OneGuyFromBarlick

See THIS BBC report on the latest state of play in the great 'get Corbyn' debate.
I still haven't changed my opinion. Despite the obvious dangers I like the Corbyn approach and can't understand why he is described as "not radical". My problem is that all the other candidates are obsessed with 'getting back into power', the New Labour approach. I happen to think that Labour lost its way in the 1990s and abandoned many of the core principles that I believe in. Rather than obsessing about re-election the party needs to make some fundamental decisions about what they are, get some clear statements about core principles and aims and make them public. The argument against this is that this approach doesn't lead to change. Nonsense! You might as well say that Seebohm Rowntree and Beveridge had no power but they were part of some of the greatest changes in society we have ever seen. The unions were never elected but on the whole their interventions also helped shape the improvements we have seen. True, they went of the rails every now and then but despite that they got change!
Labour needs to attract a core vote and at the moment this is anyone suffering from inequality. This was the basis of their initial success when they first emerged after 1900. Some things never change and God knows we need a different approach to the Blair principle of being all things to all men. So you can guess where I want the leadership to lie after the results of the vote are announced in September.....

I’d vote for Jeremy Corbyn in an instant. This is because I’m nerdishly interested in policy and debate and ideas, whether I agree with them or not. We have a very good idea of what Mr Corbyn stands for whereas I have absolutely not the first clue what any of the others stand for despite them having plenty of chances to tell me. As an unreconstructed old-Labourite it is very unlikely Mr Corbyn would ever be elected in this country even if he passed what I think are the now accepted tests of 1.) eating a bacon sandwich with aplomb and 2.) frightening the English by pointing at random Scots.

Despite what some folk might think I’m not old leftie. I was a member of the Labour Party for a while. From the time of John Smith through to about 6months after Blair’s election when I had his card well and truly marked and rumbled him as a wrong ‘un. Essentially I’m a Social Democrat/light Green (would be SNP in Scotland) and have voted Lib Dem more often than not. A large attraction is because they say sensible things about the absurdity of our democracy: our voting system, our ridiculous 2nd chamber (where a good idea is debased), our centralisation and the like. I’m also a fervant republican but know there’s no appetite for any change among the British so generally hold my counsel save for occasionally harumphing contentedly to myself at the daftness of a ‘monarchy’.

Richard Broughton

I'm with you all the way Richard, I stopped paying subs to the Labour Party when they took the funding away from the local parties. Like you I got the idea. The thing that strikes me at the moment is that Corbyn is making proposals about policy, all the others are just campaigning negatively by attacking him and saying his policies are rubbish but as you say, giving us no idea of what their alternative is beyond finding a way to get back into power. They keep talking about democracy, the will of the people. I think we are seeing a clear expression of 'the will of the people' in the support for Jeremy. Unfortunately the smoothie office seekers see this as ridiculously 'left wing'.

I hope I can describe myself as a socialist, unfortunately until the breath of fresh air that Jeremy Corbyn has brought to the fore, basic socialism has been lacking from whatever the Labour Party is supposed to represent at the moment. Some of this must be my doing as I spent the best part of 20 years of my life campaigning to get the previous Labour Governments elected. I too sent my membership card back not long after New Labour was devised. With two kids at university at the same time it was tuition fees and student grants that did it for me. By doing so I'm eternally grateful that I was not still on the local GC and EC when Iraq came along.

The present posturing, attempted vote swinging and personal attacks by the other candidates is despicable and I sincerely hope that this will be seen through by those voting on the leader. They seem to have forgotten that it is policy and the need to carry this to the electorate, that is what matters to a party. The fact that Corbyn is seen to be un-electable as a Prime Minister remains to be seen. If given the opportunity he would have nearly five years to make his case. The party and general electorate is crying out for something radically different to the middle of the road diatribe prevalent at the moment. The biggest complaint from voters is that all the parties are the same, time to prove this wrong.

Liz Kendall's call to vote for anyone except Jeremy Corbyn is exactly the sort of Westminster bubble politics that Labour needs to get rid of. It may be clever and sophisticated to manipulate the voting so that the most popular person loses but this is not what people understand by democracy. How often do we hear ' you must be in the team to influence the policy' well here's her opportunity to do what they all spout about when they are talking about Europe and the Common Market. World politics are terribly complicated and some degree of pragmatism must be applied. I'm sure Corbyn knows that it would be foolish to follow a ridged ideology that would be impossible to implement and get absolutely nowhere. What is abundantly clear is that many of his ideas are now being taken up by the other candidates on a 'me too' basis.

Two posts that I agree with completely..... Like Ian and Richard I saw the light soon after Blair got his majority and instead of instituting a programme based on what I understood to be Party Principles and core values, simply continued to apply the previous government's programme. The excuse offered was that they had been out of office for so long they needed to get organised and it made sense not to rock the boat until they were certain what course they wanted to take. I can still remember the shock of hearing Thatcher congratulate him and visiting him at Downing Street....
I saw the report of Jeremy's speech in Scotland yesterday and the reactions of his audience, they were saying exactly what we have been noting, here was a candidate with clear views based on social democratic principles being totally transparent. This is the reason why he is getting such a
response. The contrast between his approach and the totally negative attitude of 'torpedo Corbyn' prevalent in the others explains exactly why he is doing so well.
P is right, the man isn't a fool, he will be pragmatic but beyond that I feel he would keep his principles clearly in view. The constituency he is addressing out there in real life, those who see the inequality of the present system, is enormous and is being totally ignored by the politicians whose only goal is the pursuit of power. They have got the cart before the horse, political power stems from the will of the majority and the way you get that majority is to show the voters you are addressing what they see as the problems. Regulating banks and 'the market', getting control of the commanding heights and supporting vital social services is what is required, not more bubble politics. Roll on September, to me Corbyn is our last and best hope.....

The two sides of the Labour Party are now too different, incompatible, and neither can be everything to everyone. It's like having two very different parties trying to use the same name and the only answer is to split apart. If that happens it might mean even less effective opposition to the present Government...or would it allow one side to become quickly dominant and be the beginning of better opposition?

My hope is that as socialism was the basis of the party for a lot longer than the swing to the right it may be just the right time to re-inject and reinvigorate the grass roots of the party into an effective opposition. This is clearly what has been lacking in the party and is what the majority of current supporters wish to return to. I might even consider rejoining if there is something to fight for. In the pre Blair days Barlick branch had more than 50 active members and a lot more supporters certainly during my stint as secretary and activity within the constituency. We actually used to put up credible candidates and fight elections. Vote and take resolutions to conference and everything else that goes with an active constituency branch. Current incumbents don't (or can't) even cover the polling stations on election days.

I remember those meetings in the back room of the Cross Keys Ian. Every organisation has the equivalent of right and left wings, One of Cameron's problems is keeping his rabid right wingers in check and we all remember Neill Kinnock making his speech about the taxis in Liverpool.
I see two reasons why Labour was always seen as being more troubled than the Tories by splits, the first is the pathological fear of 'Communism' by the Right (even worse in the US. Remember the House Committee on Un -American Activities?) Look back at the reaction by the Right to things like Red Clydeside, Tonypandy and the General Strike, the effect it had on immediate post WW1 legislation and the speed with which concessions were retracted when it became obvious there was no appetite for revolution here. Secondly is the mostly Right Wing control of the newspapers which preached hatred of the Left. I was never really bothered by the splits in Labour, I saw them as evidence of a vibrant community and the oft cited 'Broad Church'. What did it for me was a combination of events; the ditching of Clause 4, the centralisation of party subscriptions to London and most of all by the fact that it soon became apparent that my instinctive distrust of Blair was well founded. To cap it all they charged me twice for my subs and that was the final straw.
It's interesting to note that Corbyn's brand of open and transparent politics is gaining traction not only in Labour but other parties, particularly UKIP. I always said that they were a party of protest and many of them were disillusioned Labour voters. It would appear that Jeremy has the power to bring some of them back into the fold. In addition, the erosion of personal disposable incomes is not limited to the very poor but is being felt by the 'middle classes' and anyone who is openly protesting against privatisation and the failing of the market is attracting attention.
You've all heard me arguing for years that our political systems need revision. Jeremy Corbyn could be a good start.
Another of my current heroes is managing his job very well. Alexis Tsipras has survived the latest vote to accept the latest restrictions imposed by the EU and gain the 85billion Euro subsidy. I have always said he was playing a long game. Despite all the problems he now has breathing space for further negotiations over debt reconstruction which even the IMF supports. This was not even on the table when he started. It wouldn't surprise me to see him ask for a vote of confidence and a new election....

I heard a commentator (Who sounded very knowledgeable but I don't know who it was) on R4 yesterday talking about the EU/Greece affair. He put forward the thesis that the Single Currency is so flawed that it is developing into a cancer eating into the whole project and he forecast that it is going to drag the EU down to break-up. This sounds a bit extreme to me but there is no doubt that it is the biggest problem facing the EU today. Nobody is doing a Corbyn and being transparent about this, all the political energy is going into sticking plasters. Behind the scene someone is working on the cracks but how can they fix it? The only way I can see is for all the members to relinquish sovereignty over budgetary control and some political control. This is what has been imposed on Greece and I go back to my suspicion that this is the template for all the members.... If that is right, this is indeed a serious if not intractable problem.
Godron and his 'clunking great fist' of a speech yesterday.... I am absolutely confused.... How can these dinosaurs, all of whom presided over the march to ten years in opposition imagine that their opinions carry any weight or credibility? Their solution which was to impose a centrist policy structure, go for the middle class vote and the shires and get elected to 'change the system' failed miserably because they were not radical enough. They signed up to the current Westminster ethos of massaging the banks and financial institutions, raking in the increased tax take caused by the insupportable inflation of the economy based on massive debt and phantom trades. Remember Godron's speech to the City congratulating them and lauding 'light touch regulation' just before the crash? Remember the 'New Economics' and the golden dawn of the end of boom and bust
As far as I can see, interventions like this do nothing but reinforce the case for a fresh start in the Labour Party. Take note of what failed and why and construct a different base to start from. Looked at like this, the Corbyn approach seems like a good bet to me....
Unconfirmed reports that the noble lord Mandelson is squirelling away under cover trying to persuade the anti Corbyn candidates to step down so that Andy Burnham can have a clear run. As I say, unconfirmed but entirely in character. I wouldn't trust him any further than I could throw him....

The Radio 4 programme referred to by Stanley above was probably the `Point of View' episode by John Gray titled `Euro Despair' which was on at 08.50 on Sunday. Point of View is a 10-minute programme and is broadcast on Friday and repeated on Sunday. I'd recommend anyone who has an interest in the Greece/EU situation and didn't hear this episode to download the podcast and listen to it on their computer or MP3 player. Available on this BBC link: LINK

Godron, Bliar, Madnelson...it's like a bad dream, we thought we'd got rid of them and here they are popping up again like some kind of Punch & Judy show. I'm in favour of some of Corbyn's policy proposals and against others but I hope he gets elected as leader of the Labour Party because it's the only way to shake it out of it's trance. Shock tactics! It might make the Party give more attention to issues like the one raised by today's news that the average pay of Britain's `top bosses' is £5 million, some 183 times more than the average of the employees and up from 160 times in 2010. Austerity? I thought we were all in it together!

I heard that report as well....
I was wrong about the noble lord, he was advocating that all the anti-Corbyn candidates should withdraw, thus torpedoing the process. Constructive eh?
The least worst option at the moment is to allow Jeremy to knock some sense into the party. An enormous task but I can't see anyone else on the horizon. What a mess.....
I see that Ed Milliband is the latest 'grandee' to shove his oar in. This must be meat and drink for the Tories and the right wing press is taking every opportunity to stir the pot. All this damage will have to be repaired and as I keep saying, the first step is to make the Party's aims and principles totally transparent. Corbyn is the only candidate doing this effectively, all the others are being almost totally negative.

Stanley wrote:I see that Ed Milliband is the latest 'grandee' to shove his oar in.

Are you sure you have the right Milliband. I have read that 'Ed' refused to comment and did not endorse anybody in particular while 'David' is backing Kendall. Now that tells you something.

Yes it was David Milliband, someone commented that Ed might have been on holiday to keep out of the fray. What strikes me is that all the ones coming out of the woodwork have one thing in common, they all failed at the task they were given in one way or another, who are they then to lecture to the the ones with a vote.

Despite denials - the reporter who broke the story that Mandelson wanted all the candidates except Corbyn to quit was quite convincing in a recent radio interview. I completely believed his version of events. Mandy must be losing his touch - if all the other candidates withdrew - what's to stop Corbyn being elected unopposed? Something similar happened to Mr Brown, so the situation is not without precedent..

From Wikipedia -
From the start most observers considered Brown the overwhelming favourite to succeed Blair; John McDonnell, his only challenger, failed to secure enough nominations in order to get onto the ballot and conceded defeat to Gordon Brown. The election process concluded with Gordon Brown being declared leader at a special conference on 24 June 2007. On 27 June, Tony Blair resigned as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and was succeeded as Prime Minister by Gordon Brown.

Still three weeks to go - plenty of time for 'events'

PS. Later that same day. . . .
Events - Paddy Power who had Corbyn at 2/9 favourite, tonight have said they consider him to be sure to win, and have started paying out on winning bets. Only £100k so good value for the publicity.

Sorry lads, I must have misheard.... David is just as flawed, he took his bat home when he lost the leadership election and went AWOL.
David, that thought struck me as well.... Despite denials I agree with you, exactly the devious sort of manoeuvre the Noble Lord mistakes for politics and normal behaviour. The bald truth is that the other candidates have been left behind in the race due to their total lack of imagination and hankering after power. Perhaps that's Jeremy's strength, he has said all along that he is more interested in healing the party than regaining power.....
See THIS for a report on the election and the fact that Harriet Harman was so worried about the ;possibility of a judicial review she brought in the lawyers to check compliance with the 2014 rules. The official line is that the vetting process is robust enough to winnow out the suspect voters.
What struck me is that any Tories who do manage to get their votes included are possibly voting for the biggest threat to them and ya boo politics for years. What an irony if he succeeds and after adjusting the Labour offering wins the trust of enough of the electorate to win power.... (We are allowed our dreams!)

If anyone needed further proof of Jeremy Corbyn's lead in the election they need go no further than THIS BBC report on the latest allegations being hurled at him by the right wing press and others in an effort to cut his support while people are still deciding on their vote. My mind went back to other meetings, remember Thatcher stood on the steps of Downing Street with Saddam Hussein and saying she could work with him? Did this mean she sympathised with his aims? You can think of plenty of other examples.
When the opposition to a candidate starts to get to the bottom of the barrel like this you can be sure they are in trouble. The sooner we get a result on September 12th the better!

The people setting off these allegations and bad-mouthing him are shooting themselves in the foot and are more likely to boost Corbyn's chances of getting elected leader than to inhibit his chances. While his opponents and their backers go red in the face and spit venom he simply stands aside and let's them dig their own graves. I have to admit I hope he gets elected just to spite Godron et al. (Excuse all my cliches!)

It’s the old guilt by association trick, which all parties use as it’s easier than arguing the issues and policies. Senator McCarthy in effect practised this, but I read the other day that it was Lyndon Johnson who really got it going. Struggling in a Texan Primary, he instructed his staff to put out that his opponent enjoyed carnal relations with the farm sow. His staff were horrified, and said no one would believe it. Johnson agreed but noted that the point was to force his opponent to deny it. That’s the depths to which we have sunk, and frankly it’s hardly surprising Mr Corbyn is buoyed by a dramatic surge in those disengaged, forgotten, ignored, disillusioned and so on, when he stands at least at face value, dead against that sort of nonsense.

Mr Corbyn frightens the establised political clas for many reasons. He refuses to do personal. He seems also to refuse to be partial in his condemnation, or pick sides, which is the focus of the guilt by association stuff. For example, he knows that the IRA commited atrocities in Ireland, but he also knows the Unionists did, the British Army did and the Security Services did. He knows the Palestinians contain among their number some rum folk, but he knows the Isrealis do too. He doesn’t offer up facile solutions as some self-evident commonsensical truth. Now, we’ve become so accustomed to the facile that this might well not ever win him an election. But it will enable him to provide an Opposition and indeed as Opposition leader, expose his arguments to a wider public. I also read the other day that the impassioned argument against Trident put by Ms Sturgeon during the leaders debates was the first time for over a decade any mainstream TV outlet abroadcast such an argument. We need more of this.

Richard Broughton

I agree with both of you.... What makes it even more damaging for his opponents is that the examples they are plucking out of his past aren't even cogent. Of course you have to talk to the IRA, Hammas etc. If I remember rightly that's exactly how we eventually made progress in Ireland.... We're talking to the Taliban now... Eventually the will have to do the same with IS.
As for the Surgeon/Corbyn view on Trident, it certainly pushes my button. I was never convinced by the deterrence argument and it has even less traction when we spend on weapons we can never use while running down conventional capacity at a frightening rate. It also hasn't escaped my attention that the SNP policy on Scots Rail is to take it back into their control. Corbyn and even Burnham advocate the same for the rail franchises in England and I am all for it. The evidence of the rail franchises that have had to be run by the government pending new franchises is that they all ran better and at less cost in subsidy from both users and central government. Lobbying power and party dogma have up to now ignored this. 'The commanding heights' argument still holds good for me, how about the utilities?
One thing that struck me is that nobody is questioning Andy Burnham on failed privatised hospitals....
Alexis Tsipras has done what many expected, he has resigned and asked the electorate to make a decision on the way he has handled the debt crisis. I think he may be on solid ground and I hope he gets a positive report. The crucial thing about his tenure that has become clear after all the Sturm und drang coming out of Europe is that he has got Greece a better deal than they had before in that they have three year's stability, the backing of the IMF on debt reconstruction and he has forced the EU (though they aren't admitting it) to examine the whole question of how the Single Currency can be rescued. Not a bad check list given the hopeless position he started from. Apart from anything else, the route he is taking is impeccably democratic. The same can be said about the progress of the Corbyn faction in the leadership election. As Richard points out, he has eschewed personal attacks and simply presented a cogent set of policies and left his electorate to judge.
I can see a glimmer of hope for our political system....

Stanley wrote: We're talking to the Taliban now... Eventually the will have to do the same with IS.

Under the normal power house politics the warring factions will continue killing each other until both sides realizes that they cannot win. At this point they start to have dialogue with each other. Corbyn is suggestion that you cut out the first bit and just get on with the talks. The problem with this is there is no profit in it for the arms manufacturers.

Stanley wrote:I can see a glimmer of hope for our political system....

Unfortunately the austerity programmes that most countries have embarked on produces an outright winner and an absolute loser. The only recourse that the loser has is to go along a path where the final outcome is uncertain. It may in fact make their situation worse. The only thing they have is hope. In many respects Corbyn is pointing at a possible way out but victory is far from certain.

Bruff wrote:He [Corbyn] seems also to refuse to be partial in his condemnation, or pick sides...

I have a lot of sympathy with Corbyn on this. Whenever there's an argument I tend to look at it from a different perspective from most people and point out what they don't want to hear. It's always getting me into trouble but I can't stand it when they are being selective with their facts and there's always a need to examine any issue from the other side.

Obviously he has convinced us...
I heard a commentator on R4 as I was drifting off to sleep last night and so don't know who it was. He said that Corbyn's unique advantage was that he was simultaneously engaging defectors to UKIP and the SNP, Green Party members and people who had left Labour during the Blair era. That sounds right to me..... What's certain is that none of the other candidates have that appeal.

Looks like the elite are getting paranoid now about the rules they put into place for voting on the leader. I cant understand why they gave an opportunity to non members to vote on such an issue under the guise of "supporters". The cynic in me would suggest that this may be a "get out of jail free card" should the wrong candidate get elected allowing someone to cry foul play.

On another issue the move to ban (censor) use of the internet to discuss union matters. Can't see how this could work and why should it, this flies against basic freedom of speech. We are not on a war footing so why do we need the equivalent of the D notice?

To an innocent bystander - it's quite amusing to see the party, which only a few months ago was telling us they could run the country better than anyone else, now seem unable to run an election for a new leader.