Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Touchstone:
I've just cast my vote (not for JC) and I know several people who've also not voted for him. None of us has featured in any poll. If opinion polls were accurate there would be a gang of blokes building Stonehenge in the garden of No.10.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
On the other hand, my own anecdata suggest that Corbyn will win - me, my Dad, my sister (all new signups as either members or supporters) and the vast majority of Labour folk I know are voting Corbyn.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Out of interest, having signed up do you intend to do any more for the party by way of campaigning or canvassing? I ask because I wonder how many of the new members will do the hard work of trying to selling Jeremy Corbyn on the door step.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Does doorstep campaigning still happen anywhere? I understood that these days it's mostly to turn people who've expressed interest into solid votes, rather than cold-selling (as it were) - but that's based on an article I read a while ago, not on personal experience.

(No-one has ever knocked on our door to solicit our vote ever.)

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
My instinct is that a lot of people have signed up for Jeremy Corbyn, will vote for him, but then won't be around when the telephoning / leaflet delivering / canvassing starts with the hard work of selling Corbyn on the door step. But, hey, I could be wrong and they might all be in for the long haul.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Yes, door-to-door stuff does happen a lot but I think whether you've seen it may all depend on where you live (as parties have fewer volunteers these days they have to target resources where they're most likely to be effective).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I might. I resigned from Labour Party membership when it got rid of clause 4. Before that, I did a lot of door to door work - seeing it as a 'witness' for kingdom values.

Now that there's a chance of something akin to clause 4 returning, I might resume my commitment.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Is there no hope then that get-out-the-vote campaigns would be worth doing then?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I might. I resigned from Labour Party membership when it got rid of clause 4. Before that, I did a lot of door to door work - seeing it as a 'witness' for kingdom values.

Now that there's a chance of something akin to clause 4 returning, I might resume my commitment.

---

Sorry Leo. I was minded to sit on my hands, but I can't let that pass. What on earth is the connection between clause 4 and kingdom values?

If someone were to say that they campaigned for flat rate taxation or a leave vote in the EU referendum because they saw it as witnessing to kingdom values, they would rightly be mocked back to the local party office. IMHO the same goes for clause 4. There is no difference.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I did not say that Clause 4 was a kingdom value but that canvassing was a witness to such values - it would take a long study of Isaiah to detail them but disarmament, equalities, elimination of poverty and hunger, righting injutsice will do for starters.

---

That sums up the historical problem in the Labour Party. Some people were and still are so preoccupied with means that they have lost sight of the objectives. There's plenty of room for arguing that all those things which you mention, and more besides, aren't dependent on the existence and implementation of Clause 4 (or an equivalent). Clause 4 might have given a doctrinal basis for all those things but nothing more than that, and another doctrinal basis could have done just as well. Instead we got Mandelson and Blair

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posted                      

quote:

---

In the end, none of those in favour of elections laid a motion, meaning there will be not be a vote at next week’s meeting. It will be the first to be chaired by whoever is selected as the party’s new leader on Saturday.

It is the latest sign that opponents of Corbyn have all but given up on mounting any immediate challenge to his authority if he is elected leader.

MPs from the modernising [i.e. Blairite] wing of the party, including Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt, have called on colleagues to accept the result and embrace unity if Corbyn wins.

The rival leadership campaigns have all ruled out legal attempts to challenge the results of the contest if they lose.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Touchstone:
The day after Corbyn is elected (and I still don't accept that it's a done deal), the right wing media will open the trapdoor of the massive silo of stinking ordure that is currently hanging over his head. (They're holding fire at the moment because they want him to win.) The shitstorm will not stop or even abate for the next 4 years and 9 months, or until JC steps down for the good of his party and his own sanity.

After a year or two of this, and once Labour's poll ratings are firmly camped below 20%, the Blairites won't need to get any blood on their hands. Corbyn will have to quit long before the next election.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Touchstone:
I also still firmly believe that the floating voters in English marginals who decide general elections are not going to buy into the JC project. I'm afraid theses people want to see their own economic prosperity safeguarded, first and foremost.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Touchstone:
The day after Corbyn is elected (and I still don't accept that it's a done deal), the right wing media will open the trapdoor of the massive silo of stinking ordure that is currently hanging over his head. (They're holding fire at the moment because they want him to win.) The shitstorm will not stop or even abate for the next 4 years and 9 months, or until JC steps down for the good of his party and his own sanity.

After a year or two of this, and once Labour's poll ratings are firmly camped below 20%, the Blairites won't need to get any blood on their hands. Corbyn will have to quit long before the next election.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Touchstone:
You know, I'd love to believe that. But Corbyn will be driving along the edge of a cliff for 4 years and sooner or later something will happen (it may be something apparently quite trivial) that'll cause the wheels to come off and send him crashing over.

I also still firmly believe that the floating voters in English marginals who decide general elections are not going to buy into the JC project. I'm afraid theses people want to see their own economic prosperity safeguarded, first and foremost.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pink Floyd:

New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think I'll buy me a football team

Money, get back
I'm all right, Jack, keep your hands off of my stack.
Money, it's a hit
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit
I'm in the hi-fidelity first class traveling set

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I think that's right. I've been saying since the election, that if Osborne can deliver prosperity for the middle class for the next 5 years, they will win again.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The right wing political parties (not just in the UK) have managed to sell a story that says that what's good for the people at the top of the ladder is good for everyone. They tell us stories about trickle-down benefits. And, even when everyone knows that it just doesn't work like that, people still believe it. And, the turkeys vote for Christmas. Time after time.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by alienfromzog:
for the people at large to vote in their own interests. For the disadvantaged non-voters to turn out and vote.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alienfromzog:
for the people at large to vote in their own interests. For the disadvantaged non-voters to turn out and vote.

---

Or, even for people to vote in favour of those less advantaged than them, for the overall benefit of all in our nation and beyond.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by alienfromzog:

This government won on the basis of a stunning propaganda victory which worries and saddens me. What worries me even more is that they seem to believe their own propaganda.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I certainly need neo-liberalism explained, and especially why it doesn't seem to have anything in common with the paleo-liberalism I grew up with.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
From there, there are two ways you can go. One is to ask whether there any vested interests other than the government (and established churches) that are effectively harrassing people. The other is to ask whether there are any other ways in which the government is doing things to the displeasure of people with lots of property.

Progressive liberalism is when you take the first route out; you side against the wealthy when they start harassing people in their turn. Neo-liberalism is when you take the second path out of paleo-liberalism: you emphasis the importance of the interests of people with lots of property.

(That's obviously slanted, but I hope not misleading.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Touchstone:
The day after Corbyn is elected (and I still don't accept that it's a done deal), the right wing media will open the trapdoor of the massive silo of stinking ordure that is currently hanging over his head. (They're holding fire at the moment because they want him to win.) The shitstorm will not stop or even abate for the next 4 years and 9 months, or until JC steps down for the good of his party and his own sanity.

After a year or two of this, and once Labour's poll ratings are firmly camped below 20%, the Blairites won't need to get any blood on their hands. Corbyn will have to quit long before the next election.

---

Dropping a massive silo of stinking ordure over the heads of the leaders of opposition parties is what the press do. Miliband had nearly five years of it non stop. Farage's had the hostility of most of the press, especially the Tory supporting newspapers the Mail and The Times. In fact the only party leader not to get this treatment was the press' golden boy David Cameron. If Miliband can put up with five years of non stop insults I think Corbyn could manage it as well. Don't forget that Corbyn's been through this before. In the eighties when he started his career he was part of what the tabloids called the 'loony left' that was heavily attacked y those tabloids.

Second don't expect the Labour vote to collapse. Firstly many of the middle of the road floating voters who gave Blair his huge majorities have already switched to other parties. Secondly although he'll lose some voters he'll also gain some, specifically Green voters, non voters (especially younger non-voters) and non ideological protest voters. Labour's poll numbers may or may not dip but thy won't collapse.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I certainly need neo-liberalism explained, and especially why it doesn't seem to have anything in common with the paleo-liberalism I grew up with.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Touchstone:
Secondly, I am very sceptical of an electoral strategy that relies on the votes of non-voters. Non-voters don't vote, hence the epithet.

---

• The "they're all the same so it doesn't make any difference who I vote for" group. Putting up a party lead by someone who is clearly not the same as everyone else may get them to vote - although it's a two edged sword since some of this group may decide that they don't want the different candidate.
• Those who are currently teenagers and will get their first election, and younger people generally. Studies I've seen have all shown that young people are generally more concerned over social justice issues, more likely to be left leaning in their politics, more likely to get involved in protests and direct action, but also less likely to actually vote. Corbyn is known to also be involved in the same protests, and may be seen as electable. And, Corbyn has made extensive use of social media, which will also put him in the face of younger people a bit more. I also think that Mhari Black might be a strong influence in encouraging younger people to vote, as an example of a young person making it to the Commons - I know her first speech was widely shared on social media.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by alienfromzog:
... This government won on the basis of a stunning propaganda victory which worries and saddens me. What worries me even more is that they seem to believe their own propaganda. ... [/URL]

---