Louise Mensch is so stupid. Plan to smear Corbyn backfires.

It isn't labours fault...other than implementing poorly thought out devolution legislation in the late 90s.

Merely highlighting the fact that Corbyn wil make labour unelectable and make Micheal Foot come across as a successful labour leader.

Labour were "unelectable" in the previous two GE when they campaigned on what was broadly a centre-left platform.

What makes you think that centre-left (again) would get them the votes to be "electable"?

If not Corbyn, then who would make a good opposition leader to curb the Tories undying thirst for power?

The centre ground is where the votes lie. That's why Blair was so successful shifting new labour from left to centre left.

Labour have lost the last two elections because of three reasons.

1. People want and need change. One political party will always win and it'll will be a very sad day if it's always the same party.

2. They oversaw the biggest financial debacle since the Great Depression of the 20s and although I won't blame labour for causing it, I and many people were my to happy with the handling of policy in the run up to it, but I will accept that alistair Darlings handling of the actual crash showed great leadership, although some of the follow on policies were shockingly bad. However, many will associate labour with the financial crash.

3. Ed milliband was the worst choice ever as party leader. Irrespective of the man's policies and beliefs, could you really imagine him say around the table at a G8 summit or something equally important? That combined with the 'I'm a real person who understands real people needs' spouted by a man I is as far removed from real life as is possible for anybody to be without the use of mind altering drugs.

I don't actually think the labour die hards are too bothered though. They have a perfect situation whereby the conservatives sort out the problems that labour know have to be sorted out, but are able to distance themselves from the unpopular decisions.

Every election that Labour contested in since 1997 has resulted in a reduced majority, campaigning on a centre left platform.

Your argument that centre-left would get Labour elected holds true, if you're thinking 50 years down the line.

Go back before 97. Most of the electorate will be thinking back to labour before 97 under Kinock and Foot.

Quite a lot of the electorate will remember the last time labour was in power before 97. The rolling blackouts, the three day working week. Piles of rubbish stacked up. The dead left unburied. The IMF bailout.

What does that have to do with Labour and their centre-left policies which has meant them losing seats at every election since 1997?

They lost a hell of a lot more seats before 97.

Labour was voted in in a high in 97 in a land slide victory. It was always going to be difficult to increase the share of the vote from a landslide victory. ( governments rarely get more popular the longer they're in power)

And that's why they won 97, not because they were left, centre, left or ardent left-wing, but simply because they presented something different, after a number of years, saying the same thing.

The time has come again for Labour to radicalise itself, whether it be on centre-right or left wing. It can't stay centre-left and hope to pick up votes.

Centre-left went out of fashion the day it came in.

Let labour crack on and radicalise themselves. I'm of the opinion that they mess up every time they get in so I'm happy to let them radicalise themselves so as to be unelectable.

I see the socialist prime minister of Greece has resigned after his radical approaches screwed over the Greek people even more

That's the spirit.



No, that was the Eurozone and the IMF. Don't you hate it when your creditors have influence over Parliaments, subverting the democratic process that you seem to be singing the praises of?

Don't uou just hate it when that democratic process allowed money to be borrowed in te first place and creditors having to bail out poor financing decisions of that democratic process.

If it highlights a weakness in Corbyns belief, yes it does.

Corbyn is not "extreme left" as many idiots on here seem to believe. He is hardly a Trotskyite arguing in favour of a violent global revolution. The economic policies that he has set out are actually quite common sensical and have won the support of many renowned economists.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics

It is a pity that common people would rather have self serving sleazy "professional politicians" ruling over them rather than a man who has stood by his principles. A man who incidentally, was arrested for demonstrating against the apartheid regime in South Africa at a time when Thatcher was in power and Cameron was touring SA with his white imperialist buddies.

I think you're talking about Labour and the bailing out of the banks?

You think it's okay for parties to bail out private financial institutions, due to their own errors but it is ridiculous for the government to start acting like any other business out there and listen to what their customers want?

Go back before 97. Most of the electorate will be thinking back to labour before 97 under Kinock and Foot.

Quite a lot of the electorate will remember the last time labour was in power before 97. The rolling blackouts, the three day working week. Piles of rubbish stacked up. The dead left unburied. The IMF bailout.

The Three-Day Week was one of several measures introduced in the United Kingdom by the Conservative Government 1970–1974 to conserve electricity, the generation of which was severely restricted owing to industrial action by coal miners.

The Winter of Discontent refers to the winter of 1978–79 in the United Kingdom, during which there were widespread strikes by public sector trade unions demanding larger pay rises, following the ongoing pay caps of the Labour Party government led by James Callaghan against Trades Union Congress opposition to control inflation

Gravediggers' StrikeA notorious industrial action during the winter, and one which was later frequently referred to by Conservative politicians, was the strike by gravediggers, members of the GMWU in Liverpool and in Tameside near Manchester.^[7] Eighty gravediggers being on strike, Liverpool City Council hired a factory in Speke to store the corpses until they could be buried. The Department of Environment noted that there were 150 bodies stored at the factory at one point, with 25 more added every day. The reports of unburied bodies caused concern with the public.^[8] On 1 February a persistent journalist asked the Medical Officer of Health for Liverpool, Dr Duncan Bolton, what would be done if the strike continued for months, Bolton speculated that burial at sea would be considered. Although his response was hypothetical, in the circumstances it caused great alarm. Other alternatives were considered, including allowing the bereaved to dig their own graves, deploying troops, and engaging private contractors to inter the bodies. The main concerns were said to be aesthetic because bodies could be safely stored in heat-sealed bags for up to six weeks.^[8] Bolton later reported being 'horrified' by the sensationalised reportage of the strike in the mass media.^[9] The gravediggers eventually settled for a 14% rise after a fortnight's strike.

Waste collectorsWith many collectors having been on strike since 22 January, local authorities began to run out of space for storing waste and used local parks under their control. The Conservative controlled Westminster City Council used Leicester Square in the heart of London's West End for piles of rubbish and, as the Evening Standard reported, this attracted rats.

On 21 February, a settlement of the local authority workers' dispute was agreed, whereby workers got an 11% rise, plus £1 per week, with the possibility of extra rises, should a pay comparability study recommend them.

The IMF crisis has become part of British political memory. For the Thatcher government of the 1980s, it was rivalled only as a moment of national ignominy by the winter of discontent. And it is often cited today by ministers – for example, by George Osborne in his recent speech at Bloomberg – as they stress the importance of cutting the deficit and maintaining the confidence of the markets. Britain, the mantra goes, must never again become a charity case.
The reality is more complicated. The situation at the end of 1976 was not uniquely dire. The government had already made two applications to the IMF at the end of 1975, with far less publicity, and the balance of payments had been in much greater arrears then. Healey later claimed that the Treasury had grossly overestimated the public sector borrowing requirement, the key figure used during the IMF crisis, and that if he had been given accurate figures, he would not have had to ask for the loan. He also said that accepting the IMF’s strictures was a “Pyrrhic defeat”, forcing him into the proto-Thatcherite fiscal stringency he wanted to practise anyway.

Corbyn represents labour of the 1970s.

that dinosaur we all hoped had died, but it's in its last death throws.

Why do you think the conservatives are so pleased to have Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party?

And you have still refused to criticise Louise Mensch for making up anti-semitic searches and attributing them to Corbyn to try and smear him.

You're nothing but a tory cheerleader who will never criticise anything a tory says or does no matter how odious.

You've even supported IDS making up quotes of benefit claimants to support his own political ends and decieve the public.

No doubt you won't address these points, you never do, you just question dodge, change subject and get hard over the tories.

Corbyn has been rather pally with some rather unsavoury political groupings over the years.

And there is a significant increase in anti semetism from the left wing over recent years.

The bank bailout was required as the failure of them doesn't bare thinking about. But that's bailout was predominantly a loan and guarantees.

The government does listen to what it's people want. Otherwise they wouldn't get elected.

I think you're falling into the trap of believing that Corbyn and his supporters represent the general consensus of the population. I think you'll find that they're don't.