Rayvin

Great post, thanks HF. I was just going to add - the Daily Mail published more than 20 anti-Corbyn articles yesterday That has to be fear. Surely. If they just thought he was dismal, he'd not get more than a couple.

Scary to think how much time I've wasted on here today

I'll add to that - Middle England is shrinking as more and more young people are falling into the working class by default. So what's left of Middle England in a few years might not find that it's opinions count for very much.

You know austerity failed, right? You more or less admitted it a few weeks ago when the Tories under May came out and said they weren't cutting any more. Spending money is financially responsible when you can borrow it at low rates. It drives growth. We need growth. Badly. It might even be the only way to make a success of Brexit. Look man, the economics of his plan is solid. I'm sorry but it is. I can't speak for the amount in question, but in theory there's no problem with it. Western governments have been doing it for years and it works. If you and 'Middle England' can't see that, then you deserve stagnation I'm going to vote for it though.

True. I have similar concerns about both Trump and Clinton. Corbyn has made clear he isn't going to challenge the media narrative. He's just going to ignore them. That's probably his best bet but I don't think newspaper circulations are falling fast enough for it to work in time. I think the triumph for Labour lies beyond Corbyn, but I think he's necessary for setting the party down the path.

To continue being able to call the country a democracy, they might have to. FPTP only works in my opinion when you have two parties contesting it. Take one away, and the other party looks hegemonic. That said, I think Labour under Corbyn will make a decent fist of it in the end. PR was just a worst case scenario in case Labour collapses.

It is sound - but you're right, they need economists and people with credibility to come out for it. Arguably they either need the press to come out for it (which won't happen) or they need to get people who know what they're talking about out into the forefront. I posted in here ages back in one of the many arguments with CT about austerity that there were many, many internationally renowned economists who have written about policies for spending and borrowing money, and how they stimulate growth. These people do exist (although as 'experts' they may not be listened to now).

CT, did you read that article I posted a couple of pages back which made clear that, when parties are taken out of it, and people vote on policies, we end up with the Greens in charge? That was done 2 years ago across 500,000 people. Only 14% of people chose Tory policies. Here it is again: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/if-people-voted-for-policies-the-green-party-would-win-the-next-election-9887199.html It would be extremely interesting to see this carried out at a national level across a larger number of people (although half a million is considerable). The majority of the electorate, and I could not be more convinced of this after Brexit, vote for what they're told to vote for by the media.

Agreed at this point. I've said a few times that I have no real expectation of Corbyn getting into power. But his existence weakens the 'red tops' who carry most of the country, and that in itself is important. Some positive change will come out of this. I'm hoping for PR as a minimum if he does, as you all fear, destroy the Labour Party. I can't envisage any way in which the Tories would be able to carry on with FPTP in a one party state while still calling us a democracy. Maybe this is bitter medicine that we as a nation need to swallow in order for people to stop voting stupidly. As I said, I'll vote for policies, personally. I'll just have to hope that Momentum have something impressive planned with their grassroots activism in order to make a decent fist of it.

Well, good thing Corbyn isn't far left then, is all I can say to that. If some 'far left' are getting into the party, it's better to hear their views and argue them down than to no-platform them anyway. I dunno, I just don't think it's that big an issue.

Not well - but he didn't lose them. He has to win them back. Labour under Miliband lost them - which is what I put in my post. That said, I think he could do this if he offered a better solution for blue collars in general. Ultimately, are most working class people racist, or are they just sick of being at the bottom of the pile? That's the make or break point for this scenario. I don't know which it is. If the latter, then there's something to work with.

Will you vote Labour or someone less electable? Or... the other alternative that doesn't bear thinking about. That's all that really matters. Also, there's plenty of deeply unpleasant people in the centre-ground as well. I think the truism here is just that, 'there are deeply unpleasant people in politics'.

Thank you!!!

Just as an aside, I watched a film the other day about sugar in food that honestly made me think that the whole world would be better off without sugar. I didn't watch this video just to be able to endorse Corbyn on it for what it's worth although it probably sounds that way. I think it's called That Sugar Film. It points out that sugar, rather than fat, is the leading cause of obesity. Apparently it compromises insulin in such a way that it adds to weight gain. The guy in the film eats only low fat foods but still puts weight on, suffers mood swings, and feels generally groggy at all times. And he's eating 'healthy' weight loss food. It was really eye opening. Problem is, getting by without sugar is really fucking hard. So back to Corbyn. Yes, not eating biscuits does make him harder for the electorate to relate to - but then, he seems to have deeply held health reasons for rejecting it. Probably based on stuff that's covered in that film. He's doing himself no favours unless you actually look at why he's doing these things. Which no one takes the time to do/attempts to misrepresent him. As for the demographics, I don't think Corbyn lost the blue collars - I think Miliband did. They deserted him at the GE, UKIP had over 4 million votes for one thing. That's nothing to do with Corbyn. His challenge is to win them back, not retain them. That said, his style is unlikely to do this when it's filtered through the mainstream media. This is why if he is to win, he has to do it without the media. In this era, with social networks and alternative news sources, this is becoming more possible. He absolutely does need to speak to people's concerns - and his policies absolutely would do. He needs to communicate them though, that's the challenge. I think I'm more desperate than enthusiastic tbh. I was disillusioned to the point of no longer voting after the GE last time. I voted Labour but really didn't want to, it was just because 'they're better than the Tories'. Corbyn came in and I saw a chance for meaningful change and went for it.

Fair enough - without that change though (electoral college) we never would have gotten these policies - Labour would have stuck it out with austerity. The more you focus on the policies in this, and not the people, the more Corbyn makes sense. And I know, it's been said to death, that Corbyn can't win because even if *I* vote for policies, most of the electorate won't. But my hope is that such an analysis is facile when the only 'alternative' is Theresa May's Tories. Who now have nowhere to hide and no one else to blame when things go wrong. What the rise of Corbyn offered was a sense that *people* mattered for the first time in an age. This is why he keeps going on about it being a movement. He was put there by *the people*. Despite everything. Twice. That's something to believe in even if it leads nowhere. Moreover, as I said, it's the media who make this about the people and not the policies. I'm going to vote based on policies and I can only suggest that every thinking person does the same thing. Buying into the media driven nonsense is just pointless, and only serves to entrench right wing values. Our democratic system is broken and gloom, from everything you've said, you're almost identical in your thinking to me. So you know it's broken. And I agree that Corbyn probably won't be the one to fix it - but I do think the movement, which I hope will outlast Corbyn, potentially could. And I'm not even in Momentum ffs. This could fall flat - but it is going to lead to change. Whether that change is PR which will need to come in due to a diminished Labour party and the need to avoid a one party state, or some of the policies put on the agenda to be discussed, this is the best chance the left has at the moment, IMO.

2-1 for me. We have to start getting back to winning again and it starts here. Hopefully.

Ok but - you say you now vote Green and Lib Dem. Do you expect them to win power? Given what you've just said, fair enough if you don't think Corbyn can win, but surely you should now be considering voting for him on the grounds that a) he isn't New Labour which you claim to have failed in the same manner I do, and that his policies aren't entirely unremoved from where you are and b ) you're voting for parties who have less capacity than he does to win an election anyway..? Unless I'm missing something.

I know you're left wing mate - I've always considered you to be more or less where I am, with a couple of exceptions going either way - the issue is your second paragraph. McDonnell made the case earlier that the money could be borrowed at low rates (true - the stock markets are actually borrowing to invest in shares at the moment, as the price of money is so low; so if the right wing, rich city bankers are doing it, why not governments?) and that therefore it is an achievable figure. I don't know if it is or it isn't, but at least his argument makes sense. I suspect his justification will be lost amongst the incredulous headlines of the Daily Mail, though. Interest rates are low to encourage us to spend - that's why they do it. It's not working though, because the government isn't spending, so there isn't enough cash in the system. This is why austerity didn't work, and McDonnell is right to view spending as they way back to growth. It's Keynesian, and it makes sense. I do see your point about pragmatism, but it only holds up if you accept that we live in a truly broken system where no one is interested in actual policies or facts, and instead are interested only in personalities and tribalism. I don't want to live in that society - so I'm voting against it. I might lose, sure - very probably will in actual fact - but my conscience will be clear as I will have tried to help in some small way to having good policies implemented with outcomes that will genuinely benefit people. Instead of a slight alleviation in misery, which is the alternative put forward by compromising with the press (EDIT: which is then reversed as soon as the Tories get back into power).

Aye but I'm talking pre-Iraq... Are you saying you just don't agree with Corbyn's policies then? That's all I'm really asking. EDIT - and by agree I mean 'broadly'. There are some I don't agree with either, but if Blair was putting them forward (i.e. someone with charisma) would you vote for them.

Let me ask (Renton and Gloom) - if Tony Blair (pre-Iraq war) had come out with Corbyn's policies, would you have voted for him?

I disagree - on the basis that the electorate need a fucking shake to get them out of their comfort zones to make a meaningful choice for once. They can't just vote for two sides of the same coin now. And did you see the report I linked to before - in a parallel universe where Britain elects parties based on policies, we would have a Green government. How can you look at that and think that compromise is what is needed? It's compromise only with the media barons and the rich. If we can get the discussion onto policies, the rest will fall into place. It'll never happen of course, but I'm sick to fuck of the system as it stands now and can't personally go on 'compromising' with the right wing media. Not when the overwhelming majority of the country agree with left wing policies. To me, the issue there is that people are force fed bullshit in the news. Not that the policies are wrong.

I would also say that New Labour in power was better, wars aside, than the Tories in power. The problem now is that New Labour are only prepared to get into power by emulating the Tories. That became clear over the last few years. Corbyn isn't a natural leader and isn't even a particularly good leader. But his policies will make a difference. Which is why he needs to make it about those policies, and not him.

Being honest, I can see your side of this totally - I was with New Labour, and Blair, and then Brown, right up until the Tories came into power. Labour surrendered the narrative on austerity and the crisis to the Tories and allowed them to rip into the country because they thought it was more important to be viewed as being in the centreground, even though the Tories had pulled it rightwards, than to be doing what was actually right. So I guess you could say, without comment on Blair or Brown, that New Labour lost me under Miliband.

Aye but their task force is international isn't it? There's plenty of racism in Eastern Europe from what we hear in the news...