Corbyn 15.5 - the so-called pro-Corbyn echo-chamber

[pancreas]

In which friendly constructive scepticism will nevertheless be welcome. For the sake of everyone's sanity please do not post in this thread if you are TFM, mook or GOBII.


Let me kick things off with a thought which I don't think has had enough airtime.

Conjecture: Labour's poll ratings are about a lot more than Corbyn, and will not be fixed with his replacement by any current Labour MP.

Evidence: The poll ratings for Corbyn himself have been pretty dire ever since he took control. The Mail, BBC, Guardian, Sun etc. have seen to that.

Yet Labour were roughly level-pegging with the Tories until the referendum. There is a long article by the psephologist John Curtice along similar lines.

Now they have May in charge. This has provided the electorate with enough change for the time being: change from Tory-boy governance, and major change in the leaving of the EU. They may be interested to see where this goes and simply have no reason to turn to Labour, under Corbyn, under Balls, under anyone, right now.

What this means is, let Corbyn reform the party so that Blair/Brown can NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN, probably inevitably lose seats at the next election, and wait until the Tories make such a fuck-up of Brexit that everyone comes crying back for some socialism.

[Twed]

What this means is, let Corbyn reform the party so that Blair/Brown can NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN, probably inevitably lose seats at the next election, and wait until the Tories make such a fuck-up of Brexit that everyone comes crying back for some socialism.

I may as well say it in this shitty safe space, but if losing elections is what it takes for it to be the case that "the left" extends beyond neo-liberal Blairism then so be it. If Trump beating Clinton means that the Democratic party gets to be taken back by the likes of Sanders and Warren and Ellison then good. Four years of right-rule might be the price we have to pay for not permanently shifting the Overton window so that the left edge is to the right of "don't privatise healthcare".

Things are so bad that I've given up hope for short-term politics. The only hope is in the future, and we need to begin by not permanently damning it.

[Zetetic]

Yet Labour were roughly level-pegging with the Tories until the referendum. There is a long article by the psephologist John Curtice along similar lines.

Have you linked to the right article there?[nb]Edit: That one has a slightly odd conclusion in inviting us to blame David Cameron at least as much as Labour campaigners for the Brexit result. Alright. He has already resigned though, so it seems like a poor use of energy.[/nb]

I did post something along these lines that was fairly quickly buried by other posts.

The impact of the methodologies is certainly worth considering.

To pick one - ICM/Guardian. They made substantial changes to their methodology on the 11th July - but the actual effect was minor, transferring a percentage point from Labour to the Conservatives. At that point, the Conservatives were on 38% and Labour 30%. (A little bit lower than most of 2015, but also a few points lower than some of 2016 under Corbyn.)

However, by the end of July, Labour dropped 3 more points and the Conservatives had picked up another 4 or 5 - each in the aftermath of their differing approaches to resolving the issue of leadership, apparently.

I don't think Corbyn is particularly good for Labour's electoral chances, but the leadership challenge in itself seems to have done at least as much damage to their vote share.

This neglects that some people's votes are worth considerably more than others - I don't know which has had the greater effect taking this into account.

This all neglects that the most important factor is probably not the ability of the Labour party to get people out to vote, even if we're talking about this or that constituency, it's about the ability of the Conservatives to get people out to vote and vote for them over either UKIP or the Lib Dems.

Again, I don't know that either Corbyn or the party's inability to deal with itself effectively regarding him are the most damaging.

You can find the ICM/Guardian poll results in a reasonable chart here. Certainly it's difficult to distangle the effects of the Brexit campaigns, Brexit result and the subsequent leadership battles in each party just based on the time alone (and I've probably been too hasty focusing on the last of these).

[pancreas]

Zetetic you're right.

I'd only half remembered what the article said and wanted to get the new thread posted. Nevertheless it is a useful reminder that when people make these statements about Corbyn being responsible for something, be it Brexit or Labour's poll ratings, they usually make this on the back of a hunch and a general miasma of media consensus/collusion, which is simply not evidence based.

In this case, I am just asking, as John Curtice was on Brexit, for the evidence that Jeremy Corbyn can be held responsible for Labour's polling. As I say, I think Theresa May, Brexit and the leadership challenge are likely to be more significant.

[NoSleep]

Seems positively anechoic in here.

[Barry Admin]

Sweet word! Yesterday I learnt "corporatocracy."

[Twed]

I have a small fear that if I contribute to this thread I'm going to have the room to unleash my occasionally-critical-of-Corbyn side and become this thread's bête noire. A good way to ensure that the thread remains useful might be if we could agree that rather than unabashedly pro-Corbyn stuff (which I think isn't useful, and is actually dangerous) it's just the thread for people who would choose the Corbyn route over the "let's get him kicked out" route. If that's not the right tone then I understand, and this thread won't be for me. I just have a sneaking suspicion that many of us so-called Corbynistas are more geared towards promoting the future of the left-left than they are for adulation of the man himself.

[Twed]

Sweet word! Yesterday I learnt "corporatocracy."

Sounds like it should be a feature documentary film with a poster showing the writer making a funny face while being slightly crushed/jostled by a skyscraper or something.

[Johnny Yesno]

I just have a sneaking suspicion that many of us so-called Corbynistas are more geared towards promoting the future of the left-left than they are for adulation of the man himself.

Yes. He and McDonnell seem to be the only politicians currently representing political views anything like mine. Which aren't 'far left', as some people keep insisting. I want to see the Overton window recalibrated.

[Funcrusher]

I will abandon this thread immediately if you know who arrives. For now, however, I'll say this. I am majorly wavering on Corbyn, having joined Labour and been all keen. It just feels like Labour are nowhere in the conversation and landing no blows on the Tories and are going to get killed at the next election.

I've been thinking about starting a thread in Neil's new positive CAB space about what message the left should be articulating, how they should be explaining the mess we're in and where next etc, to get all the good folks here to put their heads together. Because this is a large part of the problem - the left response has all been about 'against the cuts, against austerity, against capitalism' but without a clear strong message of what the alternative is. Occupy's 99% stuff is a pefect example of a simple statement of the facts that really hit home. Bernie Sanders is an example of someone on the left who really knows how to communicate to people - to have been able to stand up and call himself a socialist in the US and go as far as he did is amazing. Sadly, Corbyn is no Bernie.

[Twed]

Corbyn is indeed no Bernie.

I think a big part of the problem with the left wanting to undo the neolib stuff is that the answer to "what should sit in its place" is often "nothing". Nothing goes in the place of corporate interests in government, for example. It just needs to fuck off. You don't put something in its place. And then it's even more difficult, because you're basically saying "yes, we need you to give up all that money".

[Funcrusher]

Corbyn is indeed no Bernie.

I think a big part of the problem with the left wanting to undo the neolib stuff is that the answer to "what should sit in its place" is often "nothing". Nothing goes in the place of corporate interests in government, for example. It just needs to fuck off. You don't put something in its place. And then it's even more difficult, because you're basically saying "yes, we need you to give up all that money".

But Bernie saying 'get the money out of politics, get Wall St out of politics' went over like gangbusters. Likewise Trump saying 'drain the swamp'.

[Twed]

But Bernie saying 'get the money out of politics, get Wall St out of politics' went over like gangbusters.

Most people older than me said it was unrealistic. I've been in rooms full of people in their late-30s saying "well, we'd all have to pay 80% tax for Bernie's pipe dreams to come to fruition". Hillary said that Sander's young supporters were uninformed and didn't do their research, and then wondered why people don't like her. There is always quite a substantial pushback against it all, which is why you need some real pressure to get it through, and that's where some real criticism of the Corbyn situation is useful.

Bernie's charisma surely helped, along with the primary process that enabled him to fill stadiums with supporters. There's nothing dynamic like that going on with Labour. Where's their version of this? If you ignore ideology and their treatment from the media, Bernie's campaign and Corbyn's campaign[nb]can't think of a more suitable word than campaign right now[/nb] couldn't be more different.

[Funcrusher]

But then where is reality in our current trajectory? Economies are propped on consumer debt, banks are probably going to crash again. We ended up with a massive debt due to bailing out the banks, now forgotten. Austerity implemented has led to exactly what was predicted - the national debt is now vastly bigger, Osbourne has failed utterly.Corporations and the rich rely on tax funded infrastructure to run their businesses but pay almost nothing via tax avoidance, further indebting national economies. None of this has any future plan other than continue until the whole thing collapses. The right/neoliberal narrative is utterly detached from the real world.

[Twed]

Well, we agree then, don't we? The rug needs to be pulled out from under some shitty people, and it's really going to hurt them. I don't know how to do this, I just know that we need to begin by the conversation to begin the process becoming mainstream. Like Johnny Yesno says, we need to do some window moving to begin with.

I think we need to look way beyond the next ten years.

[Funcrusher]

This probably needs it's own thread, sorry to anyone if I'm pissing on a pro-Corbyn thread.

A lot of the problem we're up against is that a very well funded assault force of think tanks and the Murdoch/Dacre press have been pushing ideological bullshit as truth for the past 25 years. We need to create a counter narrative.

[Twed]

We do. I think an opposition explicitly against that is where to begin, which is why I support Corbyn. The problem of the media, think tanks and all of that soul-crushingly terrible stuff is truly beyond me, I don't know how to stop evil. Hopefully the Internet will destroy it all, eventually. In the US the baby boomers dying out will play a big part of it I think, as rolling news will lose their core advertisement demographic.

[greencalx]

Oooh some actual discussion!

So I'm in the 'voted for him first time round but not fully enamoured with his performance' camp - hope I'm still allowed to post on this thread.

On the one hand, the relentless campaign against him from the press and within the party has been very tiresome. In particular I object to the routine use of the term 'far left' in the media to describe a social democrat extremely annoying, and the fact that is rarely challenged grates. I've never seen Theresa May described as 'far right' but her record in the home office is clearly further to the right than Corbyn is to the left. Anyway, just wanted to get that off his chest.

Coming to the man himself, it's hard for me at least to put a finger on what's not working.

The lack of respect shown by the MPs is a big problem, and it started way before he was first elected. This has really put me off the Labour Party. Those of us who have real jobs often have management whose positions we disagree with, but remain professional and get on with the job. The fact that MPs can't show the same discipline and professionalism that is required of anyone in any other job doesn't endear them to me. (The SNP is a good example of what can be achieved with strong party discipline - I'm sure there's plenty in the party that aren't aligned with the Salmond/Sturgeon axis, but they understand the importance of not letting this rip the party to pieces).

Then there's the media. Initially I thought fair play to him in not playing to their tune - particularly after the way they'd treated him during the first campaign. my experience of journalists is that they much prefer it if you've already written their copy for them so they can just stick their name on it... if you don't play this game, though, then it just seems they lay into you even more.

Then there's stuff like blaming Corbyn for Brexit, which is deeply unfair. A recent poll suggests that Labour voters were only slightly less remain than LibDems, so it's hard to see what would have been different with anyone else in charge. And May was even less visible in the campaign, and yet she's apparently fit to lead us through the most challenging political process of our time, so go figure.

And yet for all that, I do find him lacking. Perhaps it's the absence of positive messages that we can get behind. He's doing some good stuff on rail (even Hislop grudgingly endorsed this on HIGNFY) and his commitment to a publicly funded health service is clear, both of which in the context of New Labour is refreshing. But one feels there could be so much more.

[Quote]

I agree, getting his message across has really been difficult for him and it's not all media bias ... despite the Mail and the Sun et al setting so much of the agenda in this country.

I genuinely thought people would be crying out for someone who was against austerity, public cutbacks, an unregulated and unrepentant financial sector crashing the economy then making the public pay the cost of their speculation, rail privatisation that actually costs us more than if we nationalised them, etc, etc... but in the twenty odd years since socialism was a force it seems like the general public have become completely brainwashed into the right-wing orthodoxy. What to do about that I've no idea, it's not likely to happen overnight and frankly there's been little sign of Corbyn doing much to turn the tide. It's almost like Corbyn expected that just by virtue of the fact he turned up and mumbled a few words the country would suddenly become some socialist paradise overnight. Any real strategy of changing things in this country has seemed sadly lacking (imo, etc).

There's also been little to no sign of the many millions of 'lost voters' who don't even bother to turn out for elections getting excited by his leadership as those who backed Corbyn originally hoped they might (despite the fact I believe he'd probably be a better leader for them than anyone the Tories forward, and most of those associated with the Labour right).

There's a half arsed quality to his leadership that probably isn't going to impress too many voters, and doesn't impress me. If you want to lead the Country you might need to put in the odd late night and do the occasional burdensome interview which you don't particularly want to. It's charming and all that Corbyn has to nip off to the allotment to check on the marrows but realistically it's not going to impress many people who expect a bit more commitment from their politicians.

Just to add - I'm perfectly happy to accept criticism of Corbyn, as I suspect were most people in the other threads, I just don't respond well to a tiresome, relentless one dimensional arsehole posting page after page of Guido Fawkes links and dominating the thread - dictating the topics discussed to such an extent that any other aspect of the subject was rendered impossible to even mention, let alone debate.

[HappyTree]

Proper anti-Corbyn opinions are very welcome, to me. There are only 3 posters who are unable to discuss this in good faith so everyone else should be fine! Thank-you to Neil for this and I'm genuinely sorry I went off before. You have an impossible job. It just gets very frustrating being told you're things that you're not.

I don't think Corbyn himself is the answer. No matter the rights and wrongs, he won't be allowed to succeed. But he's already been succeeding very well simply by changing the balance of the political narrative. For my money, he already accomplished a lot just by daring to say that the world economy crashing wasn't actually Labour's fault. Miliband never managed to say that and it was devastatingly disappointing.

Austerity is a political choice, not a necessity. Not even a desirable solution, or one that does what it claims to want to do. Against enormous odds, he's managed to get this idea out there. John McDonnell deserves a lot of the credit too, Corbyn would have been lost without him.

Is there anyone younger and not already too tainted by propaganda to take over from Corbyn? That's going to be the way forward in the end.

[Twed]

I don't think Corbyn himself is the answer. No matter the rights and wrongs, he won't be allowed to succeed. But he's already been succeeding very well simply by changing the balance of the political narrative. For my money, he already accomplished a lot just by daring to say that the world economy crashing wasn't actually Labour's fault. Miliband never managed to say that and it was devastatingly disappointing.

Yep. My fear is that he calls it a day or gets ousted or defeated or whatever, and the shitters to the right will have successfully stamped on that bug and move on to ensuring a grey future.

I support Corbyn because we need to keep the conversation going, and right now he's the leader of the conversation. With any luck, a charismatic successor is in incubation. We don't need to drop the fight in the meantime.

[Twed]

Can anybody make any sense of this at all?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/06/jeremy-corbyn-symptom-labour-party

"The Labour Party needs to keep in touch, eight years ago Corbyn, and then the Tony Blair things only get better Corbyn. Also, Corbyn Blair, Tony Party conference. D-Ream"

[pcsjwgm]

I agree that we shouldn't be too hesitant about criticising Corbyn. IMO, reasonable, constructive criticism of Corbyn would be most fruitiful in a 'pro-Corbyn' thread. That way criticisms can be made and potential solutions can be proposed and discussed, without certain people picking and highlighting only the negative bits, taking them out of context and blowing them out of proportion, and using them only as evidence that Corbyn is the worst ever and a Blairite needs to be in charge, which just triggers a pointless, separate argument that moves away from the initial criticism and is devoid of solutions.

Anyway, here's a great talk from Professor Bill Mitchell, called 'Reframing the Progressive Agenda'. He discusses neoliberal myths and the faulty metaphors and analogies used to dupe the public into accepting neoliberal policies. I highly recommend it, but it's 44 minutes long, so watch it at a higher speed if you want:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OVAROe3gW4

[Buelligan]

Mmm.  Surprised to get back from work and find this.  Bold move but I think it's going to be the best solution.

I agree with welcoming criticism, it's important to listen and maybe learn, so, criticism fine, spamming, thread-shitting etc, not fine.

For me, the Corbyn thing boils down pretty neatly to this - Britain, the world, needs politicians who give a damn about other people than themselves and their "team", people who are honest.  These are very, very, rare people. 

Do we honestly believe, the way things are sewn up tight now (precisely to prevent an honest person getting in and upsetting the smooth running of the Liars Club) that we're going to find a beautiful, young, intelligent, charming, charismatic, erudite, wise, great communicator, prudent, stylish, energetic person who is also deeply honest, cares about the people as a top priority, has no skeletons in the closet AND who also believes in all of the things we do, who is also ready and willing to be crucified by the media and their own party?

I think Corbyn's the closest we're going to get, at least for the forseeable.  I think we have to guard him with our lives and back him with every ounce of strength we have, because he is the only chance we have right now and because, if we let him be torn apart by these beasts there will never be a safe space in which the strong new leaders the left so desperately need can be grown and brought to maturity.

[greencalx]

I've long said that if there were a sober discussiom of the warts-and-all of Corbyn's leadership I'd be willing to participate, so I suppose I now need to put my money where my mouth is...

I agree that Corbyn has a role to play in articulating an alternative and muted though he is (whether by lack of effort or media bias) this I think is preferable to Cooper, Kendall, Burnham or Smith advocating the status quo. I take the point that the chances of there being someone who is young, charismatic etc and to the left are small, but I can't see Labour winning an election without some charisma at the helm. (This is a statement of belief, rather than preference). On the other hand Corbyn's presence might provide an environment where someone to the left could succeed rather than being wiped out by the 'moderates'. In practical terms, Corbyn's not going to last forever (presumably he'll retire at some point!) and if he's smart (which I'm not sure he is) he should be thinking about some kind of succession planning, rather than creating a void for the Chukkas of the world to jump back into.

[NoSleep]

That's why it's important to return to the pre-90's figure of 5% for nominations by the PLP in a leadership election.

[Buelligan]

I agree the PLP shouldn't have a stranglehold on who can stand for the leadership.  I don't think it's reasonable at all.  Trying to retain it, to me, evidences their obsession with power and control, not ideal IMO.

[Funcrusher]

Mmm.  Surprised to get back from work and find this.  Bold move but I think it's going to be the best solution.

I agree with welcoming criticism, it's important to listen and maybe learn, so, criticism fine, spamming, thread-shitting etc, not fine.

For me, the Corbyn thing boils down pretty neatly to this - Britain, the world, needs politicians who give a damn about other people than themselves and their "team", people who are honest.  These are very, very, rare people. 

Do we honestly believe, the way things are sewn up tight now (pŷrecisely to prevent an honest person getting in and upsetting the smooth running of the Liars Club) that we're going to find a beautiful, young, intelligent, charming, charismatic, erudite, wise, great communicator, prudent, stylish, energetic person who is also deeply honest, cares about the people as a top priority, has no skeletons in the closet AND who also believes in all of the things we do, who is also ready and willing to be crucified by the media and their own party?

I think Corbyn's the closest we're going to get, at least for the forseeable.  I think we have to guard him with our lives and back him with every ounce of strength we have, because he is the only chance we have right now and because, if we let him be torn apart by these beasts there will never be a safe space in which the strong new leaders the left so desperately need can be grown and brought to maturity.

My concern is not that Corbyn isn't charismatic, it's that they seem to be doing nothing that's having any kind of impact and I have no idea what Labour's programme is other than being nice and not being nasty.

[HappyTree]

I see new policies being suggested all the time from Corbyn and McDonnell. Trouble is, the only way to see that is to follow them on Facebook and Twitter. With almost the whole press against them - including the supposed 'better' paper the Guardian which has become a travesty of late - I don't know how they can get the message out there on a larger scale. They do a lot of grass roots work; I have no idea if that could ever be described as enough.

As greencalx said, I state my beliefs rather than preference. I would prefer Corbyn as I personally like the way he does things. But I suspect most don't. Maybe they're just too used to the tit-for-tat. I do wonder what the lefty celebrities really want (e.g., Glinner, Tony Robinson, Brooker, etc.) as they seem to yearn for Tony Blair for reasons I cannot fathom. I would guess it's because they're not really very socialist at all and just like being (relatively) rich and applying a lip-service balm to their consciences.

But if we compare where we are now to where we began, Corbyn has shifted a lot, stood up to Tory madness a lot, caused some good u-turns, and has better media coverage than he used to have. It's a slow process of forcing the hostile press to acknowledge he's there. This is a war of power.

I do believe Corbyn's Way will end up succeeding. He needs to keep at it but I don't think him keeping at it will be what allows his ideology to win. What will do that is Tory and Fake Labour neocon policy destroying too many people's lives for them to be able to persuade people that nothing's wrong. Look at the current winter crisis in the NHS: this is the consequence. We can't be fooled into ignoring things like that forever.

[Johnny Yesno]

This probably needs it's own thread, sorry to anyone if I'm pissing on a pro-Corbyn thread.

No, I agree with the other posters who think this is exactly the thread for this discussion.

A lot of the problem we're up against is that a very well funded assault force of think tanks and the Murdoch/Dacre press have been pushing ideological bullshit as truth for the past 25 years. We need to create a counter narrative.

Yes, they've managed to go beyond pushing their ideology as correct and sell it as not an ideology at all. This is extremely difficult to counter as criticising it looks as pointless as criticising the weather.