Labour Leadership 2016

competence and policy. He falls at both

In the light of the huge attack force against him by all media, all politicians (incuding the blairites in his own party and those on the soft left persuaded by this ongoing attack from all sides, he still has maintained a degree of dignity and coherence. If he sticks this out and rises above this (with the support of the majority of party members, he could be a genuine (and possibly the only) force for change in this political climate.

I'm a big fan of the man, his principles and the way he conducts himself when facing PMQs (because of the way he asks his questions). And I'm aware of the bias against him.

I really rate the Tax Research blog, I really rate the author. His comments are always fair and balanced. It's the first thing I've read that makes me think, "oh". There may be infighting to overcome, but it's becoming increasingly obvious he's not quite able to deliver things.
I'm hardly one to judge, there's a report I've been trying to finish for ages. However, I'm a lowly serf and he's the leader of a party.

I think that's fair. I'm certain having had his position made untenable has impacted his leadership and organisational abilities, but that doesn't change reality. The problem is there continues to be an onslaught on Corbyn rather than an attempt to put forward a convincing and clear alternative. Repeatedly yelling "You suck at leading!" is not really leadership. #SavingLabour is the political equivalent to homeopathy.

political equivalent to homeopathy.

which is ironic considering JC has form for rating this nonsense.

I saw him asked about Eagle and Smith at the weekend. He's always dignified and quite professional / impersonal in his responses to these morons, far more than I could ever be. Admirable quality in a leader, no bluster.

The problem is there continues to be an onslaught on Corbyn rather than an attempt to put forward a convincing and clear alternative.

I totally agree. I would have (of) thought (that) once you're in power/leadership, you voice your opinions and then attempt to employ people to write some policies around those. If you've not got the capacity to write them/formulate the plan you get others to do it. It's at this point, you start wondering whether it's the PLP being dicks/JC being unable to whip them into line/ a combination of all three.

On policy, it seems to me as if the policy-forming process that Corbyn trailed last year still hasn't got into swing--quite probably because of massive hostility from 'leading' figures within the party, but I actually have no idea why. It's very difficult to discuss policy when you know that there are entrenched views likely to make a quality discussion impossible. Look at the policy-lite stuff that Ed Miliband came out with every once in a while--'one-nation Labour', the 'squeezed middle'--who remembers those, even though they were heavily mediarised at the time? In the Tories, it seems the leader can just dictate policy and nobody objects, at least not in public.

I also always find the label 'Corbynomics' very puzzling. What Corbyn and McDonnell have so far proposed are very moderate, standard demands of European social democracy. They closely resemble things the German SPD, that hotbed of radicalism, stood for for a long time during its existence. There's nothing particularly radical about them, unless you have an extremely skewed world view, I suppose. Still, the 'hard-left' smear still seems to work like a charm.

I always have a problem with phraseology of the kind you end with. It suggests that conflict exists because it's kind of traditional in particular places and, by implication, that it doesn't have an ongoing cause. Maybe that's not what you mean to imply but it seems to belong to the same kind of thinking that talks about problems being mired in history. People used to talk that way all the time about Northern Ireland and about how complicated the problem was. I'm not sure I agree. I think it's often a way of not bothering to work stuff out or to work out ones own government's role in a problem.

I don't get why they'd want to pander. They pandered. It didn't work. It's how come Ed Milliband isn't prime minister. The right is better at being right wing.
BUT you can't be above sound bites and frothy engagement or any field of battle or medium that's going to win an election.
Yeah, the left needs to educate and do all the stuff you talk about but it might need a new way to do it. I don't know what Obama did with social media but it seemed to work (not saying he's left wing but we thought he was something new for a while). He also gave that difficult speech where he talked the US through its issues with race (that time after his campaign seemed to be in trouble because his minister friend had a go at white America). He educated but he did it in a pretty media-savvy way.
I don't see Corbyn doing anything like this on immigration or anything else.
You're right, Angela Eagle has nothing. But I have to admit one of the reasons I think that is frothy. She has a terrible voice and she's bloody awful on TV.

If I hear her say "we need a sensible Northern woman..." one more time. It's that kind of focus-group friendly, sound-bite driven phraseology that undid Milliband.

Endlessly repeat the same fucking few words regardless of the question you've been asked and hope that the plebs on the other end don't think that you're a fucking malfunctioning automaton why don't you?

What Corbyn and McDonnell have so far proposed are very moderate, standard demands of European social democracy.

Which shows how far to the right the political debate here has swung :(

The PLP seem to have a template that states that the next general election can only be won by espousing a moderate form of Tory policies, which exclude any Socialism.

The trouble with this is, no criticism can be levelled at the Tru-Tory policies or manifesto, as the PLP-Labour policies or manifesto will be part of the continuum of the Tory agenda.

How does Tory-lite reverse any of the clearly failing policies?

If he sticks this out and rises above this (with the support of the majority of party members, he could be a genuine (and possibly the only) force for change in this political climate.

Did you read what @dubtap posted on the last page? Have you read Lilian Greenwood's account of serving in his cabinet?

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/lilian-greenwood-mp-jeremy-corbyn-continually-undermined-me-job-i-loved

You can't be a force for political change if you treat your own people like some dog dirt you stepped on in the street.

Labour has engaged.

I think you'll find tried to and failed is not the same as has.

Could it be that this is all part of the anti corbyn scaremongering?
What other options are there for Labour to reunite?

(Slightly off the point- http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-am-the-corbyn-supporter-that-many-will-tell-you-doesnt-exist-10413325.html)

I thought that was the Corbyn voter that people acknowledged did exist, the "metropolitan elite".

#ProlesGonnaPoll

2 Attachments

Agreeing to serve in someone's cabinet seems like great lengths to go to if you just want to criticise the leader. As I'm not a conspiracy theorist I'm going to assume that Lillian Greenwood genuinely wanted to do her best in his cabinet.

It sounds like it and it sounds like she was treated dreadfully, although perhaps not as bad as Thangam Debbonaire: you can't blame lack of political experience for appointing someone to your cabinet while they're undergoing treatment for cancer and not telling them, that just suggests incredibly bad judgement.

So tl;dr, despite the PLP's PR campaign, or because of it, Corbyn's support within the party is growing.

Am fortunate that I can kind of afford £25 to become a registered voter this time around compared to £3 before.
Dont like the way people voted last time? Price them out. Shame.

Seems to me that there's consistent evidence that Corbyn can't get the job done, that he's unfit to lead the party and unfit to lead Labour to a general election. If this wasn't so, surely he could silence his critics by being effective. The best way to prove your critics wrong is to prove them wrong: to give the speech that galvanises, to land blows against the tories, to make electoral gains. He hasn't done any of this. You can't blame the press and the PLP if NOTHING gets through ever.
(Not to be a bore but good politicians either come up with a better story that the media go for (Blair in '97) or they work around the media and reach voters (Livingstone back when he had his act together). Bad politicians blame the press (Kinnock after he fell over in the tide and shouted 'Well hey'). It's never REALLY the press).
Corbyn's supporters dismiss reality, they imagine a different world in which all evidence is the work of conspirators.
It's the same thinking as Brexit, instead of dealing with the world as it is with pesky stuff like experts and facts and the evidence of our own eyes, let's imagine a different one and go forward on that basis.

Do the party members really matter though? It's the general public that need to be convinced if he is to achieve anything.

This https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/opinion-polls/news/77380/poll-theresa-may-has-big-lead-over-jeremy-corbyn (a bit of a poor article in terms of details of the surveys but the first thing that came up with a quick google) suggest that he is behind May but also "Mr Corbyn also narrowly trailed leadership rivals Owen Smith and Angela Eagle on who was more likely to win a general election."

to give the speech that galvanises, to land blows against the tories, to make electoral gains. He hasn't done any of this.

Hasn't he? I've seen good speeches, blows landed and electoral gains.
Admittedly I think mistakes have been made regarding not really laying into the tories when they've left it open to do so.

It's a bad rewrite of this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/poll-second-eu-referendum-brexit-theresa-may-general-election-voters-a7140721.html

Politicshome was owned by Lord Ashcroft until 2011, I expect the editorial to retain at least a little bias to the right-wing.

If you can't be arsed clicking links.