Go on then, who do you reckon will win? The Labour Leadership contest, that is...

looooooool omg

IKR? I don't doubt she is actually a feminist but that statement is a bullshit remix of identity politics.

Corbyn's female support is c. 60 per cent of his total because women are worse off under austerity policies than men.

I was listening to Burnham trying to play it cool earlier and project his own brand of "radicalism" with added "economic credibility". Doing it without slagging off Corbyn was his trick, not much of a trick when you sound just as hollow + fucking desperate as the others

This > "corbyn would be an electoral disaster, im fairl sure. but what are the chances of say andy burnham being elected pm and putting forward a program of legislation that pursues progressive aims, bolsters public services, protects the environment, etc? it's zero obviously."

Except I'm not really sure that he would be any more of an electoral disaster than anyone else currently aiming for the job.

i used to work for SureStart, i'll try and explain why Yvette Cooper is a liar and a hypocrite later

welp

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/13/guardian-view-labour-leadership-choice-yvette-cooper-jeremy-corbyn

also, i joined the labour party

winning over tory voters vs winning over people who didn't bother/couldn't bring themselves to vote

/:

Idk how you can expect a country to vote for you if you are struggling to command much more than 15% of your own party's backing. Cooper might be the safest pair of hands as PM but her inability to put forward any kind of case being leader is damning.

called Blair a war criminal on his Facebook appeal last night, unhelpful but v satisfying

the Graun is fucking farcical isn't it? "we must harness all these newly energised supporters by telling them we're ignoring their vision for the Party and spinning harder on Blairism"

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/left-winger-jeremy-corbyn-is-first-choice-for-londoners-a2633546.html

Moreover, he is more popular with the better-off ABC1 social classes, among both younger and older people, and those who voted Ukip or Liberal Democrat at the general election.

More lolz @ Mirror going for Burnham.

"among both younger and older people"?

middle aged middle england vs jeremy corbyn

Half suspect the Guardian going for Cooper is down to them knowing she is the least likely of the serious candidates to win so they can continue their campaign against Labour without dropping a stitch when Burnham gets in.

is Cooper unlikely? i haven't been checking polls but i think i half-assumed she would end up being the default "stop the lefty" candidate. what a flatulent status quo bore of a leader Burnham wd make

Except I'm not really sure that he would be any more of an electoral disaster than anyone else currently aiming for the job.

It may be wishful thinking but I think Corbyn is electable. I read an article last week by Ken Livingstone in the Evening Standard where he said the same (and he mentioned that he supported Healey over Foot because he didn't believe Foot was electable, despite agreeing with him on policy).

But the thing that worries me is what will happen once the Daily Mail etc. (if Corbyn becomes leader) start hammering in earnest that he 'supports terrorism'. It has the potential to drive significant numbers of people away (not his supporters but the middle-ground 'backing our troops' people, for whom 'support' of the IRA is a red flag; I know he didn't support the IRA outright, but I believe in a recent interview he stopped short of an explicit condemnation of their bombing campaigns -- he needs to be careful).

Well sometime before 2020 we may well have Sinn Fein in power in Dublin, so..

xxp, she's 13/2 (Burham is 4/1) and a lot of the polling suggests she's a fair way behind him on first preferences. I don't know how many Corbyn supporters are going to actively favour her for a second preference.

ShariVari, what makes you say that the Guardian are campaigning against Labour (I don't know if they are or not - and if they are, why are they against Labour, and who or what are they favouring instead - the Lib Dems?)

Was discussing Corbyn with left-leaning friend but he was worried about the policy of leaving NATO being a step too far even for him, while broadly agreeing with Corbyn's other policies. I don't think I've actually come across anything stating what Corbyn's actual policies are, though. Lots of articles from his opponents claiming all sorts of things of course.

Corbyn has said he would like the UK to leave NATO, but that's not the same as it being a policy, much like he said he would like to abolish the monarchy but wouldn't actually pursue it if he won. I kinda agree with my friend that a policy of the UK leaving NATO is not going to win him many votes tbh.

Well sometime before 2020 we may well have Sinn Fein in power in Dublin, so..

I guess there comes a point where most people are too young to remember the IRA bombings in a vivid way (or, if they're older, they've forgotten and/or it's not a live issue for them). Still not sure, though, if it could be a powerful weapon against him (and, to a lesser extent, support of Palestinian paramilitary groups, and a 'soft' atttitude to Putin). These are all things that are seriously at odds with the mainstream view that people get bombarded with.

Corbyn has said he would like the UK to leave NATO, but that's not the same as it being a policy

Without being too conspiratorial, I don't think this is something Corbyn (or anyone in government) would be allowed to pursue. It would be explained to him behind the scenes that it's not an option.

ShariVari, what makes you say that the Guardian are campaigning against Labour (I don't know if they are or not - and if they are, why are they against Labour, and who or what are they favouring instead - the Lib Dems?)

They backed the Lib Dems in 2010 and went out of their way to undermine / attack Miliband throughout his leadership. It certainly looks like a lot of their editorial team are Lib Dems at heart.

Corbyn has said he would like the UK to leave NATO, but that's not the same as it being a policy, much like he said he would like to abolish the monarchy but wouldn't actually pursue it if he won.

Indeed, he'll only be leader of the Labour Party, not Tsar of all the Russias, furthermore a leader uninterested in the Presidential style garbage we've been served up with for the last couple of decades.

Corbyn has said he would like the UK to leave NATO, but that's not the same as it being a policy, much like he said he would like to abolish the monarchy but wouldn't actually pursue it if he won. I kinda agree with my friend that a policy of the UK leaving NATO is not going to win him many votes tbh.

i think this is a sorta weird angle on his feelings about nato, which are that he thinks nato is outmoded & probably should have been replaced at the end of the cold war. like he'd be agitating for a modernised nato equivalent, or affiliation with a body with a similar mandate, moreso than just bailing on nato, afaict.

Yes, that's kinda what I was expecting, that this whole "he wants to leave NATO! he's crazy!" thing is probably not based on much other than taking comments out of context

I suppose it's too much to ask for my fellow journalists not to turn out-of-context comments about NATO etc into headlines when there are no policies remotely like that in the Corbyn offer. Also, in my FB universe, I am on the point of delivering a steaming cup of STFU to a certain politician's son, using useful facts about Corbyn eg. 'will never be in a position to be rumbled taking cash for questions'.

I don't think I've actually come across anything stating what Corbyn's actual policies are, though.

There's stuff here, including this.

ha one of his policies is to introduce a 30C maximum working temperature, that's it I'm sold

protects the environment, etc? it's zero obviously."

Except I'm not really sure that he would be any more of an electoral disaster than anyone else currently aiming for the job.

― djh

he's not even been elected yet and the press/cybertories are seriously playing up supposed links to the ira, hamas, hezbollah, radical islamists.

and given how much a pasting "red ed" got for his centrist platform - with some mild redistributive measures - how is a bona fide old labour socialist going to be portrayed in print?

Coogan is calling Corbyn a "laughable oddity" in the graun, pretty fucking rich coming from a pathetic old cokehead/lothario sleaze who nobody finds funny any more.

Coogan is still funny obv

Fuck him tho

is he pals with burnham irl? similar backgrounds: both labourite, working-class, catholic, from lancashire.

^^^I think that has to have something to do with it.

they both elicit a kind of if I hand one bullet i'd line them up and make it count type of response in me. I hate mediocre comedians and vapid professional politicians equally.

I am seriously projecting here because I am a miserable old bastard, ignore me :P

So is Coogan.

Coogan is still funny obv

About as funny as Rob Brydon.

there's no need for that kind of abuse

he's not even been elected yet and the press/cybertories are seriously playing up supposed links to the ira, hamas, hezbollah, radical islamists.

and given how much a pasting "red ed" got for his centrist platform - with some mild redistributive measures - how is a bona fide old labour socialist going to be portrayed in print?

― corbyn's gallus (jim in glasgow), Friday, August 14, 2015 1:28 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i feel like there's a kind of zen submission to this as well, though; strategising everything through the lens of what the tory press will make of it yields so much ground, & sort of proceeds according to the idea that any of it is measured, ie that their critique of JC would be comparable to that of ed but amplified in proportion to the degree to which JC's liberalism (w/e) is greater. & i think it's more likely that everyone will just get the exact same bullshit with words swapped around. it's like republican superlatives attached to obama, it's just free association, it can't really be meaningfully addressed i don't think.

Corbyn is doing a good job of playing "just the policies, ma'am" at the moment, but that is largely because he's speaking to an audience that mostly won't be swayed by media black ops. if he were to become leader of the Party - he won't - then he and his people might have to do something to address the ongoing character assassination from the Tory press (that's all of the press, basically) because they will throw everything at him as long as he's there

- he won't -
If you are that certain there is a fortune to be made on the betting exchanges, the other worthless fuckers are 4/1, 8/1 + 125/1, how come none of the shrewdies are jumping on this yet?

merely innoculating my own expectations against the counter-revolution

it is so weird looking at the first post in this thread and realising that it is from only 3 months ago. did anyone put a bet on Corbyn winning when the bookmakers were still giving odds of 200/1 or whatever it was?

Why do you say he won't? If he wins 50% of the vote, which is looking pretty likely, how can he not? You said up throat that the PLP will pull out all the stops - but the latest stop being pulled out is that, ahem, Gordon Brown is going to make a speech - or resort to shenanigans but the PLP couldn't run a menodge. They are fucking this up so badly, it's breathtaking.

Xposts.

Up throat!

i've just explained why i keep saying it - hope is dangerous