That Corbyn fella...

As to Corbyn's policies being popular - I think part of the problem is that lots of the country (wrongly, in my view) still buys the austerity narrative (the inevitable consequence of having a political party that has been pressing this agenda relentlessly for six or seven years).

Labour (including but not limited to Corbyn) still have an absolute mountain to climb to overcome this. I found the following article interesting - public support for austerity grew during the first 5 yr term of the Tories, but more than half the country still thought (roughly 1yr ago) that austerity was "necessary".

http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2015/07/09/public-opinion-graphs-austerity/

If Corbyn's platform is anti-austerity, then he will have to fight against the instincts of those people to win a majority.

I don't have an easy solution to this, because people don't change their minds easily. However I think Labour need to go beyond just saying they oppose austerity and start offering something more detailed as to how and why (and try to explain why it isn't a fiscal catastrophe if they spend more).

@Fox @boristrump

So those are all very valid explanations of Corbyn's success so far.

But explain to me why is he unelectable as PM?

I think the sad truth is that he's an eternal local MP. Have you ever worked anywhere, and come across those institutionalised people who have always done what they do, and will never do anything different. There are lots of them around. Corbyn is exactly that kind of person, and is so very fossilised by his pedestrian history of minor league rallying and activism. As you say he's been an MP for 33 years, yet no-one had ever heard of him. What had he been doing all that time? It was an embarrasment watching him take over the leadership role last year. He didn't have a clue what to do, and was just bumbling around. I doubt he even realised how much of an amateur he was being, and that tragic lack of self-awareness (buoyed by his own prviate bubble) will be his downfall. The population at large will (rightly or wrongly) never put their trust in such a man, so he won't ever be elected.

Loss of selectional bias. Media hatchet job. An issue not specific to corbyn in explaining keynesian economics in a politics based on sound bites. Corbyn only seeming willing to shout into an echo chamber. Er.....his really bad suits. Mostly the daily mail tho. And that thing cameron onec said about balancing the checkbook.

Apologies for not qualifying my

yawn

I was implying that I have heard the pantomime comment made by @Lebowski all summer and not a huge amount else of any use to the future of the Labour Party. It's always the "other guys" that "want to destroy the party". It's a cyclical argument that's been repeated over and over by both of the apparent factions. If Labour are talking about things other than this division, maybe others will.

Labour Party thread >>>>>>

If Labour are talking about things other than this division, maybe others will.

I agree with this.

I'm lying, or Lisa Nandy, Owen Smith et al are lying?

Ha, not you!

The PLP. I don't buy the 'we support the policies, it is just the lack of leadership'.

I think the main differences in policy between Corbyn and the PLP are Trident, and membership of the single market. Owen Smith's main disagreement in the debates was with Corbyn's acceptance of the referendum result, even if that meant leaving the single market. Many MPs like Smith are adamant we should stay in as part of the brexit deal, I agree, that's partly why I voted for Smith. He was idiotic to suggest challenging the vote to leave, though. The fact is many MPs, who have fought hard for their seats, feel threatened by hard left activists who have recently joined their local parties, and Corbyn's vague statements about "the vast majority of MPs have nothing to worry about" are insidious. He will neither deny nor condemn the abuse taking place under his watch. It will take alot for those 170 mps to trust him again.

"the vast majority of MPs have nothing to worry about"

He has to say this because of boundary changes. He can't guarantee selection. McDonnell said this explicitly two days ago, but maybe I've missed something.

The 170 MPs that colluded to overthrow him?

Trust is a two way thing.

The bridge building needs to start from both sides.

They only appear hard left because Labour has drifted so far right. Sure there are some SWP heads floating around but they are not the majority.

The trust bit is laughable- Corbyn has to earn their trust, after being stabbed in the back?

Corbyn compromising on Trident. A shame maybe but will hopefully help his overall cause (people like my dad will be pleased), and showing a willingness to compromise is important.

The idea that there is this massive underswell of 'hard left activists' is just a ridiculous lie. At the last general election, just a year ago, Class War and the Socialist Labour Party (the only two hard-left parties to trouble the scorers) between them got c.3 500 votes nationwide.

That's as many votes as the Monster Raving Loony Party. Fewer than Yorkshire First or the Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol party. If even 1 in 10 of these voters was an 'activist', it would be roughly one activist for every two constituencies.

massive underswell

No, it's not a massive underswell. It's a few significant and vocal individuals. For example our MP in Hove and Portslade, a man who won the seat from the tories and has worked hard for the party for years, is taking abuse and being challenged for his seat by members of the socialist workers party who have joined labour. The fact that they have never made an impact in an election does not make them any less determined, sadly.

Edit: that MP's name is Peter Kyle. He has a majority of about 1000. Would a more left wing candidate be likely to hold this seat? Or is losing swing seats, and going further from any chance at power, a price worth paying for Corbyn's principles?

The trust bit is laughable- Corbyn has to earn their trust, after being stabbed in the back?

Yes. He's their boss. And their mandate of millions of votes dwarfs his.

Characterising the electorate based on FPTP election results is bobbins.

No it doesn't. Obviously it doesn't. Where have you been for the last month?

Current Labour Mps were voted in by over 9 million people. Jeremy Corbyn was voted in as leader by 300,000. What happened in the last month that changed this?

Labour MPs got 30% of their vote. JC got 62% of his.

But we're comparing apples and chicken nuggets, JC has the mandate to lead the party, individual MPs to represent their constituents. Both need to start respecting eachother.

But we're comparing apples and chicken nuggets,

Yes, Corbyn's vote came from people he knew already agreed with him. He didn't really need to campaign. MPs however have to work hard for every single vote. Their mandate counts for more, and he needs to respect that.

Maybe they should have worked harder then.

That 9 million was divided between, what 620-630 constituencies, (sorry don't know how many MPs are elected in Northern Ireland), so simple Maths suggests each individual MP received many fewer votes than Corbyn in either Leadership election.
Few MPs, these days, ever get 50,000 votes,
but I'm guessing in the '20s/'30s some Labour MPs in coal/steel/shipbuilding constituencies may have got 60-70,000 votes.

each individual MP received many fewer votes than Corbyn in either Leadership election.

Yes, but 170 of them have no confidence in him. Not just one individual. Together, as a group, they have a bigger, and more crucial mandate.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/27/jewish-labour-members-unified-party-faiths-views

Interesting article on the importance of keeping Labour a broad church of different views.