You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@Oliver Schick
(In a mood to ramble and fairly clueless about all of this.)
I've always found the question of 'electability' an interesting question. I do agree that it's part of the anti-Corbyn scaremongering to condemn him as 'unelectable' before he's ever contested a general election, but as I don't really understand how the electoral system plays out in practice, I try to suspend judgement on that for now. Obviously, I know about 'first past the post', the press, and town-country imbalances and so forth, but not really how it all comes out in the wash, with deliberate choice of a wishy-washy phrase.
Playing Devil's advocate (I don't have determinate views on any of these myself):
He's been in a bombproof Labour seat all throughout that time. (Not playing Devil's advocate for a moment, he has by all accounts proven himself to be an excellent and hard-working constituency MP and is extremely popular in the area. He's also one of the most experienced parliamentarians, of course.)
That is often said, but the 'unelectable' claim of course relates entirely to what people (are said to) think about his suitability as a potential Prime Minister, and 'electability' in general elections.
There the case against claims that Labour members, and especially new Labour members, are non-representative of the wider population and may drag Labour back into how they lost elections to Margaret Thatcher. I actually found Ken Loach's video a little problematic in that respect, as I wonder how someone who isn't in that Labour trade union tradition and way of thinking that many of the speakers come from would see the video. Obviously, it's just Corbyn talking to members of his own party, which is definitely recommended practice for party leaders, but I thought there were too few voices on the street. I always think of John Harris' 'anywhere but Westminster' series there. I thought the part featuring the soldiers was by far the strongest.
I haven't seen evidence of that one way or the other. I would hope that it is the case. Let's assume that it is the case for the sake of argument. Then the charge would be that he is completely failing to communicate them. Who knows, perhaps the press, being communication professionals, are really only miffed because they're not being communicated with, as a child might be miffed if a grown-up doesn't play with him or her.
I remember reading a very early comment, just after he was elected as leader, that suggested the reason why the Tories were immediately going on the attack so hard was that Corbyn was 'likeable'. Not like Bambi, but still likeable, and that this was a rare quality in a politician, and valuable in an election. Also, some of the media ridicule him, including some of his policies, and even when it comes to a popular policy like rail nationalisation, there's an apparent PR disaster. (I have no idea how it is really seen outside of the media.)
Anyway, I hope that the charge turns out to be a desperate lie, but there's also the example of Ed Miliband. He wasn't attacked so hard, but it was likewise said about him that he would lose a general election, which he did. Now, he was clearly not as 'likeable' as Corbyn, but how will the much stronger media ridicule and attack affect Corbyn's chances?