Rayvin

I can't remember, but ideally it's something I'd like to see changed. I'm pretty sure he could change it without a referendum though. Might get political blowback of course.

Not sure we're hard left tbf. It's not like anyone is looking to bring back Communism. We're just left. But yes, I see the issue. I'm hoping Starmer can be persuaded to take up with a number of the policy positions. Maybe some of the centrists can be persuaded if they were only centrist for pragmatic reasons.

I think Blair's policies worked because at that point, the ideology was still functional. I believed in Blair at the time, things seemed to be working well and there was no reason to think it was all going to go to the wall. It did though, and that's because we didn't appreciate how flawed the ideology was. Not even his ideology I'll stress, and I'm not blaming him for it as such - just pointing out that with the benefit of hindsight, you can now see where the problems have come from. As you say, there was no appetite for socialism. Blair was the best we could have gotten, and did a good job under the circumstances. But the world has changed and the rulebook he wrote no longer applies. Owen Smith might well have been a better option than Corbyn, but there was no chance that he was going to get in because the PLP had made clear it was going to directly challenge the membership. For people who supposedly know how to 'play the game' that was a fucking stupid decision. Corbyn ended up with a bigger mandate than the one he started out with. Burnham, maybe. He was the next best option. But something extreme and radical was needed IMO - apparently other people felt the same way. Corbyn pushed us a long way left, and we have space and room to manoeuvre again now.

All sounds fine to me, but it's about the bigger picture as well. We need to be moving towards something, and that something has to be underpinned by the idea of 'a better tomorrow'. But in effect, what you're saying here is that you support a lot of what he says. Do you think any of it would have been on the table without Corbyn?

Agreed on the EU, agreed on Corbyn not being an intellectual powerhouse. But look, the PLP clearly weren't listening. You could see that through their dogged following of the Tories over austerity. Their voting over that welfare bill. They needed to be shaken and they have been. If they see Corbyn's likely defeat as an opportunity to go back to what they were doing, we're in dire fucking trouble.

I am highly cynical of the world's ability to do anything other than slow down our own (self)destruction, so don't worry about me being disappointed. I'm amazed that the whole Corbyn project even got off the ground. The world needs to transition to a new model for living since we aren't going to have sufficient jobs to sustain everyone under the current model, for very much longer. Whether that means things like UIs, population controls, etc, I don't know. But I'd far rather the solutions were coming from the left. If we leave it to the right, we'll end up with gated communities of the wealthy, with the feral 'normal people' living outside in tribal communities and chewing on each other's legs to pass the time. It's not about whether Corbyn is able to provide a solution, it's about the establishment recognising that it has to change and can't just respond to problems after the fact. We need a long term model for assessing the challenges we're facing, which is very difficult to do in 5 year electoral cycles. Unless you have people like Corbyn who are going to consistently stick to what they believe in, and not just what is a vote winner on that day of the week. He will fail, ultimately. But he's widened the fucking Overton window, and that's a start.

I'm not bothered about Corbyn particularly, save for observations that he appears to be principled, honest and consistent. He's not the point for me though, it's the policies. I don't know how many times I have to say that, but it seems to always need to be one more time. If he goes, and is replaced with someone like Trudeau (but with principles) who the press can all circlejerk over but who still fits the policy profile - then great. Suits me. The PLP should have supported him because the ideology underlying Blairism has collapsed. Utterly. It is on the floor, and it's being kicked shitless by the right. Their absolute refusal to grasp this has greatly damaged the party. So finally then - on people's different points of view. Your view and mine, on politics, were almost entirely identical pre-Brexit. Since the referendum, I have researched, read around, listened to speakers from all sides of the spectrum, and have developed my own view on what is happening based on that. My position moved, yours hasn't. I personally believe that you don't see the bigger picture in all of this, and view things like Trump, Brexit, Corbyn as random and almost unrelated events in a spell of dismal political developments that you've gently posited may come from a resistance to globalisation, but for which you believe there is no solution. Other people are reaching for a solution - that is why we are where we are. That is why this is happening. The genie isn't going back in the bottle until a solution is found. For me, I'd far rather that solution came from the left - because people like Trump are a solution as well. A bad one with all manner of disastrous consequences, but they'll still get the job done given time. Bringing the old Blairite way back into the mix isn't going to help anyone, and will eventually lead to our own version of Trump.

It is how it feels sometimes!!

Apparently I need to watch this.

Them and the PLP. I've noticed with interest the Guardian's u-turn over Corbyn in recent weeks. Although I want to set out that Corbyn's views won't appeal to everyone if not filtered through the media. The 1% for instance.

I see, so you think the only reason anyone is ever elected to anything is entirely to do with the person themselves, with no mitigating circumstances surrounding the event whatsoever. Brown - unelectable. Miliband - unelectable. Churchill - unelectable. To hell with details

I don't think he's unelectable based on any logical or rational measure. He's only unelectable based on a media hysteria measure. That said, I still think he's done well in the face of it.

As I said earlier, I think it'll be between a hung parliament and a 60 seat majority, since that seems to be what the polls are saying. I am under no illusions about the fact that he won't win, and never have been. That said, he's performed far, far better than I expected him to.

You and I both know that the policies poll well across the electorate, and that the only reason this doesn't manifest in actual elections is because of media spin about non-issues. I can't help that and refuse to water down my views based on what some fucknut at the Mail may or may not say about it. There's a rationality gap in voting, and it's sad. But the answer isn't to compromise.

Hence winning two leadership elections and fighting off the media, the PLP and the Tories to make a decent showing of this campaign. Or are we saying that he has suddenly 'become' electable in the past month? Impressive transformation if so.

No one was going for him on policy at the start. Everyone was rattling on about how unelectable he was, based on absolutely fuck all.

The point is he's reset where the discussion is. Something I hoped he would do 2 years ago when I voted him in. That manifesto never would have come to pass without him, and that's the area in which the PLP have misunderstood what's going on. You've said yourself that globalisation was/is the big challenge of our time - when on earth have the PLP given any indication that they have even the faintest awareness of the challenges people are facing there? Their failure to understand what people wanted led to Corbyn. If Yvette Cooper had been putting forward half of what Corbyn was, I could have voted for her.

Well said.

Aye but even you have to admit that the PLP misreading of the public mood and constant attempts to undermine the guy have damaged Corbyn. He's had to face his own party, the media and the Tories. In fact, of all three I'd say the Tories landed the fewest blows.

The country is going to be in tatters in 5 years either way, irrespective of who is in charge. Unless you think there's some deal that can be struck that actually doesn't torpedo the economy?

They'd have to change the voting mechanism for that to work though, and even if they could manage that, would they have the balls to do it? The party would absolutely haemorrhage members. Even the longstanding ones would surely have to reconsider based on how successful this campaign seems to have been. We'll have to see how it goes, but I think if nothing else this election campaign will have severely damaged any hopes the PLP had of people just letting them take the party back to the centre.

Aye it's a grim thought, but on the other hand, this is a poisoned chalice of an election if ever there was one. There is realistically very little any party can do to make a success of Brexit, and I'm not going to be entirely unhappy if it's the Tories who have to handle (and pay for) that. But yes, 5 years is a fucking long time.

Not much campaign left to damage now, it's over tomorrow. They've sidelined her for precisely the reason you've set out, but for my view it's not going to make much difference. The polls haven't moved noticeably for a few days, which means that the only hope we have is literally the youth vote. Best case scenario, that pegs Labour level with the Tories. Worst case scenario, the Tories get their 60 seat majority. Looks like the majority is inevitable based on that but I think if we can redo this in 5 years time, the policies will win out.

Steady now, that sounds like an allusion to the MSM. Not a popular concept in these parts

Absolutely this.