Well, there we have it: Jeremy Corbyn has just been announced the next Labour Leader

[InTheBox]

With 59% of the vote (first round).

I've just been following the live BBC broadcast and just wanted them to get on with it.

No doubt people on both sides of the political spectrum will be overjoyed with the result.

Gold I think the issue is that the election will always be decided by the swing voters, not the party faithful, so the choice is between Tories or, for want of a better word, Blairism. There is of course the argument that Corbyn may convert everyone to his way of thinking- and I have no way to know if that's possible or not, but based on the last election results, it doesn't look like they're ripe for converting.

In terms of "there's no point in winning", that's possibly true if you adhere to the idea that you're a representative of the electorate but sadly few politicians still adhere to that ideal.

One of my DCs has just phoned me from work. He's very unhappy. Joined the Labour Party before any talk of a leadership election because he wanted to see change and generally supported labour principles.

But he now wants to leave .. I've texted him to tell him that Corbyn's speech was (I think) inclusive, decent, generous.

Gently suggested that he waits and sees - there should be room in the LP for a host of opinion. And with his general ideas and thoughts, for DC, too.

I'll let this take its course but I'm going to get much more tonight - certainly, DC isn't one the young supporters that Jeremy Corbyn's campaign managed, so skillfully, to recruit.

Oh well - that's the diversity of views within families for you - but really I'm sad to think DC is so fed up and disillusioned.

But Keyser [great name BTW], perhaps there are lots of other left wing voters who are not in the party, who would now vote Labour? I don't know.

I've never quite got my head around the 'we have to pretend to be Tories otherwise nobody will vote for us' thing.

sioned I think any party that wants to win outright needs to be a broad church, and unfortunately I think that's where Corbyn is bound to fail.

I don't understand how someone who has been an MP (ie hasn't held a "proper job" for over 30 years) is seen as a refreshing antidote to politicians and a "man of the people".

I don't understand how a man that Hamas, a [[https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-terrorist-financing-operations-section terrorist organization], thinks is a great man can be seen as a great man.

I don't understand how a man with close friendly relationships with the IRA can be seen as a creditable leader of the UK.

I don't understand how a man with links to Holocaust deniers is seen as acceptable in 2015.

I just don't get it. At all.

I can't bring myself to vote for Labour while he is leader, and I'm actually very saddened that so many people have looked past these issues and voted for him.

Link fail

One of my DCs has just phoned me from work. He's very unhappy. Joined the Labour Party before any talk of a leadership election because he wanted to see change and generally supported labour principles.

But Labour principles are not what we've had for the last number of years, we've had mealy mouthed politicians terrified of actually standing up for people.

I am so incredibly happy! With such a convincing mandate (larger than Blair's) he has a lot of support.

We must now get together and work to show everyone else how he IS electable. We are too used to the Blair and Cameron style of politics, it's time to bring the honesty back into politics.

I fear the media (The Fail and The Torygraph in particular) will be trying to scare people over the next weeks/ months/ years but we know their agenda and must make it clear to everybody else.

gold But what did the left wingers vote before? That's the issue. There aren't enough "others" from what I can tell (unless they pick up from UKIP which I doubt given Corbyn's views on immigration) to make a majority? Happy to be corrected though. Maybe some people were so disillusioned they didn't vote but I'm not convinced there's a bias on that- I think the "seat" thing just encourages apathy. Maybe some additional people in safe labour seats will vote for him but that does jack all.

I know what you're saying about "give them what they want" but it is a bit of a conundrum-ultimately, the government should reflect the views of the electorate, not the other way round. If the electorate want a Blair-Cameron mish mash, then they're quite at liberty to have that.

goldplated I would say that being in government is the only way to effect change. You might be able to effect all the changes you would like, but better some than none.

Being in opposition is just shouting in the wind for me. With a majority the Tories will do what they want; as they have always done when Labour are in opposition.

But JC and his supporters feel different. They want to be represented by someone who refects their views even if those views will never come before the house.

I guess it's between wanting to be part of a movement ( something JC mentioned in his speech) or wanting to be a viable alternative for government.

Im very pleased. It's about time there was a real alternative to right wing politics.

Also JC unapologetically represents the marginalised in society. He makes no bones about that.

But working people in the UK ( which is who Labour are supposed to support) are not all marginalised by a long shot.

I agree with you Lightning. But it will be portrayed as a divided party. This is playground stuff we are dealing with. Labour did it to the Tories in the nineties over Europe.

shegot That's a good point, and maybe for a lot of people's the fact that their views haven't been represented at all that's been the real issue.

I don't know, Sophie. I do know some of my friends voted Green because they felt Labour wasn't offering anything, but under JC they would vote Labour.

SheGot, I agree, being in Government of course if the only way to effect change. But if Labour policitians have moved so far to the right because they believe this is the only way to get elected, but then they don't get elected because of course there already is a right wing party to vote for, then what is the point? It's not like they're going to get voted in promising Tory-lite policies then -ta da!- once they're in they'll whip out policies based on fairness and equality.

Indeed keyser which if you're JC is not an issue.

His views on the middle classes are well known. He doesn't hide them.

About 240,000 party faithful voted for him, it's an internal matter. I think looking at the party faithful within any political party is no indicator of any electoral outcome as most people are in the huge mass of people who hover round the centre and change their minds.

The battle in the Labour Party will now begin.

The main question being what is it for? What are it's aims?

Is it a pressure group for the marginalised in society or is it an organisation that seeks to represent working people ( across the spectrum) in parliament.

Who was the man they are all comparing him to?

I think this is great news for lefties and for politics in general.

From what I've read about JC and his policies, I'm impressed. It's a shame the deputy isn't female but here's hoping JC may implement changes that make female leaders more likely in future.

Does anyone know JC's position on electoral reform? I know he wants to make the Labour Party more democratic. But I'd be interested to know what he thinks about the electoral system in general. I hate the FPTP system and would love to see it changed.

Well this is the issue- in London, at least, a lot of MC people vote labour but their loyalty hasn't really been tested since I can remember (i'm 40 so 1997 was the first "real election" for our generation. My prediction is a party split because I don't think JC can unite on a broad platform. Possibly then RW of labour party join Lib gems which could be quite interesting.

I would like to see a breakdown of who voted for him according to type of membership, so

People who were 60 quid members before 7 May
People who were 60 quid members after 7 May
People who were 3 quid members.

I saw a breakdown that might mean some of that, and seemed to show that Corbyn had won all groups, which I hope is correct. Many Die-Hard Tories (actual fully paid members of Cons. party) rang up on local radio phone-ins to say that they only joined to vote for Corbyn. Unapologetic vandals who make my blood boil.

ChristineDePisan - I think you ask some very valid questions. Though, on balance, delighted with this result (I feel strongly that JC is going to deliver on his pledge to work to route out factionalism and generally nastiness - his robust stand regarding the families of anyone in the public eye was a good start), I have a qualm or two about his foreign policy ideas and apparent allegiances.

But let's see what happens - I personally think he held out an olive branch to centrists. Let's see. Something I must try to persuade my DC to do. Tonight won't be easy at home -

I don't think socialists have been historically pro-women; trade unions used to be against equal pay as it undermined the concept of the family wage for men (how higher wages were justified). I wouldn't be holding my breath for more female representation.

I am left of centre but there is something cultish about Corbyn which makes me cringe. He reminds me of a man down the pub who harks back to an imagined past.

ragged I agree- people shouldn't dick around on this sort of thing.

I do think a lot of Labour members do want a change, but party members don't decide GE's. That's always the problem, so the members may well choose someone who lacks broad appeal.

Totally not an issue if they don't care about not winning a GE. Big problem if they do.