Concern within the Labour Party that Jeremy Corbyn is doing well

Can I just add.

There is a relevance in discussing past history, especially concerning Corbyn. It is fair to point out he does have long standing views and some are probably shared by both left and right of politics years later.

I am however more concerned for what 'future' the UK will have and how and under what political landscape we may be governed by.

Eloethan

I do not disagree with a lot of the points you raised in your post.

However once again it is detracting from the fact Corbyn is telling the voter what he is, what he stands for, what you will be accepting as policy if you vote for him , you will be happy to share in his Marxist/Communist style of politics and you will accept his change to the procedures and process of government that he espouses to.

On one hand it appears some believe he has everything right and I will be voting for him, then the other hand says I don't share his views they are not what I believe in. That confuses me.

Crun

I like that.

Whitewave

Corbyn does have Marxist/Communist/Far Left views , the same as some in the BNP and UKIP have Far Right views. That is how it is, if they were not Far Left views held by Corbyn he would be as vanilla as the other 3 contenders,.

A declaration of intent to vote for, past declarations of support to Far Left organisations by some GN'ers cannot be dismissed and I don't know why having spoken so openly about their political preference it is possible to feel upset when that is pointed out/spoken of. You either vote for somebody because you share their vision, believe in their policies or not. Corbyn is not flip flop Burnham, he says what he thinks, you know you agree and you know by doing so you share his view which are based on Marxism/Communism/Socialism, call it what you want to satisfy your political stance.

I think I am more confused by somebody who declares a vote for Corbyn but doesn't believe in his Marxist views. How do you square that ! Having voted for him do you/would you simply say 'Oh I voted for him but I didn't agree with his views"

I understand the response could throw that comment back at myself by asking if I agree with 'everything' the person I vote for. The answer would be no. However Corbyn holds views that are direct, unmistakenably to the Far Left and says exactly what you are signing up to, his politics have always been Marxist/Communist/Socialist. If you want socialism that does not attach itself to that doctrine then you would vote for Burnham, Cooper or Kendell surely.

As for you comment re economists I have made my view very clear, they will never agree, only to agree to disagree with each other. It is again probably the case an economics view will resonate with those who share the same view as their politics. Today they are for , tomorrow there will be some against. Using the view of economists therefore is only of any use when trying to score points. I remember the doom mongering economists and what they said in 2010. Egg on their faces and still sticking to their guns.

The economy has to move with international markets, it has to adapt to outside pressures. The economy is a mantra to some who hang on by their finger nails to a political mantra being the be all and end all, it could work but I don't see any Marxist/Communist/Socialist country that is working that well and I am interested to hear of one.

The tactic of labelling everyone with left wing views as being Communists or Marxists is one that was used by MacCarthy in the USA to close down debate and to discredit those that espoused views which challenged the right wing establishment. It was very effective too, since many of the people accused of being "fellow travellers" were silenced because they never worked again.

Most leaders and politicians have had what would be described by some people as "disreputable" associations - either because they felt it was more productive to maintain courteous relationships in the hope of influencing the behaviour of the leaders involved or because they genuinely admired the leaders in question. Mrs Thatcher described General Pinochet as "a very dear friend" who was "bringing democracy to Chile" (even though he and his military overthrew a democratically elected government and subsequently presided over a regime where 2,000 opponents were murdered and 30,000 tortured). Instead of supporting the movement to end apartheid, she demonstrated a firm commitment to the apartheid leaders, instead describing the ANC and Nelson Mandela as "terrorists". In Indonesia where at least 500,000 East Timorese were killed while General Suharto was in power, she described him as "one of our best and most valuable friends". When people like Corbyn were urging discussions involving all parties to the "the troubles", including the IRA, Thatcher and many others, expressed their disgust. We now know that secret talks were going on anyway and it was by involving all parties that finally some sort of normality was established in Northern Ireland.

Mrs Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were not interested in democracy when it produced leaders of whom they disapproved. They took no steps to use their amicable relationships with tyrants and despots to try and change their mode of governance - at least not until, as in the case of South Africa, the writing was already on the wall.

My feeling is there is nothing wrong with trying to maintain friendly relationships with people whose behaviour you do not necessarily approve of, so long as at the same time you encourage all the parties in a dispute to work towards peacefully settling their differences.

Jeremy Corbyn has always opposed war and the sale of arms. He continues to urge the big powers not to continue to fuel the many wars and conflicts around the world by selling arms. ISIS, for instance, is reported to have vast numbers of brand new and extremely sophisticated weapons, including tanks and armoured vehicles. Why is no-one asksing questions as to which countries have supplied these weapons and which countries are buying the oil that ISIS is now in control of?

This explanation does not account for a moving centre though, and a shared consensus.

There is another system which has a sort of stability of course: one van at the extreme left or the extreme right who defends his turf with violence and intimidation.

"To get into power Labour need to at least be different to the Tories and to communicate that to the public."

Imagine you have a beach full of people at the seaside, with one ice cream van at the far right hand end of the beach and another at the far left. Half the people get their ice creams from the RH van because it's the one closest to where they're sitting, and the other half get their ice creams from the LH van because that's their closest.

One day the RH van moves into the centre of the promenade, because he realises that he can take half the LH van's trade without losing any of the custom he had yesterday from the right half of the beach. He's now got 3/4 of the trade.

The following day the van on the left realises his mistake, and he moves to the centre of the beach too. You now have two vans side by side in the centre with each taking half the trade as before.

Having one van at each end of the beach is not a stable equilibrium because either can steal trade from the other by moving toward the centre. The only way the system is stable is with both vans in the centre, because neither van can move away from his position without losing trade.

(Why didn't the RH van move all the way to the left on the first day, and steal all trade from the LH van in the first place? Because a third van could have appeared to their right and taken most of the trade from the other two.)

How do you square what you have just posted pogs with economists saying that JC is mainstream?

I am and have never been a subscriber to a marxist viewpoint. Saying that I fully understand both Marx as an economist and philosopher, so am in a position to say that your personal opinion can only be that as it actually makes no sense, when you suggest that there are many gners that are communist! It will be news to them I am sure.

Being different doesn't necessarily get you into power if the voter doesn't agree with your policies.

As for communicating more to the public I wish that was the case too.

I think the public simply do not know nor fully understand what Corbyn stands for such as leaving NATO, his views on Hamas, Hezbollah, Putin, IRA what would a Marxist/Far Left government set into place, how different the political process and governance could be and how it would affect us, wanting rid of the Queen/Monarchy eventually how would he go about turning the UK into a Republic etc. etc.

At the moment it has been the ridiculous coverage of how gorgeous he is and how women are falling for him, he wears a vest and his beard is good. He is either preaching to the converted or being feted and viewed as a breath of fresh air. Yes he has gained a following but after 30 years of being in Westminster you have to ask why now. Is it mass hysteria or is it sustainable and genuine. If you are one of the converted you will say the latter, obviously.

Personally I don't have a clue if this fervour for Corbyn will last. I just hope people who have only just 'found' Corbyn and practically made him a saint are going to continue with their interest but give serious thought and learn more , including the history of subjects such as nationalisation, his favoured organisations, what countries who are run under communism are like etc. etc. Especially the younger followers who have no idea what life is/was like under communism, they might like it, they may believe living in a communist country is for them, who knows but I hope they give it serious thought.

I am not surprised how many GN'ers who have declared they are voting for Corbyn obviously share his Marxist/Socialist/Communist, call it what you want views. I am not surprised at the media being so weak in it's coverage of the Labour leadership contest and not delving into the candidates policies and history. I am surprised at the rise of the far left and I worry about that as much as I do about the Far Right of politics but I accept that is a personal opinion .

I always thought when this current lot took office they seemed like school boys playing g at it sort of pretending to be PM and Chancellor.

Perhaps the reason JC sounds so calm and reasonable is that he is 66.
He personally really has nothing to lose, unlike the others whose political futures are at stake.

See economists have signed a letter including a Bank of England economist, that says JCs economics are more main stream than GOs.
I think a lot of grans already know that.

JC is still doing well. he was on Any Questions and in his quiet way always sounds convincing. Whether he will be the next PM is not important at the moment but that he might be a real opposition to the Conservatives.
I would vote for him( As expat I have no vote) because through him we might get rid of this terrible Prime Ministers Questions which takes place every Wed. I can't imagine him shouting at anybody.

To get into power Labour need to at least be different to the Tories and to communicate that to the public.

By the way talking of Frank Field he has also said if Corbyn were to win it would turn the party into a 'political sect' and likely put Labour out of power for years'.

He said:-

"If he wins (JC) it brings a crisis point the Labour Party is going to face. Is it going to be a party the serves only 'the activists' and develops as effectively a pressure group, becomes 'a sect' in British Politics or is it actually going to be a party that is going to regain power? And there is no way we're going to regain power with Jeremy's programme"

I think he is correct in his view.

Far north he should get on over to the "my cat is sad" thread!

I expect Ned the cat is a bit confused to find himself suddenly disenfranchised, after newly getting himself involved and interested.

JC is still doing well in the polls, isn't he? Some of them read as if it is a foregone conclusion that he'll win. Quite amusing to see what the other three contenders get up to in order to either discredit him or to suck up to him. I don't know whether JC is naturally a dignified person or if he is getting very good advice but I think it is great that he refuses to indulge in mud slinging with the other three.

Haha! I've heard a similar story in which someone got membership of the Union of Concerned Scientists for his dog.

How about this report?

www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/cats-always-need-better-vetting-procedures#.mhrWmky8rD

I don't think there can be any doubt about that!

Well they do say a week is a long time in politics.

D'you reckon this thread'll hit the 1000 gong?

Although it was only last month that he referred to JC as 'a deficit denier' and said that JC's policies, if he were to be elected as leader, would involve 'no cuts at all', which would make him unelectable as PM.

What a difference a month makes...

Good MP Frank Field.

I have certainly felt I had more sense of what they are since Jeremy Corbyn came along FarNorth. In the last election I felt that the Labour Party had lost its soul.

In the New Statesman this week, in an article by George Eaton, he quotes Frank Field, who nominated JC, as saying to him "I can't tell you how pleased I am that I nominated Jeremy. The longer it goes on the thinner the post-Blair gruel that the other candidates offer us appears. It is going to change the debate and, at the end of the day, we'll owe Jeremy a huge thanks."