Turn on thread page Beta

Why would Labour members vote Corbyn if it means Labour won't be elected? watch

    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of people feel like Labour under Corbyn is the only Labour they'd really like to see in government anyway. If the cost of labour winning an election is pandering to the centre right then that cost is too high.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flibib)
    If you're imploring people to look at this policies/views critically and realistically then may I suggest that you take up your own advice? You've already dismissed him based on on the fact he's an old school lefty without really engaging critically with anything substantive he or his team have come out with.

    You claim he'll alienate old labourites and middle england voters on defence and immigration and that's logical enough, but in terms of critical engagement with his views you've done really done much other than swallow the soundbites and what the press have told you.

    For example; economically, there's not a huge amount of dissimilarity between Corbyn's 'People's quantitative easing' and Milton Friedman's theoretical 'helicopter money' form of financial stimulus. Does that mean Friedman is a lefty? Does it mean Corbyn is a righty? Does it mean neither man are either? No, it means it's unhelpful to give a man a tag, base all of your assumptions on an oversimplified assumption and close the book.
    All sound advice if I had actually been making a value judgement about Corbyn. If you notice, this post was essentially Corbyn-neutral, as much of my argumentation over the last few weeks has been. In this post I criticised the reasons many of Corbyn's supporters support him - if I had been making a judgement on his merits, I would have, of course, had to judge his policies. But as my argument was related to Corbynites' reasons for supporting him, not judging him solely, I did not need to judge his policies. Just like the strongest argument against Corbyn (unelectable) doesn't deal with his policies, and argument that is related to his candidacy in any way doesn't need to deal specifically with his policies.

    But yes, I have looked at his policies - where he has actually been clear on them (often his contoversial policy ideas are wrapped up in statements of impermanence and vagueness so that it's hard to actually judge what some of his policies are.
    By the way, PQE is about the only thing I agree with Corbyn about. Too bad we've already been doing it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    If I have to suffer through 5 years of Tory misrule then at the very least I want an opposition I can stand behind.
    Really? And how exactly have you 'suffered' under misrule? I'm intrigued...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Uggh this is what I dislike the most - people voting for Corbyn simply because he looks different. You guys rubbish personality politics and complain that all politicians are all about style rather than substance and then back Corbyn's candidacy simply on the basis of his looking different. Having radical left-wing views and wearing a beard isn't sufficient to be a good candidate - his views need to be looked at critically and realistically and his more obvious anti-style-style must be ignored.
    I didn't mention his looks?!?!

    He's different because his policies are different. They appeal to thousands across the country. People haven't voted Corbyn because he has a beard. They voted for him because he offers an alternative to austerity.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmaugTheTerrible)
    I didn't mention his looks?!?!

    He's different because his policies are different. They appeal to thousands across the country. People haven't voted Corbyn because he has a beard. They voted for him because he offers an alternative to austerity.
    Yeah it wasn't an attack on you personally, it was a criticism of what I see to be the reason lots of people are supporting Corbyn. They seem to focus on his being different (stylistically as well as politically) rather than going beyond that and analysing his policy positions. They talk about him being out of the Westminster bubble (even, as I heard on Panorama last night, being separate from the North-London elite, despite him living in North London, representing a North London constituency, having worked in politics his whole life and having been privately educated), but that's not reason enough to support him. His whole anti-style position has become a superficial style in itself; some of his supporters claim to support him because he's unpolished and not into personality politics, without realising they are succumbing to exactly the things they identify as bad.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Because many of the young labour supporters are fed up with politicians that lie, at least Corbyn is breath of fresh air, to a degree.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Because many of the young labour supporters are fed up with politicians that lie, at least Corbyn is breath of fresh air, to a degree.
    The Tories are hoping beyond hope that nothing happens to prevent Corbyn winning.

    Then they will attack him as being for simply more welfare, more debt, more taxes. And an increased Tory majority in 2020. That is all there is to it, it doesn't really matter what the useful idiots who elect Corbyn as leader think or want.

    The country doesn't respect him and never will. If you wanted any more proof of his total unfitness to be Prime Minister can you imagine him ever authorising a drone strike on Islamic State terrorists?

    In fact it will be interesting to see how he responds. He can't win either way. Support the strike and his own support crumbles. Condemn it and be forever thought of as being soft on terrorism and national security.

    Because depend upon it, outside the Corbynistas and the dripping wet BBC the country at large think the only good IS terrorist is a dead one.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    All this may be academic soon, if Yvette Cooper wins the election, we will have a load of threads from Tories saying LOL Labour chose the WORST possible candidate as if Balls' wife could ever win an election - Labour out of power till 2025, should have chosen Corbyn, etc
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    It's all well and good voting for someone because you like them, but surely Labour members should be thinking beyond that? It's pointless being the Opposition and out of power; it just means that Corbyn's policies will forever remain ideology and not put into practice.

    Why wouldn't they vote for someone they know might win an election? It's emotion and the cult of personality trumping political strategy.
    Because anyone with any common sense recognises that he has a significantly better chance of winning the next election than any of the other three candidates, who would just do the same thing that Miliband did, and suffer an even heavier defeat.

    A month ago Corbyn was 100-1 against winning the leadership election. Now he is strong favourite.

    Today, Corbyn is 100-1 against winning the general election...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Scotland will stay in the hands of the nationalists for some time to come (ignoring the possibility of a massive **** up). Given this, Labour's chances rest on their standing with England. They'll need to win back England, and it was the English who thought Miliband was a Marxist.
    Some did. Many others thought he was tory-lite and went and voted green in protest against austerity. Many thought he was another smarmy career politician who had nothing to say to the working class and voted UKIP.

    Others believed the tory economics lies because he failed to argue against them.

    Corbyn has a reasonable chance of reversing all these losses.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    All this may be academic soon, if Yvette Cooper wins the election, we will have a load of threads from Tories saying LOL Labour chose the WORST possible candidate as if Balls' wife could ever win an election - Labour out of power till 2025, should have chosen Corbyn, etc
    I don't think she will. I have yet to find a single real life Labour member who is doing anything other than voting Corbyn. I think he'll get 60% of the vote.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    Some did. Many others thought he was tory-lite and went and voted green in protest against austerity. Many thought he was another smarmy career politician who had nothing to say to the working class and voted UKIP.

    Others believed the tory economics lies because he failed to argue against them.

    Corbyn has a reasonable chance of reversing all these losses.
    The Green Party that has one MP and got 900,000 votes?

    UKIP supporters tend to be anti-immigration and pro-defence. Corbyn would, in general, be a turn-off for those voters.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    The Green Party that has one MP and got 900,000 votes?

    UKIP supporters tend to be anti-immigration and pro-defence. Corbyn would, in general, be a turn-off for those voters.
    They're not anti-immigration because they're racist (well most of them aren't). They're anti-immigration because many of them have lost their jobs or seen their hours and wages cut due to being undercut by immigrant labourers. I personally know people in this situation and they were ****ed off because neither of the big three parties seemed to give a **** that they had lost their livelihoods.

    If Corbyn addressed this, admitted there had been an issue, and put together a sensible package that protected incumbent worker's rights from being undercut by immigrants (or indeed anyone), then many UKIP voters would come back.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Labour are screwed whoever wins really.

    Corbyn-The Tory press will go to town on him and middle England will stay with the Tories.
    Kendall-Tory lite who's not going to win back seats from the SNP and if people want right-wing policies, they'll vote Tory.
    Burnham-A flip-flopping lightweight with no policies of his own who only looks at public opinion. Cameron would eat him alive.
    Cooper-Similar to Miliband and tainted by past failure. Also married to Ed Balls.

    If I were left-leaning, I'd probably want Corbyn because Labour will struggle to win the next election regardless of who's in charge. They'll probably lose in 2020, but at least they can claim the moral high-ground while the Tories get on with running the country.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    They're not anti-immigration because they're racist (well most of them aren't). They're anti-immigration because many of them have lost their jobs or seen their hours and wages cut due to being undercut by immigrant labourers. I personally know people in this situation and they were ****ed off because neither of the big three parties seemed to give a **** that they had lost their livelihoods.

    If Corbyn addressed this, admitted there had been an issue, and put together a sensible package that protected incumbent worker's rights from being undercut by immigrants (or indeed anyone), then many UKIP voters would come back.
    I didn't say they were anti-immigration because they are racists. They are anti-immigration because they tend to be in low-skilled jobs where immigrants are more efficient and competitive. Corbyn is pro-immigration and as immigration is such an important issue for these guys, it's going to be hard for Corbyn to win them over on his anti-establishment vibes alone.

    Of course, he could solve that by somehow protecting incumbents' wages but that task would be incredibly expensive and incredibly difficult to pull off. And on a legal and moral basis, how do you think it would play to have incumbent workers have their wages protected whilst the foreigners have no such privileges?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    I didn't say they were anti-immigration because they are racists. They are anti-immigration because they tend to be in low-skilled jobs where immigrants are more efficient and competitive. Corbyn is pro-immigration and as immigration is such an important issue for these guys, it's going to be hard for Corbyn to win them over on his anti-establishment vibes alone.

    Of course, he could solve that by somehow protecting incumbents' wages but that task would be incredibly expensive and incredibly difficult to pull off. And on a legal and moral basis, how do you think it would play to have incumbent workers have their wages protected whilst the foreigners have no such privileges?
    I think it would play perfectly acceptably with everyone who isn't a predatory employer.

    Our entire business and financial system needs reinvigorating. There is too much short-termist share price massaging and managerial capitalism. There is a strong movement among economists to alter incorporation laws so that both workers and shareholders get voting rights on the board.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    I think it would play perfectly acceptably with everyone who isn't a predatory employer.
    Oh God, here we go...

    Our entire business and financial system needs reinvigorating. There is too much short-termist share price massaging and managerial capitalism. There is a strong movement among economists to alter incorporation laws so that both workers and shareholders get voting rights on the board.

    Unrelated to our discussion.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    They're not anti-immigration because they're racist (well most of them aren't). They're anti-immigration because many of them have lost their jobs or seen their hours and wages cut due to being undercut by immigrant labourers. I personally know people in this situation and they were ****ed off because neither of the big three parties seemed to give a **** that they had lost their livelihoods.

    If Corbyn addressed this, admitted there had been an issue, and put together a sensible package that protected incumbent worker's rights from being undercut by immigrants (or indeed anyone), then many UKIP voters would come back.
    After he labelled them all a bunch of racists?

    I'd also add that UKIP voters don't really strike me as the type who'd vote for a guy who wants to give The Falklands back to Argentina but maybe that's just me...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    Labour are screwed whoever wins really.

    Corbyn-The Tory press will go to town on him and middle England will stay with the Tories.
    Kendall-Tory lite who's not going to win back seats from the SNP and if people want right-wing policies, they'll vote Tory.
    Burnham-A flip-flopping lightweight with no policies of his own who only looks at public opinion. Cameron would eat him alive.
    Cooper-Similar to Miliband and tainted by past failure. Also married to Ed Balls.

    If I were left-leaning, I'd probably want Corbyn because Labour will struggle to win the next election regardless of who's in charge. They'll probably lose in 2020, but at least they can claim the moral high-ground while the Tories get on with running the country.
    I don't think Cameron would eat Burnham alive.

    I agree that he needs to establish what he really stands for. In the 2010 leadership campaign he differentiated himself as more of the New Labour/Blairite candidate; in the opening of the 2015 one he was being the candidate of the left till Corbyn blew that out of the water.

    I see him basically as another Miliband but one that's a better media performer. I don't think Cameron would have an easy ride against him but also I think that aspect of politics is overrated. William Hague was a quick-witted master of debate and argument and he regularly got Blair on the back foot in the Commons, but he got smashed by Blair at the election...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    I don't think Cameron would eat Burnham alive.

    I agree that he needs to establish what he really stands for. In the 2010 leadership campaign he differentiated himself as more of the New Labour/Blairite candidate; in the opening of the 2015 one he was being the candidate of the left till Corbyn blew that out of the water.

    I see him basically as another Miliband but one that's a better media performer. I don't think Cameron would have an easy ride against him but also I think that aspect of politics is overrated. William Hague was a quick-witted master of debate and argument and he regularly got Blair on the back foot in the Commons, but he got smashed by Blair at the election...
    You get the feeling that Burnham just follows the polls. He said he'd re-nationalise the railways because Corbyn is the favourite. You get the feeling if Kendall was leading the polls he would be advocating cuts to welfare.

    And his performance in interviews has been dreadful. No clear policies and no detail. He seems to answer every question with "I think we need to really reflect on who we are as a party and show strong clear leadership." I know what sort of policies Corbyn or Kendall would offer, but I have no idea where Burnham really stands.

    Also, Blair was a charmer with good PR and the support of the Murdoch press, while Hague was prone to gaffes like this:



    Cameron is a better PR man than Burnham and Burnham will have the Tory press on his back. Though admittedly it's more likely to be Osborne who's leader in 2020 and he's decidedly less of a charmer than Cameron.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.