Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Rejoice all you want. This isn't good for anyone. Corbyn has been associating with some very dodgy people and it's ridiculous this has allowed to have gotten this far. This is for the leader of the opposition and irrespective of how unelectable we assume someone to be that doesn't mean things can't change. The idea Corbyn could win this contest would have seemed outlandish a couple of months ago. The idea the SNP could win almost all the Scottish Parliamentary seats would have seemed outlandish a year ago.

Let's say there is another economic crisis and the confidence in the Tories plummets. After 5 years of their plan we're back where we started and then suddenly Corbyn's rhetoric appeals to voters. Things can change fast in politics and assumptions that they cannot have caught us out before.

If that happens then we have a Prime Minister who: Has proposed joint-ownership of the Falklands with Argentina, has welcomed anti-Semitic speakers and shared platforms with them and wants to leave NATO. Even without him being PM that is still a ridiculous person to have as leader of the opposition. Farage would have got rightly criticised if he had associated with some of the people Corbyn has.

Even aside from Corbyn only the most myopic of Tories wouldn't be worried about the dangers of a Government that isn't being held to account.

---------- Post added at 19:31 ---------- Previous post was at 19:28 ----------

They have screwed the supporter system up but it's worth noting how many of these 'supporters' were campaigning and even standing for other parties in May. Mark Steel for example supported the Greens, campaigned for them and helped raise money for them. One of the things they agree to when they join is that they support the principles and aims of the Labour Party and one of the party's key aims is to beat all the opposition - including the Greens and the Health Action Party.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Mark Steel is but one of hundreds of people who've been told the same thing. Exactly who is allowed to vote in this election and who's deciding that under what process? I hope Corbyn does win because it seems only that outcome will lead to Labour being a credible opposition, albeit after his outdated politics have caused the party to implode and become unelectable.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

I don't think Corbyn will make Labour into a credible opposition. I think by definition a credible opposition needs to stand a chance of costing the Government their majority and frighten their MPs sitting in marginal seats. That causes the Government to take notice, makes their backbenchers nervous and more likely to rebel to save their own skins and ultimately forces concessions from them or even scuppers bills altogether.

An opposition without a snowballs chance of getting elected are confined to whining from the dispatch box and in TV studios without ever causing trouble to the Government.

As for the process of who is and who isn't allowed to vote there is an article here about what Labour are actually doing: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...-jeremy-corbyn. In short they've screwed it up and they should really just let it be and accept the consequences but their intentions don't seem to be conspiracy but rather a belated attempt to fix a fatal flaw in their process. After all Labour had long, large fights to stop the militants from taking over the party during the 1980s and now, in one swoop, they've let them all in via the back door!

The supporter system seems to have been designed to dramatically increase the party's electorate to dilute the influence of the Unions but the problem is we don't have a tradition of open primaries in this country. Few people would be bothered about voting for the leader of a political party 5 years before the next election. So instead a highly political motivated minority have signed up with the intention of skewing the party towards their ideology. Let's face it the kind of people who obsess over the internal politics of a party aren't reflective of the wider population, they are campaigners and partisans.

So rather than marginalising the fringe element they've empowered them and instead marginalised the moderates. A very small part of the electorate are forcing one of the two potential parties of Governments into electorate wilderness and the moderates seem powerless to stop it. This is catastrophic for Labour and pretty bad for everyone else too.

In that context it's not unreasonable to think that Labour should vet the lists for the most obvious of entryists.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

I wasn't suggesting Corbyn would - I was suggesting that him getting elected and the party imploding might then lead to something credible by way of opposition. ;)

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Labour are set for a lot of years not in government, its shocking how fast they have fallen.

With an english population that is typically anti left wing and a right wing press, Labour are in for some bad years.

I am probably more left wing than right wing myself, but even with my limited intelligence I know a left wing leader is bad for the labour party. Out of all their candidates my MP liz kendall is probably the only one who can win an election, fresh face, blairite, female and with some right wing policies. Yet she is in 4th place.

Labour are in a tough place for sure, they need to go more left wing to win back scotland, but that will destroy them in england. The tories will be rejoicing for a while yet.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

As long as a decent opposition emerges from the ashes absolutely.

I am pleased and somewhat surprised to say that I have not been purged. I guess my extensive work with our Labour councillors and MP ensured I passed the test.

---------- Post added at 10:31 ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 ----------

I would actually disagree. The Conservatives moved closer to Blair and have claimed that space in the centre-right. Why would anyone vote pretendy-Conservative when they can have something closer to the real thing?

Also, surely it's more important for parties to try and sell their vision to the electorate, rather than changing that vision in an attempt to get elected? What's the point in having a plurality of parties if the rest are all being blown about by public opinion and have no principles beyond to say whatever they think the electorate want to hear?

---------- Post added at 10:34 ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 ----------

I'm far from convinced the entire English population is anti-left wing. Just no-one has really tried to make that argument coherently, and people are too lazy to bother trying to find out. They'd far rather be spoon-fed by a press which, obviously, is going to have a right-wing bias, it's run by people with a right-wing bias.

A number of UKIP's policies were somewhat to the left and seemed to go down well.

The argument on the left is, sadly, dominated by a regressive group who want to impose their views on everyone else. They have contempt for progressive politics, democracy, and the rights of the individual. If a group were to come to prominence offering liberal social policies, essentially not behaving like the offence police and demanding we all adore the EU, alongside left-wing economics and a genuine respect for democracy close to the point of delivery who knows what'd happen?

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

I agree principles are important, and this is one reason I hate politics.

Policies get shaped on what is needed to win vs what is believed in.

However a left wing labour party will get nowhere, they would need to reeducate a population to believe in those policies and be up against most of the press. It might however bring a lib dem revival.

By the way I agree with lots of what corbyn has said, so my opinion is based on whats good for labour vs my political alignment.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Ah. I care far more about the country when it comes down to that. A 'social-democrat' opposition that abstain on welfare cuts get short shrift.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Even with a Corbyn leadership, Labour will still be the second biggest party next election, unless people go to UKIP. SNP can only gain a maximum of 59 seats, although is there a reason why they couldn't expand into England and Wales?

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

The hint might be in the name - Scottish Nationalist Party....

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

yes but if they teamed up with the Yorkshire nationalists etc ;)

The out come of the labour leadership is a bit irrelevant - they are out of power for a generation. Sad to say sometime you have to blame the electorate not politicians. Particularly the apathetic ones who don't vote but just complain why nothing changes. People are increasingly self centered and right wing - just the way society is going.

Hope it is Corbyn as at least he will provide an opposition, the others are just your typical vacuous power seeking career politicians, who have equally no chance of being PM either. Really disappointed in Yvette Cooper - really thought she could be 'the one' - however the exposure of the election has shown her to be a card board cut out with the personality of a pencil. Her plea to vote for her as shes' a woman was pathetic.

We're all doomed ..... Climate change will get us all anyway.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

Under FFTP the point of the main parties needs to be to get elected. You can't change anything if you don't win and if that means compromising in order to appeal to a larger electorate then that is better, in my view, than remaining ideologically pure but losing. It's unfair to say they have no principles, they're pragmatic enough to know principles are useless if you're powerless to put them into effect.

Maybe they're right-wing because the public are? The Daily Mail is one of the most popular papers in Britain, as is The Sun but The Mirror less so. Maybe the proprietors are trying to spoon-fed the public or maybe the papers are just trying to pander to their audience. People gravitate to their own biases and then exist in a bubble where their ideas aren't challenged.

The left-wing equivalent of the right-wing press is social media. People on Twitter and Reddit all talking to each other, backing up each others' arguments, posting links to left-wing pieces and vilifying the right until they've become so far detached from reality that they think Scotland will be Independent, Labour will win the election and Corbyn will win the next one. Even this forum has a echo-chamber effect to the point where some members thought UKIP were about to storm the General Election.

A lot of the left aren't liberals or social democrats unfortunately. They're just 1980s socialists with more progressive, sometimes obsessive, views on identity politics.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

well if you take the view labour will be happy in opposition, then yes he will provide a more better opposition and actually vote against changes not just abstain or back them up.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

That's not proper opposition though. They don't have a majority. The Government will smile and pass whatever they please.

Re: Harman's Labour 'rebellion'
 

For opposition to be effective it has to be credible. Corbyn's simply enjoying the sort of feting that Vince Cable attracted for a while and look what happened to him. If the other candidates weren't so lacklustre he'd be nowhere.