Hilariously, Jeremy Corbyn looks like he might be a proper contender. Current nominations from local constituency parties:

 

Burnham - 31

Corbyn - 26

Cooper - 24

Kendall - 4

I will say that a lot of those meetings - as indeed, I know at least three of those Corbyn and Cooper nominations are - can be absurdly unrepresentative. We're talking 10 members turning up out of local parties of over a hundred members. I wouldn't necessarily take it seriously as a predictor for how Corbyn will do, but then we don't really have much to go on otherwise.

The funniest thing is I don't think Corbyn even wants the job, he's said openly he's only interested in "having a debate". If he does somehow get elected, I'd expect an immediate resignation.

I refuse to entertain the possibility of his winning, but I imagine he'd have the sense to stick about and nurture some heirs and heiresses. The Labour Left really are parched of ready leaders and spokespersons below 50 within the PLP. Of course, that'll all change when Owen Jones finally whacks his oar in and goes for selection in Bramley and Froglington Stroon CLP, but they could probably do with a couple more getting some stature to go along with that relentless online echo chamber.

I refuse to entertain the possibility of his winning, but I imagine he'd have the sense to stick about and nurture some heirs and heiresses. The Labour Left really are parched of ready leaders and spokespersons below 50 within the PLP. Of course, that'll all change when Owen Jones finally whacks his oar in and goes for selection in Bramley and Froglington Stroon CLP, but they could probably do with a couple more getting some stature to go along with that relentless online echo chamber.

Ony likely to be the case this time though. Lisa Nandy should be far more prominent by 2020.

Ony likely to be the case this time though. Lisa Nandy should be far more prominent by 2020.

But don't forget her big thing is the 'meaningless waffle' of devolution, so Danny won't be onside :angel:

But don't forget her big thing is the 'meaningless waffle' of devolution, so Danny won't be onside :angel:

Meanwhile I'm already designing the bumper stickers.

Callum Smith ‏@callumrsmith 41m41 minutes ago

Fascinating that Labour centrists wanted JC to stand to prove the left was irrelevant yet are now panicking he might win & plotting against.

 

Callum Smith ‏@callumrsmith 39m39 minutes ago

It says so much about the Labour Party. Its roots are still left wing but those in control are bureaucrats and grasping careerists.

Of course, the only explanation for having moderate views in Labyr is that you're a bureaucrat or a grasping careerist!

No, there's moderates (Miliband, Burnham and Cooper all just about fit into that category even though they're often too timid to even admit they'd go that far) and then there's the swivel-eyed right-wing ideologues (Blairites/Progress).

That's probably a bit of a factor, but people's views on the actual issues tend to be different round here. When I was canvassing in the Wirral a few years ago, LOADS of people were saying how upset they were about welfare cuts in particular (and how they wished Labour would oppose them more strongly) -- with how consistently the polls say that the nation as a whole is in favour of welfare cuts, I think now that Merseyside is the exception. Which leads me to believe it's been caused by the local politicians constantly from the 1980s onwards making the argument that poor people often can't be blamed for their predicament and that rich people have a responsibility to help much more than they do since they never would have got anywhere if "society" hadn't helped them get where they were -- arguments which have gradually gained ground as they were shared with friends, family, etc.

 

It's not even really about being more "left-wing" as such, it's just about having the courage of your convictions to make the fundamental arguments, and keep making them over and over again even if you get some resistance at first (something Miliband and Balls were dismal at).

 

I imagine there was a similar process in Scotland, until the big reversal over the last year.

Last year?!?!?! Shit's been going down and changing here for over a decade.

Those swivel-eyed right wing ideologues who have called for renationalisation of the railways and a proper living wage and led campaigns for community organisation against payday loans and fixed odd betting terminals. Such bureaucracy! Only a careerist!!!

 

Look, I know a huge part of the Labour Left would like erase the revisionists from the party and pretend we're entryists, but we've been in the party since the beginning and been the main strand in the party's thinking for the majority of the last hundred years. Admittedly, Blair's Year Zero tendencies to promote New Labour did help that myth's birth, but deary me, that tweet is just another example of the left's worst trait of impugning motive rather than accepting that we actually believe what we believe. Let's face it, if a swivel-eyed right-wing ideologue wanted to get anywhere and happened to be a careerist, they'd probably join the party that, uh, is kind of winning at the moment and has plenty of room for swivel-eyed right wing ideologues.

Those swivel-eyed right wing ideologues who have called for renationalisation of the railways and a proper living wage and led campaigns for community organisation against payday loans and fixed odd betting terminals. Such bureaucracy! Only a careerist!!!

 

Look, I know a huge part of the Labour Left would like erase the revisionists from the party and pretend we're entryists, but we've been in the party since the beginning and been the main strand in the party's thinking for the majority of the last hundred years. Admittedly, Blair's Year Zero tendencies to promote New Labour did help that myth's birth, but deary me, that tweet is just another example of the left's worst trait of impugning motive rather than accepting that we actually believe what we believe. Let's face it, if a swivel-eyed right-wing ideologue wanted to get anywhere and happened to be a careerist, they'd probably join the party that, uh, is kind of winning at the moment and has plenty of room for swivel-eyed right wing ideologues.

 

Absolutely - compromises but still with some firm red lines, namely opposing austerity, prioritizing good public services and help for the poor over deficit/surplus hysteria, and making the case that the super-rich and big businesses must be forced to make a much bigger contribution.

 

But if the Blairite lunatic fringe is going to continue to kick up a huge stink about even moderate soft-left policies like that, then as we're now seeing you will provoke much of the grassroots into full-on loony-leftism (abolishing capitalism completely, nationalising everything, declaring "solidarity" with every tinpot dictator under the sun, etcetc.).

Edited July 11, 201510 yr by Danny

Absolutely - compromises but still with some firm red lines, namely opposing austerity, prioritizing good public services and help for the poor over deficit/surplus hysteria, and making the case that the super-rich and big businesses must be forced to make a much bigger contribution.

 

But if the Blairite lunatic fringe is going to continue to kick up a huge stink about even moderate soft-left policies like that, then as we're now seeing you will provoke much of the grassroots into full-on loony-leftism (abolishing capitalism completely, nationalising everything, declaring "solidarity" with every tinpot dictator under the sun, etcetc.).

You're kind of missing the point of the "moderate" wing of the party - it's all about being pragmatic and not straying too far from the supposed centre ground, which changes over the decades.

You're kind of missing the point of the "moderate" wing of the party - it's all about being pragmatic and not straying too far from the supposed centre ground, which changes over the decades.

 

Disagree completely - the moderates before Blair were about not going for some socialist uptopia, sure, but they always had red lines they wouldn't cross even if (on the surface) those positions weren't popular.

Edited July 11, 201510 yr by Danny

Disagree completely - the moderates before Blair were about not going for some socialist uptopia, sure, but they always had red lines they wouldn't cross even if (on the surface) those positions weren't popular.

That would be the soft left, not the moderate wing.

 

It isn't really the kind of phrase that best expresses why it's the way forward (it's more of an encapsulation), but this is what 'applying our values to a modern context' meant. Not sticking to rigid policy prescriptions, but working to find the best way to apply our values of fairness to what is broadly politically palatable. I know you have your disagreements on that (e.g. argue a stark position outside of what is notionally palatable to a swing voter and it will get a following), but that's the general theory of it - primarily because plenty of moderates (revisionists is probably the better term - it's what distinguishes us from the soft left and it's a tradition going way back) don't believe that even if you did argue those positions you'd necessarily get enough voters who agreed to be able to win.

 

The best way to explain is that I'm sure Corbyn could probably manage 35+% in the polls for a while in midterm because he would attract support from some on the left, but there are plenty of people who we need to win over who understand exactly what his argument entails and don't like it. To take one example, he could make an unashamed case for immigration that hasn't been made as a rule until now, and attract support and persuade a fair few voters because it's a case that hasn't been made. I still doubt it would bring a majority around to a case they fundamentally disagree with.

Harriet Harman doing her best to boost the Corbyn vote with her "Labour won't oppose anything" argument.

It's pushing Burnham (and I imagine Cooper) further left by coming out and opposing it, we can't do anything about it and no one will remember in 2020. Could be worse.

It's pushing Burnham (and I imagine Cooper) further left by coming out and opposing it, we can't do anything about it and no one will remember in 2020. Could be worse.

 

Eh? The Tories have a majority of 6, and I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few Tories from marginal seats abstain. Labour could actively allow this to happen.

Ugh at endorsing cuts to child tax credits. That's the wrong choice of something to not oppose. I agree with Harriet that we can't just be the 'WHY CAN'T EVERYTHING BE AS IT WAS IN 2010' party but I genuinely wouldn't take tax credits as the one thing people would agree with cuts to - particularly as it's the one area where this Budget will bite in the long run. It's the equivalent of the Tories endorsing Brown scrapping the 10p tax rate.