Not to worry, I live and breathe long responses...
It’s very unimaginative and defeatist of you to fixate on winning over the middle England & Tory voters. Labour lost the last election because they abjectly failed to present a coherent anti-austerity counter programme, not because they weren't enough like to the Tories. People rejected Miliband because they saw him for the foot-in-all-camps, non-entity that he is. Labour failed to fire up the electorate with him espousing his austerity light rubbish! BTW only 24% voted for the Tories at the last elec' and 34% did not vote at tall. So this notion that the Tories are hoping Corbyn gets elected leader, is a smoke screen. They fear just how popular he could become, don't you worry!
I don't think the evidence agrees with you.
Even if Labour had won every seat in Scotland, we would still have been far off a majority. In order for us to win in England we do need to win over middle England voters - Basildon, Morley & Outwood...etc. I also find it odd that you have such a distaste for those that voted Labour in 1997 - you clearly don't want their votes! Maybe voters should pass an ideological purity test before they vote Labour. Maybe I shouldn't campaign for Labour - perhaps I'm not pure enough? Not feeling the love here!
I also think it is dangerous to rely on non voters. In the Scottish independence referendum, much was made of the transformational effect of those who had never voted before seeing the light and voting for independence. In the end, poor turnout in poor, non voting areas - even in this life changing referendum - denied the Yes campaign a closer margin of failure. The turnout in Glasgow was at 76% - high turnout for Glasgow but still 24% of people did not vote in an incredibly important election, much more important than a general election.
If JC wins he'll get the support of the SNP if he wants it. As well as the majority of the 34% of the disaffected that didn't vote at the last election. There’s millions of voters who left Labour after Blair got elected and have been floating around ever since waiting for the party to change. (Over 2 million in Scotland alone according to Rev Stuart Campbell on Wings Over Scotland). As for all these apocalyptic warnings of a "lurch to the left" and references to how a left wing Labour in the 1980s was. What that fails to understand is that the world has transformed since then.There was a paradigm shift in 2008 with the collapse of Lehman bros and the credit crunch. The entire free market collapsed, the banking system was destroyed and the government had to save the economy by nationalising the banks.This saw the free market paradigm utterly discredited and gave new credibility to public ownership, planning and control of the economy. Neo-liberal free market economics has failed and is outdated. People aren't silly - they're living daily with the the implications of this... The notions of public ownership and planning has grown massively in the last few years. Don’t underestimate public feeling on this! These voters need a credible outlet for their views..
The SNP is a nationalist party. Its constitution forces it to seek by political means the independence of Scotland. Unless Jeremy Corbyn renounces unionist politics and attaches the left to a nationalist cause, I highly doubt the SNP will roll over and hand JC victory.
Again, we could win every seat in Scotland and we still wouldn't have a majority. And we would probably lose more marginals like Hammersmith, Ealing, Brentford with JC.
But this paradigm shift returned a conservative government? Why? I think we should have more bank regulation, but please remember that planning & central economy control have been comprehensively discredited...suggesting that is akin to jumping off a bridge swigging cyanide in political terms. Even worse than 1983.
This is where I think we are veering into dangerously magical thinking. When the US republicans lost in 2008, they decided they weren't right wing enough, rather than seeing the plainly obvious truth that they were far too right wing to win mass support. In due course they elected a much more right wing candidate. They lost again. Again they thought it was because they weren't sufficiently pure enough - they should have advocated the total end of Welfare, the end of all social security etc. etc. Clearly this sounds barmy to anyone outside looking in, but now we have Donald Trump doing well there..
My point is that to anyone outside the Labour party, it is clear that we lost because we ran on a left wing platform that had little to say to the aspirational middle classes. Anyone turning around and saying "ah, we were simply not PURE enough, we should renationalise all enterprise and reinstate British Leyland" is falling to the same magical thinking that has doomed the US republicans to years out of power.
So to answer your question: I see very little difference actually between Labour (the slightly less nasty party of capital) under the war criminal Blair' and the equally monstrous Tory lot. BTW condemnation of Corbyn from such an unprincipled, bare-faced liar like Blair serves as a ringing endorsement in many millions of people's ears IMO.
What about all that extra money for the NHS, tax credits, child benefits, single parent benefits, child trust funds, record levels of education investment....? Would a conservative govt. have done that?
There's a lot of support for left-wing politics in this country, despite the media's 'liberal intelligentsia' that pump us all full of fear about any leader who wants to serve the people and not act in the interests of the elite few. But for that to happen we have to show the necessary courage. Do you think that the disaffected 34% will be inspired to vote if we put up another Blairite? I’d like to remind you here that Harman asserted Labour should not oppose the Tories pernicious attacks, (via its welfare reform measures), against the poorest and most vulnerable people in society (which are being imposed in order to hand even more tax cuts to corporations and the extremely wealthy). Neither did she did not want Labour to oppose legislation that will remove the legal obligation on the UK government to reduce child poverty?. Perhaps though you agree with her and think that more children growing up in poverty is a price worth paying to be popular with Tory voters? Is that the Labour party you want? I guess it is...
Where is all this left wing support - I can't see it? All I can see is a right wing media having collective orgasms at the thought of JC for Labour leader.
34%, eh? What makes you think every one of those people would vote Labour, or even the majority if JC elected? In any case it is a silly strategy to rely on non voters to win something, as the SNP found it to its detriment in the independence referendum.
HH - HH actually wanted people to abstain, then vote on an amended bill. Politically, people are in favour of benefit cuts & caps - HH knows this, and had all gone to plan news would have concentrated on Tory cuts rather than Labour's disarray - not like we could have stopped the bill anyway - at least we would have had a better chance of passing an amended bill.
No, I don't agree. But it was the Blair govt. that put a huge emphasis on eradicating child poverty. It was the Blair govt. that introduced working & child tax credits. The Blair govt. you wish had never happened and think is the worse thing to ever happen to the Labour party. That one. That's why a want a Blairite leader - one that can get into power and effect that change, whilst keeping voters who are generally ambivalent about benefits. We need them to vote for us. We need to give them something too, so they feel they can vote for us.
Whilst you may want new nukes, you're in a minority. (And it is a huge issue btw that is downplayed). A recent ComRes poll shows that more than 7 in 10 Brits would like to see an international deal banning nuclear weapons altogether. Most people know that spending £100 billion on genocidal lumps of metal is idiotic. The fact that scrapping it is off the table for most politicians shows that austerity is more about priorities than necessity. People will have to live off food banks or be homeless but at least the nation maintains the capability to wipe out waste swathes of humanity! Chasing middle England votes will mean we get a Blairite committing themselves to do just that. But that may be where your priorities lie. Then isn't the programme the Tories are putting forward going to serve you better?
No I'm not - read the yougov poll. Trident is opposed but nuclear deterrent in general is supported. As I have repeatedly stated, I disagree with the cuts the conservatives have made. The cuts they made to BLAIRITE programmes! In order to reverse cuts we have to get elected by the whole country, not just people you like. I disagree with the conservatives on many things, which is I want a Labour government. The best way to ensure a Labour govt. is to elect someone people outside Labour also like. I.e. not JC.
Now you're doubtless thinking "yes but we have to get in power first".. Why? To implement the same policies the Tories are now doing, only with a few quid more here and there for the NHS or targets for schools? Your fears about 'electability' is, I'm sure, well meaning, but I think misguided. Because, they're mostly based on fear and conjecture. JC represents a movement and a broad set of policies that are crying out for some air time and they will get them, if we have the courage to change the Labour party first and foremost, as well as this Americanisation of politics, on JC lines; and if he scares you too much. Who knows, perhaps someone more youthful and energetic would come along, which would be a genuine opposition deserving of the name Labour, and really give the Tory's something to think about.
Is this you admitting JC would not get elected? Surely you realise that means even more Tory cuts - is that what you want? Another 18 years of wilderness, with the Tories free to wreak havoc on the country, laughing as Labour consigns itself to electoral disaster just because we like feeling pure and never having to make difficult decisions? Why are you even a member of a political party if you don't think winning elections is that important?
Of course. Well what the hell have I just outlined? Once the media are obliged to stop churning out negativity and take JC's policy commitments seriously, this message will get out. Corbyn's policies mean more money to spend on what benefits the people and not the select few. They will be of huge economic benefit to the many via job creation. The same ‘many’ that will come out and vote for a change, if they feel it's likely to bring about some REAL change. Chasing the 'middle-England' vote, as you prescribe, will mean we go to the right to get elected, then what? The NHS, welfare, social justice, economic ruin and even more lives of the vulnerable can continue to be wrecked but this time, by Labour? Inspiring!!!
Voters want to know about... tax, business, rates, VAT, VED, Road tax.. JC's policies actually mean a huge huge spend upfront so much less money in the short term. In the long term he needs to get re elected. Let's remember how well nationalisation in the 50s worked out - ?