Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

[Shrimpers are Magic]

The Question for the labour membership for me is this:
Who would the tories least like to face in the commons?
In the absence of Dan Jarvis it has to be Andy Burnham. He will never be Prime Minister but might get them in a position to seriously challenge.
Who would the tories most like to face?
Undoubtedly Corbyn. Say what you will about David Cameron but if Labour elect Corbyn then they would be playing directly into his hands and frankly he would have him for breakfast.

 

[mrsblue]

Parts of that I strongly agree with, but I do think it’s a tad dramatic and early to rule out a Labour resurgence in the coming years. Let’s not forget that membership has soared in the months since May, and there’s obviously a groundswell of public opinion since Osborne’s horribly misguided budget was announced. It’s about capitalising on that with the right message.

All in all, it’s been something of a masterstroke politically from the Tories to have the Welfare bill go through first reading now when the opposition has no elected leader. Harman’s caught in between standing for Labour’s values and not making a rod for her/her party’s own back when a leader is elected, while Cooper/Burnham/Kendall would’ve had to resign if they rebelled. It’s all good for Corbyn to come out and beat the drum, but he wasn’t facing the same circumstances in doing so. Would Harman have abstained if someone like Umunna or Jarvis was in contention for the leadership and was making noises about opposing it? I don’t think so.

Make no mistake of my opinion here, for there not to have been vehement opposition to the welfare bill from the Labour party yesterday is disgraceful, but Labour were excellently boxed into a corner on this one. Sometimes you just have to put your hands up and say the better, more organised team won. But the fact some Labour members found themselves unable to oppose a bill backed by Gideon and Iain Duncan ****ing Smith needs addressing internally.

I think it’s underpinned the size of the challenge at hand. Corbyn’s presence has been hugely divisive and it’s no wonder some of the PLP that backed his bid have since come out and said they regret doing so, and Cooper’s proven herself to be a political lightweight. I would’ve backed Kendall as I genuinely believe she’s making the right noises about modernising the party and making it electable by modern Britain, but if I had to vote today I’d be polling for Burnham and Flint simply on the basis that Corbyn would be an absolute disaster for the future of the Labour Party. He can talk a good game when all he has to do is not come across as the biggest idiot in a room containing Yvette Cooper, but he’d get ****ing mauled by a frontbench comprising Osborne, May, Patel et al.

I don’t think Burnham’s capable of uniting the party, but he’s probably the safest pair of hands for the next five years until a stronger candidate emerges, hopefully Umunna or Jarvis.

Rock on baby,

Dont forget the cretins Burnham and Hunt even claimed expenses for pennies,for the working people haha.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Rock on baby,

Dont forget the cretins Burnham and Hunt even claimed expenses for pennies,for the working people haha.

We can't all be football agents earning 20% of every transfer fee...

 

[mrsblue]

We can't all be football agents earning 20% of every transfer fee...

Hunt holds the record,chucked in a claim for 4p,now he does need an agent.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Rock on baby,

Dont forget the cretins Burnham and Hunt even claimed expenses for pennies,for the working people haha.

Shhhh, grown ups are talking

 

[RHB]

Labour are now a circus clown act without the laughs.

May they remain lower than a rattlesnakes belly for eternity.

The current government will have the next 4 and a bit years to do whatever they are going to do. Whatever they do will be on behalf of democracy. Why then are you so extremist towards the Labour Party? They are the next largest democratic party in the UK and therefore have a part to play in parliament. Or do you subscribe to a one party state as long as it is Tory?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

The Question for the labour membership for me is this:
Who would the tories least like to face in the commons?
In the absence of Dan Jarvis it has to be Andy Burnham. He will never be Prime Minister but might get them in a position to seriously challenge.
Who would the tories most like to face?
Undoubtedly Corbyn. Say what you will about David Cameron but if Labour elect Corbyn then they would be playing directly into his hands and frankly he would have him for breakfast.

I would hope that the Labour Party would present a more positive approach that just 'who will make life harder for the Tories' but concede that is a factor.
I can't imagine Cameron eating anyone for breakfast and the Speaker has had to pick him up on relying to much on his advisors during PMQs. Arguably Corbyn will give Cameron a harder time as he argued for what he believes in while the others are hemmed in to party policy and the hallowed 'middle ground'.
Cameron's advantage is that he will happily ignore his own manifesto (gay marriage), push for policies that 80% of the public don't agree with (repeal of the hunting act), ignore parliament (sending UK bombers to Syria under the command of other nations' air forces), or refuse to debate (leaders debates at the May 2015 election). Hard to win or lose a debate against him as the man don't give a ****.

 

[RHB]

Cameron's advantage is that he will happily ignore his own manifesto (gay marriage), push for policies that 80% of the public don't agree with (repeal of the hunting act), ignore parliament (sending UK bombers to Syria under the command of other nations' air forces), or refuse to debate (leaders debates at the May 2015 election). Hard to win or lose a debate against him as the man don't give a ****.

So when Cameron says the Tories are the 'party of working people' is he actually telling lies?


Confused of Westcliff

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Parts of that I strongly agree with, but I do think it’s a tad dramatic and early to rule out a Labour resurgence in the coming years. Let’s not forget that membership has soared in the months since May, and there’s obviously a groundswell of public opinion since Osborne’s horribly misguided budget was announced. It’s about capitalising on that with the right message.

All in all, it’s been something of a masterstroke politically from the Tories to have the Welfare bill go through first reading now when the opposition has no elected leader. Harman’s caught in between standing for Labour’s values and not making a rod for her/her party’s own back when a leader is elected, while Cooper/Burnham/Kendall would’ve had to resign if they rebelled. It’s all good for Corbyn to come out and beat the drum, but he wasn’t facing the same circumstances in doing so. Would Harman have abstained if someone like Umunna or Jarvis was in contention for the leadership and was making noises about opposing it? I don’t think so.

Make no mistake of my opinion here, for there not to have been vehement opposition to the welfare bill from the Labour party yesterday is disgraceful, but Labour were excellently boxed into a corner on this one. Sometimes you just have to put your hands up and say the better, more organised team won. But the fact some Labour members found themselves unable to oppose a bill backed by Gideon and Iain Duncan ****ing Smith needs addressing internally.

I think it’s underpinned the size of the challenge at hand. Corbyn’s presence has been hugely divisive and it’s no wonder some of the PLP that backed his bid have since come out and said they regret doing so, and Cooper’s proven herself to be a political lightweight. I would’ve backed Kendall as I genuinely believe she’s making the right noises about modernising the party and making it electable by modern Britain, but if I had to vote today I’d be polling for Burnham and Flint simply on the basis that Corbyn would be an absolute disaster for the future of the Labour Party. He can talk a good game when all he has to do is not come across as the biggest idiot in a room containing Yvette Cooper, but he’d get ****ing mauled by a frontbench comprising Osborne, May, Patel et al.

I don’t think Burnham’s capable of uniting the party, but he’s probably the safest pair of hands for the next five years until a stronger candidate emerges, hopefully Umunna or Jarvis.

I agree with pretty much all you say here except the paragraph about Corbyn. I'd like to add more and will when I get time. A lot of what is being written in newspapers and their websites is just to fill space though and there is a lot of conclusion jumping going on.

 

[mrsblue]

I would hope that the Labour Party would present a more positive approach that just 'who will make life harder for the Tories' but concede that is a factor.
I can't imagine Cameron eating anyone for breakfast and the Speaker has had to pick him up on relying to much on his advisors during PMQs. Arguably Corbyn will give Cameron a harder time as he argued for what he believes in while the others are hemmed in to party policy and the hallowed 'middle ground'.
Cameron's advantage is that he will happily ignore his own manifesto (gay marriage), push for policies that 80% of the public don't agree with (repeal of the hunting act), ignore parliament (sending UK bombers to Syria under the command of other nations' air forces), or refuse to debate (leaders debates at the May 2015 election). Hard to win or lose a debate against him as the man don't give a ****.

Corbyn is a throwback to the Scargil and Kinnock era,his old school and wants to throw money at the benefit system whilst pushing the highest earners to 90p in the pound,This bloke will never be in power.

The Tories are the lesser of two evils but appear to be doing certain things such as capping the welfare hand outs and trying to curb immigration(with little success).

Donald Trump has my vote if only he was here.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Corbyn is a throwback to the Scargil and Kinnock era,his old school and wants to throw money at the benefit system whilst pushing the highest earners to 90p in the pound,This bloke will never be in power.

The Tories are the lesser of two evils but appear to be doing certain things such as capping the welfare hand outs and trying to curb immigration(with little success).

Donald Trump has my vote if only he was here.

What's that quote about the best satire being indistinguishable from the truth?

 

[mrsblue]

What's that quote about the best satire being indistinguishable from the truth?

Andy Burnham has claimed over 100 occasions for expenses under 1 pound,wow good old Labour :hilarious:

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Corbyn is a throwback to the Scargil and Kinnock era,his old school and wants to throw money at the benefit system whilst pushing the highest earners to 90p in the pound,This bloke will never be in power.

The Tories are the lesser of two evils but appear to be doing certain things such as capping the welfare hand outs and trying to curb immigration(with little success).

Donald Trump has my vote if only he was here.

No he doesn't want to tax anyone at 90%, you need to not believe what is written in the Mail, he has stated 50% top rate seems as far as it should go.

i recall your fav UKIP MEP was the one who had become independent so with that at Trump you are missing out on your go to politicians which is a shame

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Andy Burnham has claimed over 100 occasions for expenses under 1 pound,wow good old Labour :hilarious:

That would come to less than £100 so is less significant than those who were claiming their main home was their 2nd home etc. Under £1 is probably a cup of tea on official business or stamps or something like that where he has a work pile of receipts and a personal pile of receipts, the value is fairly irrelevant but if we are paying the lower the better works better.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Andy Burnham has claimed over 100 occasions for expenses under 1 pound,wow good old Labour :hilarious:

...which was probably still less than IDS claimed for one breakfast. Still, all in this together and all that.

 

[mrsblue]

...which was probably still less than IDS claimed for one breakfast. Still, all in this together and all that.

But that is exactly my point,they are all hopeless,always on the make to feather their own nest.

Cynical but fair,

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Lord Football & ESB


I share your alarm with there being 48 Labour votes against the welfare bill but I have tempered mine a little since and I think a lot of conclusions that are being made are a bit ahead of themselves. Harman does seem to be taking a sit on the fence line till a leader is elected and it seems these bills will be presented to the Commons again after a new leader is in place.


Burnham has said that if elected he would instruct a vote against, but for now he followed the party line of abstaining. Sounds fair to a point but obviously the world doesn't stop till the vacuum is filled.


The fact that him and Cooper 'represent' failure at the last election is a bit catch 22 as anyone not involved at the last election would be deemed inexperienced in a senior post. And the failure of the last election was an increased Labour vote other than Scotland; coupled with the collapse of the Liberals.




I read a Nick Cohen article in the Guardian slating Corbyn (I am a big fan of Cohen's 'What's Left' book but this was sloppy journalism) and then read the readers comments that followed and a majority backed Corbyn at least vs the article and saw him as a return to core values. As one of the few people on here who will be allowed a vote this is where the decision lies - core values or sell your soul to get the Tories out like we did with Blair? But with the soul selling are Labour too similar to the Tories and therefore people stick with the devil they know (which was the only appeal of the Tories in May surely?). Maybe this is the time to change? Maybe core Labour values should be stated and pushed for rather than watered down for the middle ground whoever the hell they are.


And photos of Corbyn shaking hands with Sinn Fein can be matched with the Queen doing the same thing. We saw in May the Sun, Mail, Telegraph et al with throw dirt whether there is any or not so maybe we shouldn't put too much importance on that.


I don't believe there will be a split party, the Tories may well split over EU but I don't think Labour have a split ready and waiting. Lib Dems are in disarray and seasoned politicos won't want to waste time there where Labour membership has been on the rise. Greens still have just one MP and the wrong leader so again not too tempting.


Whichever leader Labour elect I would take any of them over Cameron who I distrust intensely or the new Lib Tim Farron who straight away is struggling to deny homophobia with his 'we are all sinners' - if he views us all as sinners I'm not warming to that negative outlook.


The party without a leader is not working but that is short term. Whichever of the four gets picked should be given time to develop - they may be very different to the loyal foot soldier they have needed to be up to now.


And no offence intended but the Tories and Kippers and those who are plain ignorant - their opinions don't matter at that point as it will be the Labour voters past, present and future that matter and some are never going to think our way and that it just one of those things.

 

[Neil_F]

And no offence intended but the Tories and Kippers and those who are plain ignorant - their opinions don't matter at that point as it will be the Labour voters past, present and future that matter and some are never going to think our way and that it just one of those things.

I entirely respect your principle here but is it not the same principle that got IDS elected as the Tory leader?

Labour need to win seats from the Tories in England if they are to form a government. I struggle to see how they will do that with the left (and far left) of the party so assertive.

 

[callan]

And no offence intended but the Tories and Kippers and those who are plain ignorant - their opinions don't matter at that point as it will be the Labour voters past, present and future that matter and some are never going to think our way and that it just one of those things.

Since when did any prospective voters opinion not count?....I suspect its this kind of elitist thinking that has damaged Labour almost beyond repair.
Drop the holier than thou attitude and start listening to voters concerns and Labour might stand a chance....

 

[RHB]

I entirely respect your principle here but is it not the same principle that got IDS elected as the Tory leader?

Labour need to win seats from the Tories in England if they are to form a government. I struggle to see how they will do that with the left (and far left) of the party so assertive.

They certainly do, which is why Tony Blair conjured up new Labour to appeal to the middle ground. If, as *** mentions, there is an upsurge of the left wing, return to roots in the party, I can see a new group forming from the centre right of the existing party. Sounds remarkably like the SDP of the 80s?