What now for Labour? (Part 2)

First topic message reminder :

Phil Hornby wrote:I feel that Corbyn is sincere, polite, interesting and likeable - so are my neighbours but, like them, he isn't electable as Prime Minister.

In which case, why should we pay some phoney twicer to be something else?

No - careerists obey the rich, working people work for less and less. and only total mugs vote for this system.   I used to live in the Twentieth Century and find myself now in a Country we thought we had escaped from before my Father was born.   What the eff benefit to anyone but himself was Blair?

Yep, I can see you're sincere. Life doesn't split itself into silver and lead spoons. I was born into poverty among folk who believed the Daily Worker was the Bible - understandably so from what they had experienced. Education is a great leveller.
Blair was undoubtedly popular when he first announced himself and could well have had palms thrown at his feet. Instead of crucifixion, of course, he metamorphosed into a millionaire many times over. "Just for a handful of silver he left us...."

You see things in black and white terms; them and us; rich and poor. Taking that as your starting axiom you will reach conclusions that follow from your beliefs but which are false. Lenin did not start off intending to murder: he wanted a good deal for the Russian peasantry and an end to the tsarist dynasty of cruel oppression. But Stalin, the man of steel, came and millions died. Was the change for the better?

There are BAD socialists and GOOD conservatives; no political system is perfect although Wellington thought our constitution was the most "marvelously perfect ever created by the wit of man." People thought that Blair was moving away from the tired old doctrinaire system that just patronised them, calling them workers but doing nothing for them. In some areas Blair did make progress but the lure of das capital was too strong. A pity.

"Just as I was thinking that I was alone.."

Phil, it would certainly assist my impoverished understanding if you finished your sentences. Perhaps, being a long-term resident here, you have imparted the power of telepathy on your faithful readers.

witchfinder wrote:I accept that Corbyn was elected fairly, I accept that it is looking like the party is returning back to how it was before the great modernisation took place, if that is what members really want, then that's fine, but I am a realist, and I actually want to see the back of the Tory party, I want to see Cameron & Co out of office, but with the way things are heading, that is not going to happen, and thats very depressing.

The people of the UK have rejected once in 2010 and once in 2015 to what Labour was offering, we NOW need something they will accept in the 2020 general election and they will definitely not accept  the Labour party tearing themselves apart that is the sort of thing we leave to the Tory party.

So why not give Jermy Corbyn a CHANCE because so far NOBODY has, the right wing press & media have been on his back since it was annonced he had won the leadership job, then some of the Labour MPs spat there dummy saying they did not want to be in his shadow cabinet and the only reason I can see for this the candidate they had supported lost.

I will give them some advice watch out you do not lose your job and not because anything that JC will do but the real holders of power "THE VOTERS" or even worse the Tories get there dream wish which would be for there to be NO Labour party maybe then certain people would be very happy.

witchfinder. You say you don’t believe my “version of the recent history of the Labour Party”, but then you fail to say with which of the facts you disagree. That’s the sort of mentality displayed by Iain Duncan Smith who, when presented with evidence of the hardship and deaths which his policies have caused, just replies “that’s not what I believe”.

You may not like being called “a red Tory” or “Tory lite”, but then you smear as “Trots” (no apostrophe needed) and “antique socialists” those of us who voted for Jeremy Corbyn, even making the disgusting suggestion that we want to “hug terrorists”, a comment which could have come straight out of Cameron's mouth. You disapprove of nationalising “the means of wealth and production”, then you praise Attlee, who set out to do precisely that! You attack Corbyn supporters who, for the most part, want to return to the social democratic consensus and mixed economy which existed in Britain from 1945 until 1979. You say you hate the Tories, then flirt with the idea of supporting the Liberal Democrats, who handed them the keys to Downing Street. Sorry, but you just don’t add up.  

The governments of Blair and Brown did many good things, and I’ve listed them often enough. But they could have done much more with the massive parliamentary majorities they had. They could have cut the standard rate of VAT, a tax which hurts the poor disproportionately, to 15%, the lowest allowed by the EU. They should have built more houses, both to rent and to buy. They did little to combat the growth in inequality after 1979, but then of course Mandelson was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”. During Thatcher’s first nine years in office, the top rate of income tax was 60%, but Blair would never raise it above 40%. Introducing student tuition fees was a dreadful move and turned out to be the thin end of the wedge. And as we all know, Blair’s halo vaporised when he dragged us into a totally unnecessary war in Iraq which was none of our business; if that’s what you call ‘moderation’, you can keep it.

You really have swallowed the Tory line on austerity, haven’t you? It’s the most stupid policy imaginable, comparable to asking an unemployed man to pay off all his debts. The Tories are using the crisis which their banker friends created as an excuse to shrink the state. The only alternative to austerity is not “wide ranging increases in taxation” but borrowing to invest in order to make the economy grow. Not all borrowing is bad. If you borrow to spend on a world cruise or even a lavish party, it’s foolish. If you borrow to buy a house, it’s probably a wise move. As to debt, that’s been around since 1694, when the government couldn’t pay for the Nine Years’ War, and as a percentage of our GDP it’s often been much higher.

You even use the Tory language – ‘welfare’ – when ‘social security’, for which we’ve all contributed, would be more appropriate. Your parroting of the Tory claim that the so-called ‘welfare’ bill “must be arrested” is utter rubbish. Jobseeker’s Allowance is currently £73.10 per week. Had that kept pace with average earnings since the 1980s, it would by now be around £130. There are two reasons that the social security bill is increasing substantially. One is that Osborne has included pensioners in the figure, and there are a lot more of them as the post-war baby boomers retire and also because people are living longer. The second reason is that there are many more people in the country these days, and that might have been reflected in tax receipts if the Tories hadn’t been so keen to drive the sick and the unemployed into low-wage and often part-time work.

If it assuages your conscience, go and join the Liberal Democrats. I knew that Tim Farron, who you seem to admire, was a knucklehead when he said on ‘Question Time’ that “Britain is an island surrounded by water”. Whoever would have thought that? In a lecture last year, Farron correctly said:  “If bread had risen in price by the same proportion as housing costs since 1980, then a loaf of bread would today cost you £8.50. The average deposit for a first time buyer in the early 80s was 12% of their annual income. The average deposit for a first time buyer today is 83% of their annual income.” All well and good – yet in that same lecture, the idiot slammed the much more equal and socially cohesive 1970s as “a toxic brew”. Clearly Farron lacks both consistency and an understanding of history. And so it seems do you.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/07/tim-farrons-beveridge-memorial-lecture-full-text

Why not give Jeremy Corbyn a chance ?

Because I do not agree with the old fashioned brand of socialism, it does not work, it has failed everywhere, and many within the Labour Party and unions now want to return to the principle of "the state owning the means of production and wealth" which is utterly ridiculous, because in every single sector where it was tried in this country, it failed miserably.

Some even want a return to Clause Four, so what was the modernisation of the party all about, what was the point, if we are going to simply turn the clock back.

Let me paste some comments from loyal Labour members and supporters from Facebook :

Neil Aitchison Just spent an hour on twitter and amazed at the amount of members ripping up their membership cards, so sad !


David Campbell
13 hrs · BlackBerry Smartphones App
Get rid of Corbyn and I will seriously reconsider renewing my membership


Charles Tarett
27 November at 23:14 · New Hey
Wow, things might move quickly! Let's see how Oldham pans out! For the first time ever I've considered cancelling my membership but then do I play to JC's tune?

Been that I am a strong advocate of NATO, I do not believe in unilateral disarmament and dont want to see business demonised, there is not really much reason why I should support Corbyn, I am quite simply at odds with his beliefs and principles.

After Livingstone's comments on last Thursdays QT I utterly detest the man, I am of the opinion that "StopTheWar" campaign are a bunch of traitors who would have input into a Corbyn government
( not that Corbyn will ever be in government ), and that's something I just could not stomach.

The Labour Party is at the present time slowly been taken over by militants, Trots, quasi anarchists, marxists and dreamers, and as the moderates gradually leave, the party will become a spent force, unelectable, or as Gordon Brown said "a pressure group".

You stay with Corbyn if you want, but this rat is jumping ship

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling"

Not really, chicken. Common sense is breaking out. Nice to see.

marcolucco wrote:       "The sky is falling, the sky is falling"

      Not really, chicken. Common sense is breaking out. Nice to see.

You WARMONGERING HYPOCRITE, where will you be when the SHYTE hits FAN because it will, but I think you will be in your underground bunker just like DAESH will be when our bombs start to drop on Syria,

com·mon sense.
[ˌkämən ˈsens]
NOUN
1.good sense and sound judgment in practical matters:
"use your common sense" ·

synonyms: self-belief
antonyms: folly, concern for others

How correct you are OW but it seems Davy boy does not even know what "COMMON SENCE" means as its is not in his VOCABUARY.

Bryan Gould spent sixteen years as a Labour MP, was in the shadow cabinets of Neil Kinnock and John Smith for six of them and was chair of the Fabian Society for a short time. He was one of the early ‘modernisers’ in the Labour Party, which makes his latest comments particularly interesting:-

Jeremy Corbyn is delivering a message Labour lost long ago

"The message that Corbyn articulated and that resonated with tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of those who had given up on politics was clear. There is a real and viable alternative to the current orthodoxy of austerity, of giving priority to cutting public spending, of widening inequality, of piling burdens on the most vulnerable.

It was this brave assertion that propelled Corbyn into the leadership and that opened up a long overdue debate. It is a message that could and should have been delivered long ago by his rivals for the leadership and by his current opponents in his own party. In the meantime, poverty and inequality increase, housing is increasingly unaffordable, net investment is virtually zero, the prospect of a revival in manufacturing is non-existent, and an unsustainable consumer boom fuelled by asset inflation underpins our rake’s progress to decline.

Corbyn’s assertion that it need not be like this, that government’s responsibility is to get the economy moving again in a productive direction, that growing poverty and inequality are barriers to economic efficiency, that we must invest in new productive capacity if we are again to pay our way in the world, that full employment is the hallmark of a properly functioning economy, is endorsed by a growing number of economists. If his opponents in his own party turn back to their longstanding and virtually inexplicable acceptance of a failed neoclassical orthodoxy, they will have closed their minds to their true responsibilities."

For the whole article:-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/02/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-austerity

witchfinder wrote:Why not give Jeremy Corbyn a chance ?

Because I do not agree with the old fashioned brand of socialism, it does not work, it has failed everywhere, and many within the Labour Party and unions now want to return to the principle of "the state owning the means of production and wealth" which is utterly ridiculous, because in every single sector where it was tried in this country, it failed miserably.

Some even want a return to Clause Four, so what was the modernisation of the party all about, what was the point, if we are going to simply turn the clock back.

The Labour Party is at the present time slowly been taken over by militants, Trots, quasi anarchists, marxists and dreamers, and as the moderates gradually leave, the party will become a spent force, unelectable, or as Gordon Brown said "a pressure group".

You stay with Corbyn if you want, but this rat is jumping ship

In the same line WF nor did Gordon Brown in 2010 or Ed Miliband in 2015, I know when I was door stepping in Hallam Sheffield, Carlisle, & Wirral West, it made me very uncomfortable when hearing from those voters that why should they vote for Labour when all they would get Tory Lite policies.

Well if you feel comfortable with Mr Corbyn, then you stick by your principles.

Recent general elections have been won and lost in swing constituencies which sometimes elect a Tory MP, and sometimes elect a Labour MP, especially in the Midlands and South East, and these "floaters" who would go either way are very unlikely to vote for the Labour Party as it currently is.

In other words it is the middle classes who win or lose elections, this fact was established a long time ago, and although Labour must always stand up for the so called working class, they must also represent aspirational people, the self employed people like me, and small business people.

Unfortunately, and as Poly Toynby rightly pointed out, the idea that millions of disillusioned Labour voters who do not vote any more,are going to come out of the woodwork and elect a traditional socialist Labour government, simply does not add up, its nonsense.

I really do not know what the future holds for Labour, all I do know is that Corbyn will never be prime minister, I guess the party simply bounces along as it is, with all the bitterness and in-fighting until it loses the 2020 election, or something happens, perhaps a coup, perhaps the knifes come out, who knows.

witchfinder wrote:-
It is already widely accepted that the result will not be good in Oldham, indeed some feel the party may even lose the seat.

Oldham result
Labour 17,211
UKIP     6,487
Tory     2,596
Lib Dem 1,024
Green      249
Loony      141

Labour increased its percentage of the vote from the May general election, probably due in no small part to the fact that it has a lot more foot soldiers since Jeremy Corbyn became party leader.

Yeah, but at least 7000 of those Labour votes were fraudulently cast by corrupt practice within the postal ballot system.

I know this because Mr.Farage told us...

Mr. Farage would be more convincing if he had told the Police
whether he has evidence of electoral fraud.

.......just as the media predicted, Labour's crushing defeat in Oldham proves the public clearly don't like Corbyn's Labour party.

The lesson of WW2, in which bombing destroyed as much as 60% of many cities both here and on the Continent, is that sometimes a fresh start enables valuable improvements to be made upon what went before.

oftenwrong wrote:Mr. Farage would be more convincing if he had told the Police
whether he has evidence of electoral fraud.

I suppose he might be more convincing if he weren't a bloody liar. He dislikes giving the voter who don't read Murdoch-muck, naturally!

witchfinder wrote;-
...and although Labour must always stand up for the so called working class, they must also represent aspirational people, the self employed people like me, and small business people.

What makes you think Labour don't represent aspirational people, the self-employed, and small business people? Of course they do.

Corbyn is doing very well and will do better than any of the others who stood for leadership would have done at the next election. Don't believe all the crap you read in the press. Corbyn has a lot more support than they want people to imagine - which is why they're worried enough to print so much crap about him.

I don't know where you live but where I live most people are happy Corbyn is in charge and that Labour is a real opposition again, and not just a pale reflection of the tories. He has a lot of support, and as I say, clearly the 'right' are worried about it.......worried enough that the right wing media are doing their utmost to forensically scan every detail in his action and words looking for ways to twist them out of context to suit their anti-Corbyn agenda......worried enough to publish article upon article attacking him, trying to besmirch him, and question his every move.

You say you object to phrases like 'red Tory' or 'Tory lite'; but I'm sorry to tell you that is what your Blairite brand of Labour is, and that is what you are.

sickchip wrote:Corbyn is doing very well

He is a pariah, an object of ridicule, completely out of his depth. Of course if you mean that, for someone so intellectually handicapped, he has attained a very high position, you are right. In that sense he is doing well and offers hope to idiots across the land and doubtless most of his support comes from this group.

sickchip wrote:where I live most people are happy Corbyn is in charge

Then you must live in one of the antechambers of hell. Let me extend my sympathy. I hope you are careful when you move around.

He is a pariah, an object of ridicule, completely out of his depth. Of course if you mean that, for someone so intellectually handicapped, he has attained a very high position, you are right. In that sense he is doing well and offers hope to idiots across the land and doubtless most of his support comes from this group.

It must be hurting someone who likes to think he's smarter than everyone else in the country..........


I wonder why he has not stood for the high office he feels he is so well qualified for?

"It must be hurting someone who likes to think he's smarter than everyone else in the country..........
I wonder why he has not stood for the high office he feels he is so well qualified for?"

Ecce argumentum ad hominem.
It is rather unkind to refer to Mr.Corbyn as "it". And "someone" didn't imagine for one moment that he was arguing with everyone else in the country.
A cat may look at a king.

The Emperor's New Clothes - ah! et tu, Brute?

marcolucco wrote:The Emperor's New Clothes - ah! et tu, Brute?

Any rumours of your death have undoubtedly been exaggerated, marco.  In Shakespeare's play, on the Ides of March, as Caesar was assassinated, Caesar's last line is: "Et tu, Brute?--Then fall, Caesar."(act 3, scene 1, l.85). This shows that Caesar would not die without Brutus' stab. Caesar realizes that there must be a noble reason for this assassination if Brutus was in it, so shows how much Caesar respects Brutus. I don't see this as an allegation of treachery. Brutus and Caesar each respect the other, but in different ways.

witchfinder wrote:Well if you feel comfortable with Mr Corbyn, then you stick by your principles.

Recent general elections have been won and lost in swing constituencies which sometimes elect a Tory MP, and sometimes elect a Labour MP, especially in the Midlands and South East, and these "floaters" who would go either way are very unlikely to vote for the Labour Party as it currently is.

I really do not know what the future holds for Labour, all I do know is that Corbyn will never be prime minister, I guess the party simply bounces along as it is, with all the bitterness and in-fighting until it loses the 2020 election, or something happens, perhaps a coup, perhaps the knifes come out, who knows.

My point is WF that I did not vote for Ed Miliband but was still prepared to go out and campaign for him and the Labour party in the hope we would get a Labour gov't, I did not vote for Jermy Corbyn but that will not stop me from going out and do something to help to win the 2020 general election.     In both cases of Ed & Jermy the majority of the card holding Labour party members voted for them so if I believe in DEMOCRACY I nust agree with the majority.

I will do anything to stop Labour party members from voting Tory in 2020 or in the future.

oftenwrong wrote:Any rumours of your death have undoubtedly been exaggerated, marco.  

I am as pleased as Mark Twain that I live to tell another tale.

Your apposite quotes are worthy of respect, oftenwrong.
I'm not sure about your convoluted interpretation of Caesar's words. "Et" here means "even" as it does in the phrase "timeo Danaos et dona ferentes."  The normal interpretation would be that Caesar is so saddened by his friend's involvement that further resistance is futile. The relevance of all this, lest there be slings and arrows against this exchange, is that we can respect the views of another while disagreeing. In dealing with the future of Labour we can certainly accord some respect to the leader's idiosyncratic views while accepting that such views a successful PM do not make.
I have never in my most insane dreams felt any desire to enter the field of politics. If it be said that one needs brains for the top post then why is a moron in place? If it be experience, why have the SNP got an adolescent who was " like gobsmacked, like, did it really happen" ?

I enjoy your contributions.

witchfinder wrote:-
all I do know is that Corbyn will never be prime minister

You don’t know any such thing. Only a fool would claim to know how nearly 50 million voters will respond in more than four years from now after more cuts, more pointless austerity and another war with no exit plan, along with Tory in-fighting during the EU referendum and then over who will succeed Cameron.

Your “widely accepted” prediction for the Oldham West by-election was certainly well wide of the mark. It was held on a cold, wet day in December, the sort of situation where it’s notoriously difficult to get traditional Labour voters to turn out. Yet the Labour share of the vote increased from 54.8% in May to 62.1%, a higher share than Labour achieved in Oldham West in the 1997 landslide. No doubt right-wingers like you will give the credit for that to the local Labour candidate - and he deserves it - but I’m sure if Labour had done badly it would have been “all Corbyn’s fault”. Both UKIP and the Tories in Oldham made attacking Corbyn a central feature of their campaigns, but that doesn’t seem to have done them any good.

We should never read too much into one by-election in a safe seat, but as Anthony Wells of YouGov writes: “Despite the constant news stories of Labour infighting, its level of support is still pootling along at around its general election share”. That’s not good enough to win in 2020, but it’s not the meltdown that you and others keep predicting. Maybe you should be aiming your fire at our vicious and dangerous government, which you profess to hate, instead of calling Corbyn supporters silly names. You might also consider the words of the broadcaster Max Keiser, who says Corbyn is “a necessary corrective to a UK that has been enveloped in far right-wing, market-fundamentalist extremism.”

You seem to be implying that everyone who happens to live in a marginal constituency is a 'floater', either a tepid Tory or a lukewarm Labour supporter. There’s no reason to believe that’s the case. A constituency could have about 20,000 Thatcherites and about 20,000 Corbyn supporters; it only becomes ‘marginal’ because of the closeness of those totals. And those who are Thatcherites won’t be tempted by people like Liz Kendall; why vote for a pale imitation when you can have the real deal?

The Labour Party has always been a mix of social democrats and socialists and is at its best when they co-exist peacefully. Harold Wilson was a master at balancing the two sides, often taking action or making an appointment which pleased one side and then doing the same for the other. I think Ed Miliband had the temperament and inclination to do the same, and the party did remain united under his leadership. Jeremy Corbyn would have happily had Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall in his shadow cabinet, but they threw their toys out of the pram instead of considering party unity. Tony Blair was successful at winning elections but was a poor party leader, snuffing out much internal democracy and relying on the fact that the left didn’t realistically have anywhere else to go. People like Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner stayed in the party and continued to fight their corners even when they were out of step with the leadership. It’s a pity that right-wingers like you can’t behave with similar maturity and respect for party democracy.

If you’re still thinking of joining the Liberal Democrats, I’m sure they would welcome your subscriptions. It would help to reimburse them for the nearly £150,000 they lost in deposits in May (along with another £500 in Oldham). The Tories stitched them up in 1922 and confined them to the political wilderness for nearly ninety years, but they didn’t learn from history. They are a spent force, a busted flush, and they’re not likely to make a significant contribution to Westminster politics again during our lifetimes. They made a principled stand against the Iraq war in 2003, but they lost the last modicum of credibility they had when they voted for bombing Syria. But then according to you, it's the Labour Party that's lost its way. Oldham suggests that may not be the case.

There remains this level of hostility on the right of the Labour party to the notion of Corbyn's politics - I have conversations in my local branch with members who tell me he is 'unelectable' and that he can't expect loyalty from his MP's because he is disloyal to the party.

I just wonder what makes the likes of Tom Watson, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper et al so much more 'electable' - they certainly didn't manage to get elected to lead the party - why would we think they could be elected to lead the country?

In relation to the 'disloyalty' - just checked his voting record in 'They work for you' - he may not have always agreed with the leadership, but his votes always seem to have been loyal to the principles of Socialism (the Labour party is supposed to be socialist, isn't it?) and with the marvellous benefit of hindsight he does seem to have been on the side of pragmatic wisdom on a number of occasions (the vote on Iraq for example).

During the General Election campaign I watched the polls as we all did, and couldn't help but notice that Milliband got a little surge in popularity whenever he said anything really socialist (I will look for some examples later) - this made me think that there is an appetite in  England for socialist ideas and for the proposition that the country should be investing in infrastructure, in education, in housing, in health care and should maybe be looking to tackle inequality. To this it means that an 'electable' leader for Labour would be the one that is as different as possible from the Tory posh boys that currently mismanage our affairs in their own interest and the interest of their friends in the banks and in the arms manufacturing industry.

That's why I support Corbyn - because I want a socialist government

Sounds reasonable to me. The current uproar about Labour Party internal affairs has largely been generated by people with no direct knowledge. A by-election victory was nicely timed to put those people on their back foot, and appears to support the notion that people are ready to question Tory assumptions about leadership.

"There remains this level of hostility on the right of the Labour party to the notion of Corbyn's politics - I have conversations in my local branch with members who tell me he is 'unelectable' and that he can't expect loyalty from his MP's because he is disloyal to the party."

This is a kind way of dismissing Corbyn. He has dreamer appeal, the same sort of attraction that Alex Salmond used to have before he became insane. Some would say that there is a streak of insanity in Corbyn but without a proper professional diagnosis it would be improper to make a judgment. He won't lead a Labour Party to victory - of that we can be sure. Let dreamers dream and hopers hope - there's a party dying while they do.

A by-election victory was nicely timed to put those people on their back foot, and appears to support the notion that people are ready to question Tory assumptions about leadership.

Going with that till someone proves me wrong, OW

marcolucco wrote:He won't lead a Labour Party to victory - of that we can be sure. Let dreamers dream and hopers hope - there's a party dying while they do.

The people that started the MYTH of JC being unelectable was the right wing media, and as we all know if you keep repeating the LIE people will believe it, just take a look at the LIE that the coalition gov't repeated time after time that it was not the Bankers & hedge fund managers that caused the MESS & the deficit, we all know what a WHOPPER LIE was now.

The only way the Labour party will die is if we allow the Tory Lite Labour MPs to take over, that is what I was getting on the doorstep in Hallam Sheffield, Carlisle & Wirral West just before the 2015 general election marcolucco.    Before you ask yes I live in Scotland I would have more respect for you marcolucco if you came on here once in a while  and told the truth about what the Tories are doing to the people of the UK and our public services.

 

redflag wrote:Before you ask yes I live in Scotland I would have more respect for you marcolucco if ........

You already informed me where you live.
I think I will get by - just - on the modicum of respect you already show me, redflag. Keep up the footwork and who knows, the Labour Party might surprise the critics and win through.

marcolucco wrote:"There remains this level of hostility on the right of the Labour party to the notion of Corbyn's politics - I have conversations in my local branch with members who tell me he is 'unelectable' and that he can't expect loyalty from his MP's because he is disloyal to the party."

This is a kind way of dismissing Corbyn.  He has dreamer appeal, the same sort of attraction that Alex Salmond used to have before he became insane. Some would say that there is a streak of insanity in Corbyn but without a proper professional diagnosis it would be improper to make a judgment. He won't lead a Labour Party to victory - of that we can be sure. Let dreamers dream and hopers hope - there's a party dying while they do.

Mr Corbyn is, like me, a pretty-much-standard member of the Labour Party before the tory careerists seized control, but he had the incredible patience to tolerate the strutting Murdochite leadership as it marched on to destruction. The hope is that he will restore the People's Party - if the People can hear him through the hysterical screaming of the liars.

Couldn't agree more, Penderyn - lovely to have the prospect of proper representation for us ordinary folks

Penderyn wrote:Mr Corbyn is, like me, a pretty-much-standard member of the Labour Party before the tory careerists seized control, but he had the incredible patience to tolerate the  strutting Murdochite leadership as it marched on to destruction.    The hope is that he will restore the People's Party - if the People can hear him through the hysterical screaming of the liars.

I am impressed by your loyalty but believe it is misplaced. I'm not sure what his incredible patience involved -waiting, watching, doing nothing? Is the People's Party not something out of China? He does give the impression that he would not be unhappy if the West sank. I see his mouth has got him into trouble again. He may for some have the attractiveness of a golden retriever but do we want a dog to lead the nation? You express a hope - - - dreamers and hopers can dream and hope. Corbyn is going nowhere.

marcolucco

He does give the impression that he would not be unhappy if the West sank.

Wrong! That's the impression the media give you......and you seem so impressionable, and eager to believe it.

 Have you heard the latest, the word gullible has been removed from the English Dictionary?.......
and replaced by corbynistic?