I don't get this argument. It's not a case of "preferring": they're in opposition for the next 5 years irrespective of what they prefer. So their main job for the next 5 years is to try to stop the Tories' policies as best they can, with the ample opportunities to do that that such a slender government majority provides - rather than feebly giving in all the time like the last 5 years and allowing the Tories to move the terms of debate rightwards, or on Monday by gifting them a majority for cuts that otherwise wasn't there.

Oh for crying out loud. Giving the Tories a majority for cuts that wasn't there? Is CHRIS BLOODY GRAYLING abstaining from the Welfare Bill because he doesn't believe in it? Should Thangam Debbonaire have been wheeled in from Bristol in the middle of her chemotherapy for the sake of getting one up over the Tory MP she's paired with? THE WELFARE BILL WAS GOING THROUGH WHETHER THE TORIES LOST YESTERDAY ON A TECHNICALITY OR NOT. THE TORY MPS WHO WERE NOT THERE WERE NOT ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A STATEMENT OF DISAPPROVAL OF THE BILL - ALL HAVE SOLIDLY ANTI-WELFARE VOTING RECORDS. STOP MAKING THIS LUDICROUSLY DISINGENUOUS ARGUMENT BEFORE I TWEET EVERY SINGLE BLOODY TORY MP WHO WASN'T PRESENT TO CONFIRM THAT YES, THEY DO SUPPORT THE WELFARE BILL OF THE GOVERNMENT THEY WERE ELECTED INTO, BECAUSE YOU ARE FUCKING BETTER THAN THIS ARGUMENT DANIEL!

 

Anyway, that aside, I would say I would generally expect most people to make room for 'is capable of electoral success' in their *top four priorities* for a leader they're electing, yes.

Continuing on happy news, I expect Tony Blair will be saying something exceedingly helpful tomorrow morning that absolutely won't have the effect of driving more support to Corbyn.

spot on. This, together with reported hordes of Tory supporters registering as Labour Party members to vote for him, should make him a shoo-in. It's not that his heart isn't in the right place (at least he has one, Blair had his removed some time ago) it's just it creates a useful enemy to rally the flag-flying UKIP right-wing rich to create fear and anxiety about. Look how well it worked with the rather non-left SNP.......

 

I really fear this means another decade of unbridled Tory-ism. How depressing.....

They need a woman. Problem is I don't think any of the two are to my liking from what I know.

 

 

They need Jeremy Corbyn to shake things up and hopefully he'd get rid of all the deadwood from the shadow cabinet. He wouldn't be PM but could shake the party up a bit then hand over to someone else in 3 or 4 years. Hope he wins but can't see it really.

GAME-CHANGER ALERT:

 

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 41m41 minutes ago

Shadow cabinet minister tells me that almost all members would refuse to serve under Corbyn http://bit.ly/1CPXuTU

 

Labour members will surely step back from the brink when threatened with losing titans like Chris Leslie, Tristram Hunt and Rachel Reeves.

:D!

 

Yeah, I don't think any of them have any idea how to respond to this, though given it was a scoop rather than a specific announcement I imagine it's more just genuine sentiment than a calculated attempt to try and take him down. Which I imagine is coming soon anyway and will be about as effective.

 

On what *could* stop Corbyn now? God knows. Possibly Cooper tacking more to the left and going for a 'true Labour values, hold this government to account AND electability' platform - I think there's too much of a sense of betrayal with Andy, but Cooper's flown under the radar for some reason so she might have an easier time of it. Chuck in Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband endorsing her and doing calculated 'we can be left AND electable' and *maybe* it could be enough to push her ahead of Burnham and Corbyn, but there'd still be the issue that a quarter of Burnham's votes are going to Corbyn and he's already pretty close to 50% in the first round anyway.

 

Plus, given how she'd probably have to position herself as a result, I think I'd much rather those voting for Corbyn got what they wished for and saw exactly what it entails, rather than another Miliband-esque muddle of five years of making leftward murmurs followed by rightward murmurs followed by leftward murmurs that basically enable them to make the same arguments when we lose again.

Quote from Blair:

 

""I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it."

 

For all their claims, Blairites are just as ideological as the hard left.

 

It was also amusing when he claimed how laughable the idea that Labour could win back Tory voters by takng a stronger line against austerity would be, how it was 'insulting to the electorate' to think they were wrong on austerity ..... before a minute later without a hint of irony he claimed UKIP voters were wrong about immigration and that the way to win them back was to make an unashamedly pro-immigration argument .

Edited July 22, 20159 yr by Danny

Quote from Blair:

 

""I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it."

 

For all their claims, Blairites are just as ideological as the hard left.

That's the moment Blairism officially stopped being the current incarnation of revisionism. It's now going alongside the old right as an ideological strand in the Labour Party that was once the revisionism of its time but can no longer be categorised as such.

 

I realise this is of basically zero interest to anybody normal, but it's a milestone at least. I don't think many self-identified revisionists will cleave hugely from generally New Labour-aligned positions any time soon (after all, there's not a huge deal of evidence that clear old-fashioned leftism *is* a route to general election victory currently), but it marks a starting point for it to be possible.

:D!

 

Yeah, I don't think any of them have any idea how to respond to this, though given it was a scoop rather than a specific announcement I imagine it's more just genuine sentiment than a calculated attempt to try and take him down. Which I imagine is coming soon anyway and will be about as effective.

 

On what *could* stop Corbyn now? God knows. Possibly Cooper tacking more to the left and going for a 'true Labour values, hold this government to account AND electability' platform - I think there's too much of a sense of betrayal with Andy, but Cooper's flown under the radar for some reason so she might have an easier time of it. Chuck in Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband endorsing her and doing calculated 'we can be left AND electable' and *maybe* it could be enough to push her ahead of Burnham and Corbyn, but there'd still be the issue that a quarter of Burnham's votes are going to Corbyn and he's already pretty close to 50% in the first round anyway.

 

Plus, given how she'd probably have to position herself as a result, I think I'd much rather those voting for Corbyn got what they wished for and saw exactly what it entails, rather than another Miliband-esque muddle of five years of making leftward murmurs followed by rightward murmurs followed by leftward murmurs that basically enable them to make the same arguments when we lose again.

I still wouldn't rule out Gideon crashing the economy some time before 2020, in which case I'd rather we were actually in a position to take advantage.

The public's views on whether the candidates are plausible Prime Ministers:

 

Andy Burnham 27%

Yvette Cooper 22%

Jeremy Corbyn 17%

Liz Kendall 16%

 

(IPSOS-MORI)

 

There was also a YouGov poll asking people why they thought Labour had lost the election - more answered "they didn't have an alternative to austerity" than "they wouldn't have reduced the deficit enough".

well, one ray of light, after 5 more years of local gov and NHS cuts, when people get first-hand experience of services being withdrawn (not just covered up by struggling staff papering over the cracks) there might well be a taste for a sudden lurch away from austerity. When people you love start dying unnecessarily early you get bitter for life. When you start having to pay for stuff that used to be free, you get stroppy about it at the next general election.

 

Just to be clear about local government. Up to 40% cuts when there's nothing left to cut: those of us left are now being asked to let it be known if we want reduced hours (but not reduced workloads - I've already reduced my hours and pay, work from home while being a carer, and my backlog, and my colleagues', just gets longer and longer and longer). With no actual investment in IT, staff or cover for absences, the long-serving employees are able to do things quickly from experience, but as they leave that becomes a major problem.

 

Happy days are here again, tra la la, la la la la lalalala.

 

I look fondly on the carefree days of Thatcherism in comparison. yes, it's THAT bad!

The public's views on whether the candidates are plausible Prime Ministers:

 

Andy Burnham 27%

Yvette Cooper 22%

Jeremy Corbyn 17%

Liz Kendall 16%

 

(IPSOS-MORI)

 

There was also a YouGov poll asking people why they thought Labour had lost the election - more answered "they didn't have an alternative to austerity" than "they wouldn't have reduced the deficit enough".

Ah, lovely and inconclusive.

 

Altrincham and Sale West endorsed Cooper and Eagle tonight. The latter may have been partly down to the fact that she came to speak.

Ah, lovely and inconclusive.

 

It might not be an endorsement of a shift to the left of Corbyn proportions, but the findings certainly contradict the idea that the public are desperate for Labour to be in the so-called "centre-ground".

It might not be an endorsement of a shift to the left of Corbyn proportions, but the findings certainly contradict the idea that the public are desperate for Labour to be in the so-called "centre-ground".

I don't think you can take anything from it in isolation. The two most established names are ahead, the insurgent is third and all four are separated by little over 10%. Not much of a story.

They need Jeremy Corbyn to shake things up and hopefully he'd get rid of all the deadwood from the shadow cabinet. He wouldn't be PM but could shake the party up a bit then hand over to someone else in 3 or 4 years. Hope he wins but can't see it really.

 

Tbh, I'm starting to see the attractiveness of this. He can be an interim leader, give the party a shake-up, do some proper opposition and start shifting the terms of debate back to the Left, then step down for someone a bit more moderate and prime-ministerial about a year before the election.

 

Currently I'm leaning on preferences towards: 1) Corbyn, 2) Burnham, 3) Cooper

 

For deputy, 1) Angela Eagle, 2) Stella Creasy, 3) Tom Watson, 4) Caroline Flint, 5) Ben Bradshaw.

Jeremy Corbyn~ :heehee:

Tbh, I'm starting to see the attractiveness of this. He can be an interim leader, give the party a shake-up, do some proper opposition and start shifting the terms of debate back to the Left, then step down for someone a bit more moderate and prime-ministerial about a year before the election.

 

Currently I'm leaning on preferences towards: 1) Corbyn, 2) Burnham, 3) Cooper

 

For deputy, 1) Angela Eagle, 2) Stella Creasy, 3) Tom Watson, 4) Caroline Flint, 5) Ben Bradshaw.

 

the main problem with this theory is

a) Labour will be seen as bonafide left-wing by a year before the election and a last-minute change of leader with the same policies will be seen as a cynical ploy, the millionaires press will have a field day and make sure it rattles on for months.

 

b) Corbyn wont go voluntarily, he cares too much about the issues to hand over to someone who might water them down. Forcing him out risks losing his supporters who will be peed off big time.

 

c) that will lead to another party leader infighting just before an election. Suicide.

 

 

Corbyn sounded sincere and sensible on Andrew Marr yesterday. It was amazing - two decent politicians in consecutive weeks (with Tim Farron also sounding sincere and sensible the week before).

 

Of course, the media hate people with a conscience - so if Corbyn and Farron are in opposition together they'll be hung, drawn and quartered by the press, private news firms and the, sadly, increasingly more 'compliant' BBC.

Yes I thought he came across very well. Very sensible and sincere as you say.

The public's views on whether the candidates are plausible Prime Ministers:

 

Andy Burnham 27%

Yvette Cooper 22%

Jeremy Corbyn 17%

Liz Kendall 16%

 

(IPSOS-MORI)

 

There was also a YouGov poll asking people why they thought Labour had lost the election - more answered "they didn't have an alternative to austerity" than "they wouldn't have reduced the deficit enough".

 

IPSOS-MORI also carried out a poll on Tory contenders at the same time, and Burnham's figures (and perhaps Cooper's) actually look surprisingly respectable

 

Do you think [name] has what it takes to be a good PM?

 

Boris Johnson - 32%

Theresa May - 28%

Andy Burnham - 27%

George Osborne - 23%

Yvette Cooper - 22%

Jeremy Corbyn - 17%

Liz Kendall - 16%

Michael Gove - 13%

 

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Poll...015-topline.pdf

 

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Poll...ne-part-two.pdf

Edited July 28, 20159 yr by Danny