Body & Soul1 min ago
Ding Ding Round 3! Jezza V Chuka?
14 Answers
http://
Will Jezza have to win the leadership a third time before his party just gets on with it?
Will Jezza have to win the leadership a third time before his party just gets on with it?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
All the Tories have to do at the next general election is point out how much more in tax will have to be generated to cover the costs of comrade Corbyns policies, how unsafe the country will be with his 'love all tyrants' agenda etc etc etc and it will show all the Corbynistas how out of touch they all are.
But hay, I stopped being a Labour voter when I grow up so it's no skin of my nose if they elect a numpty as their leader.
But hay, I stopped being a Labour voter when I grow up so it's no skin of my nose if they elect a numpty as their leader.
It must be plain to even the dumbest nincompoop that Corbyn will win another and another leadership contest if they keep having them.
I do no know the point of this last contest. No established candidate (Benn Eagle) would stand, so they put up a man that no one had ever seen or heard of before. Predictably, the no hoper did terrible and Corbyn increased his majority. And the point of all that? Haven't a clue.
The Parliamentary Labour Party has stopped acting as an opposition. Hopefully they will get dumped at the next election, which is good news for the Tories.
I do no know the point of this last contest. No established candidate (Benn Eagle) would stand, so they put up a man that no one had ever seen or heard of before. Predictably, the no hoper did terrible and Corbyn increased his majority. And the point of all that? Haven't a clue.
The Parliamentary Labour Party has stopped acting as an opposition. Hopefully they will get dumped at the next election, which is good news for the Tories.
Angela Eagle should have been put forward.
In many ways, the fact that the otherwise decent Owen Smith was eventually chosen was the most depressing aspect of the whole thing.
Angela might have stood a chance. Owen Who never did.
I don't know where these rumours come from: as gromit says, Corbyn plainly is unbeatable in any election contest involving Labour members. The problem for him will be later on :-)
In many ways, the fact that the otherwise decent Owen Smith was eventually chosen was the most depressing aspect of the whole thing.
Angela might have stood a chance. Owen Who never did.
I don't know where these rumours come from: as gromit says, Corbyn plainly is unbeatable in any election contest involving Labour members. The problem for him will be later on :-)
I know she did.
And she should have been the anti-Corbyn candidate, not Smith.
The gamble was that faced with overwhelming opposition from his own Shadow Cabinet and MPs, Corbyn would see sense and step down. He chose not to, gambling that the members would still back him. But his victory is short term I am afraid. Unless, somehow, his "olive branch" includes adopting some sensible policies, especially on defence, then he's leading the party to electoral catastrophe.
And she should have been the anti-Corbyn candidate, not Smith.
The gamble was that faced with overwhelming opposition from his own Shadow Cabinet and MPs, Corbyn would see sense and step down. He chose not to, gambling that the members would still back him. But his victory is short term I am afraid. Unless, somehow, his "olive branch" includes adopting some sensible policies, especially on defence, then he's leading the party to electoral catastrophe.
Ichkeria,
The leader does not make the policies, the party does, usually at conference. This is Corbyn's first conference, so any policies that you do not agree with are the blame of someone else.
Smith stood on the same policies as Corbyn, it is not the policies that are wrong, it is the MPs who refuse to accept the democratic vote of the party.
The leader does not make the policies, the party does, usually at conference. This is Corbyn's first conference, so any policies that you do not agree with are the blame of someone else.
Smith stood on the same policies as Corbyn, it is not the policies that are wrong, it is the MPs who refuse to accept the democratic vote of the party.
Yes Smith stood as "Corbyn-light" purposely to appeal to the influx of radical members. Eagle probably would not have won either, but the initial challenge was correct, and after that they should have backed her, not Smith.
It doesn't matter who makes the policies, and many of them are becoming clear, Labour won't win under Corbyn in 2020 no matter how much anyone frets about "Blairism" etc. No left-wing Labour leader (there actually have not been that many) has ever won a General Election and there's a good reason for that: precious few right wing Tories have ever won either. In other words, people tend to steer clear of extremes. Jeremy Corbyn and his band of zealous acolytes, many of whom mean well, are supremely out of touch with mainstream voters. Labour needs to convince the floating voters of Worcester and suburban Essex, not shore up the vote in traditional heartlands.
Then there's defence: he'll lose out to traditional, older Labour voters there too unless he adopts a more sensible approach there too.
Additionally, Corbyn was actually voted down by Smith in Scotland, so even the party activists there don't want him, never mind the voters, so it's a long way back there as well.
And that's before the constituency and voter register reforms kick in (if the former actually ever does)
They'll still be arguing about it on election night in 2020 and blaming "Blairites" no doubt :-)
It doesn't matter who makes the policies, and many of them are becoming clear, Labour won't win under Corbyn in 2020 no matter how much anyone frets about "Blairism" etc. No left-wing Labour leader (there actually have not been that many) has ever won a General Election and there's a good reason for that: precious few right wing Tories have ever won either. In other words, people tend to steer clear of extremes. Jeremy Corbyn and his band of zealous acolytes, many of whom mean well, are supremely out of touch with mainstream voters. Labour needs to convince the floating voters of Worcester and suburban Essex, not shore up the vote in traditional heartlands.
Then there's defence: he'll lose out to traditional, older Labour voters there too unless he adopts a more sensible approach there too.
Additionally, Corbyn was actually voted down by Smith in Scotland, so even the party activists there don't want him, never mind the voters, so it's a long way back there as well.
And that's before the constituency and voter register reforms kick in (if the former actually ever does)
They'll still be arguing about it on election night in 2020 and blaming "Blairites" no doubt :-)
Scottish Labour, as you well know, was punished for the referendum.
Rather illogically, but punished nevertheless.
The situation with Labour now in Scotland gives the lie to the idea that a leftward shift in the party will help it. As long as the SNP remains radical and popular, and Corbyn remains, personally, a toxic brand there, there'll be more Tory MPs in Scotland I am quite sure, than Labour ones after the next election.
Admittedly the Tories only need to win one seat to achieve that, but even so :-)
Rather illogically, but punished nevertheless.
The situation with Labour now in Scotland gives the lie to the idea that a leftward shift in the party will help it. As long as the SNP remains radical and popular, and Corbyn remains, personally, a toxic brand there, there'll be more Tory MPs in Scotland I am quite sure, than Labour ones after the next election.
Admittedly the Tories only need to win one seat to achieve that, but even so :-)
1 to 14 of 14
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.