Is Jeremy Corbyn a good leader of the Labour Party?

I'm from the southwest where the tories turned the lib dem heartlands blue through their voracious campaigning about the possibility of the SNP. Literally driving around there were banners that if we voted lib dem we were voting the SNP in.

I agree with you that it's a fact labour would have needed the SNP to form the government and also that the tories partly won at least some of their majority by fear-mongering about the SNP in power both in their campaign tactics and through the right wing media.

I don't see what the issue is with the guy disagreeing with you.

And yet Labour made gains directly against the Tories, which would implicitly be letting the SNP in.
My issue is to the implication that Tory voters feared the SNP simply because the 'Tory media' told them to. There has to be an existing fear in the first place for a party to be able to 'scaremonger'. The SNP aren't cuddly kittens. It was the SNP's track record on public ultimatums, demands and Anglophobia coupled with Ed Miliband's perceived lack of leadership that made the public fear a coalition involving the SNP. Not because we were brainwashed into doing so by the Tories.
David Miliband arguably would not have been in the same position in England, as a stronger more centre-left politican, so simply blaming the 'Tory media' for Ed's defeat is wrong.
It's also ironic for bornblue to accuse me of Tory cheerleading when his number one reference source for his claims is the much derided Beckett 'whitewash' report.

Christ, it's like talking to a brick wall.
You've insulted me and cried like a wimp about personal attacks in the same post.
You've accused me of raising a point no one made and then claimed we broadly agree on that point in the same post.
You accuse me of throwing a tantrum and literally go on a big rant in the same post.
You whinge about my 'left-wing' jibes and call me a Tory cheerleader in the same post.
This is brilliant. I'm beginning to suspect you're infact a Tory stooge yourself, playing the persona of a bumbling left-wing clown to destroy the left's reputation.

And yet Labour made gains directly against the Tories, which would implicitly be letting the SNP in.
My issue is to the implication that Tory voters feared the SNP simply because the 'Tory media' told them to. There has to be an existing fear in the first place for a party to be able to 'scaremonger'. The SNP aren't cuddly kittens. It was the SNP's track record on public ultimatums, demands and Anglophobia coupled with Ed Miliband's perceived lack of leadership that made the public fear a coalition involving the SNP. Not because we were brainwashed into doing so by the Tories.
David Miliband arguably would not have been in the same position in England, as a stronger more centre-left politican, so simply blaming the 'Tory media' for Ed's defeat is wrong.
It's also ironic for bornblue to accuse me of Tory cheerleading when his number one reference source for his claims is the much derided Beckett 'whitewash' report.

OK, I get that. I understand your point.

But is it your position that everyone's subjective opinion is "just as good" in moral terms?

And if not, why can you not feel morally superior to a right winger?

Actually no I was responding to your double standards.
You accuse me of dismissing anything I disagree with, it's exactly what you do, you frequently throw out 'left wing self...' whenever you disagree with someone to the left.

I'm in the centre of the labour party, a Brownite if you would. You on the other hand judging by your bio are on the very right of the tory party, so if you're gonna go on about 'left wing' this and that when i'm fairly centrist/left of centre then be prepared to take it too.

Just take a look at your contribution here and how you've spectacularly missed the point and instead sought to defend the tories.

The English don't like the SNP, the tories played on that fear and dislike of the SNP as they are entitled to do. It's the same as how Labour play on the fear the public have over the tories and the NHS.

I never said the tories could not campaign on the SNP, but just that's what they did and it was an effective tactic, especially in Lib-Dem/ Tory marginals. In fact the Beckett report found that fear of the SNP was a fairly big factor especially in those marginals.

Back to the point of why David Miliband may have fared no better. David Miliband would not have stopped the SNP landlside. He too would have needed the SNP to form a majority government.
Labour got around 230 seats in England and Wales. Now don't get me wrong, I like David Miliband and he's a good politician but if you think he could have won a majority in England and Wales alone you're barking mad.

He still would have needed the SNP, the British public still would have feared the SNP and not wanted them in government and the tories would have campaigned to play on those fears as they did and are entitled to.

Quite why you are so personally offended by that or feel the need to jump in to defend the tories when I was not even attacking them is perplexing.

David M is a good politician but a 1997 Tony Blair he wasn't. He may have done a bit better than Ed but hardly much.

I don't see how that's left wing self righteousness or whatever you're making it out to be.

You're just making up my position now. The tories played on pre-exisitng fears as they are entitled to do.

David Miliband would have still needed the SNP to form a government unless you believe he would have won another 106 seats in England and Wales than Ed did.
If you think David Miliband would have done that then I would argue you are delusional. He would have done better than Ed in England, but 106 seats better? Not a chance.
Why does that so personally offend you?

I've explained my point on the other post.
Would a Lib Dem voter, apparently highly susceptible to Tory scaremongering we're told, have believed that a strong, charismatic, centre-left David Miliband, who isn't a complete damp rag with no spine, have grovelled to the SNP and become their bitch solely to win the election, just because the 'Tory press' told them so?

You seem to have a severe chronology issue. I've been more than willing to debate points. Left-wing jibes towards you only occurred afterwards out of exasperation of your out-of-hand dismissal of everything as somehow Tory cheerleading while at first refusing to debate the point. That's not one bit in the slightest a double standard.



Be prepared to take what?
It's pretty clear my implication is that you are, ironically, a fervent advocate of identity politics, not that you're a pinko socialist. It doesn't matter where you sit politically within the Labour party, you're clearly still a die-hard, what with the Beckett Report being your bible, and any point I raise being Tory cheerleading.



The only thing I've sought to defend is the electorate from your condescension.
Like I've asked many times, by all means elaborate on where exactly I've been defending the Tories or cheerleading for them.



I've never once claimed that the Tories don't 'scaremonger'. My assertion is that is was not pivotal in Labour's defeat at the election. You ranked up there, right with Labour's wipe out in Scotland and Ed Miliband's leadership failings, 'Tory media scaremongering' as a decisive factor. Not the English public being wary of the SNP, no, the 'Tory media scaremongering'. That's pretty much you implying that the 'Tory media' dictates what is and isn't an issue for us dumb sheeple.



The completely not independent Beckett report that refused to publish any of it's polling data, that has been derided by even those on the left as a complete whitewash? That Beckett report?




No, he probably wouldn't have won a majority. But David would have been (probably) a stronger and more decisive leader, more politically central, not a pawn of the Trade Unions, and less suspectible to SNP manipulation. So no, 'Tory press scaremongering' wouldn't have been as decisive, if it ever was. Apparently in the fantasy world of Margaret Beckett it's only Lib Dem voters that are susceptible to scaremongering.



Again, where exactly am I jumping in to defend the Tories? Where is this Tory cheerleading?
It's self-righteousness because to continually dismiss my non partisan point as Tory cheerleading implies that you have a sense of superiority where anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically inherently underhand, in this case manipulated by the media or a Tory stooge.

You can't complain about Tory stooge accusations and then throw out 'left wing self..' Comments.

You can't complain about personal attacks and the throw them out.

If you can't take it, don't give it.

But here's the crux:
David milliband would still have needed the SNP and could therefore have not won the election. Unless you think David milliband would have won 106 more seats in England.

You're the only one who has complained and whined about personal attacks and this and that, so it's a bit rich for you to then say 'if you can't take it, don't give it.'
I frankly don't care what you call me, I'm asking for clarification as to why. I've at least explained why I call you a self-righteous lefty, where as from the sounds of it you're literally only calling me a Tory cheerleader for the sake of it, out of your hardline identity politics ideology or petty tit-for-tat. But for the umpteenth time, by all means actually point out where I was being a said Tory cheerleader.

Stop moving the goalposts. I've never said David Miliband could have won the election, my point has only and always ever been about the effectiveness of party scaremongering, which you claimed was an absolutely pivotal reason in Ed Miliband's defeat.

You guys still going ?!

You're the only one who has complained and whined about personal attacks and this and that, so it's a bit rich for you to then say 'if you can't take it, don't give it.'
I frankly don't care what you call me, I'm asking for clarification as to why. I've at least explained why I call you a self-righteous lefty, where as from the sounds of it you're literally only calling me a Tory cheerleader for the sake of it, out of your hardline identity politics ideology or petty tit-for-tat. But for the umpteenth time, by all means actually point out where I was being a said Tory cheerleader.

Stop moving the goalposts. I've never said David Miliband could have won the election, my point has only and always ever been about the effectiveness of party scaremongering, which you claimed was an absolutely pivotal reason in Ed Miliband's defeat.

Let's leave the personal jibes there.
Nothing I've said has been left wing here. Saying David would not have fared much better than ed is not left or right wing.
I'm not moving any goalposts. My initial and only point was that David milliband would not have done much better.
That's it.

That's my point, David m would not have won the election because he still would have needed the SNP.

I don't know why you read into that, that the Tories only won because of brainwashing.

The Tories played on pre existing fears and did it well. Labour do the same, although usually not as well because they don't have the tabloids on their side as much.

The media is not the only reason, of course not. But it does have an impact.

That's it. David would not have fared much better than ed. you agree with that so I'm not sure why you are so offended. People really did not want the SNP in government and David could not have stopped that, unless you think he would have won 106 more seats in England.



You are instead arguing against a point I did not make. Are people influenced by the media? Of course. Is it the only factor? No. But can it play on people's pre-existing fears? Absolutely.

That's hardly radical, especially given that the vast amount of big national newspapers are right leaning/ pro Tory.


So it comes to this, i was asked whether David would have done better and I said 'not much better'.
Do you disagree with that? Don't get me wrong I'm delighted that you seem to have so much faith in a labour politician, I wish I did. If he's half as good as you're making out if have him back tomorrow.

I explained why I inferred what I did from what you said. I read your point as it was Tory scaremongering that caused Ed to lose.
If you didn't mean that, it would have been much easier to just say that at the beginning instead of dismissing me as a Tory cheerleader.
It would have been much harder for David Miliband to be portrayed as Alex Salmond's bitch. Of course he still wouldn't have won a majority, but that's not due to Tory scaremongering. That was literally my only point, which snowballed into a full-fledged argument somehow.
Also, is the newspaper readership consumer market centre-right because the newspapers are, or are the newspapers centre-right because the consumer market is?

I explained why I inferred what I did from what you said. I read your point as it was Tory scaremongering that caused Ed to lose.
If you didn't mean that, it would have been much easier to just say that at the beginning instead of dismissing me as a Tory cheerleader.
It would have been much harder for David Miliband to be portrayed as Alex Salmond's bitch. Of course he still wouldn't have won a majority, but that's not due to Tory scaremongering. That was literally my only point, which snowballed into a full-fledged argument somehow.
Also, is the newspaper readership consumer market centre-right because the newspapers are, or are the newspapers centre-right because the consumer market is?

Let's leave the personal jibes there.
Nothing I've said has been left wing here. Saying David would not have fared much better than ed is not left or right wing.
I'm not moving any goalposts. My initial and only point was that David milliband would not have done much better.
That's it.

You statement was counterfactual. Nothing more nothing less.

Quite why you wasted so much time arguing it is beyond me, and everyone
else on this thread, probably including even you.