That Corbyn fella...

When Corbyn wins and most labour MPs refuse to serve under him, hopefully the leader who succeeds him in the imminent re-run will have made some concessions to his supporters and be able to unite the party again, a little further to the left. Most likely this will be Burnham, who already agrees with some of Corbyn's more radical policies, such as renationalising the railways.

But of course there are even more people who did not vote at all. It may just be that a significant number of them want something other than the various shades of neoliberal that have been on offer, and they might just be persuaded to vote for a Corbyn govt. Even my dad, who is an 80 odd year old working class tory voter has been impressed by him because 'he seems to have integrity'.

When Corbyn wins and most labour MPs refuse to serve under him

Faisal Islam was reporting "Umunna not only senior Labour voice cautioning against splits if Corbyn wins: major thinking going into keeping party together, avoiding '81"

Yes, it's possible Corbyn will gain enough support to keep the party together, even as far as the next election. Sometimes I feel more optimistic, it depends what you read and who you believe.

He is also winning the public TV debates. He's a good performer. That potentially bodes well for GE. Fingers crossed, eh.

Chatting with Corbyn's bezzy from childhood earlier, he plays polo with us now. Said he had a daily mail "journalist" track him down and chat to him yesterday. He told them stories of having a lovely time growing up and said the only be thing the "journalist" learned was that he was briefly sent to a private school when very young. Obviously expecting headlines about how he's a fake socialist and just another private school toff.

The only test of whether Corbyn is electable has been his multiple terms as an MP and his rather stellar performance thus far in the leadership campaign bringing in many new supporters to Labour.

The only evidence he is not electable has come from people who don't want him elected saying so.

I have yet to see any evidence that his policies truly are whacky or that a lighter shade of Tory is more electable.

It's not evidence, but the Fabian society suggests

"Around 4 out of 5 of the extra (net) votes Labour will need to gain in English and Welsh marginals will have to come direct from Conservative voters (in 2015 this figure was around 1 out of 5, because of the Lib Dem meltdown)"

http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-Mountain-to-Climb.pdf

I.e. all the new votes that Corbyn may get (new labour members, young voters, Scottish voters) will not be sufficient. They need to get Tory voters.

I can't anyway that he'll be able to get those.

The only evidence he is not electable has come from people who don't want him elected saying so.

They didn't just say so, they voted in a massive tory majority. The fact he's been an MP for Islington for 30 odd years proves only that the people of Islington like him. I envy your optimism.

He's the only one who's generated any interest from the voters. All the others are generic forms who've poured themselves into moulds they believe to be electable.
There's a vast swathe of the electorate who are crying out for a politician with integrity. As much as it pains me to say it, a huge amount of UKIP support at the last election was generated not because 20% of the electorate are racist, but because Farage appeared to be different from the Westminster Borg.

Were you watching a different election? The Tory majority is tiny.

If Labour MPs are refusing to serve under someone with socialist principles, wtf were they doing joining the Labour Party? Careerist fucks.

Whoa - that was longer than planned. @christianSpaceman

I'm assuming your point is that: The Fabian society says Labour needs 4 out of 5 more votes from the Tories to win in England and Wales. Corbyn will not win over votes from the Tories. To get to that conclusion I think you need to be doing one of two things: Either once again making the argument that Corbyn is unelectable but not saying why (why would he be less likely to win votes from the Tories than the others), or - and I think this is more likely what you're saying - arguing that Labour needs to be more like the Tories to win over those votes.

Maybe.

First, I'd question the reports usefulness to begin with. The conclusions are hilarious: be both the Tories and the SNP - this is how you will win a majority! I wouldn't put much hope on that.

Second, there are some things to note:

1) That's for an English/Welsh majority. I don't think there's much surprise there. Labour needs Scotland in one way or another. The report itself says it's much easier to form a coalition.

2) There seems to be an assumption that the only way to get Tory votes is to be more like the Tories. Assuming that this is the case (which I hope it's not) there are two more things worth saying: 1) If the only way to gain power is to mimic the party you most fear, what's the point? The lesser of two evils has resulted in pretty grand evils. 2) Is there evidence to support that a Tory-light Labour party will really take away voters from the Tories? I suspect there is very little.

In a two-party system the fight for the middle is important (every vote counts as two). This is why there has historically been calls for "big-tent" parties (as the Fabian report does). This is not the case in the UK right now. By moving closer to the Tories Labour could (and probably has) lose two votes (giving one to the Tories, or at least, not winning one over, and losing one to another progressive party). This isn't specifically a Labour problem. The Tories are well aware of the threat posed by Ukip.

It seems to me what Corbyn may be is not a populist demagogue, but a policy wank. If that can be the discussion, then Labour may be able to win many of those protest votes to the left, take some votes from the left of the Lib-Dems, and perhaps get some support from the historically undecided middle. Especially if the Tories turn further Right to fight off Ukip. What is more, if he's willing to work with other parties on the left and in the centre (which he has said he is), the possibility of a coalition rises.

I guess my real point is: it's not that simple.

1) He wasn't the leader of the Labour party, so how can you blame him for them losing the election?

2) As @bashthebox pointed out, the Tory win is razor-thin. A few losses in bi-elections/defections to Ukip and they could fall into minority territory.

3) My point is that if you want evidence of him being electable, you turn to elections. He's won many of them, and seems to be on course to win another. Simply repeating the mantra that he's unelectable, while potentially true, is moronic.

a huge amount of UKIP support at the last election was generated not because 20% of the electorate are racist, but because Farage appeared to be different from the Westminster Borg.

Good point, it does make Corbyn's chances look better if you think of his appeal as being "anti-establishment" rather than simply "leftist". He will win votes back from UKIP, as I said before, especially as he is open to the idea of pulling out of the EU (one thing which worries me a little).

A 12 seat majority isn't tiny, compared with the situation after the 2010 election, though granted it's not "massive" as I said. What is significant however is the net gain of 24 seats, it is very rare for an incumbent party to make such a gain. The point remains that Labour cannot win an election without winning back tory held seats. I can't see Corbyn doing this.

He wasn't the leader of the Labour party, so how can you blame him for them losing the election?

I don't.

Simply repeating that he's unelectable, while potentially true, is a different opinion to mine.

Agreed.

A 12 seat majority isn't tiny, compared with the situation after the 2010 election, though granted it's not "massive" as I said. What is significant however is the net gain of 24 seats, it is very rare for an incumbent party to make such a gain. The point remains that Labour cannot win an election without winning back tory held seats. I can't see Corbyn doing this.

They weren't an incumbent party in the traditional sense. They were a member of a coalition (thus, closer to a minority government). It's not strange at all for their number of seats to go up.

Also, in you reply to me: 1) you did. 2) I disagree. But that's okay. If you want to convince me that I should agree, provide substance, not repetition (like @christianSpaceman did).

1) you did

Where? If so if was a kind of dumb thing to say. Moronic, even.

Jesus. I said (and you quoted): "The only evidence he is not electable has come from people who don't want him elected saying so."

You said: "They didn't just say so, they voted in a massive tory majority."

I read this as saying the evidence that Corbyn is not electable - as this was the subject of the thing you quoted - is the results of the 2015 general election.

The point remains that Labour cannot win an election without winning back tory held seats. I can't see Corbyn doing this.

Well, with an anit austerity, anti-tory, willing to work with the SNP message, he'll probably win back some Scottish seats.
A lot of the new Tory seats in England were won because the lib dem support collapsed. There's a good chance he could mop up those floating lib/con voters. Add that to the UKIP-voting labour supporters, and that's quite a large chunk of electorate. Whether it's all in the right place to win seats is a different matter I suppose.

Sorry, you're right that wasn't very clear. My point was that the "evidence" is the way voting swung to the right in the last election, the implication being those same voters would be unlikely to vote for a leftist labour leader.

I've only really dipped in and out of this thread and in fact the whole leadership contest, and having read a few of the posts above this one I'm certainly adding little to this thread.

My feeling is that there should be a massive amount of people who voted Tory last time, but who have in their lifetime voted Labour (Blair's government) and could be convinced to do so again.

But given that they've just voted Tory they're really unlikely to do so for someone like Corbyn, frankly no matter what his policies are.

he'll probably win back some Scottish seats...
floating lib/con voters... UKIP-voting labour supporters

Don't forget all the young people who will be newly elligible to vote, and the protest votes he might win back from the greens and small socialist parties, and other people who may have never voted before. This kind of information is almost impossible to accurately poll, though.

Agreed. I don't think anyone can predict the results of an election in 5 years time. In 2010 who would have thought UKIP would get ~12% of the vote?

Surely you should just support the candidate who most reflects your values or whose policies you most agree with? Or is that too simplistic in this day and age?

Also, voting against a candidate you agree with because you don't believe they will win an election seems a bit counter-intuitive. Surely vote for them so that they can win!

Maybe I'm just used to a PR or AV voting system.