Corbyn - 100 not out.

[callan]

Today marks the centenary of Jeremy's 100th PMQ.

When elected as the Labour leader he promised us a new kind of politics, is he, in zoners opinions delivering?

 

[MK Shrimper]

Yes. I believe he has - no petty, childish insults at PMQs for example. The voting public are led by the nose by the right wing press, so even though I'm a supporter it's going to be a battle royale to get elected. Still, rather a leader and a party I believe in that another Blair clone.

 

[callan]

Yes. I believe he has - no petty, childish insults at PMQs for example.

Well none from Corbyn.....

 

[londonblue]

Today marks the centenary of Jeremy's 100th PMQ.

When elected as the Labour leader he promised us a new kind of politics, is he, in zoners opinions delivering?

If this is anything to go by, then yes he is delivering. The question is, is it for the better, and (from a Labour point of view) is it going to win favour with the voters:

Telegraph

 

[mrsblue]

Jezza during the 100,still hasn't asked questions about the migrant crisis and the economy,failed to mention the doc's strike either.

 

[callan]

If this is anything to go by, then yes he is delivering. The question is, is it for the better, and (from a Labour point of view) is it going to win favour with the voters:

Telegraph

From a voting perspective, I have found Corbyn to be fairly bland, if I'm being honest, though not in a bad way.

I think the success of Corbyn may well be that Labour finally manages to put the distance between itself and that of New Labour.

 

[londonblue]

From a voting perspective, I have found Corbyn to be fairly bland, if I'm being honest, though not in a bad way.

I didn't realise there was a good way to be bland.

I think the success of Corbyn may well be that Labour finally manages to put the distance between itself and that of New Labour.

That may be the case, but would that lead to personal success (probably) or party success (most likely not)? The reason New Labour evolved was because Labour were never going to be elected unless the party changed. A lot of people such as myself would rather have New Labour than the tories. (And yes, I see a big difference between the two.)

Corduroy is just taking Labour back to their un-electable days. So, whist he might be successful in putting distance between Labour and the tories, I don't see how that is going to appeal to the general population.

 

[callan]

I didn't realise there was a good way to be bland.




That may be the case, but would that lead to personal success (probably) or party success (most likely not)? The reason New Labour evolved was because Labour were never going to be elected unless the party changed. A lot of people such as myself would rather have New Labour than the tories. (And yes, I see a big difference between the two.)

Corduroy is just taking Labour back to their un-electable days. So, whist he might be successful in putting distance between Labour and the tories, I don't see how that is going to appeal to the general population.

I get the impression that you are not a Corbyn fan?

 

[MK Shrimper]

That may be the case, but would that lead to personal success (probably) or party success (most likely not)? The reason New Labour evolved was because Labour were never going to be elected unless the party changed. A lot of people such as myself would rather have New Labour than the tories. (And yes, I see a big difference between the two.)

Corduroy is just taking Labour back to their un-electable days. So, whist he might be successful in putting distance between Labour and the tories, I don't see how that is going to appeal to the general population.

Plenty of people have been energised by Corbyn, myself included. If this supposed leadership challenge by Dan Jarvis succeeds, the Labour Party will alienate even more voters than it will attract by returning to New Labour centre-right policies - in thrall to big business.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I didn't realise there was a good way to be bland.




That may be the case, but would that lead to personal success (probably) or party success (most likely not)? The reason New Labour evolved was because Labour were never going to be elected unless the party changed. A lot of people such as myself would rather have New Labour than the tories. (And yes, I see a big difference between the two.)

Corduroy is just taking Labour back to their un-electable days. So, whist he might be successful in putting distance between Labour and the tories, I don't see how that is going to appeal to the general population.

Corbyn will be around a lot longer than some people think.At least until 2020.The time to make an initial judgement of his leadership of the PLP will be after the May elections.

 

[londonblue]

Plenty of people have been energised by Corbyn, myself included. If this supposed leadership challenge by Dan Jarvis succeeds, the Labour Party will alienate even more voters than it will attract by returning to New Labour centre-right policies - in thrall to big business.

That might be the case, but you have to weigh that up against people that will now drop Labour. Moreover you also have to weigh that up against people that have already dropped Labour, and whether or not they'll come back. There will be some, like yourself, but I would wager there are far more who voted Labour in 1997 who won't now.

As for your assertion that a leadership challenge will alientate voters, you have to remember that people voted for Labour under Millibland, not Corduroy. By voting in Corduroy Labour effectively alienated their own voters, i.e. people who put these MPs where they currently are, rather than potential voters.

As I said, I think the Labour party under Blair were more pragmatic because they realised they would never get into power unless they changed.

 

[londonblue]

I get the impression that you are not a Corbyn fan?

What gives you that idea?

 

[callan]

What gives you that idea?

Just a hunch :smile:

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

That might be the case, but you have to weigh that up against people that will now drop Labour. Moreover you also have to weigh that up against people that have already dropped Labour, and whether or not they'll come back. There will be some, like yourself, but I would wager there are far more who voted Labour in 1997 who won't now.

As for your assertion that a leadership challenge will alientate voters, you have to remember that people voted for Labour under Millibland, not Corduroy. By voting in Corduroy Labour effectively alienated their own voters, i.e. people who put these MPs where they currently are, rather than potential voters.

As I said, I think the Labour party under Blair were more pragmatic because they realised they would never get into power unless they changed.

As Barna says May is the time to judge.

 

[londonblue]

As Barna says May is the time to judge.

I disagree with that. I don't see it as relevant in any way. Labour may well do well, but that isn't a way to judge they way Corduroy leads the PLP. Most of the public haven't a clue, and don't care about his ability to lead a group of MPs, which has been shambolic to say the least (although you could put that down to inexperience). The time to tell will be the next GE, if he gets that far.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I disagree with that. I don't see it as relevant in any way. Labour may well do well, but that isn't a way to judge they way Corduroy leads the PLP. Most of the public haven't a clue, and don't care about his ability to lead a group of MPs, which has been shambolic to say the least (although you could put that down to inexperience). The time to tell will be the next GE, if he gets that far.

Agreed that GE is the time to tell but May results are the best indicator we have in the near future.

 

[callan]

I disagree with that. I don't see it as relevant in any way. Labour may well do well, but that isn't a way to judge they way Corduroy leads the PLP. Most of the public haven't a clue, and don't care about his ability to lead a group of MPs, which has been shambolic to say the least (although you could put that down to inexperience). The time to tell will be the next GE, if he gets that far.

In what way has Corbyn been Shambolic?

 

[londonblue]

In what way has Corbyn been Shambolic?

He's had to do deals, allow free votes to save face/arguments. He's made decisions without consulting, and tried to force MPs to vote his way when he has spent his career doing the opposite, i.e. he's a hypocrite.

I think that will suffice for now.

 

[Blueronron]

That might be the case, but you have to weigh that up against people that will now drop Labour. Moreover you also have to weigh that up against people that have already dropped Labour, and whether or not they'll come back. There will be some, like yourself, but I would wager there are far more who voted Labour in 1997 who won't now.

As for your assertion that a leadership challenge will alientate voters, you have to remember that people voted for Labour under Millibland, not Corduroy. By voting in Corduroy Labour effectively alienated their own voters, i.e. people who put these MPs where they currently are, rather than potential voters.

As I said, I think the Labour party under Blair were more pragmatic because they realised they would never get into power unless they changed.

Are you telling me that people who voted Tory, to look after the Nationbal Debt, the NHS, the migrant situation, pensions, tax reforms, a living wage, affordable housing , will no longer vote Tory as they seem to be making it far worse for many of people who live in this country
Pigdick shafter and Gideon have made false promises, so that will alienate those that believed Tory was the rightful path.

With JC you know what you will get, maybe he has to modify his opinions, but thats what makes a good leader, listens to other, shame those Toffs donot listen to the many, still I have no sympathy for those who are now in the mire and voted Tory in GE, similar to Thatcher years, people thought they were in clover until the pressure tap was released and then poverty
Once Interest rise and it will, we will be back to 1980, if the Junior Doctors have to go on strike then its a sad time for all, seems funny right wing papers keep a low profile on the strikes, Murdoch money talk I guess
Let not get into Food banks which is now a major issue and one they like to keep hidden, and I would imagine a few more will be in the line in the non distant future, lets hope its not any Tory voters, who are probably laughing at those less fortunate



UTS

 

[callan]

He's had to do deals, allow free votes to save face/arguments. He's made decisions without consulting, and tried to force MPs to vote his way when he has spent his career doing the opposite, i.e. he's a hypocrite.

I think that will suffice for now.

On the plus side you do have a re-energised MK shrimper, and that cannot be a bad thing.