How Much is a Corbyn?

CLAPTON

cepheus wrote: »

I'm in disbelief how people could vote for such an elitist, arrogant, restaurant trashing, toff.



There's only a few Tories who realise their neo-liberal system is seriously being challenged by someone in opposition

Tories should be scared of Jeremy Corbyn capturing the 'zeitgeist', warns Zac Goldsmith

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-should-be-scared-of-jeremy-corbyn-capturing-the-zeitgeist-warns-zac-goldsmith-10455102.html

well, at least you talk the language of the ordinary person

shortchanged_2

cepheus wrote: »

I'm in disbelief how people could vote for such an elitist, arrogant, restaurant trashing, toff.



There's only a few Tories who realise their neo-liberal system is seriously being challenged by someone in opposition

Tories should be scared of Jeremy Corbyn capturing the 'zeitgeist', warns Zac Goldsmith

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-should-be-scared-of-jeremy-corbyn-capturing-the-zeitgeist-warns-zac-goldsmith-10455102.html

Is that Andy Burnham in the top left corner, next to Cameron?

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

Do people on here people really believe the majority of voters read the manifestos study the policies and make an informed decision on that I wouldn't mind betting that a large percentage couldn't tell you more than a couple of policies.

I agree but I bet that the floating voters know a few of the policies that they feel will make a difference to them and that the politicians (or the psephologists they employ) know more than you or I imagine about how to get the message across to certain parts of that group.

Google Dog Whistle Politics for an example or better still read Daniel Finkelstein who was a psephologist for John Major and is an amazing writer: witty, knowledgeable and assumes intelligence but not knowledge amongst his readership.

Toff Alert: He is a Baron
Non-Toff Alert: It isn't hereditary

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Aside from the actual policies of Corbyn, what I'm finding most fascinating is the increasing panic within Labour that the "wrong" leader looks likely to win. There have been numerous threatening Grauniad articles by the likes of Toynbee and they've wheeled Blair out twice to tut and wag his finger. Judging by the comments below the line, they have seriously misjudged the mood of their own members and Blair's disapproval is seen as making Corbyn look even more attractive. The line of attack seems to be to declare Corbyn will make Labour unelectable, so vote for one of the others because they'll strongly oppose the evil Tories by their brilliant polices of:

Burnham: I've been a shadow cabinet minister, don't you kow
Cooper: I'm a wimmins and we haven't had a wimmins Labour leader ever, so if you don't vote for me you're a massive sexist
Kendall: has nice hair

It's fair play to criticise Corbyn's policies, but the problem is the other candidates don't have any (oh, Cooper bangs on about SureStart a lot I suppose). Everything reeks of panicked backroom conversations along the lines of "the stupid plebs got the vote and now the ungrateful wretches are going to use it wrongly! How can we stop them?" Combined with a rising dislike of Oxbridge PPE career politicians (across the political spectrum) the party elite and Westminster journos have spectacularly misjudged the mood and f-ed up their tactics here.

I've never voted Labour so don't have a say in the debate, but it is a genuinely enthralling time in UK politics.

Generali

shortchanged wrote: »

Is that Andy Burnham in the top left corner, next to Cameron?

I thought it was the understudy bassist for Duran Duran on their 1983 tour.

danothy

ukcarper wrote: »

Do people on here people really believe the majority of voters read the manifestos study the policies and make an informed decision on that I wouldn't mind betting that a large percentage couldn't tell you more than a couple of policies.

Why do you think those who want a 'far left' in charge are pleased at the idea of Corbyn as the leader of the Labour party? Is it because there are literally no far left candidates to vote for at national elections, or is it because they like the idea of their ideology being installed at the top of a party that gets a lot of de-facto votes?

MS1950

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Aside from the actual policies of Corbyn, what I'm finding most fascinating is the increasing panic within Labour that the "wrong" leader looks likely to win. There have been numerous threatening Grauniad articles by the likes of Toynbee and they've wheeled Blair out twice to tut and wag his finger. Judging by the comments below the line, they have seriously misjudged the mood of their own members and Blair's disapproval is seen as making Corbyn look even more attractive. The line of attack seems to be to declare Corbyn will make Labour unelectable, so vote for one of the others because they'll strongly oppose the evil Tories by their brilliant polices of:

Burnham: I've been a shadow cabinet minister, don't you kow
Cooper: I'm a wimmins and we haven't had a wimmins Labour leader ever, so if you don't vote for me you're a massive sexist
Kendall: has nice hair

It's fair play to criticise Corbyn's policies, but the problem is the other candidates don't have any (oh, Cooper bangs on about SureStart a lot I suppose). Everything reeks of panicked backroom conversations along the lines of "the stupid plebs got the vote and now the ungrateful wretches are going to use it wrongly! How can we stop them?" Combined with a rising dislike of Oxbridge PPE career politicians (across the political spectrum) the party elite and Westminster journos have spectacularly misjudged the mood and f-ed up their tactics here.

I've never voted Labour so don't have a say in the debate, but it is a genuinely enthralling time in UK politics.

The arch manipulator Mandelson apparently even tried to orchestrate a mass resignation of the other 3 candidates in a desperate 'stop Corbyn' move:

"Lord Mandelson, one of the architects of “new” Labour, privately appealed last week to the Kendall, Cooper and Burnham camps to quit the contest before ballot papers were sent out, according to sources.

One said: “Lord Mandelson and other Blairites were saying – this is a disgrace, let’s get this thing pulled. But it was not going to happen.”

The peer is understood to have believed that the party might suspend the contest if there was only one candidate, but he had to back down when officials said it would mean Mr Corbyn won"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11806498/Lord-Mandelsons-failed-mass-resignation-bid-to-attempt-to-stop-Jeremy-Corbyn-winning-Labour-leadership.html.

ukcarper

danothy wrote: »

Why do you think those who want a 'far left' in charge are pleased at the idea of Corbyn as the leader of the Labour party? Is it because there are literally no far left candidates to vote for at national elections, or is it because they like the idea of their ideology being installed at the top of a party that gets a lot of de-facto votes?

Not sure why you posted that i don't see it's relevant to what I posted.

danothy

ukcarper wrote: »

Not sure why you posted that i don't see it's relevant to what I posted.

Use a magnifying glass, find all the lies.

antrobus

MS1950 wrote: »

....The peer is understood to have believed that the party might suspend the contest if there was only one candidate, but he had to back down when officials said it would mean Mr Corbyn won"....

What I don't understand about that particular cunning plan is that, to me at least, it would be fundamentally frackin obvious that if Corbyn was the only candidate on the ballot paper, then Corbyn would win. (After all, that's how Brown got the job.:))

I don't need any 'officials' to work that one out.