Author Topic: Labour Election Hustings:What Do They Know? Do They Know Things? Let's Find Out!  (Read 16507 times)


The ICFI are Troyskyists.  I’m not a Trot.  I’m a democratic socialist, not a revolutionary one.  They also seem to have mistaken Corbyn for a revolutionary socialist.  He isn’t.

I’d avoid them like the plague.  Everyone is right-wing to them.  Cranks & crackpots.

Cardenio I

  • Hasta la muerte, todo es vida

Do you know what else was record breaking? The media coverage of Corbyns leadership and Labour itself under Corbyn. Why don’t you look into that and see if you can draw any parallels?

Yeah, I'm not an idiot. I'm a card-carrying, twice-Corbyn electing, door-knocking paid up Labour left idiot. But I'm not an idiot. Both things can be true. If you want a socialist leader to win, they're going to have to whether the negative press coverage better than Corbyn. I think there are a variety of reasons Corbyn fared so badly in 2019. I think by hewing further towards the centre, Starmer probably has a better chance of avoiding the same evisceration. The extent to which I can back this compromise will depend on just how far it moves the dial and just how electorally successful it can be.

I'm not exactly thrilled about any of this, but here we are.

We failed, not because of left wing policies being bad unpopular policies, not because of Corbyn being a bad man or leader, we failed because the establishment, both in the UK and outside, did everything in its power to make us fail.  They did it because Corbyn and our policies actually were close to changing the world for all of us and they were desperately frightened.  You need to take that on board.  Really grasp and accept it.


That's not  the whole story though, is it? We lost because of the months and months of slurs and back-stabbings and lies and Hodge and Streeting, of course. But we also lost because of Brexit, and because we had a silly amount of unfocussed policy announcements and, yes, because Corbyn was disliked by large parts of the electorate. If there was no Brexit and we'd hadn't bombarded the electorate with what they apparently saw a giveaways, things may have been different. But it wasn't just the establishment what won it.

I think Corbyn and his (our) party was far more polarising than in 2017, as everything was seen through the lens of Brexit, and the northerners and leavers who 'want their country back' increasingly saw Corbyn and his brand of politics as being part of the enemy. Whilst I believe Labour had the most sensible policy in leaving the EU, I think it was easy for these angry people to see a man who spoke of peace and equality and inclusivity as being the polar opposite of the country they 'wanted back'.

Buelligan

  • STOP being afraid
I agree with that but I believe that winning for socialism means socialism winning.  There seems to be a school of thought that runs with the idea of winning being more important than who it is that wins.  Tell that to the graves in Iraq and the ones who have no graves.

We need to change the angry men of Brexit, not change to please them.

Can't believe we're going round and round on the topic of Corbyn's level of popularity.

Of course the biased media increased his level of unpopularity and he had a mini-bump in 2017, but all the evidence that we have suggests that MOST PEOPLE DIDN'T LIKE HIM (or, more importantly, trust him to be a good PM).

Nearly everyone on CaB seemed to like him a lot, but posters on here are not most people.

In the summer of 2017, Jeremy Bernard Corbyn was the most popular political leader in the UK by a significant margin, and the only one to achieve positive approval ratings. This was combined with the Labour party being supported by 45% of the British electorate, after achieving the largest increase in vote share for the Labour party in over 70 years.

For some reason, people have now chosen to believe this to be a temporary state of madness of the British populace. However, I believe it to be the result of Jeremy Corbyn being an inherently popular politician, who later squandered his popularity by compromising with moderate forces within the party.

It is a clear aim of the media and the establishment to paint Jeremy Corbyn, and by extension, his political viewpoints, as fundamentally unpopular. The main part of this is to erase any memory or feeling of his popularity in 2017.

Buelligan

  • STOP being afraid
Obviously, I agree entirely.

Buelligan

  • STOP being afraid
The ICFI are Troyskyists.  I’m not a Trot.  I’m a democratic socialist, not a revolutionary one.  They also seem to have mistaken Corbyn for a revolutionary socialist.  He isn’t.

I’d avoid them like the plague.  Everyone is right-wing to them.  Cranks & crackpots.

But the evidence of the Fabians working against Corbyn, I found that independently, just by looking at who was doing it at the time (check the early threads if you're doubtful) and what groups they belonged to - the answers were the Fabians and Labour Friends of Israel - that's not imaginary. 

You talk of cranks and crackpots but everything you've posted over the last few pages has been opinion, guesswork.  No evidence at all.   

Then I’m not even sure what constitutes evidence anymore.  General elections results & polls are disregarded - and I’ve stated when it’s simply my opinion.  There isn’t any evidence that can be presented, it seems - someone genuinely disagrees, then they’re uneducated or an idiot.  An opinion piece by the ICFI is legitimate evidence - and polling data and actual election results are not.

If Trots and ‘revolutionary’ socialists aren’t cranks, then I don’t know who is.  These are people who would advocate killing to get their way - bloodless revolutions don’t exist.  Fantasists & nutters, the lot.   Student politics.

NoSleep

  • feat. Keith Jarrett and his singing parrot
    • Space Is The Place
Absolutely true.  And I’m sure that every person who’s about to suffer under Tory misrule will think on this and it’ll keep them smiling.

I’d have been happier if Labour won 2m fewer votes and 150 more seats, personally.

And what do you think inspired the high turnout (to vote against Labour)? Hatred of Corbyn or Get Brexit Done?

BlodwynPig

  • I’m deffo a AI bot, but i don’t even know it
Can't believe we're going round and round on the topic of Corbyn's level of popularity.

Of course the biased media increased his level of unpopularity and he had a mini-bump in 2017, but all the evidence that we have suggests that MOST PEOPLE DIDN'T LIKE HIM (or, more importantly, trust him to be a good PM).

Nearly everyone on CaB seemed to like him a lot, but posters on here are not most people.

But, sadly, we are RIGHT people

pancreas

  • The islets of Langerhans are the very best islets
Corbyn was unpopular, yes. The reason is the important thing. The reason is that he was forced into a Brexit position he couldn't sell (making him untrustworthy) and forced to apologise daily for a largely non-existent problem of antisemitism (making him weak). He was and is always best when he is apoplectic. I think he was probably advised badly.

Blumf

  • Not long now
    • IGNORE ME!!!
Fact Check : Was Corbyn unpopular?

2005Blair9,552,436
2010Brown8,609,527
2015Miliband9,347,273
2017Corbyn12,878,460
2019Corbyn10,265,912

Facts say, no, Corbyn was more popular that the last 3 leaders of the Labour party.

Corbyn was unpopular, yes. The reason is the important thing. The reason is that he was forced into a Brexit position he couldn't sell (making him untrustworthy) and forced to apologise daily for a largely non-existent problem of antisemitism (making him weak). He was and is always best when he is apoplectic. I think he was probably advised badly.

This is it.

And what do you think inspired the high turnout (to vote against Labour)? Hatred of Corbyn or Get Brexit Done?

They were cited as the top two reasons in the polling data post-election - it’s impossible to say it was one or the other.  It was both.  There were other reasons for defeat - there always are.  I don’t think any Labour leader could’ve won that election - so defeat isn’t entirely on Corbyn.  Others could have done better.

Incidentally, the Tories are excellent at catchy slogans.  Labour aren’t great at them - and ‘For the Many, Not the Few’ was a pretty dreadful one.  ‘Get Brexit Done’, whilst obviously total bollocks, was simple to understand & cut through.

Historically, BTW, Labour don’t perform particularly well when the zeitgeist is negative - a positive national mood usually heralds a Labour govt (rather than policies).  Had Corbyn (or Benn, or pick a member of the Labour left) been Labour leader in 1997 he’d have won comfortably.  Same in 1964.  Same in 1945.  The UK has a nasty, angry air about it at the moment.  Most of it hasn’t recovered from the crash of 07-08 (the North East certainly hasn’t - which is why I eventually left it.  London absolutely has - which may go some way to explaining why in many ways the Corbyn left feels so southern and/or middle class).

pancreas

  • The islets of Langerhans are the very best islets
Fact Check : Was Corbyn unpopular?

He was unpopular in Bishop Auckland, Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland, and Stockton South. We lost all those.

Fact Check : Was Corbyn unpopular?

2005Blair9,552,436
2010Brown8,609,527
2015Miliband9,347,273
2017Corbyn12,878,460
2019Corbyn10,265,912

Facts say, no, Corbyn was more popular that the last 3 leaders of the Labour party.

You do understand that it’s not a presidential election - that people can vote for a party even if they think the leader is a cunt?  How many on here voted Labour in 97, 01 or 05, but always hated Blair?

This isn’t a fact-check.  No psephologist would confuse a party’s electoral results with the personal popularity of the leader.

Buelligan

  • STOP being afraid
You brought up election results.

Then I’m not even sure what constitutes evidence anymore.  General elections results & polls are disregarded - and I’ve stated when it’s simply my opinion.  There isn’t any evidence that can be presented, it seems - someone genuinely disagrees, then they’re uneducated or an idiot.  An opinion piece by the ICFI is legitimate evidence - and polling data and actual election results are not.

If Trots and ‘revolutionary’ socialists aren’t cranks, then I don’t know who is.  These are people who would advocate killing to get their way - bloodless revolutions don’t exist.  Fantasists & nutters, the lot.   Student politics.

This is a pretty inaccurate and skewed, precis of our conversation.  I'm surprised and disappointed that you felt the need to post it.

Blumf

  • Not long now
    • IGNORE ME!!!
He was unpopular in Bishop Auckland, Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland, and Stockton South. We lost all those.

I'm sure he was unpopular in the Tommy Robinson's household too. But when talking about popularity, you're talking about the nation as a whole, so carving up specific areas doesn't make sense.

It's pretty obvious that Brexit was the problem, you know, like how the election was called because of Brexit, and how the winning party campaigned purely on a "Get Brexit done" message, and how the big losses came predomendlty from Brexit areas (for example Bishop Auckland, Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland, and Stockton South)

Buelligan

  • STOP being afraid
Who was in charge of Labour's Brexit thingy again?

The membership.

Buelligan

  • STOP being afraid
Good one!   I can just see how that plays out with the members of Bishop Auckland.

Because, if we agree that Brexit and those angry Brexit men were a lot to do with why Labour lost... how does electing Sir Keir Starmer as leader fix that?  Or does it play right into Johnson's hands?

I think it's the second one.

I agree with that but I believe that winning for socialism means socialism winning.  There seems to be a school of thought that runs with the idea of winning being more important than who it is that wins.  Tell that to the graves in Iraq and the ones who have no graves.

We need to change the angry men of Brexit, not change to please them.

It's never as black and white as that though is it - I mean would you rather win with a platform that puts in place 50-60% of what we all want or lose with one that would have put in place 90%?

The vast majority of Labour members were (and are) pro-remain.  As are the vast majority of Labour voters.  It would’ve been difficult to argue that the party’s position on a second ref wasn’t popular in the party.

I genuinely think if those in denial on here went to visit a Labour club in the North East they’d get the surprise of their life.  Corbyn wasn’t unpopular simply because of Brexit.  Brexit had a role to play in Labour’s defeat.  The two are not intertwined.  Had Corbyn came out as the hardest of leavers, his unpopularity would still likely have led to defeat in those seats.

Again, this is the result of somehow thinking that every Labour vote under Corbyn means that the voter is a socialist.  They aren’t.  Just as every Labour vote under Blair didn’t make those voters all ‘third way’ centrists.  Voters can be tribal as well as ideological.  They also usually go for perceived competence (irrespective of whether or not the perception is valid). 

Take Bishop Auckland (mentioned above) as an example.  A Labour safe seat for a century (other than 1931 Labour have always won it comfortably). For all the talk about 2017 showing how beloved the party was, Labour took 48% of the vote.  Under Blair in 1997, they took 66%.  In 2005, it was still 50%.  Or Laura Pidcock’s former seat of NW Durham.  I know she’s popular on here (I like her - she was an excellent MP, and a Good Thing for the party generally).  She managed 53% in 2017.  Less than Labour’s share of 69% in 1997, and the 54% in 2005.  It is worth remembering NW Durham has been a Labour safe seat from its reformation in 1950 up to 2019. 

The point I’m making is that even at the ‘high water mark’ of Corbynism, the party was still not as popular as it was in the Blair era (or before) in those seats.  It wasn’t even as popular as it was in the dying days of Blairism.  To suggest that somehow a Starmer-led party wouldn’t have an excellent chance to recover those seats simply isn’t supported by historical voting evidence.  Posh gadgies in suits are usually equated with competence in the NE.  That doesn’t mean Starmer’s party would win everywhere - but in terms of the NE, they’ll take back every seat they lost.

king_tubby

  • Spit roasted by Latin Kings
Is this before or after the press spend 4 years painting Starmer as the man who let the multiple rapist who tried to abduct and assault the Prime Minister's partner out of prison?

Buelligan

  • STOP being afraid
The vast majority of Labour members were (and are) pro-remain.  As are the vast majority of Labour voters.  It would’ve been difficult to argue that the party’s position on a second ref wasn’t popular in the party.

I genuinely think if those in denial on here went to visit a Labour club in the North East they’d get the surprise of their life.  Corbyn wasn’t unpopular simply because of Brexit.  Brexit had a role to play in Labour’s defeat.  The two are not intertwined.  Had Corbyn came out as the hardest of leavers, his unpopularity would still likely have led to defeat in those seats.

Again, this is the result of somehow thinking that every Labour vote under Corbyn means that the voter is a socialist.  They aren’t.  Just as every Labour vote under Blair didn’t make those voters all ‘third way’ centrists.  Voters can be tribal as well as ideological.  They also usually go for perceived competence (irrespective of whether or not the perception is valid). 

Take Bishop Auckland (mentioned above) as an example.  A Labour safe seat for a century (other than 1931 Labour have always won it comfortably). For all the talk about 2017 showing how beloved the party was, Labour took 48% of the vote.  Under Blair in 1997, they took 66%.  In 2005, it was still 50%.  Or Laura Pidcock’s former seat of NW Durham.  I know she’s popular on here (I like her - she was an excellent MP, and a Good Thing for the party generally).  She managed 53% in 2017.  Less than Labour’s share of 69% in 1997, and the 54% in 2005.  It is worth remembering NW Durham has been a Labour safe seat from its reformation in 1950 up to 2019. 

The point I’m making is that even at the ‘high water mark’ of Corbynism, the party was still not as popular as it was in the Blair era (or before) in those seats.  It wasn’t even as popular as it was in the dying days of Blairism.  To suggest that somehow a Starmer-led party wouldn’t have an excellent chance to recover those seats simply isn’t supported by historical voting evidence.  Posh gadgies in suits are usually equated with competence in the NE.  That doesn’t mean Starmer’s party would win everywhere - but in terms of the NE, they’ll take back every seat they lost.

All of that is obvious but you're mad if you think Starmer will do anything for the Labour Party other than take it back to pre-Corbyn days with a tiny membership and a reputation similar to the LDs.  Blair was backed by the MSM, Corbyn was attacked hourly, you cannot compare the two.

It's never as black and white as that though is it - I mean would you rather win with a platform that puts in place 50-60% of what we all want or lose with one that would have put in place 90%?

That's a bit black and white isn't it?  You can only understand what you risk or may win by looking at what people say, what they do and what has happened. 

Would it have been better or worse for the world if Blair had never been leader?  The answer is no one can know because there are so many other variables in play.  And that's always the case, nothing is black and white.  All we can do is stick to what we know it true and right, don't allow ourselves to be swayed by promises of jam tomorrow and work with all our strength to get a true socialist government in power, for the good of everyone, born and unborn.

Is this before or after the press spend 4 years painting Starmer as the man who let the multiple rapist who tried to abduct and assault the Prime Minister's partner out of prison?

The Murdoch attack dogs will be at the ready, that I don’t doubt.  But that will happen regardless of who wins.

Buelligan

  • STOP being afraid
Yes, but if someone worthwhile wins, it'll be worth fighting for them.  If Starmer wins, we'll be back to Brown and Miliband.

All of that is obvious.  Blair was backed by the MSM, Corbyn was attacked hourly, you cannot compare the two.

Great.  So then what is the point of electing a ‘socialist’ as Labour leader, if the MSM, establishment, friends of Israel etc simply attack them and stop them from winning?  “I’m going to vote for someone who ‘the man’ won’t let win” is an exercise in futility if you believe that the press & the illuminati wont allow a victory (I don’t, incidentally - I think that a dem. Socialist govt can be won regardless of the wankers in the press).  Blaming the MSM is a lot easier than admitting that a favourite politician isn’t as beloved as you might think.

I wanted to see Brown & Miliband win in 2010 & 2015.  I wanted to see Corbyn win in 2017 & 2019.  A Labour govt is worth fighting for regardless.  There was a lot more of what I would like to see in the 2017 & 2019 manifestos than the two previous ones - but that doesn’t mean that a Labour govt wouldn’t have been better for the country in all four of those elections.

All of that is obvious but you're mad if you think Starmer will do anything for the Labour Party other than take it back to pre-Corbyn days with a tiny membership and a reputation similar to the LDs.  Blair was backed by the MSM, Corbyn was attacked hourly, you cannot compare the two.

That's a bit black and white isn't it?  You can only understand what you risk or may win by looking at what people say, what they do and what has happened. 

Would it have been better or worse for the world if Blair had never been leader?  The answer is no one can know because there are so many other variables in play.  And that's always the case, nothing is black and white.  All we can do is stick to what we know it true and right, don't allow ourselves to be swayed by promises of jam tomorrow and work with all our strength to get a true socialist government in power, for the good of everyone, born and unborn.

Ok but you're NEVER going to get a "true socialist govt" in power because no such thing exists, there will always be compromises, Corbyn had to compromise on many issues, RLB would have to as well. I mean not two weeks ago people were briefly refusing to back her because of her "compromise" on anti semitism.. politics is all about compromise, and that compromise is about how much you are willing to give up of what you want for the power that means you will be able to enact some of what you want. If you think that RLB has a better/similar chance of winning the next election than Starmer then you are right to vote for her, however anyone that believes she has a significantly lower chance (whether that's because shes less competent, easier to destroy in the press, because people always vote for the "posh" white guy, it's irrelevant) would be right to vote for Starmer. The added factor of course being how much of the labour programme you think Starmer would be willing to compromise away, if it's 90% then you also probably shouldn't vote for him. However I don't believe for a second he will do that, he has stood in front of a 600k membership explicitly promising to maintain the same course. Unless you can point me to numerous examples of him being a liar then why would I believe he's lying?

Tags: