I'm not saying a thing on how 'brave' they are or complimenting them at all. Defend him all you like, but if you're trying to make the point that the reversal is something he can take credit for, it's just not true.

I will and I think you have to on this point :)

sorry JC fans but I think he's been utterly wet as leader. It's a lovely ideal having a calm firm dignified response in parliament to make your case, but he could have said nothing and the result would have been the same. It was the Tory backlash (more to do with potential vote losses and Euro Out's getting the knife in than for any genuine heartfelt concern for people - allegedly by me) that won that argument, actually if not morally.

 

There has been a long list of immoral Tory policies since he got voted in and he should be doing his job properly, shouting it from the rooftops about each and every one, and using every mean at his disposal to support those that need support. Kinnock and Foot would have been whingeing on TV with bite. The Libdems in the House Of Lords have done more to change government policy than he has, and so have the SNP.

 

Too busy observing his cronies slag off his own party members, in my opinion. The best way to win support is to be good at your job and just dismiss rightfully any party moaners who will then just look silly. Jezza just isnt convincing. So far. Needs a huge metaphorical kick up the ass.

sorry JC fans but I think he's been utterly wet as leader. It's a lovely ideal having a calm firm dignified response in parliament to make your case, but he could have said nothing and the result would have been the same. It was the Tory backlash (more to do with potential vote losses and Euro Out's getting the knife in than for any genuine heartfelt concern for people - allegedly by me) that won that argument, actually if not morally.

 

Yeah, but why wasn't there that Tory backlash on various equally vile policies in the last parliament? I would argue it was precisely because Miliband was always desperately trying to compete with the Tories on being "tough on scroungers" and "credible about reducing the deficit" and all the rest of it. For all the mockery of the "Overton window", I do think it's pretty sure that Corbyn has moved the terms of debate to such an extent that even many Tories feel able/obligated to speak out against various measures, whereas they simply weren't before the election when Miliband and Labour were ensuring the whole political debate was conducted in a ridiculously narrow right-wing space.

Edited April 2, 20169 yr by Danny

Well given he wasn't 'always' trying to do those things (doing a one-off speech on it once a year when forced to hardly counts as going on about it) I'd argue it was much more to do with the solid majority the coalition had, which likely made most backbenchers that ever had an issue with a policy (or had an issue with Cameron and wanted to pick a fight) think it wasn't worth the bother because there wasn't a chance of success. Now they know they only need eight of each other.

plus I'd add that the bulk of nasty policies were chopped off or toned down by the Libdems long before Miliband needed to criticise them - and a lot of which were Labour policy anyway. Just to remind everyone what i said when the coalition was in power and what would happen when the Tories weren't answerable to a party which had the best interests of the nation at heart, rather than it's own interest groups. It's happened, it's here.

 

Corbyn hasn't moved the moral argument in any significant way, he was elected because enough people already felt that way and wanted someone to represent their views where there was no-one available now that the LidDem brand had been tarnished. He was a joke backbencher candidate with no experience of being in government, and having to suddenly lead a party is outside his comfort zone - since he came to lead how have the Labour poll numbers done? Despite all that is going on....? At best it's a percentage higher than Miliband. Hardly a ringing endorsement...

I think it's probably reaching a bit to suggest Corbyn was elected because the Lib Dems fell apart.

plus I'd add that the bulk of nasty policies were chopped off or toned down by the Libdems long before Miliband needed to criticise them - and a lot of which were Labour policy anyway. Just to remind everyone what i said when the coalition was in power and what would happen when the Tories weren't answerable to a party which had the best interests of the nation at heart, rather than it's own interest groups. It's happened, it's here.

 

Well, that's your opinion, but I don't agree - I think the Lib Dems allowed a whole host of nasty policies to pass in the Coalition years, and that the Tory majority government has thankfully been better than the Coalition so far, since they've been forced to drop several of their policies - due, I would argue, to Corbyn moving the debate to the Left.

 

I agree that, in traditional "leadership" terms, Corbyn's been a disaster. He's pathetic in Parliament, he doesn't have any political nous, and he looks and sounds like a hot mess everyday. However, for me, that is all less important than moderating Tory excesses and actually protecting poor people's livelihoods in practice, which Miliband never did and which the other 3 leadership candidates certainly wouldn't've done

Edited April 3, 20169 yr by Danny

There has been a long list of immoral Tory policies since he got voted in and he should be doing his job properly, shouting it from the rooftops about each and every one, and using every mean at his disposal to support those that need support. Kinnock and Foot would have been whingeing on TV with bite. The Libdems in the House Of Lords have done more to change government policy than he has, and so have the SNP.

 

Er maybe if his MPs accepted his mandate then this would be easier? You say his cronies are complaining about them but what about the blairite cronies who constantly snip to the media? That IMO has been the basis of debate since he became leader - they are constantly on the sidelines instead of showing him support and helping the Tories by doing so!

Maybe so, but he hasn't demonstrated strong leadership. The sniping has only grown because of his lack of leadership and that tends to lead to... yes, more sniping and 'loyalty letter leaks'.

 

Corbyn hasn't had much (if any) impact on the debate - Osborne has sensed the weakness of the opposition and tried to get through a lot of quite unpopular and aggressive cuts and shift the government from the centre ground. As Qassändra rightly points out, it is more to do with the majority of 12 as opposed to that of 70 that has encouraged the potential for rebellion and forced the government to re-think policy.

 

That and the actions of the Lords.

I think it's probably reaching a bit to suggest Corbyn was elected because the Lib Dems fell apart.

 

I meant as a protest vote, the Libdems traditional position, leaving people veering more towards more extremes than is usual..and both left and right.

Well, that's your opinion, but I don't agree - I think the Lib Dems allowed a whole host of nasty policies to pass in the Coalition years, and that the Tory majority government has thankfully been better than the Coalition so far, since they've been forced to drop several of their policies - due, I would argue, to Corbyn moving the debate to the Left.

 

I agree that, in traditional "leadership" terms, Corbyn's been a disaster. He's pathetic in Parliament, he doesn't have any political nous, and he looks and sounds like a hot mess everyday. However, for me, that is all less important than moderating Tory excesses and actually protecting poor people's livelihoods in practice, which Miliband never did and which the other 3 leadership candidates certainly wouldn't've done

 

a whole host?

 

I counted the student fees thingy (which was a Labour policy originally and not a Libdem policy), the cuts (which Labour were also in favour of, they just had whinges about timing), and you haven't been paying attention - there are LOADS of policies that have now passed that they wouldn't have dared to try passing before - they are resorting to quite undemocratic procedures to try and sneak as many through parliament as possible - and which Labour seem to flail about over missing the point of each and every one.

 

Have a look at the thread for Tory lies to find just a few examples. I've actually given up listing them, it's just endless and Corbyn either ignores, agrees with, or is just too stupid to notice half of them.

 

In terms of protecting the poor, that has always been a LibDem thing, there are plenty of examples of that in the coalition (and which the Tories took credit for). The last parliament can roughly split into a few decent policies (Lid Dem) and the rest (Tory), but Labour were too busy ignoring facts to try and wipe out the LIbDems. Which they did beautifully. Consequence: Tory government and Corbyn.

 

It's the job of the opposition to reign in and criticise the government of the day when it goes too far in it's ideology and ignoring procedures. Both Miliband and Corbyn have been failures at the job they were supposed to be doing. Their primary function. Personally I think both of them have been the weakest Labour party leaders in my lifetime (that's going back to Harold Wilson), give or take Foot - who was trying to hold a party divided together and take it to the left. Clever man, man of principle, but it gave us Thatcher.

 

History does repeat....

 

 

Maybe so, but he hasn't demonstrated strong leadership. The sniping has only grown because of his lack of leadership and that tends to lead to... yes, more sniping and 'loyalty letter leaks'.

 

Corbyn hasn't had much (if any) impact on the debate - Osborne has sensed the weakness of the opposition and tried to get through a lot of quite unpopular and aggressive cuts and shift the government from the centre ground. As Qassändra rightly points out, it is more to do with the majority of 12 as opposed to that of 70 that has encouraged the potential for rebellion and forced the government to re-think policy.

 

That and the actions of the Lords.

 

But the sniping began from the moment Corbyn was elected leader - see Jamie Reeds tweet that day last September.

If you ask people why they aren't voting Labour anymore, 'the MPs are having a go at Corbyn' is not the reason they give.

But the affect that the divisions cause creates a view in the media and hence the floating voter that the party is a shambles so surely the lack of support from the right of the LPP is one factor which is bringing the party as a whole down. Unfort the right lay the seeds of this destruction and then complain when the opinion polls are showing no inroads being made on the tory lead?!

Corbyn himself is currently an electoral liability and would continue to be one even if the right weren't leaking to the press to undermine him. Frankly both camps deserve each other, they'll both be to blame when we inevitably lose in 2020. Is it too much to ask for a leadership which both votes against legislation such as the welfare bill and resists the urge to quote Mao in the Commons?

 

For the record, so far I think this government has brought out worse and more right wing than the coalition did in its first year. That's partly because the coalition had already laid the groundwork for Osborne to take more extreme action now, though.

Corbyn himself is currently an electoral liability and would continue to be one even if the right weren't leaking to the press to undermine him. Frankly both camps deserve each other, they'll both be to blame when we inevitably lose in 2020.

One considerably moreso than the other.

One considerably moreso than the other.

Yes, but it's still not an excuse. Some MPs don't seem to have grasped the idea that a failed coup will merely strengthen his position and the constant sniping will only provide an excuse when he fails.

Is it too much to ask for a leadership which both votes against legislation such as the welfare bill and resists the urge to quote Mao in the Commons?

 

It shouldn't be, but unfortunately on the evidence of the last 5 years, and especially in the months after the election, it is.

 

Given the choice between those two far-from-ideal choices, I'd rather take the one which doesn't result in the incomes of the poorest people in the country getting cut.

Edited April 4, 20169 yr by Danny

Who will be that in between figure then - Owen Smith/Lisa Nandy from the left or Chucka/Tristam/or other uber gladstonian liberal - And will they be a Kinnock (Not literally) or will Labour just jump straight to a Blair?