Support NeoGAF

[RedSparrows]

As opposed to trying to overthrow it with a civil war, just because Assad isn't friendly to US.

Zing. No wait. The other thing.

 

[Goodlife]

When I hear 'the internet of things', I think Jen from the IT Crowd

Fiver says Corbyns next conference he comes out holding a big red dot. 'BEHOLD, THE INTERNET'

Really? The internet of things is a fairly well known IT term

 

[pigeon]

Really? The internet of things is a fairly well known IT term

Yes but not the way it's used on that pseudomeme

 

[Jezbollah]

Really? The internet of things is a fairly well known IT term

It doesnt make it less cringy a term.

 

[FunkyMonk]

Most of the electorate didn't know Millibands name, let alone his policies.

The Corbyn collapse will make Milibands loss look like a landslide.

 

[liquidtmd]

Really? The internet of things is a fairly well known IT term

Contextually I don't believe he's using it that way. Look at the sentence.

I work in IT for a bank. If I went around using the term like this to any audience outside my peers, I'd be ripe for a ribbing

 

[Deleted member 231381]

What motivation does Corbyn have for a negotiated compromise? Like, I definitely buy that the traditional Labour politicians and voters want to get the party back away from Corbyn. I just don't really see why they think it is plausible. As far as I can tell, it seems to mostly rely on the idea that Corbyn will decide to quit, despite the fact that he's done nothing at any point to suggest that he might do that, and indeed this thread is literally about him saying he will never do that. I assume people think he'll quit because a normal British politician would do the decent thing and quit. But Corbyn is pretty clearly not a normal British politician. So what happens that makes him quit?

I don't think he actually especially enjoys being leader. You hear a lot of stuff from unnamed sources (in camp Corbyn) that he's had to be persuaded not to step down a few times; I think where there's smoke, there's probably fire in this case. I also think that Corbyn does want his principles to be enacted, but he's also not stupid - he knows he personally can't do it. But his ideology is important to him (unsurprising, most people's ideologies are important to them), and I think he probably believes a more competent, charismatic leader could enact them. So from both personal and ideological motivation, I think his key goal is ensuring that the Labour Party is sufficiently changed that he can have a more competent successor take over. Until that point, he won't step down. Once that point has been reached, he will.

That means he needs to be able to change the nomination rule. At present, he can't do that, because it gets voted on at the Labour conference, and requires a two-thirds majority. The Labour conference is attended by Labour delegates, who have either been nominated by their local CLP, or hold a position as a Labour official (e.g., MP, Lord, councillor). Given you're an American, think ordinary delegates and superdelegates. Nearly every single 'superdelegate' would vote against this proposal under the status quo, and Corbyn doesn't control enough CLPs to overrule them (although he does control a clear majority of CLPs). They will do this because they fear in a post-rule change world, they will have no influence in the Labour Party at all.

So we've reached stalemate. Corbyn can't go because if he does, he has achieved nothing - there will be maybe two or three more 'Corbynite' Labour MPs at most, who won't be able to nominate a successor. Non-Corbynite MPs won't split because under the two party system, they'd almost certainly lose their seats anyway (what polling we have on this suggests that Corbyn's Continuity Labour would actually poll slightly better than the alternative New Labour or whatever they call it - although it would be annihilation for both parties). Both of them have an interest in a negotiated compromise - Corbynite MPs get a fair run at the leadership, centrist MPs get back influence over some policy positions and marketing that are enshrined in the Labour constitution in some way. Right now, both sides are just interested in getting into the strongest possible position for this detente.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'm pretty sure if you decant the internet of things into a pan and simmer with some red wine you get a jus that when combusted can replace nuclear power.
And drive the New Britain.

 

[Cammington]

This is not surprising. I can't remember where I read it now, but his actual goal is to hang on until September when the Labour Party Conference happens.

Right now, Momentum have been very successful at infiltrating the Labour party through entryism but Jez won't last forever and when he does go, they'll need a successor. The barrier to Momentum gaining further ground is the Parliamentary Labour Party. Any next potential leader needs at least 20% of the current PLP and after these disastrous past two years you can guarantee the PLP will not make a Jez like mistake again.

If he and McDonnell hold on until September though, they can put the current rules to a vote and change this rule from 20%, down to say, 5%, reducing the required number of MP's down from around 50, to around 12 (As it currently stands), making it much much easier to get a favorable candidate in that can be put to the members vote.

Edit: Here it is

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...rs-mcdonnell-amendment-and-why-does-it-matter

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

Milliband was polling almost exactly the same % for a general vote as Corbyn is now. The big difference is that all the UKIP voters have gone back to voting Tory.

Lies and bollocks

 

[Charles Brandon]

How about you stop shit posting generalisations including the attitude of an entire nation toward their own children. FYI plenty of people care and are actively involved in making this country a better place.

Yeah these constant "woe is me" type posts I see on here are really getting old. I'm pissed off about Brexit too but for god's sake get a grip of yourselves

 

[Principate]

Milliband was polling almost exactly the same % for a general vote as Corbyn is now. The big difference is that all the UKIP voters have gone back to voting Tory.

I mean this is blatantly false but ok.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...election-2017-poll-tracker-who-is-in-the-lead

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean this is blatantly false but ok.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...election-2017-poll-tracker-who-is-in-the-lead

It's not, though. Your link shows Labour on 28.8%. Miliband got 31.2% (excluding NI). That implies Corbyn has lost about 2.4%. That's more or less in line with public polling of how Labour would be doing with Ed Balls in charge (3% better) and internal private polling of how various other leaders would do (2 to 4% better).

To be clear: Corbyn is a problem, and one that needs to be addressed, but he's not the difference between a Labour win and loss, he's the difference between a very, very bad Labour loss and a very, very, very bad Labour loss. I think there's a kind of hopeful blindness and self-deception amongst a lot of Labourites is that all they have to do is boot Corbyn and the good times come. I'm not so optimistic.

 

[Charles Brandon]

It's not, though. Your link shows Labour on 28.8%. Miliband got 31.2% (excluding NI). That implies Corbyn has lost about 2.4%. That's more or less in line with public polling of how Labour would be doing with Ed Balls in charge (3% better) and internal private polling of how various other leaders would do (2 to 4% better).

I'm not sure I follow, doesn't the link show Ed on about 33% (not 31.2%) at about the same time, so that's a gap of 4%, which may translate into an 8% reduction in the lead (although, admittedly that's not necessarily the case).

However, the point is more that the two situations were contextually different. Ed was facing off against a Tory party that, in hindsight and relatively speaking, now seems infinitely more sensible, self-assured and confident than the party as it stands today, harsh and shrieking. But even if you don't accept that the underlying message of UKIP voters "returning" to the Conservatives being out of the control of Labour and therefore "would have happened anyway, whoever the leader is" is not a sound argument. Many of those UKIP supporters are old Labour voters. If they've transitioned to the Tory party, that's a damning indictment of Corbyn.

In summary, in a hypothetical scenario where Ed is still running the Labour party he would, at the very least and in line with internal polling, have narrowed the gap by 5-6 points and you can make a strong argument that he would have done much better. I don't accept that this is a rejection of the Labour Party entire. It;s exactly that sort of thinking that got Corbyn elected in the first place.

 

[RangerX]

Fair play to him. When two thirds of your own MP's and a vast chunk of the media are actively working against you then it's no surprise his poll numbers are low. People buy into all that guff. An actual genuine and sincere socialist who's policies are geared towards egalitarianism and creating a fairer society? Nah we don't want him we want Theresa May who will cut local council budgets and privatise the NHS while also driving the country off a cliff in the brexit negotiations. So Corbyn isn't the greatest speaker on TV. Fucking hell some people are superficial. It's policy that counts.

 

[tuxfool]

So Corbyn isn't the greatest speaker on TV. Fucking hell some people are superficial. It's policy that counts.

If you cannot marshal your resources into implementing the policies, heck, even communicating them, your policies don't really matter in practice.

 

[Maledict]

Fair play to him. When two thirds of your own MP's and a vast chunk of the media are actively working against you then it's no surprise his poll numbers are low. People buy into all that guff. An actual genuine and sincere socialist who's policies are geared towards egalitarianism and creating a fairer society? Nah we don't want him we want Theresa May who will cut local council budgets and privatise the NHS while also driving the country off a cliff in the brexit negotiations. So Corbyn isn't the greatest speaker on TV. Fucking hell some people are superficial. It's policy that counts.

I definitely think that insulting the people you have to convince to vote for your side is a good way forward to winning elections.

It's also ignoring the huge confusion and inability of Corbyn to even explain his policies. To his own fucking party.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm not sure I follow, doesn't the link show Ed on about 33% (not 31.2%) at about the same time, so that's a gap of 4%, which may translate into an 8% reduction in the lead (although, admittedly that's not necessarily the case).

Because of the polling errors in 2015, pollsters have adjusted weightings between now and then, which I've accounted for.

However, the point is more that the two situations were contextually different. Ed was facing off against a Tory party that, in hindsight and relatively speaking, now seems infinitely more sensible, self-assured and confident than the party as it stands today, harsh and shrieking. But even if you don't accept that the underlying message of UKIP voters "returning" to the Conservatives being out of the control of Labour and therefore "would have happened anyway, whoever the leader is" is not a sound argument. Many of those UKIP supporters are old Labour voters. If they've transitioned to the Tory party, that's a damning indictment of Corbyn.

They're transitioning to the Conservatives because Labour are the party of Remain, and are not trusted to carry out Brexit. Given Corbyn was one of the most ambiguously pro-Remain Labour MPs, whereas almost all of the touted leadership alternatives are much more strongly pro-EU, I'm strongly unconvinced that they would have arrested the UKIP -> Conservative movement.

In summary, in a hypothetical scenario where Ed is still running the Labour party he would, at the very least and in line with internal polling, have narrowed the gap by 5-6 points and you can make a strong argument that he would have done much better. I don't accept that this is a rejection of the Labour Party entire. It;s exactly that sort of thinking that got Corbyn elected in the first place.

I think your summary is unlikely. Ed Miliband would have been able to do almost nothing to arrest the UKIP -> Conservative movement because he was strongly pro-Remain and pro-Europe, and would still have faced the critical problem of being on the wrong side of that issue. Ed might have stopped some Hard Remainers leaving Labour for the Lib Dems... but that's about a 3 to 4% movement (which I've already acknowledged could happen), and doesn't take from the Conservatives anyway.

This is a rejection of the Labour Party. Of course, that doesn't mean Corbyn is the solution (he isn't). The solution will be fundamentally more insular and small c-conservative - something like what Stephen Kinnock writes about. But fundamentally, the solution isn't a return to Blair or even Miliband (and I really liked Miliband's policy position), and the Labour Party really needs to get to grips with that. Blue Labour, not New Labour.

 

[Principate]

It's not, though. Your link shows Labour on 28.8%. Miliband got 31.2% (excluding NI). That implies Corbyn has lost about 2.4%. That's more or less in line with public polling of how Labour would be doing with Ed Balls in charge (3% better) and internal private polling of how various other leaders would do (2 to 4% better).

To be clear: Corbyn is a problem, and one that needs to be addressed, but he's not the difference between a Labour win and loss, he's the difference between a very, very bad Labour loss and a very, very, very bad Labour loss. I think there's a kind of hopeful blindness and self-deception amongst a lot of Labourites is that all they have to do is boot Corbyn and the good times come. I'm not so optimistic.

That's after a substantial spike upwards and Ed was rarely below 30% where most of Corbyn's tenures has been well below 30%

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That's after a substantial spike upwards and Ed was rarely below 30% where most of Corbyn's tenures has been well below 30%

It's election day that counts, though. You don't get bonus points for good mid-term polls.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

It's election day that counts, though. You don't get bonus points for good mid-term polls.

This was originally framed as Corbyn doing as well in the polls as Miliband did. This is patently, factually false.

 

[Jackpot]

Fair play to him. When two thirds of your own MP's and a vast chunk of the media are actively working against you then it's no surprise his poll numbers are low. People buy into all that guff. An actual genuine and sincere socialist who's policies are geared towards egalitarianism and creating a fairer society? Nah we don't want him we want Theresa May who will cut local council budgets and privatise the NHS while also driving the country off a cliff in the brexit negotiations. So Corbyn isn't the greatest speaker on TV. Fucking hell some people are superficial. It's policy that counts.

Wrong.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=236159610&highlight=#post236159610

Next.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

This was originally framed as Corbyn doing as well in the polls as Miliband did. This is patently, factually false.

It's not. A month off from the general election, when you apply the same weightings, Ed Miliband was about 2.5% ahead of Corbyn, which I think fits the original poster's remark.

I want to be clear: I'm not a Corbynite (you can search UKPoliGAF, I reluctantly supported Burnham). I'm pointing the above out because I want people to realize the Labour Party is in a much worse position than I think most realize, and that shifting Corbyn for someone like Cooper or Umunna is a case of out of the frying pan into the fire. They are not what a winning Labour Party looks like, and it would be frustrating to have to lose 2022 as well because people couldn't see past Corbyn as the immediate problem.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

It's not. A month off from the general election, when you apply the same weightings, Ed Miliband was about 2.5% ahead of Corbyn, which I think fits the original poster's remark.

I want to be clear: I'm not a Corbynite (you can search UKPoliGAF, I reluctantly supported Burnham). I'm pointing the above out because I want people to realize the Labour Party is in a much worse position than I think most realize, and that shifting Corbyn for someone like Cooper or Umunna is a case of out of the frying pan into the fire. They are not what a winning Labour Party looks like, and it would be frustrating to have to lose 2022 as well because people couldn't see past Corbyn as the immediate problem.

If you're trying to argue that the likelihood is that Corbyn will do worse than the polls suggest, I agree with you.

However Miliband's actual polling at the time (not the result) was much stronger than Corbyn's, to the point where Labour were bookies favourites up until the last minute.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Wrong.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=236159610&highlight=#post236159610

Next.

I always want to add TrainGate to the block just because it so perfectly personified Corbyn's failings. I love how everyone never responds to the wall of Corbyn being a shit incompetent leader too. Just a whoopee cushion deflating while hissing "Welll yessss buttttt..."

Even after Corbyn goes, I'm not sure what can be done about the Labour party. It's membership has swollen with idiot kids that don't understand how politics actually work, and so will continue to self-sabotage for decades to come. A full split may simply have to occur to get rid of the rot and start anew.

Still ensures another 8-10 years of the public not taking such a new outfit seriously, and that ladies and gentlemen is why everyone is beyond their patience with Corbyn. Every year he sticks around adds another 2-3 to the clock. In the alternate reality where he did somehow become Prime Minister, he'd do such a shit job it would take the Left 20 years to recover. That's why many are eager to see him totally crushed in the election because the long game is in mind.

 

[RangerX]

Wrong.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=236159610&highlight=#post236159610

Next.

Ok at least these are some concrete criticisms. I still think he's been battling against a lot of his MPs who aren't or refused to be in his shadow cabinet. Let me ask another question. Who exactly do people want Corbyn replaced by? It's hardly a glittering field.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Well, this is technically what a winning Labour Party looks like...

 

[PJV3]

Well, this is technically what a winning Labour Party looks like...

Robin Cook

 

[King Gilga]

And I wouldn't surprised if they couldn't list you two policies of Corbyn that they oppose.

I agree with every Corbyn policy, but I'm still not going to vote for him, the party is a mess. And then they're Corbyn's pro-brexitness and how labour handled brexit in general is another thing that will prevent me for voting for them for a long time.

 

[liquidtmd]

Errrm I'm in the office right now, but it just flashed up on BBC News that it's 'Breaking News' that Corbyn refuses to comment that he would actually take the UK out of the EU...

Can anyone elaborate who has the sound up?

 

[Jackpot]

Beeb now uses "breaking news" the same way the US does, i.e. it's new but that doesn't mean it's significant.

Jeremy Corbyn has declined to say whether he would categorically take Britain out of the EU if elected as prime minister.

In his speech in Manchester today he said Brexit was "settled", but in an interview with our political editor Laura Kuenssberg he was pushed repeatedly to say whether come hell or high water, good deal with Brussels or bad, the UK would be leaving the EU.

Look, there's a clear vote in the referendum a year ago. But there is now the negotiations which have already begun."

Mr Corbyn then outlined what a good deal would look like.

Asked again about his ultimate commitment to Brexit, he replied:

We will go into the negotiations with the determination to achieve what I've just outlined. And it's not a one-off meeting, it's not a one-off discussion."

Laura tried a few more times - if you're prime minister, will we leave whatever happens?

People know that there's been a referendum and a decision was made a year ago. We've set out very clear our terms for negotiations."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2017-39839907

 

[WhateverItTakes]

It's a sensible stance, why leave if the better deal is staying in, but I'm pretty sure it's not gonna play well with the public.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Well, this is technically what a winning Labour Party looks like...

Looked like. Don't worry, English grammar can be confusing!

 

[FortuneFaded]

Robin Cook

Mo Mowlam behind him as well. Plus, presumably the dog is dead by now.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Looked like. Don't worry, English grammar can be confusing!

I guess they have all gotten old now. Or dead.
But FaceApp doesn't do multiple faces yet.

 

[PJV3]

Mo Mowlam behind him as well. Plus, presumably the dog is dead by now.

I just associate Robin and my hopes for the new labour project, I do remember the dog so no disrespect to the 4 legged comrade.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Compare the amount of talent in that Labour photo to the current front bench.

 

[Skyzard]

I'm pretty sure if you decant the internet of things into a pan and simmer with some red wine you get a jus that when combusted can replace nuclear power.
And drive the New Britain.

Have you never changed your mind on something?

Jeremy Corbyn used his quiet visit to the Copeland by-election to tell Labour members he would give his backing for plans to develop nuclear energy plants.

-16th January, 2017