5 ms·

No. He aligns with the deeply unpopular Blairite wing of the party and has spent an awful lot of time and effort trying to undermine Corbyn. This is good thoug

No. He aligns with the deeply unpopular Blairite wing of the party and has spent an awful lot of time and effort trying to undermine Corbyn. This is good though. He should stick to doing stuff like this.

beaconstudios 9y ago
you say that like undermining Corbyn is an objectively bad thing. He's an extremely divisive element of the current Labour party and the primary reason why I (and I consider myself a liberal first and foremost) cannot support the current Labour leadership. Labour's always been a mix of liberals and socialists but in my opinion Corbyn is too far to the latter to ever unify the party behind his ideas.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  He's divisive among a lot of the MPs especially the ones who came in under Blair because of his policies. By historical standards they're soft-left but they're to the left of the overton window so he's "extreme". The members, most of whom are disgusted with establishment politics and neoliberal dogma are about 90% behind him though. Enough new members were inspired to join by him that they now have the largest membership of any party in Europe. Anti-establishmentarianisn is only natural given the failure of the status quo to deliver egalitarian growth and freedom. You can have it from mild liberals like him or the far right. Either way the days of the dominant neoliberal era are numbered.
- vidarh 9y ago
  There are more Labour members supporting Corbyn than there were Labour members total before Corbyn became leader. Labour will never be unified as long as there is first past the post in the UK, and currently at least the left of the party dominates the membership. Any challenger to Corbyn at this point would depend on the support of the left of the party even more than during the last challenge.
  - barrkel 9y ago
    Polarization of the main parties is creating big democratic deficits in UK governance. The Tory party membership is heavily skewed towards Brexit despite it having a razor thin majority in the country; while Labour is heavily skewed towards Marxists, despite Britain being roughly centre-right throughout its modern history, by European standards. As a result, neither parties have natural constituencies in the electorate to deliver a majority right now. And LibDem are a rounding error. And of course Corbyn is completely out of whack with his membership, being pro-Brexit while the party is heavily for Remain. Remain effectively doesn't have democratic representation, and nor does the business-focused middle ground.
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      The idea that Corbyn or his supporters are all Marxists because they want to nationalize a decrepit subsidized rail system used to suck profits out of commuters is on the batshit extreme end of right wing. This stuff is both extemely popular among Brits and common sense. By historical standards Corbyn is pretty soft left. It's the establishment and London media bubble that have moved into crazy town.
    - phatfish 9y ago
      Sorry, I tune out when anyone mentions Marxism and the current Labour government. Considering their policies are in line with most other center ground European countries it just comes across as repeating Daily Mail taking points. No one is calling Merkel a Marxist yet Germany has free higher education and nationalised rail, and Germany is just one example.
    - vidarh 9y ago
      The Marxists in Labour are few and far between and far to the left of Corbyn. The fantasy that Labour is heavily skewed towards Marxist is just that. Most Labour MPs are more opposed to Marxism than to the Tories, and unlike most social democratic parties in Europe, Labour has never had a tradition of Marxism (though it has been more left wing that today) - there has been a schism between Marxism and more methodist inspired socialism in the UK dating back to before Labour was founded. > And of course Corbyn is completely out of whack with his membership, being pro-Brexit while the party is heavily for Remain. He voted Remain, campaigned for Remain, and made it clear he'd vote Remain again (unlike May who "refuses to answer hypothetical questions" for fear of angering people). On what basis do you claim he is pro-Brexit? Brexit, however is official party policy that he does not have authority to alter on his own and is obliged by party rules to follow, for the simple reason that it'd be political suicide for Labour to oppose is as long as the majority of those Labour seats that are at risk are in Leave heavy areas. Labour has the choice between continuing down that route and try to moderate the Tories and hopefully get more room to maneuver and a shot at government, or start pushing a Remain line and lose rather than gain seats next election - Labours Remain-heavy constituencies are mostly seats that are safe. > Remain effectively doesn't have democratic representation, and nor does the business-focused middle ground. We agree on that, but that is the cost we pay for an undemocratic electoral system - if Labour where to go Remain, it would not make a difference - Labour would simply lose a ton of seats.
- Asdfbla 9y ago
  Yet Corbyn's somewhat populist rhetoric seems to have made Labour competitive again, or were their good election results just a coincidence and had nothing to do with Corbyn? Just curious, since I'm not British and probably only have a very superficial understanding of the politics.
  - anon1385 9y ago
    It was almost entirely to do with Corbyn (and the energy brought to the party by his leadership campaigns, in the form of new members and new organisations).
  - notahacker 9y ago
    The election result was likely considerably more influenced by the government unwisely deciding to base their entire election campaign around empty slogans about a Brexit nearly half the population had voted against including most of the typical swing voters, allowing Corbyn to position himself more as the reasonable candidate whose manifesto actually offered tangible promises. The populist rhetoric came before the manifesto, and - along with widespread opposition to it from within his own party - appeared to have the opposite net effect on voters. Besides which, gaining some seats and weakening the government was far better than expected, but not an especially wonderful achievement for a party that had been in power for more of the previous couple of decades than it had been out of it. Corbyn has an adoring fanbase and a massively increased party membership but he also still often finishes behind or level with a PM virtually nobody has a good word to say about in "who would make the best Prime Minister" polls.
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      >Corbyn to position himself more as the reasonable candidate whose manifesto actually offered tangible promises. This position is largely what the Blairite wing of the party were rebelling against. They wanted to run on a strongly anti-Brexit platform with slightly watered down tory policies. The Lib Dems conveniently demonstrated how deeply unpopular that platform was outside of the London remainer bubble. Getting the largest increase in voting share since the 40s while the whole media savages you (even the independent and guardian were attacking him 6 weeks before the election) and your own MPs try to undermine you at every turn is an impressive achievement. The next election wont have either of those things and will likely feature a landslide.

beaconstudios 9y ago

you say that like undermining Corbyn is an objectively bad thing. He's an extremely divisive element of the current Labour party and the primary reason why I (and I consider myself a liberal first and foremost) cannot support the current Labour leadership. Labour's always been a mix of liberals and socialists but in my opinion Corbyn is too far to the latter to ever unify the party behind his ideas.

crdoconnor 9y ago
He's divisive among a lot of the MPs especially the ones who came in under Blair because of his policies. By historical standards they're soft-left but they're to the left of the overton window so he's "extreme". The members, most of whom are disgusted with establishment politics and neoliberal dogma are about 90% behind him though. Enough new members were inspired to join by him that they now have the largest membership of any party in Europe. Anti-establishmentarianisn is only natural given the failure of the status quo to deliver egalitarian growth and freedom. You can have it from mild liberals like him or the far right. Either way the days of the dominant neoliberal era are numbered.
vidarh 9y ago
There are more Labour members supporting Corbyn than there were Labour members total before Corbyn became leader. Labour will never be unified as long as there is first past the post in the UK, and currently at least the left of the party dominates the membership. Any challenger to Corbyn at this point would depend on the support of the left of the party even more than during the last challenge.
- barrkel 9y ago
  Polarization of the main parties is creating big democratic deficits in UK governance. The Tory party membership is heavily skewed towards Brexit despite it having a razor thin majority in the country; while Labour is heavily skewed towards Marxists, despite Britain being roughly centre-right throughout its modern history, by European standards. As a result, neither parties have natural constituencies in the electorate to deliver a majority right now. And LibDem are a rounding error. And of course Corbyn is completely out of whack with his membership, being pro-Brexit while the party is heavily for Remain. Remain effectively doesn't have democratic representation, and nor does the business-focused middle ground.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    The idea that Corbyn or his supporters are all Marxists because they want to nationalize a decrepit subsidized rail system used to suck profits out of commuters is on the batshit extreme end of right wing. This stuff is both extemely popular among Brits and common sense. By historical standards Corbyn is pretty soft left. It's the establishment and London media bubble that have moved into crazy town.
  - phatfish 9y ago
    Sorry, I tune out when anyone mentions Marxism and the current Labour government. Considering their policies are in line with most other center ground European countries it just comes across as repeating Daily Mail taking points. No one is calling Merkel a Marxist yet Germany has free higher education and nationalised rail, and Germany is just one example.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    The Marxists in Labour are few and far between and far to the left of Corbyn. The fantasy that Labour is heavily skewed towards Marxist is just that. Most Labour MPs are more opposed to Marxism than to the Tories, and unlike most social democratic parties in Europe, Labour has never had a tradition of Marxism (though it has been more left wing that today) - there has been a schism between Marxism and more methodist inspired socialism in the UK dating back to before Labour was founded. > And of course Corbyn is completely out of whack with his membership, being pro-Brexit while the party is heavily for Remain. He voted Remain, campaigned for Remain, and made it clear he'd vote Remain again (unlike May who "refuses to answer hypothetical questions" for fear of angering people). On what basis do you claim he is pro-Brexit? Brexit, however is official party policy that he does not have authority to alter on his own and is obliged by party rules to follow, for the simple reason that it'd be political suicide for Labour to oppose is as long as the majority of those Labour seats that are at risk are in Leave heavy areas. Labour has the choice between continuing down that route and try to moderate the Tories and hopefully get more room to maneuver and a shot at government, or start pushing a Remain line and lose rather than gain seats next election - Labours Remain-heavy constituencies are mostly seats that are safe. > Remain effectively doesn't have democratic representation, and nor does the business-focused middle ground. We agree on that, but that is the cost we pay for an undemocratic electoral system - if Labour where to go Remain, it would not make a difference - Labour would simply lose a ton of seats.
Asdfbla 9y ago
Yet Corbyn's somewhat populist rhetoric seems to have made Labour competitive again, or were their good election results just a coincidence and had nothing to do with Corbyn? Just curious, since I'm not British and probably only have a very superficial understanding of the politics.
- anon1385 9y ago
  It was almost entirely to do with Corbyn (and the energy brought to the party by his leadership campaigns, in the form of new members and new organisations).
- notahacker 9y ago
  The election result was likely considerably more influenced by the government unwisely deciding to base their entire election campaign around empty slogans about a Brexit nearly half the population had voted against including most of the typical swing voters, allowing Corbyn to position himself more as the reasonable candidate whose manifesto actually offered tangible promises. The populist rhetoric came before the manifesto, and - along with widespread opposition to it from within his own party - appeared to have the opposite net effect on voters. Besides which, gaining some seats and weakening the government was far better than expected, but not an especially wonderful achievement for a party that had been in power for more of the previous couple of decades than it had been out of it. Corbyn has an adoring fanbase and a massively increased party membership but he also still often finishes behind or level with a PM virtually nobody has a good word to say about in "who would make the best Prime Minister" polls.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    >Corbyn to position himself more as the reasonable candidate whose manifesto actually offered tangible promises. This position is largely what the Blairite wing of the party were rebelling against. They wanted to run on a strongly anti-Brexit platform with slightly watered down tory policies. The Lib Dems conveniently demonstrated how deeply unpopular that platform was outside of the London remainer bubble. Getting the largest increase in voting share since the 40s while the whole media savages you (even the independent and guardian were attacking him 6 weeks before the election) and your own MPs try to undermine you at every turn is an impressive achievement. The next election wont have either of those things and will likely feature a landslide.