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

[Myturnnow4]

I've listened to people argue this, but haven't heard a reasoned argument yet. The main criticism appears to be, "he's on the left" but don't go on to explain why that in itself is a bad thing.

Bubblesinsummer
Yes he has also had peace talks with the Israelis.
How can you discuss peace with only one side?

The Labour Party (and all other political parties) need to forget about "this will make us electable/unelectable" and focus on what they actually believe in.

THIS is where they went wrong in the last election- no one wants to vote for a party chasing votes which changes its mind about what it believes in on a whim. Where you don't know where they stand and their only real aim is 'to get elected'. We want political parties with real beliefs and real and clear aims. The electorate needs a choice about who to vote for and parties that believe in things. Vote Chasing is what looses votes IMO.

Corbyn criticizes Cameron for bring too militant re Calais but admits it's complicated

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-on-the-calais-crisis-do-we-deal-with-it-militarily-or-on-the-basis-that-were-all-human-beings-10436745.html

Yes he has also had peace talks with the Israelis.
How can you discuss peace with only one side?

Do you have any links at all where he has specifically spoken to Israeli leaders/representatives?

SomethingFunny. Spot on.

Mentions it in this one about 1/2 down
m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/7788826

But there are plenty of articles out there

We want political parties with real beliefs and real and clear aims.

The music was good in 1983, too.

Shame about the largest Labour defeat in the post-war era, though. There was no lack of real beliefs and clear aims there: unilateral nuclear disarmament, withdrawal from both the EEC and NATO, mass nationalisation. I wonder why people rejected it?

Where does Corbyn stand on the EU, by the way? He campaigned in the 1980s to leave.

Jewish Chronicle trying to smear Corbyn related.
liberalconspiracy.org/2012/04/23/how-the-jewish-chronicle-is-trying-to-smear-jeremy-corbyn-mp/

It's very difficult to know what the Labour Party stand for. They have offered very little opposition to the conservatives at a time when the Tories could only govern in coalition.

Corbyn may split the Labour Party, but many people must be wondering why that would be a problem.

If any of the other candidates were electable they wouldn't be challenged by Corbyn.

Corbyn may split the Labour Party, but many people must be wondering why that would be a problem

Because it could lead to years and years of legal wrangling, in fighting, internal gazing. All while no one is actually opposing the government.

All while no one is actually opposing the government

And the difference would be?

And the difference would be?

I guess that it would mean that more voters would be lost. If people allegedly 'couldn't trust' labour this time whatever that means how could we convince people to vote for a party that can't even agree amongst themselves, is seriously splitting before the winner is even announced and has a leader who can'take really command the loyalty of people to vote with him, when he is renowned for not doing it himself.

Article by former ambassdor, Craig Murray, arguing against the myth that the Left is unelectable. I don't agree with everything he says, but he does make sme good points.

"Nicola Corbyn and the Myth of the Unelectable Left

The BBC and corporate media coalesce around an extremely narrow consensus of political thought, and ensure that anybody who steps outside that consensus is ridiculed and marginalised. That consensus has got narrower and narrower. I was delighted during the general election to be able to listen to Nicola Sturgeon during the leaders’ debate argue for anti-austerity policies and for the scrapping of Trident. I had not heard anyone on broadcast media argue for the scrapping of Trident for a decade – it is one of those views which though widely held the establishment gatekeepers do not view as respectable.

The media are working overtime to marginalise Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour leadership candidate on the grounds that he is left wing and therefore weird and unelectable. But they face the undeniable fact that, Scottish independence aside, there are very few political differences between Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon. On issues including austerity, nuclear weapons, welfare and Palestine both Sturgeon and Corbyn are really very similar. They have huge areas of agreement that stand equally outside the establishment consensus. Indeed Nicola is more radical than Jeremy, who wants to keep the United Kingdom.
...
Tony Blair is mythologised as an electoral superstar, a celebrity politician who achieved unprecedented personal popularity with the public, and that he achieved this by adopting right wing policies. Let us examine the truth of this myth. First that public popularity. The best measure of public enthusiasm is the percentage of those entitled to vote, who cast their ballot for that party at the general election. This table may surprise you.

Percentage of Eligible Voters

1992 John Major 32.5%
1997 Tony Blair 30.8%
2001 Tony Blair 24.1%
2005 Tony Blair 21.6%
2010 David Cameron 23.5%
2015 David Cameron 24.4%

There was only any public enthusiasm for Blair in 97 – and to put that in perspective, it was less than the public enthusiasm for John Major in 1992."

www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/06/nicola-corbyn-and-the-myth-of-the-unelectable-left/

Bubbles, there are two visions for the Labour Party:

One is a compromised, pragmatic social democrat party which pays attention to the vulnerable as much as is politically deliverable, while accepting that since 1989 communalist socialism is dead.

The other is an ideologically pure debating society which is able to get 100 seats in mostly northern, mostly urban constituencies but from that engages in principled, intellectually rigorous debate.

Which do you think would serve vulnerable people better: a compromised, social democrat Labour party in office, or Militant (and its inheritors) in opposition to Tories with a massive majority?

Which do you think would serve vulnerable people better

Apparently the SNP, looking at the last election.

Neither a compromised social democratic Labour Party or a left wing socialist party can do much if both are out of office. However, in opposition, I think people believe that there is more chance that Corbyn might speak up.

One thing that the last election has shown is that people will vote for a party that they think has no chance of governing if it thinks it will give them a voice.

The Labour Party has been very, very quiet for the last 5 years.

'Which do you think would serve vulnerable people better: a compromised, social democrat Labour party in office, or Militant (and its inheritors) in opposition to Tories with a massive majority?'

The Tories won't get a majorty. They will lose to a real socialist paty because the 'vulnerable' now includes many, many more people. The middle classes have been squeezed, living standards have fallen, jobs are insecure and low-paying, zero hour contracts are increasing, young people can't afford homes, parents are havng to help with deposits and tuition fees and living costs and people are graduating without finding high-paid emplyment. Everybody is being screwed by the charmed circle of the metropolitan elite who tell us things are geting better but no one believes it.

Things are going well for the metropolitan bubble, but not for the majority of working and middle class people. Their future is not bright. That is why there wll be a huge switch to Corbyn by the middle classes too, because Corbyn offers a better future - free universal childcare, free National Education Service, free unprivatised NHS, nationalised railways with lower prices, more cheaper homes, better care for the elderly, no tuition fees.

Nothng can stop Corbyn because he offers a better future for everyone apart from the metropolitan elite.

All Tory voters and UKIP voters know that Corbyn is a politically correct Labour idiot, but they won' care because his good points far outweigh his flaws.

if I hear metropolitan elite anymore I may scream

I have just heard one of the best quotes on this.

Better one day on government than 500 in opposition or words to that effect

The 'everything for free' policy, may very well attract people, and it rightly so. However how would it be paid for in a realistic way?

Nellist was called out on this yesterday when he was talking about it, but avoided the question and changed the subject without answering the question to any degree

Better one day on government than 500 in opposition

The problem is that they need to persuade people that the other candidates are electable.

'Vote for anyone except Corbyn' doesn't really inspire confidence.

"8 million people one paycheque away from losing their home

One in three people could not pay their rent or mortgage for more than a month if they lost their job, new figures from Shelter show today."

england.shelter.org.uk/news/april_2013/8_million_people_one_paycheque_away_from_losing_their_home

That is why Corbyn will smash the Tories with ease. It is not about people at foodbanks, it is about millions of people struggling to make ends meet. Up to now, they voted Tory simply because they felt that Miliband was just Tory lite (he was not for real, he was tinkering and was just the same and that nothing would change), but now with Corbyn, everything has changed. There will be a mass awakening and millions will switch to Corbyn in a tidal wave that the Tories, the BBC and the media will be powerless to stop.

I am a baby boomer (slightly younger than Corbyn) who is delighted with the idea of a proper socialist leader proposing proper socialist ideas.

The audience at the Corbyn meeting I attended was very mixed but there were a lot of baby boomers there. It's actually quite offensive to keep hearing that over-60s are only interested in their own income & don't give a toss about the young or the disadvantaged

'The 'everything for free' policy, may very well attract people, and it rightly so. However how would it be paid for in a realistic way?'

Corbyn will do it by stopping corporate tax evasion which Ken Livingstone estimates is something like 10% of GDP. He will reverse the corporation tax cuts, he will make the metropolitan elite pay, not ordinary people.

We are the fifth richest country in the world. Corbyn will put that wealth back in the people's hands and take it away from the charmed circle of billionaire party donors who prevent progress.

TheOneWiththeNicestSmile, you are absolutely right. Real reports say that there are more older Corbyn supporters than young ones. It is only the BBC and the corporate media who pretend it is just a twitter phenomenon for young people.

My baby boomer parents like Corbyn. But they have always voted Labour, they are not the ones Labour need to win over.
Would Corbyn appeal to people who voted SNP in Scotland? I don't know.

That is why Corbyn will smash the Tories with ease. It is not about people at foodbanks, it is about millions of people struggling to make ends meet. Up to now, they voted Tory simply because they felt that Miliband was just Tory lite (he was not for real, he was tinkering and was just the same and that nothing would change), but now with Corbyn, everything has changed. There will be a mass awakening and millions will switch to Corbyn in a tidal wave that the Tories, the BBC and the media will be powerless to stop

Nothing like a bit of exaggeration.

I think he will attract people but 'millions' talks of 'smashing' and 'wakenings' and 'tidal waves' is over egging it a bit.