was corbyn really against the remain?

[C0ckney]

Statistically speaking, people who join political parties are weird minority extremists, in no way representative of the wider electorate. Corbyn's performances in wider opinion polls have been awful. If he stays as leader, I expect Labour to either split like it did in the early 80s, or lose at least 50 seats in the next election.

his performance in actual elections, however, has been pretty good, and certainly much better than the doomsayers in the media have predicted.

[C0ckney]

Fair or not, for the good of the party he should go unless it is all about his ego and he just does not care about the party. If it isn't about his personal ego then he should act like a loyal party man and do what is best for the party as a whole.

it's not ego, it's a battle for the soul of the party. the members and unions back him, the MPs do not. the latter can be easily replaced, the former cannot.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Last time I heard that line was 1981 and 1982, when Militant Tendency was merrily deselecting MPs.

It didn't go well.

[kentonio]

his performance in actual elections, however, has been pretty good, and certainly much better than the doomsayers in the media have predicted.

Didn't he lose seats in the last wide scale election he led, but just not lose as many as people expected?

[kentonio]

Seriously man, watch that Vice documentary if you haven't already. They were following him (the reporter voted for him apparently) at the time when the Tory budget crisis happened. The Prime Minister had to come back to the house due to Syria, and Corbyn had a perfect opportunity to hold his feet to the flames over the budget. His staff were practically begging him. Instead he decided it 'wouldn't be right' to talk much about the budget when the refugee crisis was the main topic, so he just threw a line or two in at the end, and the moment passed. His staff looked about ready to hang themselves.

If that's who Jeremy Corbyn is, then he has no place leading the Labour party right now. He might well be a good man and a decent man, and the kind of politician it'd be great to have in theory, but unless he can be ruthless enough to hit the Tories when he's handed the opportunity then he's going to lose, and then Britain loses.

[C0ckney]

Didn't he lose seats in the last wide scale election he led, but just not lose as many as people expected?

labour lost 18 seats and zero councils (net; some changed hands). they easily won the most votes and have the most councillors. predictions in the media were talking about hundreds of losses. and that's been the pattern: the media have constantly predicted disaster for labour, and every time these predictions have not come true. labour under corbyn have won their by-elections handily and increased their share of the vote; the 'strong challenges' from UKIP talked up by the media have come to nought. a cynical person might say that sections of the media are trying to create a self-fulfilling prophesy; but it hasn't worked.

i haven't seen vice documentary, but i may watch it at some point. i don't think, however, that it will change anything. corbyn himself and his personal qualities don't really matter (it's worth remembering that i have never voted labour and that i am far, far to the left of them): it's what he represents that counts.

i think many people just don't understand what's going on ("it's like the early 80s" ). right now, across europe, the centre-left is in crisis. i have talked at great length before about the reasons behind this so i shall spare you all that. but, essentially, as it has accepted capitalism and can offer no coherent critique of it and thus no solutions to the crisis, it finds itself squeezed from the left and the right, often, paradoxically, by the same parties (the front national is a prime example of what i'm talking about here). what these parties offer is a slightly different flavour of capitalist managerialism with a dash of identity politics. they have abandoned social democracy; many have abandoned even the pretence of it. because of this the working classes are abandoning them for new left-wing parties that offer social democracy or socialism and far-right parties that offer nationalism, racism and an erstaz social democracy. electing corbyn, i.e. someone prepared to offer social democracy, was a very intelligent move by the labour party; forcing him out and replacing him with some 'centrist' would be an act of grave stupidity that would doubtless please murdoch but ensure labour's place alongside PASOK, PSOE, the SDP (germany), etc. in the list of moribund european 'centre-left' parties.

people may soon be left with a choice between neoliberealism (in two or more(!) different flavours) and fascism (see the US election for more details), and given the choice, many people, including the working classes who voted for brexit, will choose fascism. and, really, who could blame them?

[Aeson]

Not having as much money as you'd like is not an acceptable reason to become a nazi.

[C0ckney]

well i was worried about people voting for the far right, but i'm sure your stern disapproval will put a stop to that.

[Aeson]

You said who could blame them [for going fascist]. I can, as can anyone with sense.

[giblets]

If that's who Jeremy Corbyn is, then he has no place leading the Labour party right now. He might well be a good man and a decent man, and the kind of politician it'd be great to have in theory, but unless he can be ruthless enough to hit the Tories when he's handed the opportunity then he's going to lose, and then Britain loses.

I thought you were a conservative

[C0ckney]

You said who could blame them [for going fascist]. I can, as can anyone with sense.

yes, but given that you plainly know nothing about european politics nor the circumstances to which i refer, no one will be interested in your views about them.

[Aeson]

You referred to the US as an example of what you were referring to. In any case, you don't need to know the details to blame fascists for choosing fascism. You're just trying to justify fascism for some moronic reason.

[C0ckney]

no i'm not. you've clearly not understood what i said.

[C0ckney]

but using the US as an example, it seems to me - although, as i've said before, i find US politics dull and don't really follow it - that hillary vs trump is a good example of neoliberalism vs fascism. it's fairly obvious why the working class, facing increasing economic insecurity and seeing their standard of living either getting worse or under threat, perhaps under pressure from migrant labour, and the old certainties crumbling, seem to find trump's populist/fascist programme more appealing than more of the same neoliberalism under hillary. elok made some good posts that touched on this in the EU referendum thread.

[Aeson]

Understanding why it happens isn't excusing it from happening. The phrase "and who could blame them" is excusing them for supporting fascism. I pointed out that it's perfectly reasonable to blame fascists for choosing to be fascists or support fascists ... and you took issue with it.