Next Leader of the Opposition

[Lionator]

Since the conservatives have been in sole power, they've been pretty savage imo especially giving IDS free reign. Maybe Nick Clegg stopped them in their tracks after all. Anyhow, this poll proves what a mess Labour are in and how unlikely it is that any of these 4 can get them out of it. As much as I agree with a lot of Corbyn's policies (I am a student after all), I'm beginning to get the feeling that it's all a bit of a hiding to nothing with all of the Murdoch press smears and attitudes on various issues of much of the older generation. Watch out for the new coming of the Lib Dems come 2020. 

[Frank to be]

The polls are worthless at the moment. Let's see how the tories fare during the upcoming economic turmoil when it dawns on people that we've been through an entire economic cycle and the only people better off are the rich. Let's see how people feel in four years time when we're in recession again and public finances are in a worse shape than when the tories took over. Let's see what voting mood the electorate are in when it transpires that the tories' main actions while in power have been to print money to give to bankers, spy on citizens illegally, and launch scathing attacks on societies most vulnerable. People might not be ready for corbyn now, but they will be once the reality of what is happening under this government slides into focus.

[The Blur]

Just saw the new poll on here and that Corbyn got 77% of votes??? All these votes must have got bumped up by pisstaking Tories on here  

[Guest MattP]

The polls are worthless at the moment. Let's see how the tories fare during the upcoming economic turmoil when it dawns on people that we've been through an entire economic cycle and the only people better off are the rich. Let's see how people feel in four years time when we're in recession again and public finances are in a worse shape than when the tories took over. Let's see what voting mood the electorate are in when it transpires that the tories' main actions while in power have been to print money to give to bankers, spy on citizens illegally, and launch scathing attacks on societies most vulnerable. People might not be ready for corbyn now, but they will be once the reality of what is happening under this government slides into focus.

 

Come on mate you've missed out gassing the disabled and privatising the NHS.

[Guest Bilo]

Just saw the new poll on here and that Corbyn got 77% of votes??? All these votes must have got bumped up by pisstaking Tories on here

 

Follows the real election then.

[Frank to be]

Come on mate you've missed out gassing the disabled and privatising the NHS.

I don't need to exaggerate to make the point that ordinary people have been shafted (again) by the tories. Eight years after the recession and average wages are still down but more millionaires are being created every day. Six years after the tories promised to cut the deficit and public borrowing is still close to all time highs. Billions of pounds worth of QE has gone straight into the pockets of bankers, almost literally. Money has been printed and handed to the rich, while struggling families have been forced into using food banks. It's absurd, people won't stay blind to this forever.

[Guest Bilo]

I don't need to exaggerate to make the point that ordinary people have been shafted (again) by the tories. Eight years after the recession and average wages are still down but more millionaires are being created every day. Six years after the tories promised to cut the deficit and public borrowing is still close to all time highs. Billions of pounds worth of QE has gone straight into the pockets of bankers, almost literally. Money has been printed and handed to the rich, while struggling families have been forced into using food banks. It's absurd, people won't stay blind to this forever.

 

People aren't blind to it, we can all see what this government is doing. The issue is that the public knowing about these failings and going out to vote for the opposition takes an effective opposition.

 

The problem is that they won't vote for anything else unless they have a genuinely electable alternative, because most of the electorate think of themselves before anybody else. The job of the new Labour leader is to reassure the voters that they will be better off under a Labour government, something we didn't manage to do in May despite highlighting all of these failings. The public need to trust us with the economy again, and more QE being used to fund otherwise unaffordable policies is going to make them jumpy about our economic competence. 

[Rincewind]

It is not that the public is blind but unless it concerns them it is treated as irrelevant and some treat it as a joke. Shit has a tendency to fall downwards onto the ones at the bottom. The ones at the top are OK. They can always find some that are willing to lick their arses clean. No offence.

[The Railway Man]

3 months into a new parliament and already the lefties are giving the "you vote Tory/UKIP as you dont understand the issues" or "its the Murdoch press" lines.

 

I really thought that would have stopped after this year, good luck in 2020, youll need it.

[Rincewind]

Maybe, maybe not. I would say misunderstand rather than not understanding. This illustrates the misconceptions  that people have regarding the issues. How can people sitting behind a desk ticking off boxes have the medical knowledge to say someone with a terminal illness such as Parkinson's or MS can be cured? Yet it has happened and occurring at an increasing rate. Is it a coincidence that the press that do not feature this are also the ones that back the Tory's. Some even contributing to the party funds?

I think I am unlikely to change anyone's mind so I am off out.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thousands-with-degenerative-conditions-classified-as-fit-to-work-in-future--despite-no-possibility-of-improvement-9811910.html

 

I am pretty sure that having empathy,caring about others and a social conscience is not exclusive to 'lefties'.

 

i can't get put in the support group and off esa i have terminal degenerative condition. it seems to be irrelevant what my consultants write to tell the DWP that there is no way i can work. they refuse to give me a medical exam. and refuse to put me in the support group even though i have to go to hospital for treatments and appointments nearly every week. my consultants have been asked for more medical information. they are completely baffled and furious about the lack of care that DWP shows towards many of their terminally ill patients. i have six consultants that treat have been treating me regularly for the last 7 years for various problems they have all written in they are a rheumatologist, endocrinologist, cardiologist, neurologist, urologist and a gastroenterologist. yet a medical practitioner that has never seen me knows more about my genetic disorder than they all do. i'm in a poverty trap and i'm totally unemployable.

[purpleronnie]

People aren't blind to it, we can all see what this government is doing. The issue is that the public knowing about these failings and going out to vote for the opposition takes an effective opposition.

 

The problem is that they won't vote for anything else unless they have a genuinely electable alternative, because most of the electorate think of themselves before anybody else. The job of the new Labour leader is to reassure the voters that they will be better off under a Labour government, something we didn't manage to do in May despite highlighting all of these failings. The public need to trust us with the economy again, and more QE being used to fund otherwise unaffordable policies is going to make them jumpy about our economic competence. 

Absolutely.

[Guest MattP]

Maybe, maybe not. I would say misunderstand rather than not understanding. This illustrates the misconceptions  that people have regarding the issues. How can people sitting behind a desk ticking off boxes have the medical knowledge to say someone with a terminal illness such as Parkinson's or MS can be cured? Yet it has happened and occurring at an increasing rate. Is it a coincidence that the press that do not feature this are also the ones that back the Tory's. Some even contributing to the party funds?

I think I am unlikely to change anyone's mind so I am off out.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thousands-with-degenerative-conditions-classified-as-fit-to-work-in-future--despite-no-possibility-of-improvement-9811910.html

 

I am pretty sure that having empathy,caring about others and a social conscience is not exclusive to 'lefties'.

 

It isn't Ken, but it's also not the 1st, 2nd and last thing most people are voting on when it comes to a General Election. I think you need to realise that.

[Buce]

Let's see what happens to the economy once Osborne has nothing left to sell-off to balance the books.

A week is a long time in politics - 5 years is a comparative eternity.

As Dylan said, "the times they are a'changin'". Slowly, maybe, but they are.

[Claridge]

3 months into a new parliament and already the lefties are giving the "you vote Tory/UKIP as you dont understand the issues" or "its the Murdoch press" lines.

 

I really thought that would have stopped after this year, good luck in 2020, youll need it.

 

Many Tories would love to see poorer/disadvantaged people improve their lives and billions are spent by this tory government on the 'poor'.

Millions of people have worked hard and improved their lives over the years  and  they now see labour as a party that doesn't represent their aspirations/values any more. I work for a housing association and don't meet many people who see labour as the party of the working class. Their concerns are more to do with immigration ,crime and benefit abuse.

Not what labour supports like to hear I Know ,but why would a poor person with aspirations vote labour?

[Guest MattP]

Let's see what happens to the economy once Osborne has nothing left to sell-off to balance the books.

A week is a long time in politics - 5 years is a comparative eternity.

As Dylan said, "the times they are a'changin'". Slowly, maybe, but they are.

 

I agree, a very long time. I always said the idea we can remove the 90billion surplus over this next 5 years was ridiculous, I don't think any government could achieve that.

 

You sound strangely optimistic in that last sentence given the most recent poll produced has the Labour party at their lowest ever total since Michael Foot and the Tories at their highest since John Major. The times may be changing to the point where the Labour party ceases to exist as a serious opposition anymore.

[Buce]

I agree, a very long time. I always said the idea we can remove the 90billion surplus over this next 5 years was ridiculous, I don't think any government could achieve that.

You sound strangely optimistic in that last sentence given the most recent poll produced has the Labour party at their lowest ever total since Michael Foot and the Tories at their highest since John Major. The times may be changing to the point where the Labour party ceases to exist as a serious opposition anymore.

As Frank said, polls mean nothing 5 years before an election; indeed, as the GE showed us, they mean nothing at all.

We'll see what people think in five years, when they have a privatized NHS not 'fit for purpose'.

[Guest MattP]

As Frank said, polls mean nothing 5 years before an election; indeed, as the GE showed us, they mean nothing at all.

We'll see what people think in five years, when they have a privatized NHS not 'fit for purpose'.

 

Polls still do mean a bit, the "shy Tory" vote has always been there and there actually was a 2%-3% swing to the Tories in the couple of days before the election if you look at the wikipedia page of polling - add that to the general 1-2% bounce a ruling party usually gets on the day and you aren't far off the 37-30 lead the Conservatives had.

 

Although it's the polling in the seats like Plymouth, Nuneaton, Bury etc that really count and decide elections, 450 of the 660 seats are already decided whatever the polls. That was the problem Labour had, they increased their vote in most of their strong seats but lost pretty much everywhere outside of London in "middle England" seats that could go either way.

 

Not going to get into the ridiculous "NHS privatisation" stuff as we do this every time and it never happens, it will be far lower Labour vote than 28% in 2020 if this is still all they can call upon to try and beg people not to vote Tory. It's a modern day boy who cried wolf. People just don't believe it anymore except the already converted.

[Bettsj2]

General election - Labour patronise those thinking of or already voting for UKIP and lose badly.

Labour leadership - Burnham, Cooper and Kendall patronise those thinking of voting for Corbyn leaving a bad taste with the electorate thus plummeting down the polls.

Labour need to learn to listen. Until they actually hear what people are saying and understand the reasons people say it, they are dead as a political force.

Constantly telling people they dont understand something is not the way to engage with them. Too many MP's and Labour party members seem to have that attitude.

[The Horse's Mouth]

Polls mean **** all currently, especially when the fact Labour do not have a leader yet.

[bmt]

You sound strangely optimistic in that last sentence given the most recent poll produced has the Labour party at their lowest ever total since Michael Foot and the Tories at their highest since John Major. The times may be changing to the point where the Labour party ceases to exist as a serious opposition anymore.

 

With the people vying for the leadership of labour on vastly different points on the political spectrum, of course they are going to be polling terribly nationally. I would vote for Corbyn's labour, but not for any of the others, and so I would make labour look weaker in a leadership poll. General polls during a leadership election mean nothing.

 

On a side note, as a Green supporter, I don't think it's fair that people who clearly support Corbyn should be excluded from the leadership polls. If someone who had been a Labour party member for 40 years, and voted SNP in the last election because of austerity, wanted to vote for someone who agreed with their own views and subsequently would enable them to vote Labour again, they should be allowed. Only Tories trying to make the vote unrepresentative of people who may support the party should be banned from voting, as they are undemocratic.

[Guest Bilo]

With the people vying for the leadership of labour on vastly different points on the political spectrum, of course they are going to be polling terribly nationally. I would vote for Corbyn's labour, but not for any of the others, and so I would make labour look weaker in a leadership poll. General polls during a leadership election mean nothing.

 

On a side note, as a Green supporter, I don't think it's fair that people who clearly support Corbyn should be excluded from the leadership polls. If someone who had been a Labour party member for 40 years, and voted SNP in the last election because of austerity, wanted to vote for someone who agreed with their own views and subsequently would enable them to vote Labour again, they should be allowed. Only Tories trying to make the vote unrepresentative of people who may support the party should be banned from voting, as they are undemocratic.

 

The problem is that the practicalities of differentiating the two are extremely difficult to implement. As a Vice Chair of my CLP, I've been sent numerous emails regarding new members and supporters with lists of names. It's really quite difficult to know whether these names, the vast majority of whom are unfamiliar to me, are genuine supporters of the party or UKIP/Tory/Green entryists trying to skew the process. However much Corbynites deny it, the latter have signed up purely to vote Corbyn because they don't see him as an election winning candidate. The fact that people can pay £3 to hamstring their political opponents, and that said political opponents have allowed this to happen,seems crazy to me.

 

Whether the higher echelons of the party will admit it or not, they made a blunder in allowing non-members to vote. We now have a situation where 600,000 ballot papers have been sent out to elect the leader of a party with only 300,000 members, 100,000 of whom have only joined since the election. When there is another leadership election, which in all likelihood will be within the next 2 years if Corbyn wins this one, it'd be madness to repeat this error. I would say strictly members only next time round, because this election has been a disaster area.

[Claridge]

The problem is that the practicalities of differentiating the two are extremely difficult to implement. As a Vice Chair of my CLP, I've been sent numerous emails regarding new members and supporters with lists of names. It's really quite difficult to know whether these names, the vast majority of whom are unfamiliar to me, are genuine supporters of the party or UKIP/Tory/Green entryists trying to skew the process. However much Corbynites deny it, the latter have signed up purely to vote Corbyn because they don't see him as an election winning candidate. The fact that people can pay £3 to hamstring their political opponents, and that said political opponents have allowed this to happen,seems crazy to me.

 

Whether the higher echelons of the party will admit it or not, they made a blunder in allowing non-members to vote. We now have a situation where 600,000 ballot papers have been sent out to elect the leader of a party with only 300,000 members, 100,000 of whom have only joined since the election. When there is another leadership election, which in all likelihood will be within the next 2 years if Corbyn wins this one, it'd be madness to repeat this error. I would say strictly members only next time round, because this election has been a disaster area.

And you want these people running the country? Thank god the election saved us from the 'higher echelons' of the Labour party

[bmt]

The problem is that the practicalities of differentiating the two are extremely difficult to implement. As a Vice Chair of my CLP, I've been sent numerous emails regarding new members and supporters with lists of names. It's really quite difficult to know whether these names, the vast majority of whom are unfamiliar to me, are genuine supporters of the party or UKIP/Tory/Green entryists trying to skew the process. However much Corbynites deny it, the latter have signed up purely to vote Corbyn because they don't see him as an election winning candidate. The fact that people can pay £3 to hamstring their political opponents, and that said political opponents have allowed this to happen,seems crazy to me.

 

Whether the higher echelons of the party will admit it or not, they made a blunder in allowing non-members to vote. We now have a situation where 600,000 ballot papers have been sent out to elect the leader of a party with only 300,000 members, 100,000 of whom have only joined since the election. When there is another leadership election, which in all likelihood will be within the next 2 years if Corbyn wins this one, it'd be madness to repeat this error. I would say strictly members only next time round, because this election has been a disaster area.

 

I do understand what you're saying and the practical difficulties, however I sort of disagree that Green members would join to make Labour less electable as it would directly harm their own party in doing so. My comments only come after the bbc article where Harman states they have kicked out 400 Conservatives and 1900 Green members (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34047788). The section which quotes " She said the process was strictly impartial but voters had to support the party's aims and values, which are set out in Clause IV of its rule book"  seems a bit iffy to me as the aims and values are remarkably similar to the ones which Green Party members have signed up to. I think it reflects Labour's troubles of not really having a sense of direction or progression that they are not willing to take on members from other parties who may well wish to vote Labour in the future.

 

I do however completely agree they have made a blunder in allowing non-members to vote. It either seems that non-members should not be able to vote, or that all non-members should be able to vote.

[Guest MattP]

I don't understand why any Green party member thinks they should be allowed a vote on the Labour leadership?

The parties are very different, Tories wouldn't allow UKIP members a vote if Farage decided to defect to the Tories and stand for leader.

If Corbyn has such support among Green members he should defect and run for leader.

[bmt]

I don't understand why any Green party member thinks they should be allowed a vote on the Labour leadership?

The parties are very different, Tories wouldn't allow UKIP members a vote if Farage decided to defect to the Tories and stand for leader.

If Corbyn has such support among Green members he should defect and run for leader.

 

Because they're allowing people who are non-members to vote, why does the fact I am politically active mean I shouldn't be allowed?

 

I am a Green Party member because I strongly oppose austerity and they are the only effective English party who does, I would vote for Labour if they opposed austerity and Cornbyn obviously fits that bill.