to think Corbyn is dead in the water

[oldshilling]

Yes he's a nice chap with a nice beard, but silliness (principled though it might be) like refusing to sing the national anthem is not going to endear him to more than a small minority of the population.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34263447

And the signs are that he intends to be the gift that keeps on giving, in terms of pointless gestures that don't really achieve anything but make him a mega-target for the right-wing press.

Either he gets turfed out before the next GE, or he surpasses Michael Foot as the biggest loser in Labour's history.

I completely agree with werkzallhours that those figures about how much cash can be raised by closing the tax gap are very suspect.

However all the political parties have made political capital out of claiming that they will be tough on Starbucks et al, without clarifying what this means or how much extra money they will raise.

I don't think people want Corbyn to have accurate figures as much as they want somebody to clearly stand up for them in the face of food banks, poverty, lack of housing, NHS cuts etc. etc.

The labour opposition failed to do this.

People are fed up with an opposition that can neither get elected or oppose - they just want somebody who will do either one or the other.

I don't think people want Corbyn to have accurate figures as much as they want somebody to clearly stand up for them in the face of food banks, poverty, lack of housing, NHS cuts etc. etc

^This is actually a good point.

They just want someone to say "yes, you can have as much benefit money as you like, yes we're going to re open the A&Es" etc etc, they don't care about the ins and outs of it, they just want someone to say it.

However, personally we're already taxed to buggery by the current governement, no way are we going to vote in someone who is going to add on even more tax to our current pay. He needs to have a more concrete plan on how he's going to raise the funds to pay for all this, not just "we'll tax people more".

werks and others - it is good to see a balanced un-starry-eyed assessment of the corbynomics policies -
On gransnet where the corbynmania has become so tedious and outrageous in its vehemence I look at the politics thread there and decide I cannot even be bothered to read most of them.
so I escape to mumsnet.

They just want someone to say "yes, you can have as much benefit money as you like, yes we're going to re open the A&Es" etc etc, they don't care about the ins and outs of it, they just want someone to say it.

To be fair the Tory policies on inheritance tax and housing association right to buy were clearly a bid for votes.

Both policies are questionable given the housing crisis. I'm not denying that they will benefit individuals, but economically it's difficult to justify them.

no party has all the right answers. the conservative government, including when aided and abetted by the libdems, has introduced policies and laws with which I am not in agreement. I do find it amazing though that left-leaners (if I may call them that) see everything right wing/conservative is bad and the labour party/leftwing can do no wrong.
most people are not affected by the IHT increase sufficiently for them to change their vote
most people are not affected by right to buy either
but I still think these changes are sending the wrong message and I do not agree with them.

i feel like a complete alien for thinking that the job of politicians and parties is not to be 'electable' first and foremost but to represent the people. the job of the labour party now is to represent their voters and be a really strong opposition to the outrageous policies of the tories. the job of JC is to be a fantastic opposition leader that all other opposition parties can work with effectively to oppose the tories. he needs to be able to work with the SNP for example which i can see him being able to do.

there are years till another election who gives a flying fuck who looks electable today? i give a damn about what damage can be done in the next five years and who is going to be standing up fighting against further cuts to our services and rights and ability to have any kind of standard of living in this country.

labour lost the election - there job now is not to court those who voted for the government we got but to represent those who voted for them. the people who voted for corbyn voted to see an strong and principled opposition in the next five years.

it really saddens me that everyone has bought into this whole 'electability' pr shite so far that they actually think that that is the job of elected members of parliament and the gangs they form. their job is to represent us and defend the people they claimed to be representing when they got their votes.

I have found the insults from Corbyn supporters to anyone who disagrees with them on twitter very off-putting - unfairly as they are nothing to do with the man or his team. After the Panorama programme, it was just endless insults - no one posted corrections to the facts presented (and I know you can be biassed and factually correct).

Hellocampers, this is the first politics thread I've been brave enough to post on so thank you. It is very interesting I think.

people are talking as if just because the tories are in power they can do whatever they want for the next five years and all over mps are just there to hang around strategising for the next popularity contest in 5 years. they don't have that much of a majority - things still have to be voted on and campaigned against and fought to the hilt. the opposition plays an incredibly important part and can shape things massively.

maybe again this is the trouble with 'party politics' and the worship of party and tribalism over doing the damn job of representing people who vote for you. there is not just labour sitting across from the tories - there are MPs voted for by real people who didn't want tories in power and who should now work together to resist the things that the people who voted for them wanted resisted.

all of these games within the party and talk of electability and coups etc are just such an insult to voters in this country. it shows utter contempt for people as if all that matters is the games and pomp and ceremony of their little elite world without even a pretence that the whole show is supposed to be about representing us.

I have found the insults from Corbyn supporters to anyone who disagrees with them on twitter very off-putting - unfairly as they are nothing to do with the man or his team

I agree. I have seen in the past few days people, including a Labour MP forced off twitter just because of the hate and vitriol they are getting from JC supporters for not voting for him.

I agree. I have seen in the past few days people, including a Labour MP forced off twitter just because of the hate and vitriol they are getting from JC supporters for not voting for him.

I've seen that too, aswell as the usual cries of 'zionist' if you dare disagree with the JC viewpoint

Getting a slating for being principled and not singing a shite song from the same newspapers that hacked into the personal phones of the royal family.
There is so much more in life to be concerned about.
If he's rattling the establishment - good!

Is now a good time to be "rattling the establishment" though?

Let's assume, for one moment, that JC refuses to kneel to the queen and kiss her hand when taking his place on the Privy Council.

There are already teams of advisors, lawyers, and other civil servants planning for that eventuality; is that really the best use of their time and the public purse?

By refusing to sing the National Anthem, JC diverted media attention away from the decisions taken in the House of Commons that day, which arguably should have been brought to the publics attention. Possibly worse, he diverted attention away from the memorial that he attended.

I'm not averse to change, it is essential, but there is a timing issue IMO. Forcing the establishment to review harmless procedures and protocol in the current global climate diverts human and financial resource from where it's needed most.

all of these games within the party and talk of electability and coups etc are just such an insult to voters in this country. it shows utter contempt for people as if all that matters is the games and pomp and ceremony of their little elite world without even a pretence that the whole show is supposed to be about representing us.

Completely agree. Corbyn was yesterday saying that parliament should not be a club and if this is one thing that he manages to shake up or bring focus on, then good.

His "phone in" style of PMQs yesterday may have been simplistic (and I hope he moves on from it) but if it helps to make the point that they are supposed to be representing us, then good. How on earth can Dave and co have any notion of what it's like to be on the breadline. People who already work all the time and cannot actually work harder

Forcing the establishment to review harmless procedures IMO he wasn't doing that by not singing the national anthem - he was just being himself (granted he might not always be able to do this in the position that he is now in). It's the media and their hysterical focus on it (even papers and journalists that I thought would have been above this) which diverted everyone's focus on it.

On to it

How can it not be news?

We've had a humdinger of a leadership contest, with a landslide victory for a rebellious rank outsider.
And within days of that victory, the first public thing he does (remember he cancelled two pre-existing appearances) is not sing the national anthem at a memorial service.

It would be completely wrong of the media to ignore that, whatever the political view on it.

I don't think it's the front page news that it was made into. A point for discussion in the wider context of people trying to find things out about JC possibly, yes. I am saddened by how he has been hounded by the media. I also did not realise how conformist the Establishment is.

Most of all however - the 2 bills that went through did not get the coverage they should have got. I don't think that this is JC's fault.

werksallhours They may not be as much but £93 billion in corporate welfare has been touted by the guardian.

In the financial year 2012-13, the government spent £58.2bn on subsidies, grants and corporate tax benefits. It took just £41.3bn in corporation tax receipts.

This doesn't seem to smack of free market idealogy or fiscal responsibility.......

Blimey, I have just read Nick Cohen's resignation from the left article.

I do think there's something in both extremes of mainstream politics which just wants the world to be simple again-you see it in UKIP, in Trump, and in some places on the left as well. But maybe it just can't be (if indeed it ever was...), maybe there aren't many easy answers to policy questions that are often global in nature and have multiple implications. We can't just pull out of the world, we have to engage-and it feels like the rise of Corbyn is one symptom of UK politicians' failure to articulate this.

Laisy thanks so much for referencing that article, which I wasn't previously aware of - absolutely brilliant journalism, linked here if anyone wants to read it:

www.spectator.co.uk/features/9637452/why-ive-finally-given-up-on-the-left/

Wow - just saw the OP. Really? Do people think singing the national anthem is really really vitally important now? How strange.

It is very well written, I agree, Puzzled. And painful.

Here are two more, both by 'lefties' whom I hope are wrong, in case:
thequietus.com/articles/18714-jeremy-corbyn-labour-election-rally-policies Taylor Parkes, published before the leadership election, also beautifully written I think.
www.policy-network.net/pno_detail.aspx?ID=4967&title=The-Corbyn-fantasy-doomed-from-the-start, by Hopi Sen

i feel like a complete alien for thinking that the job of politicians and parties is not to be 'electable' first and foremost but to represent the people.

I don't understand this logic. Surely, the more people believe that you represent them, the more electable you will be.

If you are unelectable, it implies that more people believe other people/parties represent them.

Whether you like it or not (and I'm not saying I necessarily like it either), more people felt the Tories represented them in the 2015 General Election than other parties, so it is the Tories that would appear to "represent the people" better than any other party. Of course, you may vehemently disagree with the views of the people that believe this, but that doesn't change the unarguably fact of the General Election.

Read the spectator article, think it's toot.
How will anything get done when we are killing each other. We have to get talking. Talking to people who we disagree with and dislike.
Talking to oppressors and dictators and people we don't agree with, instead of dropping bombs on them. They are human beings. If they are wrong, they are still human beings.
If there is a loss of life, it is a tragedy, because it is a loss of life. Regardless of whose life that is.