[Update] Jeremy Corbyn wins Labour Leadership

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Taf

Nu Labour luvvies are resigning in droves. Good riddance.

Bliar's vote of no confidence in Corbyn was all that was required...

---------- Post added at 16:26 ---------- Previous post was at 15:57 ----------

Burnham's thought of the day:

'People want politicians of conviction'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34233876

Pity he wouldn't recognise conviction if he had one.

Originally Posted by Chris

Labour commits corporate suicide ... Good ... Good ...

Under the right circumstances he could still get in. This is a disaster for both Tories and moderate liberals.

---------- Post added at 16:42 ---------- Previous post was at 16:41 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

+1.

Allows people to a range of policies, not just Tory and Tory-light.

I think the parties represent where the public are. Most people don't want big ideological shifts IMO.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Excellent result. Opens a debate rather than England having a choice of centre-right, more-centrist-right, centre-slightly-right, and chameleon.

[Osem]

I think Corbyn's wheels will come off long before the next election, then it'll be interesting to see whether Labour can be at all credible.

[denphone]

Well at least there is clear blue water now so its up to the electorate to decide in 5 years if he is still there.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by denphone

Well at least there is clear blue water now so its up to the electorate to decide in 5 years if he is still there.

Not sure clear is the right word to describe Corbyn's policies...

Clear red water, I think you mean, Den.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Chris

Clear red water, I think you mean, Den.

[Stop It]

Well, this will be fun.

I am a bit of a lefty, but believe in free markets, abolitions of all glass ceilings and free movements of people as a way of tackling inequality as opposed to nationalisations, trade protectionism and the lack of freedom of choice economically.

Corbyn isn't really for me (But Lab hasn't been really for years: Voted Lib Dem in 2010 and didn't go back to Lab in 2015), but if it starts a proper debate, good.

As for the arguments that Corbyn is trying to bring back the 70's? Well frankly, that's a non sequitur. The Conservatives very ethos pre-dates the Labour movement, and aside from nicking other peoples policies (The Living Wage, Tax Allowance raises) most are very old ideas. Small government, lower taxes, especially for the rich and being pro big business.

Hell, if you look at their main policies, in respect to trade and busniess the Tories use Laissez-faire policies on the main, which date back to the 1850's in the UK, and in terms of the policies on issues like border control, they swing the other way towards protectionism, which dates back even further.

Yes, it is fine to criticise Corbyn's ideology, but if you do, at least stop being lazy and saying "lol 70's". After all, the post communism movements of the left over here came about after decades or more of the likes of the Conservative movement, and Classical Liberalism (Of which I am more of a fan really) dominating UK politics. Yes, he's old school, but Cameron and co follow a much older doctrine.

When people talk about the 70s in this context, I think it's the turbulence and economic stagnation of the decade they're thinking of, rather than it being a step back in time per se.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

When people talk about the 70s in this context, I think it's the turbulence and economic stagnation of the decade they're thinking of, rather than it being a step back in time per se.

You got it. Plus the fashions...

[Stop It]

Originally Posted by Chris

When people talk about the 70s in this context, I think it's the turbulence and economic stagnation of the decade they're thinking of, rather than it being a step back in time per se.

I really don't think so, frankly. It's an oft stated viewpoint on here and elsewhere and very rarely have I seen that as a reason, rather his views are merely from the 70's, thus bad. It's a legitimate point of course, however given the fact that we have suffered 2 comparable recessions since under doctrines of the centre to centre right then it's a bit moot.

Our economy has been battered, bruised and somehow managed to recover no matter who is in charge. As I said before, I am anti-nationalisation and do not believe that economic restriction that Corbyn prefers will help our economy.

Funnily enough, I think this may trip up Cameron in the EU referendum. Those on the left are generally anti-EU, because aside from the awful CAP, they (especially the EC) believe in free trade (Hence the TTIP) and abolition, rather than creation of nationalised industry and Corbyn frankly may favour an exit of the EU.

Corbyn may really want to lower inequality, and firmly believe that he can achieve it. However he should not do that by destroying wealth, as his policies seem wont to do. His challenge is to make sure not to destroy employment by trying to control the economy, especially private enterprise.

I don't understand why being radically different is commendable for a party who wants to be the next Government? The nature of our system means that one of these two parties will be governing the country and as a result both of them have to gain support from a broad section of the electorate and most of them are centrists - this has been shown time and time again at election time - so to move away from them to appeal to a narrow but motivated minority seems to be nothing but self-indulgent wallowing. Labour are meant to be a party who seek to govern not a pressure group. The fringe parties are better places to promote radical ideas.

What really is the point of Labour if they don't want to win elections? You can talk about finally having a choice but if a party has no chance of winning an election then there isn't really a choice...

[Stop It]

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't understand why being radically different is commendable for a party who wants to be the next Government? The nature of our system means that one of these two parties will be governing the country and as a result both of them have to gain support from a broad section of the electorate and most of them are centrists - this has been shown time and time again at election time - so to move away from them to appeal to a narrow but motivated minority seems to be nothing but self-indulgent wallowing. Labour are meant to be a party who seek to govern not a pressure group. The fringe parties are better places to promote radical ideas.

What really is the point of Labour if they don't want to win elections? You can talk about finally having a choice but if a party has no chance of winning an election then there isn't really a choice...

Well, if most of the electorate are centrists, they done a great job of hiding it by the majority (Scotland very much excluded) for the Centre-Right Tories or the Right-Wing UKIP. The main Centre party got destroyed, despite being a successful moderating force in coalition politics. The electorate is much more polarised than the almost homogenised debates we had from 2001 to 2015 especially where policy took second place to who sounded the best at saying the same things.

Taking aim again at the centre may well end with more Tory victories as people get sick of hearing the same things and as long as they don't totally mess up the economy as it stands, the Labour party will not win any credibility by shouting "We disagree, a bit!"

In a democratic system where getting 40% of the vote results in landslide results, a pull to the left can work politically if it gets even 10% of the 33% of the electorate who did not vote in the 2015 election.

Disagree or agree with the guy, to write him off is folly, and Cameron will do well to treat him as a very, very dangerous adversary indeed.

[Jimmy-J]

He reminds me so much of Michael Foot, but with facial hair.