Next Labour Leader - Miliband Resigns

[CityStu]

Economically responsible? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Either way, you can't have the parliamentary wing wanting one thing, and the party at large wanting another for too long, eventually it fractures.

They like to know where the money is going to come from before they listen to how it'll be spent. Corbyn's plans will require a lot more public money than whatever the Tories will be planning.

 

[cibaman]

Agreed about Smith. I genuinely believe the world would be a different place if Smith hadn't passed away. I don't for one second believe he would have jumped into bed with Bush......or had a dodgy face to face with him in a prayer room, then decide to go to war. Never mind.......

I think its likely that Smith would have won in 97 but not a given. And certainly not by such a huge margin. The economy had recovered and was quite strong going into the election. Its unusual for a government to lose an election, never mind being trounced, when the economy is improving.

Blair convinced the electorate that Labour could be trusted. Not by making many great policy commitments. Apart from the Windfall Tax, the minimum wage and the promise to stick to the Tories spending plans, he largely kept his powder dry. But the abolition of Clause 4 was a huge event. Not so much because of the significance of the policy itself, but because it demonstrated that Blair was in charge of the party rather than the unions and hard left. Whether Smith would have done that is debatable.

I expect that Corbyn will lose any public support that he might initially have (he will probably enjoy a short honeymoon period after he is elected), not so much because of his economic policies but because he will unravel Blair's reforms. For example, he has indicated he will transfer power from the PLP back to the Party Conference, where the trade unions enjoy 50% of the vote. That sort of move will be hugely unpopular with the public.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Plenty of evidence? "Its been reported..." "I've been told" "At an Islington North meeting I attended"... A quote from one 19 year old.

The trouble is all of this is happening in a bubble involving a tiny percentage of the electorate. Its rather like a bunch of United fans getting excited that Chris Smalling has been voted best centre back in the PL, in a poll restricted mainly to United fans.

We have very little idea whether Corbynmania is affecting the rest of the population. I asked my 29 year old, university educated daughter what she thought of the Labour leadership election. "What election?"

Anyway, back to the match

All this 'evidence' is wishful thinking, to say the least, you're correct,the meetings are not packed out with floating voters, and as yet, the Tories have said nothing on the issue, but will be watching and planning their attacks with glee once Corbyn is elected, as now looks likely. To choose a leader who would abandon trident, pull us out of NATO, nationalise, possibly without compensation, increase taxes, and who gives the impression there is no terrorist he doesn't like, will be meat and drink to his opponents.
OK, some of this may be exaggeration, but the point is, he is extremely vulnerable because of his past doings as an MP, and I don't think the guy has the charisma to cope.
Which is a shame, as I don't believe this kind of opposition will be healthy.

 

[Henkeman]

Winning Scotland back won't solve all Labour's ills. Even if they regained every seat the Tories would still have a majority. In any case, it's a mistake to believe Labour lost because they weren't sufficiently anti-austerity, not least because Labour's own polling made it pretty clear the electorate thought they weren't pro-austerity enough. What happened in Scotland was that with a close election Scottish voters went for the party who would give them the biggest say in Parliament, and that was the SNP. The dynamics of Scotland are fairly unique.

Labour lost out significantly in England to UKIP more than anyone else, and that wasn't because those disaffected voters wanted a Corbyn type leader instead. Sure, they would have also lost some from voters who decided not to vote at all, but there's no evidence that it would have been different. Likewise, having cheering crowds going for Corbyn means little, given the same kind of response met Michael Foot in that narrow constituency.

 

[Kippax Street 1880]

I think its likely that Smith would have won in 97 but not a given. And certainly not by such a huge margin. The economy had recovered and was quite strong going into the election. Its unusual for a government to lose an election, never mind being trounced, when the economy is improving.

Blair convinced the electorate that Labour could be trusted. Not by making many great policy commitments. Apart from the Windfall Tax, the minimum wage and the promise to stick to the Tories spending plans, he largely kept his powder dry. But the abolition of Clause 4 was a huge event. Not so much because of the significance of the policy itself, but because it demonstrated that Blair was in charge of the party rather than the unions and hard left. Whether Smith would have done that is debatable.

I expect that Corbyn will lose any public support that he might initially have (he will probably enjoy a short honeymoon period after he is elected), not so much because of his economic policies but because he will unravel Blair's reforms. For example, he has indicated he will transfer power from the PLP back to the Party Conference, where the trade unions enjoy 50% of the vote. That sort of move will be hugely unpopular with the public.

Will it ? Or will the Sun just tell you it is?

 

[cibaman]

Will it ? Or will the Sun just tell you it is?

I'll make my own mind up, just as I did in the 90's when Blair's reforms pursuaded me and plenty of others that Labour was worth voting for. Its unlikely that the Sun will tell me anything as I've never read it.

 

[cibaman]

All this 'evidence' is wishful thinking, to say the least, you're correct,the meetings are not packed out with floating voters, and as yet, the Tories have said nothing on the issue, but will be watching and planning their attacks with glee once Corbyn is elected, as now looks likely. To choose a leader who would abandon trident, pull us out of NATO, nationalise, possibly without compensation, increase taxes, and who gives the impression there is no terrorist he doesn't like, will be meat and drink to his opponents.
OK, some of this may be exaggeration, but the point is, he is extremely vulnerable because of his past doings as an MP, and I don't think the guy has the charisma to cope.
Which is a shame, as I don't believe this kind of opposition will be healthy.

The local elections next year should provide some indication as to whether Corbyn's support extends beyond the hard left. His honeymoon period will have passed by then, people will have seen him in action and able to form more of an informed opinion. He will have to attract votes from people who have never heard the term "neoliberalism"

 

[The perfect fumble]

I don't believe this kind of opposition will be healthy.

But you believe an opposition that agrees with the Tories on all the basic issues is?

Corbyn supporters believe it is possible to build different kind of winning coalition, a different kind of politics.

Thatcher did it from the right, why is it not possible to do it from the left?

 

[The perfect fumble]

The local elections next year should provide some indication as to whether Corbyn's support extends beyond the hard left. His honeymoon period will have passed by then, people will have seen him in action and able to form more of an informed opinion. He will have to attract votes from people who have never heard the term "neoliberalism"

There'll be no honeymoon period for Corbyn.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Winning Scotland back won't solve all Labour's ills. Even if they regained every seat the Tories would still have a majority. In any case, it's a mistake to believe Labour lost because they weren't sufficiently anti-austerity, not least because Labour's own polling made it pretty clear the electorate thought they weren't pro-austerity enough. What happened in Scotland was that with a close election Scottish voters went for the party who would give them the biggest say in Parliament, and that was the SNP. The dynamics of Scotland are fairly unique.

Labour lost out significantly in England to UKIP more than anyone else, and that wasn't because those disaffected voters wanted a Corbyn type leader instead. Sure, they would have also lost some from voters who decided not to vote at all, but there's no evidence that it would have been different. Likewise, having cheering crowds going for Corbyn means little, given the same kind of response met Michael Foot in that narrow constituency.

Corbyn believes the disillusionment in politics and votes to fringe parties are driven not by the specific agendas of these fringe parties, but the sense of powerlessness people feel. If he can create a different kind of politics that people can engage with, to reconnect with them, he can build a winning coalition.