[Politics] Corbyn Party?

[ROSM]

No, the Tories have achieved that for him and he has no discernible policies.
I will still vote for him, which (for me at least) proves my first point.

The reason why Johnson was eventually caught out in parliamentary standards terms was largely due to the way starmer played the long game at pmq's.

Who can forget the time he reminded johnson of the ministerial code, gave him a chance to correct his position (that he didnt take) and followed it with 'we shall leave that there for now' knowing he had him banged to rites.

 

[Soul Finger]

Why?

 

[nicko31]

These breakaways always seem to fizzle out in short time …. a lack of resources, folk bottle giving up their little fiefdoms.

Its very hard to break the 2 party system. If you're in Labour now, you'd be mad to join Corbyn.

If he stood in Islington I'd give him a chance

 

[abc]

I

The reason why Johnson was eventually caught out in parliamentary standards terms was largely due to the way starmer played the long game at pmq's.

Who can forget the time he reminded johnson of the ministerial code, gave him a chance to correct his position (that he didnt take) and followed it with 'we shall leave that there for now' knowing he had him banged to rites.

I think the reason that Johnson was caught out was that he was such a compulsive liar, a corrupt and useless individual and incompetent PM that being ‘caught out’ was inevitable. Giving Starmer credit via one PMQs is stretching it a bit!
But who cares? BJ has gone and KS will be PM by the end of the year.

 

[abc]

Going back to the OP, a left wing break away is just a balance to a right one (ie reform). What is wrong (IMHO) in a democracy, is that neither will get seats in parliament due to FPTP, yet they will probably share about 10% of the vote.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

A friend of mine works in a church where he often helps with the garden. Fair play to the bloke for doing that, but
you sense that his day (whatever that means) has come and long gone. Maybe stick to the gardening now Jeremy.

I would like to think that he has enough decency to recognize that standing as an independent (which is all he's mooting - the 'Corbyn Party' is right wing made-up bollocks, which ironically has been gleefully accepted as true by a couple of extreme left wing twits on NSC) would be nothing but a vanity project, with no chance of effecting any change, and likely to do nothing more than reduce the labour vote by a small amount. Even the latter is moot because the sort of coves who would vote for Corbyn would never vote for the current labour party, anyway.

I would doubt that Corbyn has much in common with the vain oaf, Gorgeous George, and is unlikely to go full anti-Semitic, and balls-deep into all things Islamic, like George did. Why repeat this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_Party

As for Starmer and his apparent translucence, I recall the way Blair was portrayed before he was elected. The right decided the way to attack him was to portray him as 'weak' and 'inexperienced' with no policies. They tried to create the trope of 'Bambi Blair'. This had some traction for a while. But once Blair was in power, and rocked the party by binning clause 4 (something that was not advertised - a great example of not putting all your cards on the manifesto table) the epithet was never again used. We know nothing about how Starmer will fare as PM. Speculation will therefore abound, and skepticism manifest. I'm not bothered about that. Pleasingly many folk appear to have decided to vote Labour anyway, despite misgivings about Starmer. Sea change time.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Going back to the OP, a left wing break away is just a balance to a right one (ie reform). What is wrong (IMHO) in a democracy, is that neither will get seats in parliament due to FPTP, yet they will probably share about 10% of the vote.

This is precisely why I support FPTP

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Building an effective party takes a long time.

I don't see any reason why Corbyn would worry about that.

 

[jcdenton08]

Born the son of a toolmaker and a nurse, passed the 11+ and went to a state grammar school, got a degree in law from Leeds University, appointed QC, went on to become Director of Public Prosecutions and was knighted for it.

Not bad

Finally an aspirational self-made leader of the government. Fantastic.

 

[Dr. No]

Could this split the left vote enough to stop an overall majority for anyone, or just let the Conservatives in through the back door?

Calling @Dr. No

No.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Here is where all the excitement about the Corbyn Party is taking place. Top of the traffic list is GB News. f*** me. The last hope of the tory party is a GB news led promotion of a party to 'split' Labour. With the Mail right behind, wanking furiously, and the Express agitating for a labour 'crisis'. Pitiful.

View attachment 172394

What an extraordinary insight into @wellquickwoody 's reading habits. I never would have thunk it.

 

[abc]

Finally an aspirational self-made leader of the government. Fantastic.

Thatcher?

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Pro-Starmer people responding here seem heavily invested in Labour already, and don’t represent floating voters and others trying to make sense of the political landscape. Starmer is still struggling to make an impact with this demographic. Sir Keir is less unpopular than Sunak, it’s true, but his personal poll ratings remain low. People have no idea what he thinks about anything.

Labour is almost certain to win the next election but this will be down to a total collapse in support for the Tories rather than a new wave of admiration for Labour. Remember those two recent by-elections in which the Tories were decimated and Labour turned in their best performance for several decades? If you look at the votes cast, Labour actually lost votes in one of them and increased its support by just 800 votes in the other. A net gain of roughly 700 votes. The Tories by contrast lost more than 45,000 votes. And this is the challenge for Labour. The Tory vote vanished but none of those disaffected Tory voters went over to Labour. All Labour did was to hold steady and barely increase its support.

The fear for Labour has to be that a sizeable chunk of those disaffected Tories who were happy to express their pissedoffness by abstaining in a by-election will return at a general election. To counter this, Labour and Starmer need to excite and inspire, just as New Labour did in 97. No one around then can forget the impact Blair made in the two years leading up to the GE. He seemed like something new and modern. He promised we’d be turning a corner. I just don’t get that with Starmer. He’s almost making a virtue of not changing things much. The exception was the announcement of £28bn on the Green new deal, which was then suddenly abandoned without much comment.

Anyway, we’ll see. I won’t comment any more on this as these conversations seem to attract the already committed. I like to be able to discuss these things from a slightly detached perspective. It would be nice to have such a thread but I’m sure it would quickly collapse under the weight of the various megaphones. Good day.

 

[SAC]

Going back to the OP, a left wing break away is just a balance to a right one (ie reform). What is wrong (IMHO) in a democracy, is that neither will get seats in parliament due to FPTP, yet they will probably share about 10% of the vote.

In London, for the Mayor vote, we used to have a Supplementary vote system which meant that we could vote for a smaller party first and then a main one assuming that the smaller party wasn't going to win. Not perfect but gave the smaller parties a chance.

For the next election, the Tories have got rid of this system, going for FPTP with the hope that it will help them.

​

 

[nicko31]

Born the son of a toolmaker and a nurse, passed the 11+ and went to a state grammar school, got a degree in law from Leeds University, appointed QC, went on to become Director of Public Prosecutions and was knighted for it.

Not bad

Gotta be better than the self entitled Bullingdon Club collective that has driven our country off a cliff

 

[Vicar!]

The Tories have enough trouble with Reform. Their vote is certain to drop sharply, if not completely collapse.

Is Corbyn planning to launch a new party? I read in the Guardian a while back that he was thinking seriously of running as an independent candidate in his own constituency but not that he was considering a new party. I don’t think he has enough time to do this before the next election. Building an effective party takes a long time. But if he managed to do it, yes of course it would affect Starmer's chances. I’ve not been a Labour member for a long time now but from a very unscientific focus group, namely Guardian BTL comments, a lot of Labour supporters are deeply unhappy about Starmer's leadership and would need little persuasion to vote for a more traditional socialist alternative. Again, I can’t see it happening so a change of government is still very likely next year, albeit with a lot of people holding their noses to vote for Sir Keir. Most people seem to be voting anti-Tory rather than pro-Labour.

Account needs to be taken of a Labour party split, with Momentum going their own way which is a possibility.

 

[abc]

Pro-Starmer people responding here seem heavily invested in Labour already, and don’t represent floating voters and others trying to make sense of the political landscape. Starmer is still struggling to make an impact with this demographic. Sir Keir is less unpopular than Sunak, it’s true, but his personal poll ratings remain low. People have no idea what he thinks about anything.

Labour is almost certain to win the next election but this will be down to a total collapse in support for the Tories rather than a new wave of admiration for Labour. Remember those two recent by-elections in which the Tories were decimated and Labour turned in their best performance for several decades? If you look at the votes cast, Labour actually lost votes in one of them and increased its support by just 800 votes in the other. A net gain of roughly 700 votes. The Tories by contrast lost more than 45,000 votes. And this is the challenge for Labour. The Tory vote vanished but none of those disaffected Tory voters went over to Labour. All Labour did was to hold steady and barely increase its support.

The fear for Labour has to be that a sizeable chunk of those disaffected Tories who were happy to express their pissedoffness by abstaining in a by-election will return at a general election. To counter this, Labour and Starmer need to excite and inspire, just as New Labour did in 97. No one around then can forget the impact Blair made in the two years leading up to the GE. He seemed like something new and modern. He promised we’d be turning a corner. I just don’t get that with Starmer. He’s almost making a virtue of not changing things much. The exception was the announcement of £28bn on the Green new deal, which was then suddenly abandoned without much comment.

Anyway, we’ll see. I won’t comment any more on this as these conversations seem to attract the already committed. I like to be able to discuss these things from a slightly detached perspective. It would be nice to have such a thread but I’m sure it would quickly collapse under the weight of the various megaphones. Good day.

Very much how I feel. Starmer appears to have no credible policies for change which may not hinder him but I want to be inspired to vote for someone, like I was with Blair. Then the country went into the election with a sense of genuine hope and belief that things could (only) get better. We need this now to lift the whole country from this disaffected malaise that we are all experiencing. Starmer is sadly not going to deliver this and therefore I am not optimistic that much will change under labour

 

[Gwylan]

Pro-Starmer people responding here seem heavily invested in Labour already, and don’t represent floating voters and others trying to make sense of the political landscape. Starmer is still struggling to make an impact with this demographic. Sir Keir is less unpopular than Sunak, it’s true, but his personal poll ratings remain low. P

I'm not sure that this matters. In 1979, Callaghan's personal ratings were well above Thatcher but that didn't make any difference to the result of the election.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Pro-Starmer people responding here seem heavily invested in Labour already, and don’t represent floating voters and others trying to make sense of the political landscape. Starmer is still struggling to make an impact with this demographic. Sir Keir is less unpopular than Sunak, it’s true, but his personal poll ratings remain low. People have no idea what he thinks about anything.

Labour is almost certain to win the next election but this will be down to a total collapse in support for the Tories rather than a new wave of admiration for Labour. Remember those two recent by-elections in which the Tories were decimated and Labour turned in their best performance for several decades? If you look at the votes cast, Labour actually lost votes in one of them and increased its support by just 800 votes in the other. A net gain of roughly 700 votes. The Tories by contrast lost more than 45,000 votes. And this is the challenge for Labour. The Tory vote vanished but none of those disaffected Tory voters went over to Labour. All Labour did was to hold steady and barely increase its support.

The fear for Labour has to be that a sizeable chunk of those disaffected Tories who were happy to express their pissedoffness by abstaining in a by-election will return at a general election. To counter this, Labour and Starmer need to excite and inspire, just as New Labour did in 97. No one around then can forget the impact Blair made in the two years leading up to the GE. He seemed like something new and modern. He promised we’d be turning a corner. I just don’t get that with Starmer. He’s almost making a virtue of not changing things much. The exception was the announcement of £28bn on the Green new deal, which was then suddenly abandoned without much comment.

Anyway, we’ll see. I won’t comment any more on this as these conversations seem to attract the already committed. I like to be able to discuss these things from a slightly detached perspective. It would be nice to have such a thread but I’m sure it would quickly collapse under the weight of the various megaphones. Good day.

All fair points. See my comment about Starmer's translucence and the parallel with 'Bambi' Blair before he became PM and showed us what he was really all about.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

All fair points. See my comment about Starmer's translucence and the parallel with 'Bambi' Blair before he became PM and showed us what he was really all about.

As for Starmer and his apparent translucence, I recall the way Blair was portrayed before he was elected. The right decided the way to attack him was to portray him as 'weak' and 'inexperienced' with no policies. They tried to create the trope of 'Bambi Blair'. This had some traction for a while. But once Blair was in power, and rocked the party by binning clause 4 (something that was not advertised - a great example of not putting all your cards on the manifesto table) the epithet was never again used.

Small point, Clause IV was changed in 1995. And Blair had apparently suggested rewriting it even before becoming leader of the party.
I'm mainly pointing this out to distract myself from the temptation to use unreasonably explicit and vivid imagery in a post slagging off the far left.