Labour Leadership 2016

as opposed to the PLP who claim anyone who might vote for corbyn is an entryist, trot, anti-semitic brick thrower.

no one's covered themselves in glory over this and all the the while the tories are getting away with murder.

And this decision to allow the votes again makes Labour look even more incompetent.

EDIT: in reply to Greenhell

It doesn't seem to me that they have claimed that, though. A lot of the stories appear to be "labour MP / member expresses reasonable doubt over Corbyn - same person suffers abuse".

No one is claiming that all Corbyn supporters are guilty of this, but there definitely is a vocal group who are doing so. Look on any online comments page and the majority of vitriol appears to be coming from the Corbyn camp. It doesn't seem like a "kinder, gentler politics" to me.

As for whether the Tories are getting away with murder - agree completely. I'd say they have for the past year. The nastier Tories are rubbing their hands at the thought of more Corbyn leadership, as it allows them to claim they have the centre ground while they drift off to the right.

agreed, it is an utter farce.
I am one of the late joiners, and I joined to vote against Corbyn.

I joined a year ago to vote for Corbyn. I've rapidly come to the conclusion, in the last month/2 months, that having him in charge hasn't really done anything.
I thought/hoped he'd be able to get on with it, but for all the reasons talked about in here, that's not happened has it?

I thought the tactics in PMQ were good, showing the format up to be pretty much a waste of time. With hindsight, there should have been more "look, we're asking you real questions from real people and you still treat this like a game".
sigh.
big sigh.

the NEC are now intending to appeal the courts decision that allows all members to vote in the leadership contest. this will no doubt be paid for by the very people they're trying to disenfranchise.

remind me again why this is all jeremy corbyn's fault?

Blairite scum... only loling.

I think I've said this before but here goes anyway....It's a fucking mess.

remind me again why this is all jeremy corbyn's fault?

Who said it was?

this tit is having a go at it.

https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/762630237230403584

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/762697512901804032

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/must-corbyn-win/

This is the most telling part in my view;

"Smith needs to emphasise the poverty of Corbyn’s ambition. He needs to ask Labour members whether their hatred of the Tories is just an affectation; whether they want to change the government or shout on Twitter."

all of which presumes smith is more capable of winning elections than corbyn. Current events suggest the PLP and chums aren't capable of tying their own shoelaces.

This is linked in the article you read, I'd not come across it before - it's long but very good (and quite damning):

https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1177#

This in particular resounds with some of my thoughts on the direction of the party at the minute:

If social change from the grassroots is the key and mass movement is the model, why take Labour - an entity altogether different, concerned explicitly with making a difference by being government - and try to forcibly shape it into something else, Why wouldn't you start from scratch with, for instance, Momentum? I tend to agree with Helen Lewis's suggested asnwer: "because it’s easier to hijack something that already exists than build something new from scratch". 

I think the greater problem is that neither of them are particularly electable in the broader sense. And much as the technical process is otherwise, people do vote for the prime minister they want - I would wager at least half of the population don't know their own MP but vote on party grounds.

The upside of a non-Corbyn candidate would be that Labour could try to move back to a position where it isn't us - v - them and anyone who disagrees is shouted down as some sort of evil monster.

Any data out there on the electability of smith vs corbyn in a GE?

electability of smith vs corbyn in a GE

Googled ^ and got V
http://labourlist.org/2016/07/public-prefer-smith-to-corbyn-for-prime-minister-new-poll-shows/

The most depressing thing about this whole fucking shambles is that the best Labour left can come up with is a mendacious, hypocritical, insincere twat backed up by a thick-as-pigshit, financially illiterate shadow chancellor. Both marginally better than the alternatives...

I've voted Labour for over 30 years (except Blair's last stand) and it's the same as ever, two fingers up from the party and a "who the fuck else you going to vote for then?". Except now the answer seems to be UKIP or the SNP. They haven't got a fucking clue and nor have those jizzing over Jezza.

Although, amusingly, from the article above, the public would prefer 'don't know' to Corbyn...

Pretty shit poll. How are people defining 'best'?

I wouldn't trust any data out there, I don't think polling is reaching the right people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/09/do-betting-markets-outperform-the-polls-hardly/

Mobile, caller ID, etc etc.

Electable? I don't think either of them are.
Nobody seems to want to grasp the "being part of a global economy means jobs don't always stay/come here" or "what's the point at which we have to apply greater income tax? the average salary is x, but that would mean most of the people currently supporting us will suddenly be in a much higher tax band" or "how do we tax corporations in a global economy and ensure they continue to employ people?" or even "this is quite possibly the worst scenario, we have nobody capable of working together in this party or in this parliament to offer a suitable opposition to those in power, who have quite clearly lied and yet you voted for them"

Excellent.

No idea, I didn't do it and just posted it frivolously. The question seems pretty simple though to be honest.

Understand it's not your survey.

Whilst the question may be simple, each respondent will have their own vision of what constitutes 'best'. As such they might aswell have been asked which of them would make the best Checkout Assistant in Asda.

That's clutching at straws. If people don't think he's "best", whatever they may mean by that, they're hardly likely to fucking vote for him.

Maybe it's a bad / biased poll, who knows. Personally I think the message from it is pretty unambiguous.

Result doesn't matter to me really. As @chalfie wrote earlier:

I wouldn't trust any data out there, I don't think polling is reaching the right people.

I'm a bit surprised a higher percentage of people didn't vote 'Dont Know'.