Concern within the Labour Party that Jeremy Corbyn is doing well

Corbyn actually reached state pension age last year, dj, so the article you read was factually correct, whether he's claiming it at present or not.

I was disappointed or perhaps I should say saddened to hear Alan Johnson's remarks Whitewave and agree with what you say about the right of the party which includes many of the shadow cabinet.

This election is nothing to do with whether you want a Conservative/Lib Dem or Labour government but what the Labour Party believes itself to be. If being true to itself means a harder fight (I don't believe this is a given) then so be it.

As Anniebach said, Labour Party members and supporters will make the choice and it should not be for other MPs to be saying that they will overthrow a democratic choice because they don't like it.

Over 60,000 have joined the labour party since the election because someone is actually espousing socialist ideals again.
Those at the top lost us the election. Corbyn won his seat with an increased majority, unlike many tory-lites.
Jeremy Corbyn stands up for those who have lost through this government's policies of allowing tax evasion, zero hours contracts, and another 40% cut to public services which will take us back to the 1930s.
It's amazing how hysterical the right wing media get at the idea of someone having socialist ideas. Corbyn's opponents drafted the policies which saw labour lose at the last election.
I wonder what hiis opponents are afraid of - real socialism? It would be good to have a leader who actually cares for society, not one who cares for what the media think and for getting the right wing voters to back him/her.
I think they should also be worried about the youth vote that Corbyn is getting. It's good to see how many young people care about what is happening in this society.

One article written in a paper I read called Corbyn "a pensioner happily pottering about his North London allotment."
He's not old enough for a pension yet, and having seen him speak at the Durham gala, he will not be for a long time.

The Labour party are not aghast at what they are doing, the Labour front bench may be. But they are not in touch with the grassroots party and that is probably why they failed at the last election.

From the outside looking in ( and a lot of us non Labour voters are interested in the Labour leadership) it seems as if the Labour Party are aghast at what they are doing, putting Corbyn's name forward , they didn't think what could happen.Probably it won't happen, but it could be a near miss.

Not particularly good looks, but perhaps a feeling of strength and dignity?
it shouldn't Matter at all, but it does, even the way somebody dresses.

If the bulk of the Labour Party doesn't want Corbyn as leader they will not vote for him , if they do they will vote for him.

So much is said on the winter of discontent during a labour government term, yes it was difficult but the whole country struggled with it. What of the years of discontent under the thatcher government ? Riots in the streets, rise in homeless , the divide between North and South , the whole country didn't struggle, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer . Wales , the North of England , Scotland suffered from high unemployment

But are we talking looks or personality or political beliefs/ fervour?
in this age of instant imaging, looks matter more than it used to.

Actually rosesarered a lot of men believed women should have the vote to dismiss them as "most" having beliefs similar to Churchill's is really unfair.
I think JC would be as good a PM as any other politician. Here's a list since 1945
Clement Attlee
Winston Churchill
Anthony Eden
Harold MacMillan
Alec Douglas-Home
Harold Wilson
Edward Heath
Harold Wilson
James Callaghan
Margaret Thatcher
John Major
Tony Blair
They are a varied bunch and I'm not sure a lot of them looked PM material!

Gracesgran it must be fifty years since I read that quote, so I didn't too badly with the remembering.

Perhaps some of you see Jeremy Corbyn ( I can't say JC it sounds like an evangelist term) as the right PM for the times? I don't imagine the bulk of the Labour Party want him though.

Sometimes it's all about having the right PM for the times.

Not really Trisher, it paints him in the light of just about most men in those early days of the 20 th century.
I don't think he was adored by all, even during the war, but he was the right PM for the time.

See Alan Johnson has weighed in on the leadership contest supporting Cooper. He argues as many of the others that a JC victory will keep Labour out of government.

There are undoubtedly some who have recently joined the Labour party in order to insure a JC win for the reason (they hope) stated by Johnson et al.

What none on the right of the party is accepting at the moment that their brand of politics no longer cuts the mustard for so many, who long to get back to a more civilised, caring society. They somehow feel that the only way is to accept to a large ex tent the Tory agenda - even the USA - not known for its radical politics has not followed such an extreme economic policy as this government, and has as a consequence seen reasonable growth whilst we were stuck in a recession. Of course all economies will recover almost regardless of what governments do, but to inflict such hardship on the poorest in the UK in the name of good economics is both harsh and unnecessary.
People are beginning to accept this argument which is why they are rejecting the economics of austerity for the poor - the wealthy of course are not subject to it and so see no reason not to support something which promises to reduce what they see as a tax burden.

I give talks about the suffragette movement and have a great quote if anyone still considers Churchill someone to applaud for his ideals-"The women's suffrage movement is the small edge of the wedge. If we allow women to vote it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause under the sun. Women are well represented by their fathers, brothers and husbands."
Paints him in a new light doesn't it.
He may have led us through the war but he wan't the adored leader he is now portrayed as.
Back to JC I think perhaps he might bring into politics some of the disaffected young people because he so obviously believes what he says.

For those who are actually interested in the subject on this thread Andy Burnham is on Women's Hour this morning. It will be interesting to see if he mentions JC.

I was listening to, I think, a paper review yesterday and they were talking about the gossip picked up amongst the currant leadership of Labour that there would have to be another vote in six months if JC won this one. I wonder what the party members would feel about that?

However, the electorate soundly voted him in again in 1951.

The actual quote is "“If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.” JBF and sounds very like justification of Churchill's many crossings of the floor as he changed party. I don't think he was ever what you would call a team player which is why he was good in war-time but the country soundly voted him out after the war and they actually wanted a more socialist government. He is interesting to study but not to live your life by in my opinion.

Quite strange to think that socialism cannot work in the modern world too JBF as capitalism seems the greatest anachronism around and, at it's most extreme, leads not only to the ownership of a persons labour but the person too. We may need to update socialism but I would rather have that than the greed for unearned income by a few at the cost to most.

Finishing up with a Tory government hell bent on targeting the poor and disadvantaged to solve our financial problems was bound to result in some degree of left backlash. And here it is in the person of JC. My guess is he will eventually finish up in a splinter party (just as UKIP is the right's splinter party).

At least the coalition was a combination of views, each tempering the other's excesses. I feel quite nostalgic for it now!

Jane10 I don't agree with your comment that "we don't have the same old divisions". We are actually going back to those days when working people had no contracts of employment but just had to hang around waiting to be "chosen" to do a few hours work, where people are expected to work all sorts of unsocial hours for little or no recompense, where many people don't earn enough to support their families, etc. etc. Vital services are being cut to the bone, such as mental health services for the young, which often means that young people get no help at times of great distress or are otherwise shipped halfway across the country away from family and friends. As others have said, I think that is a pretty extreme political direction to be going in.

You talk about "those in genuine need". Aren't the people in low paid jobs, often carrying out work that it vital to the wellbeing of others, in genuine need if they are not earning enough to support their families? And yet these are the people that will be affected by the changes. This notion that many of the poor are somehow responsible for the dire situation in which they find themselves was very popular when people unfortunate enough to have to go into the workhouses were treated as if they had committed a crime. Of course, people who had fallen on hard times but who were considered to be "well bred" could apply to such organisations that catered solely for "distressed gentlefolk" and were not subjected to the same indignities as the working or unemployed poor.

I too think the tax system should be reformed but I'm not going to hold my breath with George Osborne in charge. The rich are reliant on the complexities of the system to enable them to dodge paying their fair share - and these are the people that donate to the Conservative Party so it wouldn't be wise to alienate them would it.

As to the comment "why don't you just have a socialist thread?" - the subject matter of this thread is about someone who is a socialist so it seems to me perfectly reasonable that some people will wish to espouse socialist ideas and ideals.

I have no interest whatsoever in the activities of the royal family and therefore rarely read or make comments on threads which are discussing their comings and goings. If people feel that a thread is of no interest to them and by reading it they will only become frustrated and annoyed by its contents, then probably the wisest thing to do is not to read it.

Once again move on!

How very rude. Up to that point this had been an interesting and chatty thread that had stayed on the subject. Surely talking about socialism on a thread about Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party should not be so surprising.

Socialism is a nice idea, but I don't think it can work in the modern world.

I read somewhere, years ago now, that someone who is not a socialist before they are twenty has no soul, anyone who is a socialist after they are twenty, has no head. Sadly, I agree with that.

Unsurprisingly you are. Jeremy Corbyn would lead the left further left and into the political wilderness which was my main point. Extremes on either direction are an anachronism. I'm out of this thread. Good luck.

By the way, the thread is about Jeremy Corbyn, so I think I'm on the right thread.