To love Jeremy Corbyn and hope he wins

[derxa]

I'm not a Labour/Tory supporter but this man actually has principles.

Why do you feel that way about Blair, Lizzy?

Not just Iraq, although that is a significant part of it. It was also the triumph of style over substance, the blatant micro-managing of media, the abandonment of 'core' Labour supporters to woo Middle England, etc. Above all, the gradual drift to the right.

I know some people - maybe you, Amethyst - will argue that it was all necessary to make Labour electable. I'm not disagreeing, but many Labour supporters felt marginalised and ignored; people that had given their lives to the Labour movement and felt that they'd had their loyalty thrown back in their face. I think that the changes which had to be made could have been made more inclusively. It was difficult to ignore the glee with which New Labour charged in to the right of centre.

I don't remember screwing over the funding of the main opposition party while leaving their own somewhat dubious party funding arrangements entirely intact being in the manifesto.

Flash- No, not residing on another. More so from words the PM spoke himself prior to the election.

The people I know are the 'Im alright Jack' brigade so maybe they were hoping that the welfare cuts were specifically going to come from the 'bone idle and spongers'

*another planet

Fair enough, Lizzy. I can understand why some people would have felt that way. But the fact remains, Blair won three elections. He did a huge amount to support poorer people. Maybe he shifted the party to the right, but that's what voters wanted - otherwise he wouldn't have won in 2001 and 2005. That's the point of democracy - it's not about inhabiting some ivory tower of moral purity.

The Living wage. Yeh right.

I went to hear danny dorling speak last week. He pointed out how it should be called the servant wage, because taken alongside the other welfare changes in the budget, it is the amount paid to people whose job it is to serve, but who are not expected to be able to afford either a home or children.

The random built in age cliff also rather stuffs anyone on a low skill job who is aged over 25. It reminds me of Harry hardcastle in greenwood's "love on the dole". Every unskilled young person was paid the "apprentice rate" up to age 20, when they were sacked and replaced with another wave of young people. Back to the 30s.

I know several Tory voters, about half have complained openly, other half are alright jack. One is angry re fox hunting (he is against it, obviously didn't read manifesto). Another 3 thought only 'scroungers' and disabled' would be punished & now realise they will lose £1200+ a year tax credits. They are fuming.

Jellybeans, that's exactly why the whole "strivers v scroungers" thing was so effective - everyone thought they knew which they were.

Amethyst I'm not saying the Blair governments didn't do any good, by the way. Just that in my view they also did a certain amount of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
But I do take your point that Blair won those elections and had Labour had a more left of centre leader it might easily have been different.

And I hold my hands up to the charge of being an idealist. It's one reason why I have never seriously gone in for politics, I wouldn't want to compromise. Politics is the art of the possible, after all.

Yanbu

Jellybean

Do you really have 3 friends who voted Tory believing their vote would punish the disabled!!

On the left there's this whole socialist = goodies (kind, caring, principled, moral), Tory = baddies (selfish, greedy, nasty)... It's pantomime and childish... It's the kind of outlook my 4 year old has. Tories (with the possible exception of a twisted few) have no wish to punish disabled people! Some may believe that Tory policy is not good for disabled people but that's another matter.

Lizzy but as I've been wanking on about saying on this thread. in the case of Corbyn, idealism's going to get us 10 more years of Dave, Gideon and their cronies. Now that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Unfortunately, Labour don't stand a chance where I live and our local MP is very good and has actually done much for disabled people's provisions in the local area, so anyone who has decided I'm not a nice person because of my vote in the last election is just not worthy of my time.

However, I would reconsider my vote if I felt the Left had real ideals I could align myself to.

VivaLeBeaver
"They need another Tony Blair, who lets face it was quite Tory."

Isn't one war criminal in the party enough?

I'm not as convinced of that as you clearly are. The experience with Michael Foot, notwithstanding.

And I do believe that there has to be, at the very least, some conviction politicians on the opposition front bench. God knows, I don't want the Bullingdon boys to be in power any more than you do, but I am not prepared to say "Any right-of-centre port in a storm."

I want to have faith in the integrity of my leader and I want to be able to whole-heartedly endorse what s/he is saying.

Burnham or Cooper, I could sort of live with if I had to. But should Liz Kendall make it, I'm sending back my membership card.

I don't believe Burnham or Cooper could win an election either to be honest. Neither of them believes last government was anything other than fiscally responsible, and they're both tainted by it. Burnham won't be able to say a word against anything the Tories do to the NHS without them getting all Mid Staffs on his arse, and Cooper can't say anything about the economy without them getting all Ed Balls on hers. And look at the way Ed Miliband was treated in the press over his father - they'd have a field day with Corbyn and his views on Palestine and Cuba.

Labour would have done so much better at the election. They were the option we didn't have. It was Tory, watered down Tory, racists, or a tiny party. (We all knew the Lib Dems would get hammered as revenge for the college fees issue five years previously.)

I would have loved to vote for Labour, but they were only Labour in name. I would love to see that change. Even if they can only be a pain in David Cameron's arse for ten years. I'm optimistic that sooner or later as a population we will be sick of subsidizing the mega rich and getting almost nothing back in return, and then we will want a party who will put ordinary people first.

whoever will get it right should be leader, not based on gender/age/looks.

I also thought Tristram watsit would be good even though hes got a too-posh name!

They were the option we didn't have. It was Tory, watered down Tory, racists, or a tiny party.

You forget the watermelon Greens! There was your choice potentially.

I agree with a lot if this:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/17/labour-realists-jeremy-corbyn-wilderness

Figment I've just read that article! It says exactly what I fear and what Amethyst said above: 2020 is lost regardless of who leads. What I find distasteful is the 'have some fun in the wilderness' approach. A party should feel embarrassed to seem to take any pleasure in being in opposition - they should be impatient to get in and show what they can do (better). The picture he paints is of a Corbyn leadership as a kind of indulgence during inevitable Tory domination. Meanwhile more people suffer.

Amethyst all I can say is: totally agree, comrade.

Gatorade 'the option we didn't have' eh? So who did you vote for? Green? Spoiled paper? SNP?

Tendon I actually think we would have a chance with Liz Kendall. But she won't won, because Andy and Yvette's campaigns are being so vilely negative about her while remaining one micron to the left of her.

I voted Green. I live in a very safe Tory area, there was no danger of anyone else getting in - so it was LD or Green. And Green did get more votes in my constituency (not that it counted for anything ultimately.)

Something I wonder about when we talk about a Tory government settling in - are the majority of Brits home owners and comfortably off? Is that actually the norm here? Because if it is, then I suppose it's understandable. The home owners and good earners in my family voted Tory, wanting to protect their own interests.

Gatorade as I said upthread, the problem is that no one likes to think of themselves as a "scrounger" who needs support from the state. That kind of divisive message works because it states very clearly which side of the argument people ought to want to be on. Plus people who might otherwise have voted Labour on the basis of fairness etc thought the party was fiscally irresponsible and that way Greece lies etc. Labour just didn't have a strong manifesto that appealed to people in employment or self-employment whether home-owners or not. And now Cooper and Burnham are promising more of the bloody same, and Corbyn's promising a socialist never-never land that hardly anyone actually wants.

"I love that Tory members are joining for a vote and are funding our party in the process."

Our pleasure. At £3 a month (payment terminated at first available point post the leadership election, obviously) it's a minuscule amount to ensure that you lot remain fundamentally unelectable for at least the next decade.

Osborne's got his boot on your throat already, and and as the next Conservative leader he would crush Corbyn at the next election. The latter's performance on CH4 news earlier this week was so pathetic I was embarrassed for the bloke - provoked as he was into losing his composure by a 4th rate Paxman wannabe, all over a question that should have been knocked for six in about 3 seconds flat.

As for the evil Tories, remember the master plan - nasty budget at the outset of a term in Govt that pisses a load of your potential supporters off, and then a nice lavish one just prior to the next election to reel 'em all back in. All the while being opposed by a useless Marxist with a fetish for homeopathy and Hamas.

Go for it Jezza - We're right behind you.