Turn on thread page Beta

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

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    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.
    Yes he is so unelectable that is why he consistently packs out venues and has swelled the party membership. Clearly George Osborne, the probable Tory leader with his disdain for spending anything, is a dead cert instead.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    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.
    Some great points raised there for debate:

    - I think Burnham is not driven by ideology, he regards his selling point as being "in touch with ordinary people". Those kind of politicians will always be prone to being seen as flip-floppers as they effectively take their cue from public opinion. I personally prefer someone who has a set of core beliefs and tries to drive public opinion with them, like Blair or Corbyn, or Thatcher before. But I guess from the perspective of democracy it's not a bad thing to have people that parrot the public. Key thing is to really be in touch with the public and not parrot what the cross-section of society that you associate with say (the problem of say Farage which limits his appeal).

    - On the lack of clear policies and detail this is also a political tactic. In opposition, especially when the government is riding high, it's a legitimate tactic to keep a low profile and work up your policies behind the scenes. Really it's the last 2 years of a Parliament where you need to have your policies, but you need to have them clear and consistent here and this is where Miliband fell down. He never really put together a clear vision, he created a mishmash of "issues" that affected specific groups but didn't speak to the whole electorate - classic was his focus on zero-hours contract as a lead for the election, yes most of the public disapprove of exploitation in employment contracts so yes have a policy for it, but if that's your main focus everyone not on a zero-hours contract is asking "so what have you got for me?".

    - When Cameron was in opposition, he was very much a flip-flop and he rode on public opinion. In the early days, Blair and even Brown in his first year, were quite strong, and Cameron was all about 'detoxifying the Tory brand' - hug a hoodie, vote Blue go Green with changing the Conservative badge to the tree and trying to environmental angle. He thought the public at the time didn't want Tories, the left had hegemonic control of political debate so he was trying to move in there. In 2007 he was pledging to match Labour's spending plans and saying it was a lie that the Tories would introduce cuts. Then the financial crash happened, he realised people were disillusioned with the government and there was an opportunity to target the rapidly rising deficit with a traditional Tory angle - "Labour reckless spenders you need a good strong Tory government". This was driven more by Osborne than Cameron, Cameron was still a bit wishy washy going in to election 2010, remember the Big Society and that. I think they learned from this this time because they were disappointed not to get an outright majority in 2010.

    - Hague unfortunately had some "image" people around him who were trying to turn him in to something he wasn't. This was the era of "Cool Britannia" and Blair had embraced cool, Hague was never going to be cool and it became cringey when they tried to do that. The later Hague became a figure of gravitas and intelligence and IMO he would have been a superb party leader and Prime Minister had he become leader in 2007 rather than 1997. They didn't need to do that cringey crap with him.

    - Osborne is less of a charmer than Cameron but I actually think he has more credibility and would be a more effective leader than Cameron. I don't think the public really like Cameron they just tolerate him. The problem for Osborne is he is the right leader for the Tory party in the right wider environment - where there is general support for cutting spending and squeezing benefits and public services. That's the prevailing view now, but it won't last forever. The risk for Osborne, if he becomes leader in 2020 is he could face the Brown situation of coming in at an inopportune time. The public will only accept the hair shirt for so long and they will expect some reward at the end, so Osborne probably wants to come in 2020 and offer tax cuts and some light at the end of the tunnel. The risk is that the economic cycle will turn around then (or he may win in 2020 and then face a downturn/recession in the first few years after that) and the deficit will jump back up again and then Osborne will be in real trouble as his whole argument on the deficit will be undermined and if he prescribes more cuts people's willingness to accept that will be much less than it was in 2010 when he could sell it as the necessary medicine to sort out the mess left by another government.
    Offline

    20
    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.
    As a conservative - labour is not winning the next election. Scotland and the fact we are becoming competitive in parts of the North means it's locked out at least until 2025 - do the electoral maths

    Corbyn would be someone to build the party up again and make it genuine. That's the real problem with 'new labour', it's seen as fake and as spin - and that will stay the same with Kendall and Burnham etc.

    Corbyn might see a shift away from that.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Some great points raised there for debate:

    - I think Burnham is not driven by ideology, he regards his selling point as being "in touch with ordinary people". Those kind of politicians will always be prone to being seen as flip-floppers as they effectively take their cue from public opinion. I personally prefer someone who has a set of core beliefs and tries to drive public opinion with them, like Blair or Corbyn, or Thatcher before. But I guess from the perspective of democracy it's not a bad thing to have people that parrot the public. Key thing is to really be in touch with the public and not parrot what the cross-section of society that you associate with say (the problem of say Farage which limits his appeal).

    - On the lack of clear policies and detail this is also a political tactic. In opposition, especially when the government is riding high, it's a legitimate tactic to keep a low profile and work up your policies behind the scenes. Really it's the last 2 years of a Parliament where you need to have your policies, but you need to have them clear and consistent here and this is where Miliband fell down. He never really put together a clear vision, he created a mishmash of "issues" that affected specific groups but didn't speak to the whole electorate - classic was his focus on zero-hours contract as a lead for the election, yes most of the public disapprove of exploitation in employment contracts so yes have a policy for it, but if that's your main focus everyone not on a zero-hours contract is asking "so what have you got for me?".

    - When Cameron was in opposition, he was very much a flip-flop and he rode on public opinion. In the early days, Blair and even Brown in his first year, were quite strong, and Cameron was all about 'detoxifying the Tory brand' - hug a hoodie, vote Blue go Green with changing the Conservative badge to the tree and trying to environmental angle. He thought the public at the time didn't want Tories, the left had hegemonic control of political debate so he was trying to move in there. In 2007 he was pledging to match Labour's spending plans and saying it was a lie that the Tories would introduce cuts. Then the financial crash happened, he realised people were disillusioned with the government and there was an opportunity to target the rapidly rising deficit with a traditional Tory angle - "Labour reckless spenders you need a good strong Tory government". This was driven more by Osborne than Cameron, Cameron was still a bit wishy washy going in to election 2010, remember the Big Society and that. I think they learned from this this time because they were disappointed not to get an outright majority in 2010.

    - Hague unfortunately had some "image" people around him who were trying to turn him in to something he wasn't. This was the era of "Cool Britannia" and Blair had embraced cool, Hague was never going to be cool and it became cringey when they tried to do that. The later Hague became a figure of gravitas and intelligence and IMO he would have been a superb party leader and Prime Minister had he become leader in 2007 rather than 1997. They didn't need to do that cringey crap with him.

    - Osborne is less of a charmer than Cameron but I actually think he has more credibility and would be a more effective leader than Cameron. I don't think the public really like Cameron they just tolerate him. The problem for Osborne is he is the right leader for the Tory party in the right wider environment - where there is general support for cutting spending and squeezing benefits and public services. That's the prevailing view now, but it won't last forever. The risk for Osborne, if he becomes leader in 2020 is he could face the Brown situation of coming in at an inopportune time. The public will only accept the hair shirt for so long and they will expect some reward at the end, so Osborne probably wants to come in 2020 and offer tax cuts and some light at the end of the tunnel. The risk is that the economic cycle will turn around then (or he may win in 2020 and then face a downturn/recession in the first few years after that) and the deficit will jump back up again and then Osborne will be in real trouble as his whole argument on the deficit will be undermined and if he prescribes more cuts people's willingness to accept that will be much less than it was in 2010 when he could sell it as the necessary medicine to sort out the mess left by another government.
    -I think Burnham would have a similar problem to Farage. Sure he might appeal to the working-class but would his appeal stretch to middle England where Labour need to claw back voters from the Blair days? I doubt it.

    - I agree that the main reason Labour lost is that they did not have a coherent overarching theme to their campaign. The Conservatives had an overall vision of a low-tax, low-welfare long-term economic plan. Miliband had a few interesting policies but could not tie it all together. Regardless of who the next Labour leader is, they'll have to address that.

    - I have a lot of respect for Hague. He was an intelligent articulate man who had some great moments in the Commons and would have been a fine leader. But as you said, the image problems combined with New Labour's impressive first term meant he lost in 2001.

    - Osborne will stand or fall by his economic performance. If he is running a surplus in 2020 and the economy is still steady then he can afford a few giveaways while maintaining credibility. This is especially true if Corbyn is Labour Leader. No-one is going to risk voting for such radical policies if the economy is strong.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    -I think Burnham would have a similar problem to Farage. Sure he might appeal to the working-class but would his appeal stretch to middle England where Labour need to claw back voters from the Blair days? I doubt it.

    - I agree that the main reason Labour lost is that they did not have a coherent overarching theme to their campaign. The Conservatives had an overall vision of a low-tax, low-welfare long-term economic plan. Miliband had a few interesting policies but could not tie it all together. Regardless of who the next Labour leader is, they'll have to address that.

    - I have a lot of respect for Hague. He was an intelligent articulate man who had some great moments in the Commons and would have been a fine leader. But as you said, the image problems combined with New Labour's impressive first term meant he lost in 2001.

    - Osborne will stand or fall by his economic performance. If he is running a surplus in 2020 and the economy is still steady then he can afford a few giveaways while maintaining credibility. This is especially true if Corbyn is Labour Leader. No-one is going to risk voting for such radical policies if the economy is strong.
    Seeing as our public services are facing mandatory cuts to obscene levels, cuts to tax credits forcing net income down and most of all a likely divide on Europe as happened to John Major, I see Osborne being cannon fodder for an opponent prepared to call it out for what it is. Don't underestimate the dark horse, clown-in-waiting BoJo, just yet though.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't say its cult of personality or emotion.

    People choosing corbyn because he actually has policies, and not purely rhetoric like the other three. Policies over tactical strategy maybe. Except i think most disatisfaction with labour IS the lack of policies and overuse of rhetoric and spin.

    To answer the question:

    -real opposition is better than no opposition.
    -actually basing labour policies on democratic process, representing what people might want, rather than being elected as a mandate to do what they like.
    -sometimes its just all or nothing. Many wouldn't vote for labour in its recent state, for them its a step up from the greens, libs, abstaining. It actually gives a party they would vote for rather than just a tactical vote to keep tories out.

    -and is it really that unelectable? How is Burnham or Cooper going to win back the social democrat SNP seats? Corbyn has best chance of that!
    Since labour actually gained 2 seats from the tories by the way and their vote share increased whilst tories was the same...the tories didn't cause the loss. The SNP did.
    Gaining lib dem and green votes EVEN UKIP votes which strangely show support for corbyn can actually help gain tory seats.
    Not saying some seat gains from the tories aren't needed though, just that VOTE gains from the tories are overrated since we live in FPTP system.

    But generally that the idea he can't win is oversimplified into: Tories won, they are more right-wing. Thus labour must be less left-wing.
    Not even sure the majority of the public thinks along those left/right lines. The voter migration from lib dems and also to UKIP pretty much proves that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So many misconceptions about Corbyn. Encountered it so much I had to do a blog about it, basically summing up the majority of the myths about him.

    https://mattsmetropolitannews.wordpr...corbyn-busted/

    Even now, they're still trying to do a hatchet job on him. That travesty of piece on BBC's Panorama Monday night being a key example.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Why wouldn't they vote for someone they know might win an election? It's emotion and the cult of personality trumping political strategy.
    Who would you vote for that you think would win the election? Burnham or Cooper?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Who would you vote for that you think would win the election? Burnham or Cooper?
    Burnham has a decent chance if the Tories put someone like Osborne as their leader.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jack1066)
    How would we know Corbyn wouldn't win? We couldn't predict the Tories winning a majority a day before the election results so dealing an absolute for an election result in 5 years time is ludicrous
    Yes you are right, absolutely LUDICROUS. Insane.

    You know what though I am prepared to be ludicrous. I bet you (and any other Corbynista on here who wants to take me on) £50 that Labour under Corbyn won't get an absolute majority in the next election.

    If he gets ousted the bet is void. Otherwise you are on, and we rely on each other's honour and word to remember this and pay up if we lose.

    PM me to arrange offline, and give personal contact details.

    Are we on? Willing to put your money where your mouth is?

    I am serious?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Yes you are right, absolutely LUDICROUS. Insane.

    You know what though I am prepared to be ludicrous. I bet you (and any other Corbynista on here who wants to take me on) £50 that Labour under Corbyn won't get an absolute majority in the next election.

    If he gets ousted the bet is void. Otherwise you are on, and we rely on each other's honour and word to remember this and pay up if we lose.

    PM me to arrange offline, and give personal contact details.

    Are we on? Willing to put your money where your mouth is?

    I am serious?
    Hahaha I'm bloody broke, I've had to cancel Netflix; this is how dire my situation is. Also I probably wouldn't honour the agreement if I lost, unless I was in a position where £50 is just a drop in the ocean
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Thread is filled with pseudo intellectualism and flawed political analysis.
    Offline

    21
    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.
    It seems to be the Blair hangover. Because Blair gained power by capitulating ideologically and Miliband never had the balls to stand up for what he believed in properly (not a bad thing - he was electorally the 4th best opposition leader not to win since WW2) the left of the party have never had a mouthpeice for over 20 years.

    It seems that they've concluded quite decisively that ideological capitulation was not worth the small victories like tax credits, the minimum wage, Network Rail, a better performing NHS and so they'd rather be an ideologically pure protest group than an electoral machine.

    The big losers out of all this are not Cooper/Burnham/Kendall but people like Chucka, Jarvis and Starmer.. all of whom probably intended to run for the leadership for 2025 having had Cooper/Burnham get them half way there in this election (the current task of 99 seats requires the 4th largest seat swing since 1945). Instead i actually believe that Corbyn will lose so many moderates to the Liberals and Tories that they'll have an even larger majority after 2020.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Yes you are right, absolutely LUDICROUS. Insane.

    You know what though I am prepared to be ludicrous. I bet you (and any other Corbynista on here who wants to take me on) £50 that Labour under Corbyn won't get an absolute majority in the next election.

    If he gets ousted the bet is void. Otherwise you are on, and we rely on each other's honour and word to remember this and pay up if we lose.

    PM me to arrange offline, and give personal contact details.

    Are we on? Willing to put your money where your mouth is?

    I am serious?
    I have watched the media attempt to dismantle Corbyn since he entered the race.

    I believe one of two things will happen:-

    a) the media are right and that Corbyn will be as ineffective as Michael Foot. That is certainly what the Conservatives believe and why they attempted effect the vote.

    b) Everyone has completely underestimated him and that Corbyn will be a more serious advocate for Labour than everyone has imagined.

    The Conservatives had better pray that he will be as ineffective as Michael Foot - as a leader and not a thinker - because if they are wrong then they are in for a rude awakening.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Some great points raised there for debate:

    - Hague unfortunately had some "image" people around him who were trying to turn him in to something he wasn't. This was the era of "Cool Britannia" and Blair had embraced cool, Hague was never going to be cool and it became cringey when they tried to do that. The later Hague became a figure of gravitas and intelligence and IMO he would have been a superb party leader and Prime Minister had he become leader in 2007 rather than 1997. They didn't need to do that cringey crap with him.

    - Osborne is less of a charmer than Cameron but I actually think he has more credibility and would be a more effective leader than Cameron. I don't think the public really like Cameron they just tolerate him. The problem for Osborne is he is the right leader for the Tory party in the right wider environment - where there is general support for cutting spending and squeezing benefits and public services. That's the prevailing view now, but it won't last forever. The risk for Osborne, if he becomes leader in 2020 is he could face the Brown situation of coming in at an inopportune time. The public will only accept the hair shirt for so long and they will expect some reward at the end, so Osborne probably wants to come in 2020 and offer tax cuts and some light at the end of the tunnel. The risk is that the economic cycle will turn around then (or he may win in 2020 and then face a downturn/recession in the first few years after that) and the deficit will jump back up again and then Osborne will be in real trouble as his whole argument on the deficit will be undermined and if he prescribes more cuts people's willingness to accept that will be much less than it was in 2010 when he could sell it as the necessary medicine to sort out the mess left by another government.
    Completely agree. I'd have voted Blair in 01 but before he left parliament, i'd have voted for Hague to lead the Tories. It's rare that a politician oozes Prime Ministerial and 2010-2014, he did.

    I think one of the key advantages Osbourne has is that he has a strategy on how to broaden the Tory vote (the northern powerhouse is well received around Leeds/Manchester - though people are skeptical of whether it will come through) which is not something that Cameron, Boris, May or even Gove have. He's the only one i've seen who looks at the northen cities and says 'why are'nt these success stories bluer than my mothers thong' as opposed to 'we must fend off those Kippers in our heartlands'.

    Of course i think that other candidates have some strength (Boris is honest, intelligent and aloofly charismatic - though he's a massive populist, May whether its true or not paints an impression of strength and competence - the media will paint her as Thatcher 2.0 which goes down well outside of political circles and mining communities and Gove although currently unpopular in polling i believe is one of the few politicians with clear vision, he knows what he wants his country to look like and how to get there - though perhaps lacks tact (calling teachers marxists for example).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamesg2)
    I have watched the media attempt to dismantle Corbyn since he entered the race.

    I believe one of two things will happen:-

    a) the media are right and that Corbyn will be as ineffective as Michael Foot. That is certainly what the Conservatives believe and why they attempted effect the vote.

    b) Everyone has completely underestimated him and that Corbyn will be a more serious advocate for Labour than everyone has imagined.

    The Conservatives had better pray that he will be as ineffective as Michael Foot - as a leader and not a thinker - because if they are wrong then they are in for a rude awakening.
    The first thing will happen. Except Corbyn is nothing like as eloquent or experienced as Michael Foot, and is even further to the loony left. He will get even fewer seats and a lower share of the vote.

    Trust me, there is no chance in a million years that Corbyn will be anything other than a disaster. The Labour Party is about to commit a long drawn out, bloody suicide, it is going to be immensely enjoyable to watch. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.

    I am so confident I will put money on it. Tell you what, I will give you 2/1 on your £50 because I like you. £100 if Corbyn gets an outright majority, £50 to me if he doesn't.

    The bet is void if he doesn't get elected leader or is ousted. Come on, you have two alternatives, so it must be worth two to one?

    PM me if you agree to arrange details. I am serious?
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
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.