Prime Minister Corbyn???

[Saracen]

So, Labour's current, and extremely public, convulsions suggest a very deep rift in tbe party, between activists and a core 'base' of voters on one hand, and the significant majority of Labour MPs in the other hand.

The argument seems to this :-

Corbynites - move to our true beliefs, LEFT.

Others - do and say what might actually get us elected in sufficient numbers to govern.

The argument doesn't seem to be about whether Corbyn's policies are right or wrong, but whether they're electable. And I can't help but think, though I utterly disagree with him on most policy positions, he's by far the most honest of the leadership candidates, saying what he believes rather than the stance the others appear to be taking, which is that you have to be in power to implement any policies, so stand for what you believe the voters will accept, not what you really think. And that, to my mind, is political whoring, thoroughly dishonest, and a large part of why most MPs are held in contempt.

So, Labour party members can, and just might (though it's far from certain, and probably still unlikely) win the leadership, but can a Corbyn-led Labour win a general election?

Obviously it's only my opinion, but I don't think they can. I just don't think it's where the bulk of British people live, politically. Election results over 40 years or more suggest that Labour ONLY win when occupying centre ground, like Blair did, and that a Corbyn left-ist position, however honestly held, will get about the same result as an honestly held Michael Foot did.

And this is doubly true with bells on, when idiots like Ed Balls predict doom and disaster, rampant unemployment, double and triple-dip recessions, etc, under Tory economic policies, all of which fail to materialise.

To win, Labour HAS to win a good cbunk of the floating centre-ground voters. What the firmly left think won't win elections any more than what the firmly right think will win it for the Tories. On this, those pragmatic but dishonest centrist candidates are right - conviction and honestly won't win votes unless you are ALSO where the public are.

So Labour seem to have a problem. Elect a leader that's honest but can't win a geneeal election, or elect a political whore that might get power, but only by pragmatic dishonesty.

Oh, dear.

[santa claus]

....can a Corbyn-led Labour win a general election?

No. And I hope they realise this sooner rather than later. I'm afraid none of the candidates are up to it imho. They have time to sort it out; I just hope they don't commit anything to stone until they get somebody who can win.

Not good for British politics; strong opposition is vital

[Rave]

I'm a Unite member and so get to vote on the next Labour leader. I'm only a Unite member because they're the one and only union in my workplace and I wouldn't want to be unrepresented.

I'm never going to be a Labour voter and so I think morally I shouldn't get involved. But at the same time I'm paying for their sillyness. So for me it's a clear choice between Corbyn for the lolz or Kendal for the hope of some possibly new ideas.

I haven't posted much on Hexus since my conversion to Georgist Libertarianism, but anyway, I now dislike the statist Tories and Labour equallly. What I'd like to see is a hung parliament where all new laws grind a halt and old ones expire. Thinking that electing useless mediocraties to party leadership is the way forward.

[The Hand]

At least you know what Corbyn and Kendal stand for. Burnham and Cooper have an annoying sense of entitlement about them and they don't really say anything of any substance.

[HalloweenJack]

since labour went right wing under `new labour` and blair - it didn't work out so well for them.

[Deadbolt]

I prefer this Korbin:

[peterb]

since labour went right wing under `new labour` and blair - it didn't work out so well for them.

It did! Got them 13 or so years in power!

I agree we need a strong opposition and Corbyn might be the one to do it. Kendal doesn't really have the presence to be a leader, and cooper and Burnham are old guard, although Burnham might win as a 'safe pair of hands', but not necessarily be the one to take them to the next general election, assuming this Government runs for the full term, and doesn't lose on a vote of no confidence at some point.

[directhex]

What is the point in a second Tory party? We already have a Tory party.

[Kanoe]

But then again the Tory party has done the same thing. They have come from their wing and moved towards the centre too to help them regain power.

So really the choice for us these days is a centre - left party or a centre - right party with most of the same stuff coming from both sides.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing as most of the country is more likely to in the middle rather than having strong left wing or right wing views. It tends to only be the hardcore traditional elements of those parties that want to keep their distinction / roots and make the noise about it.

[Saracen]

since labour went right wing under `new labour` and blair - it didn't work out so well for them.

Other than when they went New Labour, the last time they won an election was 1974. Their next chance, short of something breaking the Fixed Term Parliament Act, will be 2020. So, by then, non-New Labour Labour won't seen a hint of power for 46 years. I'm not sure how that could conceivably be considered "doing well".

Maybe, Corbyn will get the leadership and, come 2020 we'll get a hugely unexpected dhock result and the leople will go for a far left socialist government, but I can't see any recent electoral history pointing to it.

Even Wilson wasn't that left, and the Foot camp was a disaster, despite Michael Foot being honest, sincere, etc, just like Corbyn. Exclude Wilson's (and Wilson Callaghan) governments and we're back to Attlee looking for evidence of left-wing electability. Which was 1950.

As far as I'm concerned, while Labour have long had a far-left Corbynite element, but have always been left-of-centre, not left. Why? Because the bulk of Labour politicians see which way the wind blows and know a far left Labour is very unlikely to gain power.

[Saracen]

...

So really the choice for us these days is a centre - left party or a centre - right party with most of the same stuff coming from both sides.

....

Exactly. Boring it may be, but it's what we've got.

[HalloweenJack]

It did! Got them 13 or so years in power!

I agree we need a strong opposition and Corbyn might be the one to do it. Kendal doesn't really have the presence to be a leader, and cooper and Burnham are old guard, although Burnham might win as a 'safe pair of hands', but not necessarily be the one to take them to the next general election, assuming this Government runs for the full term, and doesn't lose on a vote of no confidence at some point.

13 years of power and the odd illegal war and near bankrupting of the country......

[HalloweenJack]

Other than when they went New Labour, the last time they won an election was 1974. Their next chance, short of something breaking the Fixed Term Parliament Act, will be 2020. So, by then, non-New Labour Labour won't seen a hint of power for 46 years. I'm not sure how that could conceivably be considered "doing well".

Maybe, Corbyn will get the leadership and, come 2020 we'll get a hugely unexpected dhock result and the leople will go for a far left socialist government, but I can't see any recent electoral history pointing to it.

Even Wilson wasn't that left, and the Foot camp was a disaster, despite Michael Foot being honest, sincere, etc, just like Corbyn. Exclude Wilson's (and Wilson Callaghan) governments and we're back to Attlee looking for evidence of left-wing electability. Which was 1950.

As far as I'm concerned, while Labour have long had a far-left Corbynite element, but have always been left-of-centre, not left. Why? Because the bulk of Labour politicians see which way the wind blows and know a far left Labour is very unlikely to gain power.

well new labour are right of centre nowadays ; are we seeing the resurgence of more extremist politics? maybe when the EU vote comes up we will , but if all parties are just shades of each other , borrowing policies as they see fit = it doesn't matter then what colour rosette they wear does it.

Labour want a mast top pin its credentials to , and a left wing candidate (ala George Galloway) , who btw Corbyn reminds me of - could be 1 way to rally the votes - .


Vote Norsefire!! oh wait....

[opel80uk]

There is virtually no way, especially under FPTP, that Labour can win a general election with Corbyn. But those from within Labour that criticise him because of that fact miss the point; people no longer understand what Labour stand for anymore and he will certainly resolve that problem. Look at the welfare debacle, you have the, albeit interim, leadership supporting proposals that whether you agree with them or not, would be antithetical to a genuine Labour party. This continual aping of the Tory party in areas such as this has directly led to the assertion that rather than vote for a Tory-lite party, one might as well vote for the real thing whilst at the same disenfrachising core Labour support who feel, on issues like this, they are being betrayed. Throw into the mix they that they never appeared to deal decisively with whether they felt they did or did not overspend and, with the connivance of a hostile media, they gave the impression they couldn't be trusted.

After the election I predicted that the results would eventually lead to a split in Labour, and I reckon these are the first cracks appearing. Labour almost certainly face a period in opposition regardless of who wins the leadership, so they need to determine what kind of opposition they are going to be. It shouldn't be forgotten that despite all of their problems, Labour actually increased it's overall vote, and did well in inner cities, so they do have a base to start from, but they need to deal with their identity crisis. A shift of policy to the left would not, I don't think, detrimentally effect those areas so it's not as if they wouldn't have (relative) substantial support going forward. There are genuine concerns regarding the NHS, corporate influence, foreign policy etc that Labour can make inroads on the Government on and If the UK leaves the EU, a strong possibility, they can use the turmoil that that will bring to garner support. They need to support electoral reform, provide effective opposition with the SNP to show that that scenario is not the doomsday scenario the Tories and media allowed it to be portrayed as. There will opportunities and while it is very bleak for Labour, it is not terminal, yet.

What will be terminal is if they continue to allow the hunt for votes to leave people unsure as to what they are voting for. Corbyn won't win an Election, but if Labour can only win by offering Tory policies, with the difference between the 2 party's a fag paper, then what's the point anyway? If it's power for powers sake, then that is not Labour.

[HalloweenJack]

if corbyn and sturgeon can work together `for the greater good` , and corbyn a[es the SNP in some respect ; it could be interesting times for cameron

[Galant]

Without a better/effective system of, for want of a better term, democratic accountability, the system is only going to engender more apathy. Having said that, if a party does seem to have a trustworthy candidate then maybe the best way forward is to really stir up people to get such a person elected higher and higher and demonstrate that trustworthiness is valued and can/will get someone elected.