Jeremy Corbyn's conference speech

[Buzzer]

New Labour stooges.

Ah, New Labour stooges. Gotcha. The wider Labour movement should ignore the opinions of the political editors of the Guardian and New Statesman because they aren't in line with the orthodoxy.

If you keep repeating the "fact" that only an irrelevant minority will ever like Corbyn and his ideas does that make it true...?

Sorry, you'll have to point out where I've mentioned the word 'irrelevant' and then once you've done that can you kindly show me where I stated that this as 'fact' otherwise I guess I'll just have to presume you're making up strawman arguments here.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

You'd have a point there IF it was the biggest issue but it wasn't. Well, not according to left-leaning professional pundits.

[tweet]648859040223756288[/tweet]

[tweet]648865667844808704[/tweet]

[tweet]648864153684328448[/tweet]

[tweet]648856372310896640[/tweet]

[tweet]648851343038369792[/tweet]

I dare someone, I double-dare them to accuse any of these pundits of being Tory stooges. And I forget which senior Labour person said it but they said that the speech was aimed for internal audience rather than the world at large. So that will be why you liked it so much but much of the rest of the country are less enamoured with it.

These pundits aren't Tory stooges, they are part of the soft left that is worried for their political future. Worried that the Labour Party may become. The sort of people who made the Labour Party utterly at odds with my views.

And it seems that I am not alone.

You think that the country at large has no appetite for Corbyn, and what Labour may become. You may be right. Let's wait and see, eh?

But what these commentators stand for left me, at least, feeling disenfranchised for many a long year.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It seems that I have put my response to [MENTION=5200]Buzzer[/MENTION]'s post within his comments. Apologies. God knows how that happened.

 

[Buzzer]

Blimey someone had a slow day scanning the Twitter feeds...

I know. Fancy coming on here with specific examples and proof and what-not to back up an argument.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Blimey someone had a slow day scanning the Twitter feeds...

Quite. I wonder how difficult it would be to find 5 Tweets supporting his speech?

 

[Buzzer]

Quite. I wonder how difficult it would be to find 5 Tweets supporting his speech?

I love the way you wilfully miss the point. Those tweets are from high-profile Labour supporting pundits. The New Statesman and Guardian political editors are the ones that should already be on-board with Corbyn but instead they're not and publicly so. This means more internal debate within a divided party.

That is imo, Corbyn's biggest problem right now.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

It now transpires that a significant portion of the speech was written by Richard Heller for Ed Milliband. New politics?

 

[Bold Seagull]

I know. Fancy coming on here with specific examples and proof and what-not to back up an argument.

We might need a new term for you though...if a Corbynista is an unquestioning disciple of the world according to Corbyn, what is the antithesis of this? The unrelenting commitment to research and dig out every possible negative....Uncorbynist....Anticorbynite....?

 

[Bold Seagull]

It now transpires that a significant portion of the speech was written by Richard Heller for Ed Milliband. New politics?

Only 3 pages late...

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Only 3 pages late...

Well it needed to be reported again!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Only 3 pages late...

3 pages is a long time in politics

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

We might need a new term for you though...if a Corbynista is an unquestioning disciple of the world according to Corbyn, what is the antithesis of this? The unrelenting commitment to research and dig out every possible negative....Uncorbynist....Anticorbynite....?

Biased Tory?

 

[Hotchilidog]

Ah, New Labour stooges. Gotcha. The wider Labour movement should ignore the opinions of the political editors of the Guardian and New Statesman because they aren't in line with the orthodoxy.

.

They should at the moment. The Guardian has been full of rubbish for months. Unreadable.

FWIW I thought it was a good speech. Corbyn set his stall out as a man of the people and a tireless campaigner for social justice.

Ok it was delivered slickly and lacked the souless presentation skills that you'd expect from snake oil salesman like Cameron and Blair, but for me that was a plus point. I couldn't be less interested in the petulant bleatings of the New-Labour establishment who have just had all their toys taken away.

It will be a hard sell for Corbyn, but if he can stick with it over the next FOUR years, he may just pull it off. There is now an alternative to the establishment consensus, people no longer have to accept what they are given if they do not want to. Corbyn has finally given the disaffected a home for their vote.

 

[Buzzer]

Biased Tory?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

They should at the moment. The Guardian has been full of rubbish for months. Unreadable.

FWIW I thought it was a good speech. Corbyn set his stall out as a man of the people and a tireless campaigner for social justice.

Ok it was delivered slickly and lacked the souless presentation skills that you'd expect from snake oil salesman like Cameron and Blair, but for me that was a plus point. I couldn't be less interested in the petulant bleatings of the New-Labour establishment who have just had all their toys taken away.

It will be a hard sell for Corbyn, but if he can stick with it over the next FOUR years, he may just pull it off. There is now an alternative to the establishment consensus, people no longer have to accept what they are given if they do not want to. Corbyn has finally given the disaffected a home for their vote.

This, in spades.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Is Corbyn's strategy really to get loads of previous 'non voters' to vote for him ?

If it is, it is a strategy doomed to fail. It is based on the assumption that none of the candidates appeal to these people, but as a previous 'non-voter' at a handful of elections this isn't what non-voting is about. It is much more a pragmatic 'my one vote will not change the overall result, and so I really can't be arsed'.

Nothing to do with what each of the candidates stand for, or if they are different to those coming before.

I give him 2 years max, if this really is his strategic gambit.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Sorry, you'll have to point out where I've mentioned the word 'irrelevant' and then once you've done that can you kindly show me where I stated that this as 'fact' otherwise I guess I'll just have to presume you're making up strawman arguments here.

Where did I mention 'strawman arguments'...?

 

[Buzzer]

Where did I mention 'strawman arguments'...?

A strawman argument is where you give the impression of answering someone's point but you're really answering a point that wasn't put forward at all. It's what you did when you posted "If you keep repeating the "fact" that only an irrelevant minority will ever like Corbyn and his ideas does that make it true...?"

I never mentioned a 'fact' about an irrelevant minority let alone repeated it.

 

[Hastings gull]

Corbyn has been the main political story for some time now. his agenda is to get alternative policies in the public domain. I would say he is achieving that aim.
I hear what everyone is saying about the old ideas. However I'm not sure what the Tories have got that is so appealing, new or effective, either. They sold off RBS and the post office cheaply, that's about it isn't it?

They have won two elections by blaming the Brown government for a global crisis, and overstating the success of their economic policies. Sooner or later they will be measured against the success of their administration and not the failings of the opposition.
They need to come up with something a bit more compelling than they have to date. IMHO

All very well, if that is how you feel, though I suspect that life is not as simple as you claim. However, this is all largely irrelevant, as I had questioned not whether Corbyn has got into the public domain, which he clearly has, but whether the public will take to him. I also then speculated that nationalising the railways would bring us back to the bad old days of British Rail -or perhaps you felt that they were wonderful? - and your response is simply to say how bad the Tories are.

 

[Simster]

All very well, if that is how you feel, though I suspect that life is not as simple as you claim. However, this is all largely irrelevant, as I had questioned not whether Corbyn has got into the public domain, which he clearly has, but whether the public will take to him. I also then speculated that nationalising the railways would bring us back to the bad old days of British Rail -or perhaps you felt that they were wonderful? - and your response is simply to say how bad the Tories are.

I feel the re-nationalisation is merely low hanging fruit. It's really about time Labour introduced it.

The problem with privatisation is that it is taking a national resource (something that belongs to all of us) and puts it into private hands (benefitting only people with shares in it). That is fine in markets where genuine competition will drive up service quality and/or drive down consumer prices, but where this is not the case, it is ridiculously unfair on the poor. And what is galling about national rail is that we the taxpayer are *still* subsidising these dreadful companies.

I do understand the point that public ownership doesn't have the incentives to control costs, but is that really a fair trade-off for depriving the country of an asset it owns, and the subsequent benefits this ought to bring - including the ability to make a more coherent national transport policy? I really don't think so.