That Corbyn fella...

Reads thread about Corbyn, complains about discussion about Corbyn.

I know. Terribly boring isn't it, chatting about Corbyn in the 'That Corbyn fella...' thread.

Maybe we should chat about cats. Everyone loves cats right.

^ boom.

And ^^^ #trufax I suppose.

^ winning.

Obviously I'm going to disagree with everyone else in this thread:

I don't, I agree with Pete Marra.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/moral-cost-of-cats-180960505/?no-ist

Even Corbyn's detractors will often accept that they agree with a lot of his ideas in principle.

I'm beginning to think that is just something that people say to seem nice. He's a nice man and saying he's wrong risks you not being nice so you say he's shit.

I do think he's shit tho....obvs

an unremarkably mainstream, run-of-the-mill social-democrat

Yes, as I've said before, there's nothing 'far left' about the policies he has proposed so far. They are very moderate and standard in Europe, where they have been proven to work very well, certainly a lot better than the ridiculous shambles this country is currently in.

Can we even be sure that this thread was started about Jeremy Corbyn, and if so, about that Jeremy Corbyn?

And who can trust someone with two 'y's in his name? It makes you want to ask: 'Why? why?'

A lot of the PLP wouldn't identify as social democrats and don't agree with his policies

Alot of the PLP have repeatedly said they share his politics, but have found he is bad at the job of leading the party.

Chris Mullin on the Daily Politics. He's an old and close freind of Corbyn, in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament, and was a hard left activist in the 80s, campaigning against Kinnock's centrist leadership. Also thinks Corbyn would be unelectable as PM.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07x0k7q/daily-politics-21092016

Yes, I think this is what is known as a lie.

I know we are repeating old ground here, but this idea of Corbyn being 'unelectable' is pretty fucking ridiculous.

He's been an MP for 33 years, winning 8 elections.
He is just about to win two Labour leadership elections.
He has brought hundreds of thousands of people into the Labour party
His policies are widely popular among the general population

Just because you don't like him or agree with his policies, doesn't make him unelectable.

I heard that one of the problems is the support for the IRA and the picture of him with Martin McGuinness. It seems in labour-run focus groups that the likelihood of the public voting for him changes significantly before and after them being shown that. How that will translate into the general public's voting who knows but it is viewed as a concern.

(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 an MP for 33 years, winning 8 elections.

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.)

He is just about to win two Labour leadership elections.

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.

He has brought hundreds of thousands of people into the Labour party

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.

His policies are widely popular among the general population

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.

Just because you don't like him or agree with his policies, doesn't make him unelectable.

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?

I know we are repeating old ground here

Yeah we really are. I'll bite though. On your first point though, Islington North has been Labour since 1937. An inanimate carbon rod could be elected for Labour in Islington North.

It does seem Corbyn is a good local MP, which definitely helps when it comes to being elected under our system, but being a good constituency MP is not the same as being a good leader.

We think he will win two leadership elections. As @ mentioned who knows, polls have been very unreliable recently. Personally I think he will win but it will be closer than a lot of people think. I suspect a lot of less vocal Labour members may have voted Smith.

He has undeniably brought thousands of people into the Labour party.

Given how he polls, I would like to see some evidence to support your contention that his policies are widely popular among the general population, because as far as I can establish they are a bunch of right-leaning Brexit-voting eejits...

There's a world of difference between winning the support of 500,000 pre-committed activitists (of various groups/parties), and convincing 10,000,000 people among the wider population.

Oliver beat me to it, I agree with Oliver.

He's got my vote then.

Different population to the general population. He was an unknown to most before he became leader, now he's a damaged brand. His fault or not, he'll never be pm

Oliver made my point about populations (and selection all bias) better. Mine was shorter. I'll claim a draw