Rayvin

Who is them? New Labour was Keynesian as well. The public seemed to be on board then. I know the political history insofar as you guys have explained it on here, in some considerable detail I might add - but I think the set of circumstances are different. We have a dwindling middle class, young people who can't afford to leave their parent's homes well into their 30s, the highest income inequality gap this country has ever seen, Brexit, no growth to speak of, and of course, the fucking internet. Notable for being a tool by which people can bypass the media. We aren't going back to unions, we're moving forward (hopefully) to greater equality.

Well I don't think they should be and the mood in the party leadership doesn't *seem* to be for that either. Reconciliation is needed now. I only quoted him because it is quite a stirring speech which I think puts over what this is all about. Power without Principles (an exaggeration certainly) got us to the widespread disillusionment and ultimate defeat that he mentions.

CT - you're impossible to argue with properly on this because you don't actually look at what people are saying. If you have a suggestion that debunks Keynesian economic theory (and they do exist) then I'm all ears, but until then, you've got nothing other than the fact that most people are as ill informed as you are on economics. Sorry, I don't want this to sound harsh, but I've tried putting it over gently. It is imperative that we spend our way back to growth. The country is crying out for it. Fair enough. Not fear, just entertainment. We'll see how it develops I guess.

You reckon keeping it divisive is the way to go then? I'm not actively hostile to the Labour MPs that won't get on message but you have to question what the point in them remaining within the party is if they don't get with the program. I don't give a shit what happens to them as long as they don't get in the way (which they spent the entire previous calendar year doing).

This is from the Unite General Secretary - quite stirring, actually... I now call on Labour MPs to show what they can do from the Commons floor. Unite the party and back its leadership so that we can all fight together for this new economy. The Tories may steal our language but it is only Labour who can deliver the vision. A vision of socialist change and a rejection of free market capitalism. It was Harold Wilson who won four general elections, who once said ‘If Labour is not a moral crusade then we’re nothing’. Now I’ve heard people lecture us about the futility of principles without power. But comrades, we’ve also seen where power without principles leads to. It leads to disillusionment, disappointment and ultimate defeat. Of course we must win power. But we must also use power for our people, for working people. So I ask all of you not to be debilitated by the media and those within our own ranks who seek to undermine your confidence in the fight that lies ahead. So I say to the merchants of doom, in the words of Shakespeare’s Henry V, if you have no stomach for this fight depart the battlefields. Because sisters and brothers, in my 45 years in our party I have never known such a battle that lies ahead for a better Britain and for our ideals. What we need now is brave men and women with the courage and commitment to fight for our cause, the cause of true Labour.

20 articles is an easy ride? In a day?? I don't read it often enough to be sure I guess, but that seems substantial. The Tories will not be relishing this - I posted another article a little while ago which got buried from a conservative party journalistic source that pointed out that Momentum were out-campaigning the Tories in Tory constituencies. That they were holding 1000 people strong meetings while the Tories could only muster a handful. Actually I think you saw that article as you replied to the main point I made then about how this meant Labour were now much better off financially (you thought it was a one off windfall and pointed out that the new members wouldn't be matching the contributions you had made previously). The rest of that article though, is about how the Tories are being comprehensively outnumbered in the local activism stakes. So we'll see - will local grassroots activism and social media bloody the nose of the Daily Heil? I suspect they are concerned. If the Tories aren't they're fucking stupid as well - given that the unthinkable just happened with Brexit, I wouldn't take anything for granted if I was a Tory minister.

Yvette Cooper apparently not against returning to the shadow cabinet. That'd be a big win for Corbyn if he can get her on board. Until he was on the scene, Cooper was the person I would have voted for in the election. I suspect that she'll make some manner of demand though, so I guess it's more of a 'watch this space' moment.

I'd happily pay more. That said, it's not me that should be paying, it's the wealthy. They're on 45% aren't they? I'm sure that 50% is achievable without capital flight. And yeah, I'm going with fear. It's about building a narrative. The narrative has to be that Corbyn is dangerous while also being incompetent. The more they put out there, the more will stick. Basic tabloid journalism, surely? Which is why this campaign has to be fought through social media, so that the Daily Heil can be outgunned.

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.