Tomorrow’s Times has a new YouGov survey of the Labour party leadership election electorate (members, union affiliates and £3 supporters). The figures show Jeremy Corbyn’s lead increasing in the last three weeks – back then he had a seventeen point lead on the first round and just scraped over the line after the reallocation of second and third preferences. The new figures have him comfortably ahead – in the first round preferenes are Corbyn 53%, Burnham 21%, Cooper 18%, Kendall 8%. If the final round ends up Corbyn vs Burnham then Corbyn wins by 60% to 40%, if it ends up Corbyn vs Cooper then Corbyn wins by 62% to 38%. The full tabs are here and Peter Kellner’s commentary is here.

As far as the poll is concerned Jeremy Corbyn is currently solidly ahead (though of course, ballot papers haven’t yet gone out and there is a month to go – indeed, as I write it’s not too late to join Labour and have a vote in the election!). Polling party members is hard, there are not publically available targets to weight or sample too, and there has already been a huge influx of new members and new £3 sign-ups about whom we know little. YouGov’s data has the right sort of proportions of new and old members (thought the final proportions are obviously impossible to know yet), but it’s impossible to know if the sample is right in terms of things like social class. However, looking at the tables Jeremy Corbyn is ahead in every age group and amongst members from every region, amongst working class and middle class members, and amongst members, trade union affiliates and £3 sign-ups.

Corbyn’s least strong group is people who were party members back before 2010 among whom either Cooper or Burnham would beat Corbyn on second and third preferences. People who joined the Labour party between 2010 and 2015 are more pro-Corbyn, meaning amongst all pre-2015 party members the race would be very close. People who have signed up since 2015 are extremely pro-Corbyn, pushing him into the lead.

208 Responses to “Second YouGov poll has Corbyn ahead”

1 2 3 4 5
  1. agree with Catmanjeff – Corbyn is enthusing a lot of people and if he wins (which is incredible but looking very likely) a large swathe of predominately young people will become enthusiastic activists for a labour party that is seen as representing a radical challenge to status quo.
    Corbyns program will be somewhat neutered by the PLP (esp stuff like leaving NATO) but the core economic argument will remain.
    Will this increase labour vote share – well it will pull in voters who had gone to green, SNP, some UKIP and abstainers – the honest, principled outsider will be attractive in age of hostility to westminster career politicians.
    However he will have to deal with a likely guerrilla campaign from the blairites and a hysterically hostile media – given this JC – or his anti-austerity replacement – winning in 2020 is a tall order.
    But the alternative – one of the other three – is probably a worse fate for labour, they will hemorrhage votes to the left,be at war with half their own membership and I cant see how they can persuade a significant number of ‘swing voters’ to vote for them by repeating the same tactic of offering austerity – but with added handwringing.
    With Corbyn they remain relevant and they offer a clear political alternative which may pay off in time.
    Sticking with the “centrist” path leads to slow death by irrelevance – which has been the fate of centre left parties accross europe.

    Its clear that the Blairite appoach has run out of road and the labour party establishment look utterly clueless as to how to connect with the electorate. Meanwhile Corbyn is packing out halls up and down the country and whipping up and large, enthusiastic and fully engaged grassroots movement who are not going to go away.

  2. But most people aren’t packing out these halls. Most aren’t joining Labour. Left wing enthusiasts are doing that. That is not the electorate. Always the problem when parties equate their supporters with the wider public.

    Someone else said now that the Liberals have gone over to the Tories, its the Greens etc Labour needs to attract. But the Lib Dems largely went to Labour. Former LD voters like me largely voted Labour last time and could be persuaded to again, certainly, for me, under Cooper. Possibly, even probably, under Burnham (but I’d be looking closely). Under Corbyn? No way. I’ve never voted Tory in my life but in a straight choice between hard left and centre right, there’s only one way I could turn. And these are the seats Labour need to win in.

    As for the youth not going away…they do. We were all radicals when younger. Then we grow up.

  3. @ Millie

    Your post intrigued me, I had to go and look it up! Alright lazy first-thing-on-Google looking it up perhaps, but it hopefully gives some insight:

    You obviously can’t apply the current trend across age groups to the future without assuming the age-earnings trend never changes with time. Apparently, according to the ONS data quoted in the above article it’s not a fixed trend that everyone goes through with age but rather that age groups have in recent history, to some extent, been ‘taking it with them’. What happens in the future is anyone’s guess!

    Looking at the men’s figures (comparing women’s figures to 1975 data may have more issues in terms of a drastically changed career environment over that period, although on another topic the “child-bearing years” effect visible there is pretty sobering!) it seems the male peak-earning years were roughly 27-37 in 1975. In 2013 they were roughly 40-50. So the peak earning years seem to have moved with the aging generations, not completely, but to some degree. What’s that, roughly 13 years of movement over 38 years? It’s a trend seemingly made up two-thirds by the effect of natural progression through a fixed wages-age profile, and one-third either by the economically-privileged age group deliberately clinging onto that privilege and dragging it up the age bracket as they age, or by the same effect occurring through happenstance.

    So, again under the naivest assumption that the trend was constant across the 38 years (what’d really be interesting would be to look at intermediate plots), someone who was lucky enough to 27 in 1975 (and be a man!) would have probably had 15 years in the nominally 10 year earnings sweet-spot. (And of course if that trend was truly constant between those two graphs, everyone born between 1948 and 1963 would have had a 50% bonus on their time in the sun. Either way, that cohort has according to those figures on average apparently enjoyed a 50% bonus, however it is split between the individual years.)

    Perhaps 47 is the earnings peak now, but will it be the earnings peak when I get there? Who knows? The point is that the earnings trend with age hasn’t been constant over time, so why should we expect it to be so in the future? Maybe the peak earnings age will constantly keep extending indefinitely so that everyone enjoys more time at peak earnings, but I rather fear we may soon hit the limits of human mortality! (In which case you could see it as a kind of pyramid scheme that will run out of time rather than money.)

  4. Can I delicately make a point to those saying Corbyn can’t win because the British will always reject far left policies. I am the first to admit that Corbyn is a HUGE gamble for Labour and I am still not totally convinced he can win, however even if you want to ignore all the polling on things like nationalisation, higher taxes on the rich, abolition of tuition fees etc there are many policy areas where a properly phrased far left pitch from Corbyn would seem fresh, original and logical and consequently meet with national approval. Housing is an obvious contender and one I think Corbyn will milk for all its worth if he is elected.

    Also I’ve made this point before that everyone said Thatcher would never win on her monetarist platform, when the Tories selected her Labour thought they had the next election in the bag since she was apparently so unelectable and look how that panned out.

    Basically lets see what the next couple of years hold before we start making bold predictions. I’m probably not alone in thinking that when someone says “Tories have already won a 10,000 seat majority in 2020 and this will treble to a 30,000 seat majority if they elect Corbyn” that this doesn’t make you look clever or wise it makes you look silly and partisan.

  5. No it is not the wider public that is packing those halls – but it does mean that Corbyn will have a large number of enthusiastic activist at grassroots level – that will definitely not be the case if any of the other are leader – they will have the opposite – an exodus of members leaving a small cadre of demorlaised envelope stuffers.

    My point is that under Corbyn labour has the potential to be relevant and grow again on the back of a significant chunk of the population who have been left behind by the political system and shafted by austerity – (particularly young people). Enough to win an election? Probably not at his stage – but it has potential to grow.
    Under the same old, same old it will inspire no body and faces fading into complete irrelevance. Those tactics of trying to fame the system – focus group based policies, soundbites,gimmicks, obsessive media management, anodyne machine politics – just dont work anymore.
    When you’re arguing that Labour need to abandon the poor and because too many of the electorate dont like them, the politics of triangulation have run out of road.

  6. Starry
    I think your incorrect about the Lib Dems voters. It was conventional wisdom that most were going to Labour but the election proved to us that this was at best overstated at worst totally incorrect.

    We might not ever know for certain but if one examines the individual results closely there are some seats were if what conventional wisdom said was true in that most Libs went to Labour it would have actually been near enough impossible for Labour to not win said seat, but in many cases they didn’t.

    I think the defections from Libs to Lab/Tories was much more even than initially thought and Labour were hit with a double whammy in that the type of voter Labour was attracting for the Libs (students, intellectuals, trendy inner city hipster types) were also being courted by the Greens and a very large chunk went to them instead. If anyone has accurate info on this it would be great but if I had to guess I’d say the former Libs broke pretty much 50/50 for Lab and Tories

  7. “Corbyn is enthusing a lot of people and if he wins (which is incredible but looking very likely) a large swathe of predominately young people will become enthusiastic activists for a labour party that is seen as representing a radical challenge to status quo.”

    Probably true, but young people are a shrinking demographic with a low turnout. They won’t defeat Cameron’s coalition of pensioners and settled middle aged, middle income families.

  8. *for=from

  9. @Rivers10
    I am sure that. many 2010 LibDems did switch to Labour in 2015.The problem was that such gains were offset by losses to UKIP and to some extent the Greens in many key seats.

  10. The Corbyn surge is further evidence of political fragmentation within the UK.

    Labour have been trying to answer the question of how they hold together under the threat from UKIP on the right, the Greens on the left and SNP in Scotland. On top of all that, they need to cater for the middle class in the non-London South East. The likely answer is that they cannot in 2015, with the alignment of the mid-1990s no longer existing. There is also no-one like Blair to reconcile the irreconcilable through lawyerly flexibility of rhetoric.

    Similar fissures exist in the Tory core. To list (amongst others):

    1) Economic/social liberals vs economic/social conservatives.
    2) Big business vs small business.
    3) Inherited wealth vs nouveau riche.
    4) Free traders (including free movement) vs Protectionists.

    Future scenarios:

    1) At the moment, the social/economic Liberals are on top, with conservatives prepared to swallow liberal social policy as they are winning. That continues until major political setbacks occur.

    2) The budget strongly favoured big business – small businesses and the self-employed will be heavily hit and could rupture from the Tories. UKIP would seem to be a possible repository for at least the white petty bourgeoisie.

    3) The nouveau riche will put up with snobbery as long as the Tories are winning and making them rich.

    4) A key fissure; those who are anti-Europe because it offers too much regulation, and those who think it offers too little (for example on borders). It is impossible to satisfy both constituencies simultaneously, but the reckoning can be postponed, as the referendum pledge achieved.

    Cameron has been fairly skilful in smoothing over these cracks with his PR training, but nothing lasts forever. I can see the Conservative base fracturing in future (likely in the next period of economic stress).

    The non-aligned electorate would also quite possibly draw the conclusion that no party can run the economy properly, which has been the main source of legitimacy for the current political elite in recent years. This could well lead to further fragmentation.

  11. Graham

    There are South Western Lib Dems who switched to the Conservatives to block a Labour/SNP coalition.

    I would expect those voters to be the very fairest of fair weather friends to the Tories.

  12. @Spearmint 9.32am

    If Corbyn is Labour’s Hague, who is the IDS who will doubtless follow? Truly a terrifying prospect.

    After a summer of regrouping and despondency, I was all prepared to vote for Liz K, and then THAT video … deary me.

    To those who think Corbyn is running to win, but will only stay on for a couple of years, dream on. Remember all those Latin American or African generals who parked themselves ‘temporarily’ in government, fully intending to stand down once someone sensible came along?* Exactly. Once he’s in situ he’ll stay until there’s a coup or Labour lose in 2020.

    * I’m not suggesting Corbyn is akin to a bloodthirsty tyrant. He couldn’t pull off the look ;)

  13. Tark

    I don’t think you need to look abroad to look for leaders who outstay their welcome!

    One lesson to learn from Cameron is that both Hague and IDS have or had high-profile cabinet roles.

  14. Graham,

    In a lot of constituencies the LibDem vote use to be anyone but Labour and protest vote – many of them went straight to UKIP. I’m sure Rivers10 is right, the way the 2010 LibDem vote broke in 2015 varies a lot.

  15. Graham
    I agree but my point is that even if we ignore the fact that any Labour gains from the Libs were offset by losses to the Greens and UKIP (an issue in of itself) the Tories still likely benefited equally from the collapse of the Libs (in terms of raw numbers of defectors) as Labour did.

    A quick and crude example is the former three way marginal of Warrington South. The Lib Dem vote collapsed by 22% in 2015 which in a seat with a tiny Tory majority conventional wisdom would suggest Labour should have won but they didn’t. The only conclusion is that the Tories took an equal if not larger share of the Lib Dem votes as Labour did.

    If we delve deeper and assume all of the increase in the UKIP vote came entirely at the expense of Labour (which we know it almost certainly didn’t) and the increase in the Green vote came entirely at the expense of Labour as well (which again we know it didn’t) the resulting re-allocation of the Lib Dem votes to get to the actual result seen in 2015 would mean the split would have been around 60% going to Lab 40% going to Con which is hardly the massive net benefit to Labour the pundits were suggesting and that’s with my stupid presumption about the Green and UKIP votes. If we assume that a lot of the Greens came from former Lib Dems, and a lot of the UKIP voters came from former Cons and Lib Dems (which s actually what happened) then to get to the actual results the Tories would have had to gain MORE votes of the Libs than Labour did.

    Hence my conclusion that the conventional wisdom that Lib Dem deserters mostly went to Labour was a load of carp.

  16. Unless I am mistaken only Labour 20% of MPs needed to nominate another leader to trigger a contest in the run up to conference.
    Should Corbyn win, I reckon it would happen in 2017 or possibly 18 and may depend on timing of the EU referendum and the result.


    @”Have you been hanging about in the Guardian editorial offices again?”

    No-I was quoting from The First Book of Blair where the coming of JC was foreseen -with foreboding.

    @”Russian Standard Vodka is currently on special offer of £13 a bottle in the Coop. Behold, we’re already seeing the benefits of Corbynism”

    Good God no-not until the stuff is made , under licence from Putin, by Public Sector workers at British Vodka .

  18. MILLIE

    Thanks-I am completely uncertain about JC’s objectives re PM.

    So much screams that he wouldn’t touch it with a bargepole because it would compromise his purist protest mode.

    But yet-what is the point of all this if he doesn’t want to gain power.

    Question:- Does JC want to change the Labour Party-or the Country?

  19. Jim Jam
    A Corbyn leadership challenge will depend on how well he seems to be doing in the polls. By 2018 we will have had the devolved elections, and some locals not to mention a return to semi-regular polling and time for the public to form a bit of an opinion on the New/Old Labour party.

    If Corbynmania continues a leadership challenge would do nothing other than kill the Blairites as a faction as it would provide the louder speaking “action” to Tony Blair’s “words” when he said he wouldn’t endorse a left wing platform for Labour even if it did win them the election. At that stage the Labour party as a whole would likely say “enough enough now feck off” I wouldn’t be surprised if Corbyn then reopened nominations for all seats in the country to turf out all the Blairites in safe seats.

  20. Can I just ask has Mr corbyn addressed the issue of the deficit and in how he would go about reducing it ?

  21. Jim Jam

    Another leadership election would just result in the election of another left-winger, unless Labour were doing very badly.

    As for Blairites undermining a non-Blairite leader…plus ça change, plus ça même chose.

  22. Reading through the thread, I am reminded of the old Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times!”

    Others, such as Reggieside, Hawthorn and Rivers10 have said a lot which makes sense. But I am none the wiser as to what the situation will be UKwide in six months’ time….. let alone in 2020!

  23. @MrNameless

    “Labourball, look it up, it’s a giggle”

    Curse you! I’ve just wasted a good hour chuckling along to that now


    No probs.-it’ll be a doddle. Richard Murphy has told him there is £120 billion of unpaid tax to be collected.

    And he appears to believe it-so Deficits don’t worry him at all.

  25. John B

    I agree; it is very unpredictable. I am just setting out (I hope) plausible scenarios and trying to look a little deeper into underlying factors.

    I note today that China has just devalued the Yuan. They are not out of the woods by any stretch of the imagination. It doesn’t matter where the crisis starts, the sitting Government always gets the blame.


    “Can I just ask has Mr corbyn addressed the issue of the deficit and in how he would go about reducing it ?”


    Dunno, but it’s possible it may involve helicopters, in which case Colin may get a little excited…

  27. @Mark Sadler, far better than you’d expect. Things like raising taxes & losing the nukes, controversial as they may be….actually very good for the budget.

  28. According to the You-Gov poll, the sample think that Andy Burnham has a better chance of winning GE 2020 (52:38) than Jeremy Corbyn (42:47) but they are still going to vote for JC.

    In other words they recognise he may be a tough sell to the UK public, but they will vote for him anyway.

    Also note that JC is ahead in all groups (members, union and £3 sign up), making those who call for the vote to be abandoned look like poor losers.

  29. WOOD
    “Things like raising taxes & losing the nukes, controversial as they may be….actually very good for the budget.”

    But very bad for a party’s chances of getting elected.

  30. It is difficult to believe that Corbyn will lose now.

    Outside the Westminster village, people have seen the SNP landslide North of the Border and want to see something similar in Englans. Jeremy Corbyn is the only radically different option for Labour, so they are going for ihim.

    The major question in my mind is what will happen if Corbyn falls just short of 50% of the vote. Will whoever is in second place be so ani-Corbyn as to push the elcetion to a second ballot? If so, which given the attitude of the Labour establishment seems not impossible, then Labour will be machine-gunning their feet yet further.

    I doubt whether Corbyn will be an effective leader, but newcomers to jobs often surprise us. If Corbyn wins, give the man a decent chance.

  31. @ Rivers10

    “I wouldn’t be surprised if Corbyn then reopened nominations for all seats in the country to turf out all the Blairites in safe seats.”

    Stalin tried it in 1932-34 (not with Blairites, but all elected party officials through open members’ meetings where candidate members could also be present) and it was a miserable failure. Getty attributes this failure as one of the causes of the Great Purge.

    I don’t know if the LP is more organised than the CP was then, as they didn’t have proper registers, you could buy paery card in the black market, and there was a massive entryism of anti-communist elements to the party (this disorganisation, for example, allowed a young man called Nikolaev, who was expelled from the party for Trotskyists deviation could retain his party card, walked in the Smolni and shot a certain Kirov dead).

    There are historical parallels for everything.

  32. “but newcomers to jobs often surprise us.”


    Clegg surprised a few.

  33. “I doubt whether Corbyn will be an effective leader, but newcomers to jobs often surprise us. If Corbyn wins, give the man a decent chance.”

    The problem Corbyn has isn’t his leadership qualities (though he hasn’t shown any in his career to date) but his record which is a Sun political correspondent’s dream:

    – Leaving NATO
    – Inviting Sinn Fein to the HoC
    – Equivocal on Hamas
    – etc., etc.

    The Tory press will have a field day and this type of character assassination is very effective. It won’t affect the true believers but outside of the Labour family he’s toast.

  34. @hawthorn

    “The Corbyn surge is further evidence of political fragmentation within the UK.”

    I have been arguing this for some time (although not much here as this is supposed to be a polling site). I don’t think the old model works any more as you suggest. If a political system is to command general assent it needs to allow the majority of people to feel their views are represented. We can only do this now by a move to PR (a coalition of Labour, Liberal & UKIP – SNP will probably backslide – committed to this would crush the Conservatives).

    I’m tempted to join this discussion as an old Labour member who has registered to vote in the leadership election. What happened under Blair in the 1990s was that instead of MPs representing members, members were redefined as representing MPs. This was part of the “professionalisation” of politics, which meant talking to 250,000 uninterested and ignorant people in marginal seats, avoiding at all costs giving offence, in particular by holding any views or opinions – rather try and assess a mood, and assume that traditional supporters have “nowhere else to go”. Conservative and Labour members both have deserted in droves as a result, and the general public has no time for any politicians, and disillusion is dangerously rife across the board. It is hard to argue that any politician has a mandate right now.

    This “professionalisation” is a dead end, and we are now seeing a backlash. First UKIP, and now a rejection of the Labour establishment.

    I originally signed up to vote for Cooper, but she has failed totally to rise to the challenge posed by Corbyn – Burnham who I started by rejecting outright as the voice of one of the two great lies of the last election campaign (that the Conservatives would destroy the NHS), has done what I wanted and responded to Corbyn. I now don’t know who to vote for. But I do know that I want someone who basically reflects my views, which is what everyone politically active wants, including those on the right.

    Crafting an election winning narrative comes second. Most important is that your views are respected and represented. I don’t see a Corbyn victory as a disaster – rather it will change the terms of discussion in British politics, which can only be a good thing.

  35. RIVERS10
    There was an interesting thread on Political Betting which discussed the flow of votes between the parties in 2015 compared with 2010. Based on an analysis carried out by Electoral Calculus it suggested that the breakdown of LibDem lost % vote share was of the order of –

    6% to Labour
    3% to Tories
    2% to Green
    2% to UKIP
    1% to SNP

    Labour lost-

    2% to Tories
    2% to SNP
    1% to Green
    1% to UKIP

    The Tories lost 4% to UKIP.

    These are national figures and regional variations were ,of course, considerable. I was a bit surprised by the suggestion that Labour lost twice as many votes to the Tories as to UKIP.

  36. ICM/Grauniad:

    CON 40%
    LAB 31%
    LD 7%
    UKIP 10%
    SNP 5%
    GRN 4%

  37. Sorry the thread referred to above appeared on PB on June 29th.

  38. @ Spearmint

    Thank you for your reply. For me the choice is simply about economics. Corbyn is the only one proposing a Keynesian stimulus whereas the other three accept the mainstream neoclassical/neoliberal model, albeit Yvette Cooper is a ‘neokeynesian’. (Personally, I think that MMT is a much better approach but keynesianism is infinitely safer than the current economics which seem to inevitably lead to another banking crisis.)

    Needless to say, the policies put forward by each of the leadership contenders are predicated on their economic assumptions. As a result, Jeremy Corbyn is able to produce a huge array of attractive policies for young and old, whilst the other three are much more constrained.

    Doubtless, the media and the Blairites will do their worst in attacking Corbyn for whatever but I really can’t see the LP being better off under Cooper or Burnham.

    As for feeling an outsider in your own party… so have I, since 1994.

  39. @Syzygy

    See, to me, even Corbyn doesn’t get it, nor even the MMT peeps. There’s a meta-issue that doesn’t get addressed.

    Let’s suppose Corbyn, for example, achieved something something similar to the post-war consensus. Stable growth, no wild economic swings, rising prosperity, etc. etc.

    Or MMT peeps took power and achieved something similar. Or better. Maybe Roland would get a Lancia Beta that doesn’t rust. Staff wouldn’t avoid Colin in hospital. Better dentists to keep Martyn happy. Maybe they’d have done a business jet smaller version of Concorde with much less noise and sonic boom. Problem is, there’s nothing to stop a new swathe of neolibs taking over and undoing it all again.

    They might sell off the commodity buffers like last time, leaving the world vulnerable to an oil crisis or summat more contemporary. Deregulate the banks again, sell off the state assets etc. etc…

    A sovereign wealth fund might help, unless they find a way to return that to the next swathe of boomers in tax cuts…

  40. SYZYGY

    @”. Corbyn is the only one proposing a Keynesian stimulus”

    I don’t think that is true.

    Keynes advocated fiscal stimulus to mitigate the adverse effects of economic recessions and depressions. We currently have neither in UK.

    Corbyn doesn’t advocate fiscal stimulus-he intends to reduce the deficit by taxation-that is fiscal tightening.

    Corbyn plans monetary stimulus- at a time of unprecedented loose monetary policy- , in the form of money printing to pay for State capital spending. Keynes had a view on this sort of thing in his book about the Versailles Conference & after-“The Economic Consequences of the Peace.” In it he commented :-

    “”The inflationism of the currency systems of Europe has proceeded to extraordinary lengths. The various belligerent Governments, unable, or too timid or too short-sighted to secure from loans or taxes the resources they required, have printed notes for the balance.””

    I cannot see any approval in Keynes here , of Murphy’s mad “Peoples QE”.

    It might be said too that Keynes had a view on State Price controls:-

    “”The presumption of a spurious value for the currency, by the force of law expressed in the regulation of prices, contains in itself, however, the seeds of final economic decay, and soon dries up the sources of ultimate supply.”

    One needs look no further than Venezuela today , where Money Printing & Price Controls have destroyed the economy & emptied shop shelves; to appreciate Keynes’ foresight .

    If Corbyn/Murphy economics is to be given an ‘ism at all , it isn’t Keynes we should turn to but Chavez/Maduro.

  41. @ Carfew

    ‘Problem is, there’s nothing to stop a new swathe of neolibs taking over and undoing it all again.’

    Which quote would you prefer?

    ‘The price of freedom is eternal vigilance’ or ‘The only thing that is certain is that things change’. or ‘Cross that bridge..’

    Not sure of your point exactly – leave things as they are (but invest in thorium and lower storage taxes)?

  42. @

    “If Corbynmania continues a leadership challenge would do nothing other than kill the Blairites as a faction.. At that stage the Labour party as a whole would likely say “enough enough now feck off” I wouldn’t be surprised if Corbyn then reopened nominations for all seats in the country to turf out all the Blairites in safe seats”

    …and if by May 2018 JC/ Labour are tanking in the polls; have lost even more Scots Parliament members/ lost London Mayor (again); lost hundreds of councillors….??!!

    Your logic suggests that- if so- at that time it would be apposite to tell the hard left ‘faction’ to “feck off”.

  43. The Monk
    I don’t understand the mind-set of the readers of right wing newspapers so I may be totally wrong but I’m doubtful the press can do any more damage to Corbyn than they did to Milliband.

    Now obviously Corbyn is far worse in their eyes but the way they went on about Milliband you’d think Labour had elected the anti Christ as their leader, now that Labour looks like they might have elected the anti-Christ (at least in Pressman’s eyes) what more can they do? They’ll share the same old stories about how everything about Corbyn is abhorrent, un-British and worthy of ridicule but will it be any worse?In fact how can it be any worse? They had to “bend the truth” (in reality lie) in Millibands case and with Corbyn they might not have to resort to that but anyone liable to get sucked in by that argument is hardly going to tell the difference.

    If the press had been a bit more tempered with Milliband they could have saved some stuff for Corbyn, a “you aint seen nothing yet” type attack drive. As it is though they’ll basically just be saying that Corbyn is the worst potential PM in the history of the universe…..just like Milliband…..and arguably Brown. I cant see it being any worse.

  44. ” which meant talking to 250,000 uninterested and ignorant people in marginal seats”

    Calling people in seats we need to win ‘uninterested and ignorant’! Now thats a guarenteed way to win an election!!

    Oh hang on they are going to be outvoted by all these 17 year olds!!

    It really is sounding more and more like 1980-1987 every day.

    I’m (almost) looking forward to observing the very slow car crash unfold over the coming three years.

    Then back to social democracy (not Blairisim) ;-)

  45. Rob Sheffield
    “and if by May 2018 JC/ Labour are tanking in the polls; have lost even more Scots Parliament members/ lost London Mayor (again); lost hundreds of councillors….??!!
    Your logic suggests that- if so- at that time it would be apposite to tell the hard left ‘faction’ to “feck off”.”

    Depending on the circumstances yes it could very well be.

  46. “I don’t understand the mind-set of the readers of right wing newspapers so I may be totally wrong…

    …but I’m doubtful the press can do any more damage to Corbyn than they did to Milliband. ”

    You mean a crushing defeat?

  47. I think I’ve come to the conclusion that corbyn winning is the best of a raft of unpalatable scenarios facing the labour movement . I don’t think for one moment that a hard left manifesto can put labour in government but I’m hoping that corbyn is sincere when insisting that he is open to discussion and opinions from all flanks of the party and when faced with the reality of leadership he takes a pragmatic and consensual route . Alas I think we have got to the point where an unlikely win for burnham or cooper thru a slim majority by the way of 2nd/3rd preferences would only provoke a continuous bout of rebellious disruption from those 1st choice corbynite supporters and from vengeful union paymasters .

  48. @ Colin

    I always promise myself that I won’t engage with trying to discuss this with you but…

    The over-riding global danger is climate change and your government is not addressing the investment required to reduce our demand for energy or to increase renewables. Mitigating climate change has the hidden advantage that it will create jobs, real apprenticeships and new manufacturing which could/would rebalance the UK economy, and the north-south divide.

    I have already said that I don’t think that Keynes was the last word in economic theory. Kalecki and the post-keynesians are much more appropriate. However, Keynes did say ‘Look after employment and the economy (i.e. the deficit) will look after itself’.

  49. Rob Sheffield
    Firstly crushing is an overly dramatic and not at all applicable word.

    Second do you think the press was entirely responsible for this and regardless of leadership qualities, perceptions on party competence, economic conditions and national issues its the endorsement of the papers that wins an election? If so the Tories would have won every election since the dawn of the printing press by a landslide and always will.

  50. @Syzygy

    Well, the Sisyphus thing isn’t the most enticing, but it could even be worse than useless, if each time around most peeps wind up worse off as their wealth and effort gets siphoned upwards.

    Neolibs could welcome nationalisation really. Everyone invests, then they get to buy it cheap. Rinse lather repeat…

1 2 3 4 5