Could somebody explain why Corbyn shouldn't be voted for as Labour party leader?

Over 35? Really?! I don't think so. Over 50s perhaps, but those of us in our late forties with baby boomer parents in their 70s and older don't enjoy anything like the wealth they have. Perhaps you're focussing on a very narrow demographic.

Pneu gets her/his knowledge from the (right wing) echo chambers, I suspect.

Ah, the Corbynite cry: active Labour members lose elections by not being left-wing enough.

no idea where you get your stuff from but you have no sociological knowledge whatsoever.

Perhaps looking at election results is more effective that sociology.

The last Labour manifesto to be (a) substantially socialist and (b) win a working majority was in 1945. Almost everyone who voted then is dead. Since then elections have been won by (a) Tories or (b) social democrat "soft left" Labour.

If your sociology says that 65 years of general election results can be ignored, then you are fitting facts to theory rather than vice versa.

Pneu gets her/his knowledge from the (right wing) echo chambers, I suspect.

Fact: We live in a society where all measurable economic growth over the past 30 years has benefited the wealthiest top 10% and everybody else has stagnated or dropped in real wages terms and increased cost of living.

The middle are better off than their parents, or owning their own homes? Which age group are you talking about, precisely?

Over 35. Which is plenty enough to win an election with, given turnout and demographics. The Corbyn arguments are all founded on suddenly getting people who don't vote to vote, and to vote Labour, in sufficient numbers to outweigh the alienating of a large portion of the population who definitely vote.

None of us know what the outcome of this will be with any certainty, but electoral equations based on several large changes happening at once are quite risky bets.

In the MN echo chamber, people aged 35 who can't afford to live in the more desirable parts of Hampstead while their parents swan around on large DB pensions from ending up as head teachers constitutes a political argument. The more general experience is, well, more general, and you need to address that to win an election. This is the "my parents voted Labour because they were poor but I vote Tory because I aspire to be rich" generation, and there's a hell of a lot of them.

We'll find out in 2020.

pneumometer no idea where you get your stuff from but you have no sociological knowledge whatsoever.

"Where the 80% in the middle are Better off than their parents"

Flabbergastingly Untrue !@

'But what they wll vote for is free universal childcare

Affects a small proportion of the population.

free lifelong learning and no tuition fees

Affects a small proportion of the population (hint: racking up OU modules in retirement is nothing like as popular as the middle classes think)'

Grandparents care about their grandkids and about the costs that their hardworking kids are having to pay. They care about the future of the country and are sick of the metropolitan elite who can easily afford all this stuff, when they can't. With insecure jobs and changing technology and increasng automation, people need to reskill and change careers. They want a bright future and education is a way to better themselves. They are aspirational, they want to learn but they are sick of paying through the nose for it while the metropolitan elite can easily afford it.

'nationalised railways

Affects a small proportion of the population (commuters in the south east overestimate their influence) and a large proportion of long-distance commuters work in the finance sector in London, who won't want nationalised railways if you're also nationalising...

energy companies and banks

Nostalgia for nationalisation isn't a thing, anyway.

free social care for the elderly without needing to sell their homes to pay for it'

This is about rip-off Britain. We are sick of being ripped off by the metropolitan elite who can afford it all on their taxpayer funded salaries and expenses. That is why UKIP said they would scrap the rip-off parking charges in hospital car parks. Everybody is sick of being ripped off by these people who are paid out of our taxpayer money.

'cheaper housing

Just like that! And won't that devalue houses that are already paid for, thus making policies about allowing people to inherit more still more confused?'

Most people aren't rich. The metropolitan elite are and they will vote against Corbyn, but most people will see that he offers them and their children and grandchildren a much better future.

'more employment and higher-paid jobs

Just like that!'

Absolutely. QE for jobs, for manufacturing, not for bankers.

'National Investment bank, a clampdown of bankers and investment in manufacturing

Nationalised manufacturing! It's 1985 again!'

Absolutely. There is nothing wrong with nationalised industries if they are managed well. Kick the metropolitan elite and their Guardian mates out of all managerial roles and run strategic industries for the benefit of the people and the country. Employ decent people like Corbyn rather than the Blairite sharks.

'clampdown on corporate tax evasion etc etc

Which the Tories will say as well.'

The Tories will say it but they won't do it because they are probably funded by some of them at their black-tie dinners. The public have learned how to read spin. They know that the Tories, Blair, Burnham and Cooper are spinners and that Corbyn is for real.

'policies the Tories can easily match (announce anything on elderly care, the Tories will match it)'

No they won't because the Tories are just modernising image spin doctors. They don't care about the elderly, they just use them as a card against Labour.

"The health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, faces a growing backlash after quietly shelving a key Tory manifesto commitment to cap care costs for the elderly, as experts claimed that the policy fiasco has cost taxpayers up to £100m.

Hunt has announced that the plan to limit care bills from next year to £72,000 for the over-65s and for younger adults with disabilities has been delayed until 2020 – despite the fact it was trumpeted by the Conservatives in the runup to the general election."

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/25/jeremy-hunt-backlash-axing-elderly-care-cap-policy

Corbyn will change all of this and the Tories won't be able to counter any of it.

It will be Corbyn and the people vs the metropolitan elite, the Tories, the Guardian and the Labour MPs.

If they offer 100-1 for Corbyn and the people, take it, because we are going to win.

The middle are better off than their parents, or owning their own homes? Which age group are you talking about, precisely?

What we also have is a society in which the rich have got richer and the poor, poorer.

But where the 80% in the middle are better off than their parents. The arguments about elderly people having to sell their houses are predicated on those elderly people owning houses, which is vastly more common than a generation ago. Which is why inheritance tax is now an issue for large numbers of people.

The population may be aging - but it's a poorer population coming up behind the baby boomers

Not in sufficient quantities to win elections. You should stop listening to the echo chamber.

What we also have is a society in which the rich have got richer and the poor, poorer. That doesn't sit right with many people from all walks of life. Labour weren't so far behind the Tories in terms of voting numbers that they could reclaim those voters who left to go to other left-leaning parties. The population may be aging - but it's a poorer population coming up behind the baby boomers, and they won't be quite so willing to stomach a party which favours the rich.

But what they wll vote for is free universal childcare

Affects a small proportion of the population.

free lifelong learning and no tuition fees

Affects a small proportion of the population (hint: racking up OU modules in retirement is nothing like as popular as the middle classes think)

nationalised railways

Affects a small proportion of the population (commuters in the south east overestimate their influence) and a large proportion of long-distance commuters work in the finance sector in London, who won't want nationalised railways if you're also nationalising...

energy companies and banks

Nostalgia for nationalisation isn't a thing, anyway.

free social care for the elderly without needing to sell their homes to pay for it

Fuck off people who rent, we've got a policy so that the already rich (it's not about the elderly having to sell them, it's about their children getting bigger inheritances) get richer. And as this will almost certainly be funded by increased inheritance tax, it's hard to see who actually benefits long term anyway. Why is allowing the children of rich property owners to keep more of the value of their parents' houses a socialist policy?

cheaper housing

Just like that! And won't that devalue houses that are already paid for, thus making policies about allowing people to inherit more still more confused?

more employment and higher-paid jobs

Just like that!

National Investment bank, a clampdown of bankers and investment in manufacturing

Nationalised manufacturing! It's 1985 again!

clampdown on corporate tax evasion etc etc

Which the Tories will say as well.

So, a mixture of niche policies, policies the Tories can easily match (announce anything on elderly care, the Tories will match it) and stuff that will have people high-fiving in echo chambers. Fantastic. Tory landslide.

Those of us who vote Tory are behind Corbyn for leader all the way as it means the Tories will have 10 years in power and the poor and others in this nation will be all the better for it.

'Hard political truth: the vast majority of the population don't give a shit about the bedroom tax, aren't affected by zero-hours contracts, think immigration is a bad thing and think people on benefits are mostly scrounging. Of people who actually turn out and vote, as opposed to talking on Facewittertagram, that goes double. '

Yes that is why they won't vote for Cooper, Burnham et al and ddn't vote for Miliband. They won't vote for Yvette Cooper's number one issue, Sure Start. Polly Toynbee doesn't get it, this is what lost the Labour Party the election

"This isn’t religion, it’s about how to save Sure Start, abolish the bedroom tax, restore tax credits, stop savage benefit sanctions that send families to food banks. I hear many who have given up on winning, with a Jez We Can badge as an identity symbol, who I am, what I believe, where I belong.

But there just aren’t enough Greens and non-voting young for Labour to win a majority under Corbyn. Ukippers won’t back his migration stance. How can he enthuse at least some who voted Tory last time?"

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/13/corbyn-labour-leader-not-credible

But what they wll vote for is free universal childcare, free lifelong learning and no tuition fees, nationalised railways, energy companies and banks, free social care for the elderly without needing to sell their homes to pay for it, cheaper housing, more employment and higher-paid jobs, a National Investment bank, a clampdown of bankers and investment in manufacturing, clampdown on corporate tax evasion etc etc

The public won't vote for robotic machine politicians spouting Sure Start mantras but they will vote for a breath of fresh air - for Corbyn.

The faux-shite Guardian can piss off and so can corporate Y.C

I luffs Claig.

Also, based on the posts on this site prior to the general election, there was going to be a Labour landslide

Political echo chambers are the bane of real politics.

Also, based on the posts on this site prior to the general election, there was going to be a Labour landslide and a UKIP wipeout, with plenty of Green support.
The problem with your twitter feeds and facebooks is that you choose who to follow/have as friends and these people think like you, re-enforcing your position.
JC may win the leadership vote, but not an election.

Yes, indeed, times have changed since 1983: union membership is a fraction of what it was, industrial employment is a fraction of what it was, vastly more people identify themselves as "middle class" and vastly more of the population are owner-occupiers (both correlated with voting Tory) and the current Tory party is not remotely that of Thatcher. And (for extra fun) people will typically be retired for 20 rather than 10 years, so there is a vastly larger pool of people over 65, where the Labour vote requires a microscope to find and people are much less likely to alter their voting habits. Which of these circumstances make you think that a party with a socialist manifesto is more electable than 1983?

Hard political truth: the vast majority of the population don't give a shit about the bedroom tax, aren't affected by zero-hours contracts, think immigration is a bad thing and think people on benefits are mostly scrounging. Of people who actually turn out and vote, as opposed to talking on Facewittertagram, that goes double. These views are horrible, and there is a strain in Labour that thinks the party is better off simply ignoring these nasty people; it is, however, impossible to get elected without speaking to those facts, and the Tories are doing a vile good job of it.

Times change Pneumometer

Corbyn could win an eletion with his policies as they're supported by the majority of voters

As 1983 proved, indeed, when Labour swept to victory on a very similar manifesto.

No, wait...

LK: 'Any one but Corbyn'.

How scared can they get. haha

Not sure it is the same for affiliate members tbh.

Also it wasn't just 'the tories' as pointed out. All party affiliations have been 'caught out' including UKIP, Greens, TUSC and old expelled Labour party members that tried to rejoin.

This can'take on this occasion be dropped only at the Tories door.

When I joined Labour Party I had to affirm that I was not a member of another party. Is that not true for the Association members, If tory party members do they bald face lie in order to join?