Jeremy Corbyn.

[Vegas Seagull]

Jeremy is now bigger than Jesus on google search Je
Jeremy Co
Jennifer Lo
Jeremy Cl
Jesus

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Good post. I do wonder about the tories crowing about how Corbyn would make Labour unelectable . For sure that might be the case, but he was supposed to be a bit of a non-runner in this leadership race. Politics is changing. It seems people really are sick of the status quo, and who knows?

That said,will he survive the back stabbing of his party members and the wrath of the right wing press (i.e. most of it)?

The reality for me is Burnham etc are just more of the same ....which has a track record of not succeeding. At least Corbyn offers a genuine alternative and a fresh approach. He seems quite engaging as well.

 

[W.C.]

The reality for me is Burnham etc are just more of the same ....which has a track record of not succeeding. At least Corbyn offers a genuine alternative and a fresh approach. He seems quite engaging as well.

I agree. He was good with Marr the other day (not Johnny). He's gonna get completely slaughtered from all sides though. So it remains to be seen just how much the British public want a politician like him in the hot seat.

 

[Gwylan]

Here are a few facts

At the last election;
5% of the total electorate voted Liberal
8% of the total electorate voted UKIP
20% voted Labour
24% Voted Conservative
9% voted Green SNP Plaid Cymru or one of the irish parties
34% didnt vote

The largest block is the non voters. the reality is the labour party dont need to win even one Tory liberal or Ukip voter over, if the can get sufficient non voters to vote for them. The younger one is the less likely they are to have voted. also the lower your income the less likely you are to have voted.

This is all very true. What commentators have also failed to take into account is that between May 2015 and May 2020, about 2.5m will die in the UK. These are mainly going to be over-70s and they, on the whole, vote: the majority also vote Tory. There will also be about 3m new voters and those that vote tend to vote Labour (but not by huge amounts). Most of these young people don't vote.

So, it's not just the people who didn't vote last time that count, it's the people who are passing 18 in the next few years. Corbyn certainly seems to have captured the interest of many of those kids. I don't think it will be enough to swing the election but it will make a difference.

However, I still think Burnham will win the nomination and that Labour will be defeated in the next election, no matter who's in charge (the gap to make up is too much) but I reckon that Labour under Corbyn would be more attractive to many people than Labour under Burnham.

The other factor to take into account is the Euro referendum. If we vote to stay in, UKIP is a dead duck: that will help Labour (UKIP took more votes off Labour than the Tories in the election, rather surprisingly). If we vote to get out, there will be such uncertainty, it won't be easy to predict anything. And if Corbyn is Labour leader, an out vote becomes more likely.

It's going to be an interesting few years ...

 

[Hastings gull]

This is all very true. What commentators have also failed to take into account is that between May 2015 and May 2020, about 2.5m will die in the UK. These are mainly going to be over-70s and they, on the whole, vote: the majority also vote Tory. There will also be about 3m new voters and those that vote tend to vote Labour (but not by huge amounts). Most of these young people don't vote.

So, it's not just the people who didn't vote last time that count, it's the people who are passing 18 in the next few years. Corbyn certainly seems to have captured the interest of many of those kids. I don't think it will be enough to swing the election but it will make a difference.
However, I still think Burnham will win the nomination and that Labour will be defeated in the next election, no matter who's in charge (the gap to make up is too much) but I reckon that Labour under Corbyn would be more attractive to many people than Labour under Burnham.

The other factor to take into account is the Euro referendum. If we vote to stay in, UKIP is a dead duck: that will help Labour (UKIP took more votes off Labour than the Tories in the election, rather surprisingly). If we vote to get out, there will be such uncertainty, it won't be easy to predict anything. And if Corbyn is Labour leader, an out vote becomes more likely.

It's going to be an interesting few years ...

I would not quibble with any of your figures and am sure you are right. I would however wish to comment on your logic. If we assume that what you say is correct, then the over 70s have died off in the numbers you suggest for hundreds of years, and presumably been replaced by the under 18s. So why have Labour not been in power for longer? It is never as simple as that.
Also do you have any evidence that Corbyn has captured the interest of "many"?

 

[Vegas Seagull]

This is all very true. What commentators have also failed to take into account is that between May 2015 and May 2020, about 2.5m will die in the UK. These are mainly going to be over-70s and they, on the whole, vote: the majority also vote Tory. There will also be about 3m new voters and those that vote tend to vote Labour (but not by huge amounts). Most of these young people don't vote.

So, it's not just the people who didn't vote last time that count, it's the people who are passing 18 in the next few years. Corbyn certainly seems to have captured the interest of many of those kids. I don't think it will be enough to swing the election but it will make a difference.

However, I still think Burnham will win the nomination and that Labour will be defeated in the next election, no matter who's in charge (the gap to make up is too much) but I reckon that Labour under Corbyn would be more attractive to many people than Labour under Burnham.

The other factor to take into account is the Euro referendum. If we vote to stay in, UKIP is a dead duck: that will help Labour (UKIP took more votes off Labour than the Tories in the election, rather surprisingly). If we vote to get out, there will be such uncertainty, it won't be easy to predict anything. And if Corbyn is Labour leader, an out vote becomes more likely.

It's going to be an interesting few years ...

What you fail to take account of is the 50 million in the middle that will all move up by 5 years & with every age group jump more vote Tory

 

[mona]

As age has been mentioned, my view fwiw is that Corbyn seems a decent man but sounds a bit like an overgrown student politico.

 

[Gwylan]

I would not quibble with any of your figures and am sure you are right. I would however wish to comment on your logic. If we assume that what you say is correct, then the over 70s have died off in the numbers you suggest for hundreds of years, and presumably been replaced by the under 18s. So why have Labour not been in power for longer? It is never as simple as that.

Vegas has answered that question for you.

What you fail to take account of is the 50 million in the middle that will all move up by 5 years & with every age group jump more vote Tory

I agree with this - and that's precisely why Labour doesn't sweep the board every time. What's tended to happen is that people have kids, become home owners and lose that youthful idealism. What's different this time is that graduates are leaving uni with big debts and are either not having kids, having fewer or having them later. They're also not becoming home owners - a report last week said that by 2025, most people under 40 will be renting. I wonder whether that's going to distort the figures.

There's also the fact the current government has quite deliberately targeted the young: the removal of grants, the removal of the EMA, cuts in housing benefits, reduced minimum wage for under-25s etc. It's a political decision based on the knowledge that under-25 voters are in a minority and older people do vote.

What we don't know is whether this will galvanise more kids to vote or make them even more apathetic. And we don't know whether 30-somethings cut off from the housing market will be more likely to vote against the Tories - we're in uncharted territory here as the natural pattern of the last 60 years is being disrupted.

As I said, my gut feeling is that it will affect the Tory vote but not enough for it to affect to prevent the party from being elected, 2025 could be more interesting though

 

[W.C.]

I do wonder also if the Tories will regret hammering the young as they have done.

 

[beorhthelm]

Also do you have any evidence that Corbyn has captured the interest of "many"?

be interesting if there is any. he has certainly energised the left, this has been interpreted by many on the left as interest from a broader group. really, we wont know until at least after party conference, maybe a couple, to see what his actual policies and consequences sound like. as ive said before, to reach the middle he'll need to dilute those views that are giving him supporters. meanwhile left leaning fans think he'll recapture some untapped rump of left voters, presumably that have abandoned Labour in the past 10 years. given the straw polling of this board that the left were behind Miliband's Labour, i think only fringe socialists are off that way, like TUSC or Socialist worker or what not, getting 500 votes in Labour seats.

 

[spring hall convert]

Labour's mess in the late 70 s brought the country to its knees and consigned them to the political wilderness for 18 years.

Just like Black Wednesday and did in 1992 (4.5 years of a lame duck Tory Government and 13 years of Blair/ Brown.)

Labour does not have an exclusivity deal with financial crisis. Just the same way that George Osbourne's skillfully woven narrative around the UK economy is far from gospel. The jury is very much out on this 'recovery.' At what point do we start debating the Tory response to this recession, rather than who/ what caused it? America used a more Keynesian approach to debt management and recovered far more quickly than we did and I'd hardly call Obama economically 'left-wing.'

Whilst I'm far from convinced about Corbyn's GE election prospects, I wouldn't be so happy if I were a senior Tory. Should he win the Leadership election he will be a leader with an enviable voting record, who speaks to many people in their own language (unlike the other 3 Stooges) and will be able to challenge the Tories from places that the other neo-liberals wouldn't even touch.

The Labour Party desperately need a consistent, appealing, narrative to counter the Tories. Of the available candidates, Corbyn appears to be the only one providing that.

 

[alfredmizen]

Just like Black Wednesday and did in 1992 (4.5 years of a lame duck Tory Government and 13 years of Blair/ Brown.)

Labour does not have an exclusivity deal with financial crisis. Just the same way that George Osbourne's skillfully woven narrative around the UK economy is far from gospel. The jury is very much out on this 'recovery.' At what point do we start debating the Tory response to this recession, rather than who/ what caused it? America used a more Keynesian approach to debt management and recovered far more quickly than we did and I'd hardly call Obama economically 'left-wing.'

Whilst I'm far from convinced about Corbyn's GE election prospects, I wouldn't be so happy if I were a senior Tory. Should he win the Leadership election he will be a leader with an enviable voting record, who speaks to many people in their own language (unlike the other 3 Stooges) and will be able to challenge the Tories from places that the other neo-liberals wouldn't even touch.

The Labour Party desperately need a consistent, appealing, narrative to counter the Tories. Of the available candidates, Corbyn appears to be the only one providing that.

One of the funniest things ive seen in a long time on here .

 

[alfredmizen]

We are seeing the long term erosion of british (english) power, from the empire to where we are now and this is another step. As i said, unlikely to be direct to ireland but indepenence first. Why has the empire been lost? due to lack of financial clout to pay for it. And in a wider federal europe englands support is not needed. Why ireland without british interference? Natural course of things

You are confusing the loss end of empire , where the majority wanted an end to British rule( and then scrambling to come and live here) with people who wrap themselves in the union jack and are determined to stay under British rule .

 

[spring hall convert]

One of the funniest things ive seen in a long time on here .

Why? He might not speak to you but I'd suggest he personally appeals to more people than the other three shades of beige, hence this long thread. I don't see a Burnham, Cooper or Kendall thread.

 

[alfredmizen]

Why? He might not speak to you but I'd suggest he personally appeals to more people than the other three shades of beige.

A bloke who is the son of parents who met whilst they were peace campaigners in the Spanish civil war, was brought up in shropshire, is called Jeremy and has a brother called Piers, has never had a 'proper' job is not going to speak to working class people in their ''own language''

 

[Hastings gull]

Just like Black Wednesday and did in 1992 (4.5 years of a lame duck Tory Government and 13 years of Blair/ Brown.)

Labour does not have an exclusivity deal with financial crisis. Just the same way that George Osbourne's skillfully woven narrative around the UK economy is far from gospel. The jury is very much out on this 'recovery.' At what point do we start debating the Tory response to this recession, rather than who/ what caused it? America used a more Keynesian approach to debt management and recovered far more quickly than we did and I'd hardly call Obama economically 'left-wing.'

Whilst I'm far from convinced about Corbyn's GE election prospects, I wouldn't be so happy if I were a senior Tory. Should he win the Leadership election he will be a leader with an enviable voting record, who speaks to many people in their own language (unlike the other 3 Stooges) and will be able to challenge the Tories from places that the other neo-liberals wouldn't even touch.

The Labour Party desperately need a consistent, appealing, narrative to counter the Tories. Of the available candidates, Corbyn appears to be the only one providing that.

Does he indeed? Somehow I very much doubt that. He may be appealing to the left wing of the party but there have been so may posts on here now, who have then decided that his appeal is widespread. If this were the case, even within his own party, surely he would have been much further up the Labour ladder, if his support was so overwhelming. He may have an enviable voting record, he may have a "consistent, appealing narrative" and be very kind to his family etc etc, but the reality of the situation is that his politics do not appeal to many people, and by that I mean the majority.

 

[alfredmizen]

So far I've got him admitting to discussing with Republicans topics such as conditions in Northern Irish prisons and the IRA ceasefire. Mind you that's just Wiki so off I go again to find out more about this traitor. I agreed with his stance of a united Ireland back then though but don't take that as a view I condoned what happened to your fellow soldiers. This is about politics and I know you will tie the people he spoke with to those atrocities you spoke of but that is not to say he condoned it either.

Inviting adams to westminster weeks after the brighton bomb, and observing a minutes silence for the toerags killed at loughall might give you a bit of a clue , either way , the naivete shown in both of these acts should preclude anyone from taking him seriously, never mind the blatant treachery.

 

[Albumen]

One of the funniest things ive seen in a long time on here .

Really? What a strange man (or woman) you are. Can I ask what the other funniest things are, I'd love to have a chuckle.

 

[glasfryn]

Inviting adams to westminster weeks after the brighton bomb, and observing a minutes silence for the toerags killed at loughall might give you a bit of a clue , either way , the naivete shown in both of these acts should preclude anyone from taking him seriously, never mind the blatant treachery.

really
many leaders take the hand of those that have murdered in the name of their politics ....thats life

 

[alfredmizen]

Really? What a strange man (or woman) you are. Can I ask what the other funniest things are, I'd love to have a chuckle.

if you have to ask that question, youre too stupid to understand the answer.