with higher taxes and will still have the student debt burden. Worst of both worlds.
Student debt made me into a conservative.
Its upto parties to write their own rules. The fact the Labour Party couldn't even organise a whelk stall or a leadership race for their members let alone the country is not SeanT's fault.