Turn on thread page Beta

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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Why does Liz Kendall not give up as she isn't going to win?

    People will campaign for what they believe in regardless of electoral success-I say this as somebody who would be horrified if he got elected.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The Labour parties chances of being re-elected have already been pushed back to 2025 by type of leaders that are opposing Corbyn. Now we've even got the great electioneer Gordon Brown giving us tips on how to increase labours electability in 2020.

    I'm honestly tired of the 'Corbyn will make labour unelectable' rhetoric. Let me let you in on a secret; Labour is already unelectable right now. That's why it was obliterated a few months ago. It has no chance of winning back Scotland with the other leaders. Corbyn I would argue then, makes labour more electable than any other.

    We voted for him because the mainstream clearly hasn't worked. Might as well give Corbyn a shot at it. Someone who everyone can agree, offers something truly different. He isn't a career politician. He's in it to make a real impact on the lives of ordinary people.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmaugTheTerrible)
    The Labour parties chances of being re-elected have already been pushed back to 2025 by type of leaders that are opposing Corbyn. Now we've even got the great electioneer Gordon Brown giving us tips on how to increase labours electability in 2020.

    I'm honestly tired of the 'Corbyn will make labour unelectable' rhetoric. Let me let you in on a secret; Labour is already unelectable right now. That's why it was obliterated a few months ago. It has no chance of winning back Scotland with the other leaders. Corbyn I would argue then, makes labour more electable than any other.

    We voted for him because the mainstream clearly hasn't worked. Might as well give Corbyn a shot at it. Someone who everyone can agree, offers something truly different. He isn't a career politician. He's in it to make a real impact on the lives of ordinary people.
    The Tories have done alright without the support of Scotland; no reason to write off the party completely simply on the basis of losing Scotland.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    The Tories have done alright without the support of Scotland; no reason to write off the party completely simply on the basis of losing Scotland.
    I haven't written it off. Regardless, Labour hasn't faired to well in the rest of the country either.

    Though anyone who argues Scotland isn't vital to Labours success is a bit deluded tbh.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    If I have to suffer through 5 years of Tory misrule then at the very least I want an opposition I can stand behind.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmaugTheTerrible)
    I haven't written it off. Regardless, Labour hasn't faired too well in the rest of the country either.

    Though anyone who argues Scotland isn't vital to Labours success is a bit deluded tbh.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmaugTheTerrible)
    I haven't written it off. Regardless, Labour hasn't faired to well in the rest of the country either.

    Though anyone who argues Scotland isn't vital to Labours success is a bit deluded tbh.
    The snp were pushing that line before the GE.

    Look at the numbers. Labour voters didn't bother voting. SNP voters did turn up to vote. (There's no suprise that as many people who voted yes in the referendum voted snp in the GE)
    Offline

    15
    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.
    I think you're right to be honest. I disagree about England though. I think that the issue is a bit more subtle. Miliband might have been a bit of a floater.

    In that I mean, he didn't offer much to the working class, nor did he appeal to the middle-class much. He didn't take a definitive stance. His campaign was unfocused, and that's putting aside how he came across as a person.

    Corbyn's policies are ones that reflect the views of a solid base of people. Including the middle-classes. I don't feel he attaches a 'left wing' label to himself. With him it's simply tackling the issues Britons face, regardless of what 'class' they fall into.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmaugTheTerrible)
    I think you're right to be honest. I disagree about England though. I think that the issue is a bit more subtle. Miliband might have been a bit of a floater.

    In that I mean, he didn't offer much to the working class, nor did he appeal to the middle-class much. He didn't take a definitive stance. His campaign was unfocused, and that's putting aside how he came across as a person.

    Corbyn's policies are ones that reflect the views of a solid base of people. Including the middle-classes. I don't feel he attaches a 'left wing' label to himself. With him it's simply tackling the issues Britons face, regardless of what 'class' they fall into.
    Oh come off it. He took a long while on Marr the other week deciding if he is a Marxist, he talks about the left way more than Miliband, and I just saw him on Panorama singing the Bandiera Rossa...

    By the way, if you think Miliband suffered from broad unappeal, Corbyn will suffer from worse. He'll do well with the advertisers and marketers of North London, but he'll lose Old Labourites on defence and immigration, and he'll lose the mass of centrists on welfare, tax, energy nationalisation, reopening the mines, women's carriages etc.. As discussed, he won't get much back from Scotland.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Oh come off it. He took a long while on Marr the other week deciding if he is a Marxist, he talks about the left way more than Miliband, and I just saw him on Panorama singing the Bandiera Rossa...

    By the way, if you think Miliband suffered from broad unappeal, Corbyn will suffer from worse. He'll do well with the advertisers and marketers of North London, but he'll lose Old Labourites on defence and immigration, and he'll lose the mass of centrists on welfare, tax, energy nationalisation, reopening the mines, women's carriages etc.. As discussed, he won't get much back from Scotland.
    Either way. I think it would be quite a sad indictment if we have a politician like Corbyn in front of us, and we don't at least give him a chance.

    We always complain that our politicians are all the same. When one comes along who isn't, surely we should back him all the way.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmaugTheTerrible)
    Either way. I think it would be quite a sad indictment if we have a politician like Corbyn in front of us, and we don't at least give him a chance.

    We always complain that our politicians are all the same. When one comes along who isn't, surely we should back him all the way.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    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's all well and good voting for someone because you like them", yes it is, that's how voting works.

    "but surely Labour members should be thinking beyond that?", do you mean for the betterment of the labour party. What would the point in that be? if they voted for candidates other than Corbyn, then his supporters would have a labour party lead by someone with policies they don't like, so they wouldn't want labour to win an election.


    "It's pointless being the Opposition and out of power", it's way more pointless to abandon your values just to get into power. Changing your values such that they are closer to the values of your rivals just to win an election, is sort of losing an election.


    "it just means that Corbyn's policies will forever remain ideology and not put into practice", that's a guess on your behalf, there is a chance he could win an election, can you give me a reason why you think that he definitley could never win an election? Also, his policies will forever remain ideology if no one votes for him to lead labour, at least with him leading labour there is a chance of his policies becoming reality.

    "Why wouldn't they vote for someone they know might win an election?", because the other candidates don't represent their views, so why would Corbyn's supporters want the other candidates in? David Cameron won an election, so why don't we all just vote for him, we already know he's electable.

    "It's emotion and the cult of personality trumping political strategy", no it's not, its more favourable policies trumping less favourable policies. I really don't think Corbyn's personality has much to do with this, he's clearly a boring old man, I don't see how you can claim he's winning through his personality; that's how Boris Johnson beat Ken Livingston and I'm sure to the average voter, Corbyn and Ken Livingstone seem to have pretty similar personalities.

    Basically, they're voting for the policies they prefer, what's the point in voting for someone who's policies you don't agree with, just because you think they're more likely to be elected?
    Offline

    3
    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.
    Knowing it will ensure another 5 years of Tory misrule?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    You may just as well ask why anyone ever votes for anything when the probability of their vote making one iota of difference to the outcome is 100 million -1.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Several polls have shown Corbyn to be the most popular of the four candidates with the broader public, not just Labour members and voters. Even the arguments which seek to explain how one of the others might be more 'electable' are bizarrely counterintuitive with regard to democracy.
    Offline

    0
    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.
    None of the potential leaders of the party will make Labour electable. I like Kendall but she has no chance according to the polls and doesn't strike me as a party leader anyway.

    Corbyn is really left wing and stuck in the pre-Thatcher era. He should be thinking of retirement soon.

    The other two are hilariously bad at actually answering questions. They start by explaining the facts and then explaining what we should be doing in a vague way without any specifics. They refuse to give their opinions. They are scared to commit themselves to anything and fear being the headline of the newspapers far too much. They know they'll get further in the competition if they keep their mouths shut and don't say anything near controversial, they even go as far to contradict themselves to avoid any conflicts.

    Anyone who Labour is going to elect is going to do worse than Ed Miliband. That's the direction that the party is going in.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Because many members do not believe the unsubstantiated myth propagated by the mainstream press that a Corbyn led labour party is unelectable.

    It's easy to forget that even though Blair's labour ran a 'centrist' campaign for the 97 election, the campaign itself was more 'left' than the position that the Blair government actually placed itself in. Partially because of the incumbent effect, but much more because of their actions, Labour didn't do as well in 2001. Cast your mind back, there was no spectre of Iraq, no 9/11, times were good. Economic growth was solid, Labour had had a very smooth 4 years and won a landslide. The landslide didn't tell teh full story though - it was the most apathetic election since 1918, 3 million fewer people voted for Labour and the swing toward the Tories was 2.5% and that was with a party as divided as Labour are now, and with a leader in Hague who was hounded by the press to almost the same degree as Miliband.

    In 2005, Labour's vote share declined again. Part, but not all, of this can be explained by the Iraq situation. In 2010, Labour's vote share declined again. Part, but not all, of this can be explained by the financial crisis. 2015 was the first time since 18 years that Labour increased its vote share and that was with a markedly more left wing and what the press painted as a departure from teh centre ground.

    The Tories, and no one can deny this really, were an utter shambles in 1997. Foot would've won that election for Labour, so would Kinnock. Blair's landslide was incredible and impressive but the fact that Labour's vote share has consistently and repeatedly declined when occupying the centre ground only for the trend to be arrested under a visible/apparent left of centre leader.

    I'm not saying I firmly believe Corbyn has the individual appeal or the political machinery to win an election, but dismissing him because it seems like common sense has absolutely no validity to me at all. Common sense dictated that the election should have resulted in a hung parliament, that the SNP didn't do as well in Scotland, that Corbyn shouldn't have been doing so well by now, etc etc etc.
    Offline

    2
    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.
    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.
 
 
 
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.