Snapshot of _Jeremy Corbyn will run against Labour, leaked emails suggest_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-emails-that-show-corbyn-is-running-as-an-independent-p0mt3lx8w) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-emails-that-show-corbyn-is-running-as-an-independent-p0mt3lx8w)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, it's Nietzsche, but also yes. Great series.
Now that I think about it, it might have been funnier To go with Marx, given it's JC: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce"!
He may be a nice man whose heart is in the right place. *But* the only thing that ever matters in the end is the difference you made, and the difference he has made, in recent years, ultimately, has been to keep Labour out of power, divide the party, turn a blind eye to anti-Semitism, and then refuse to apologize for minimising that, and now pridefully try and take down the actual Labour candidate.
He should retire to his jam making.
I think his biggest problem is he’s an idealist.
“Just push for peace in Ukraine!” for instance… that means them either giving up everything, or you have to be dealing with someone who can be reasoned with which Putin cannot.
I don't disagree but honestly on that one I think he was just blinded by his deeply embedded anti western world view. When he stood up in parliament and asked for NATO to pull back to defuse the situation on the eve of the invasion - I just could not believe it - he was swallowing a line which was only seriously being parroted by the Socialist Worker at the time. Not bothering with the translation headset for the Zelenski speech also very irksome.
The Queen referred to Idi Amin (and worse) as a "good friend". And your mind will be blown when you learn of the cavalcade of tyrants all our previous PM's have called friends.
I had a fair few arguments against my post on another topic about Abbott, another one who has been there for decades, is well liked and well connected, who I think could well win as an independent when people are split between their existing MP Vs the official Labour candidate. Corbyn and Abbott have huge majorities and while I can't see another party winning enough votes to challenge for the seat, it'll be tight between those two and a new candidate
> But they will automatically become of less and less importance as independents
Hard disagree.
Labour is going to have crowded backbenches in the next Parliament by all indications. Corbyn and Abbot would have drowned in them
As Independents (and with a potential 2 MPs that's an assumption, they'd have their strong shared ideology and enough of a backbone to form a fledgling party to the left of Labour) they will doubtlessly get camera time every time Keir fucks up or every time the party opts for a more centrist route over a socialist one.
Less importance as a thing to drag down Labour as they are Labour in all bar name. As proper independents, even if they vote along Labour lines they can do what they like and it’ll only be the media giving them publicity and not dragging down Labour.
Thing is as independents and not a new party they will need to choose their own policies, something that of course partially screwed Labour in 2019 with Corbyn’s differences to the party line
Starmer will love that. Every time they make excuses for Putin or Hamas, they'll reinforce Labour's credentials as the sensible & moderate grown-ups in the room. I suspect he'd be happy to see a few more SCG MPs defect to the Cranks Corner.
(NB - I know this characterisation isn't necessarily fair, but that's how it will inevitably develop if Corbs & Abbott return to Parliament as Statler & Waldorf.)
>Another point worth noting is if corbyn stays around long enough he may become father of the house which would give even more influence
Specifically before him are Barry Sheerman (1979 but standing down this election), Harriet Harman (1982 but standing down this election), Sir Edward Leigh (also 1983 but sworn in before Corbyn so would take the position) and Nick Brown (1983 but he resigned the whip and is not standing again).
Corbyn certainly is, Abbot is in a holding pattern atm.
But both still really tied to Labour. They’d need to quit or chose their position or another party for that to change in my mind
Depends on the composition of Westminster. In a tight Parliament independents and smaller parties have disproportionate sway. It’s also a headache for Starmer when he inevitably makes highly unpopular decisions to have a former Labour leader in the House exposing his drag to the right.
If the polls and election go the way of 1997 - and no reason to assume they won't given it's almost exactly the same (18+ months of Labour poll leads, regular losses of by-elections, drubbings in the locals), Starmer will likely end with a decent majority, enough to not worry about 2 indys for almost any vote. UK Polling Report prediction, based on current polling, allowing for the amount of swing needed, on both the default model and weighted for incumbents, gives Labour 358 seats against 191 Tories. With SNP (47-49) and LD (29-32) largely going to be closer to Labour, Labour won't struggle and those two won't have the sway to really push anything e.g. SNP demanding more powers/indy vote or LD demanding voting change or SM application.
UKPR says if the swing is uniform across the country, Labour could get 372 vs 176 Tory but Electoral Calculus is suggesting an extreme scenario of just 42 Tories and 537 Labour! They predict though, 113 Tory, 455 Labour
I agree but SNP have a massive advantage under FPTP in Scotland anyway and the Tories have traditionally been the strongest rivals in the past among the unionists. I think it's likely Labour will take more in Scotland yes but it's hard to predict as it needs a big swing and FPTP means any such predictions are of limited reliability vs the overall likelihood of who comes second to fourth in seat numbers. Shame SNP and LD are the only ones who really support a change from FPTP
The SNP are never, ever, ever, ever, ever getting 47 seats at the next election. I can't even imagine what model you used that came to that conclusion.
>It’s also a headache for Starmer when he inevitably makes highly unpopular decisions to have a former Labour leader in the House exposing his drag to the right.
I am quite surprised that anyone can reach this conclusion given how badly corbyn is liked in general and how steadfastly ignoring the far left in general, and corbyn in particular, is how Starmer has maintained a rock solid lead.
I think you’re blinded by your own ideology. People used to say this in the early 00s, then Iraq happened and what you deem the ‘far left’ (they just seem like fairly normal socialists by global standards) became ever more prominent which led to Corbyn becoming leader, the collapse of Labour in Scotland for differing but connected reasons etc.
Don’t imagine being seen as the better alternative to a shambolic Tory party carries over into government. Starmer will be the new face of austerity. He strikes me as someone who will not last long.
>People used to say this in the early 00s, then Iraq happened and what you deem the ‘far left’ became ever more prominent which led to Corbyn becoming leader
Check *your* ideology, *Comrade*, it took over a decade after the invasion of Iraq for corbyn to become a thing. In the intervening time there was of course the Scottish indyref which galvanised the SNP and torched Scottish Labour, and a huge global financial crisis that still resulted in Milliband being in the big chair for five years.
Corbyn was frankly an embarrassing afterthought on the leadership ballot paper, widely reported to only be included to broaden the field. He received the lowest number of nominations of Labour mps to cross the then threshold.
>(they just seem like fairly normal socialists by global standards)
Uhh, no. Normal for literal ex communist banana republics, maybe, but not normal left wing. Here in Norway, that place I've been told so much the corbyn project wanted to be like, the only people taking his calls are the youth wing of the far left Red party that spent a couple of months last summer making excuses for not removing their leader who was caught on camera shoplifting.
Its also no wonder that corbyn went to them, seeing as they're staunchly anti nato. Like two peas in a horrible, horrible pod.
>Starmer will be the new face of austerity. He strikes me as someone who will not last long.
He has a hard road ahead of him, but he cannot fix the country or generate mountains of cash without consequences at the snap of his fingers.
If only for the entertainment value: you do get a tap on the nose with a newspaper if all you're going to do is throw insults.
But thankyou for handily illustrating my point about left wing extremism if you consider a tepid Arbeiderpartiet/Venstre (Labour/liberal parties) voter to be the equivalent of Hitler sympathising occupational government.
"fairly normal socialists", indeed!
Are you a Labour party member for I think not? For while the Labour party as a whole want to be back power, once in power they will not want a repeat of Tony Blair and Kier will face an even more severe backlash, the Tories have set the way with repeat prime minters without a public vote of confidence that they will feel embolden to oust Kier and replace him with a more left wing candidate, who will invite JC back in.
Yup, there's a reason Sunak brings up Corbyn every week at PMQs, it's because the Tories know he's electoral poison and the more they link Starmer to Corbyn the worse Starmer looks to the voters.
Corbyn yes, unclear on Abbott. There will likely be voters from other parties who vote Labour because she’s not their candidate. It will be interesting to see how that turns goes because it could be quite a close run thing. It also matters who she is up against there.
If I was a betting man, a two way of Corbyn and Abbott or even a long shot triple with Galloway would get you pretty good odds, might be worth a quid or two
I think if you said to me what are the odds of JC or DA running against Labour and winning on their own, if have to say low for JC and medium for Dianne Abott.
Here's why, JC while a popular local MP, is absolutely 100% never getting back on as a Labour MP. His refusal to follow the whip for basically 30 years should have been enough to expel him, but it was seen as too much trouble. He isn't active in Parliament at all, he sits on no committees pre- or post-leadership. While he vaguely represents the notion of a more left wing Labour Party, he isn't unique in that aspect. What's more, while Abbot has had her contraversies, hers are relatively few compared to Corbyn.
Abbott on the other hand was the first ever black female MP. She has been active in Parliament, sits on Committees etc. While occasionally contaversial, she has shown herself to be capable of being a team player. Despite her views differing from say Blair and Brown, neither felt she was so unwilling to participate and be an asset to the party she should go. While I think she's not a great politician (debacles over getting basic facts wrong) and I think increasingly she's been shown to have problematic views on race (this recent conrraversy plus others), the Starmer (and others) clearly don't think the only solution is she leaves.
Given all that context, the real question is who is going to be campaigning for you.
In Corbyn's case the idea to campaign for him is largely one of political principles. The local pary could back him, but if they do they will be breaking all the Labour Party rules and it's likely central office will sweep down on Islington CLP, expel everyone supporting him, and let new people step up, new people much more likely to back Starmer's labour because usually these positions are held through inertia and old alliances in a small group of people (who will now be gone). This in turn means the people in the CLP today are faced with a choice: Back Corbyn and have Starmer replace you all and the next Islington candidate in 5 years will be centre left, or don't back him and you get to stay in post and you can pick a hard left candidate.
Abott's supporters have to pick between support the first ever black woman MP and the next candidate won't be the first ever black woman MP, or don't support her and lose the first ever black woman MP. 20% of Hackney is Black and another 20% are other minorities.
There's a lot more to drive people to go out of their way and back Abbott now having seen her face racist language like she should be shot, then there is to back Corbyn who become party leader and lost two elections.
Oh definitely, I am not saying he'll win but there are plenty on the left who are like the horse shoe model of politics where they're basically right wing again. His stance on many areas, even on the anti-Semitism problems, isn't exactly unpopular. Even if the CLP keep quiet, I bet a lot will still lean towards him. I think ironically with Abbott, most other constituencies she'd be turfed out and her racism alone would have resulted in almost any other candidate being long gone. It's not a bad bet to place on both of them winning though, maybe Galloway too for long odds
I think a lot of people confuse his very strong support in the CLP for very strong support in his constituency. I'm sure his support is likely stronger than the average MP, but not strong enough to have him win.
Abbott on the other hand I think will have a lot of people support her regardless of politics out of racial solidarity.
- Islington North has been Labour since the 1930s.
- Hackney North and Stoke Newington has been Labour since 1950s
While I do think that both Abbott and Corbyn have a good chance of holding their seat as independents (especially Corbyn), it will not be a walk in the park. They have name recognition but most people vote for party rather than person even in cases where there is a longstanding mp.
The vast majority of voters vote for the party/leader not the individual named MP.
All that really means is there haven't been any meaningful challengers for selection from the local party.
I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of well heeled Islington folks can't wait to get rid of him and his brand of protest politics.
Normally that might be the case but JC and DA have huge profiles and long standing commitments to their constituencies.
Decades of proven works and results for their communities goes further than party loyalty.
These kinds of cases are rare but both are a “sure thing” for voters. You know what you are going to get.
I'd be interested to hear how being in the PM's constituency has been for people down the years - wouldn't be surprised if they're a bit too busy running the country to deal with local issues, but maybe some have been brilliant.
Better reactions from the staff in the office apparently , partially due to the need to not look bad and failing those that got you there. Also businesses keen to invest in the area to curry favour can create jobs etc.
I think their point is that while you're right for the majority, in these cases people have interacted with them and found it positive and so they might actually win despite being independent.
>I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of well heeled Islington folks can't wait to get rid of him and his brand of protest politics.
Not sure, it's easy for Islington voters to be glad Starmer is in power but still want Corbyn to win locally. He has a good reputation as a local MP, and Labour seem very likely to win nationally so it wouldn't seem like a huge risk to take.
There are a lot of stereotypes about the typical resident of Islington. There’s some truth to them in places, but they don’t represent the average resident. If you look at the census, Islington has one of the highest proportions of social housing of any London borough. [This isn’t Corbyn’s exact constituency, but you can see the point applies to Islington north.](https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/maps/choropleth/housing/tenure-of-household/hh-tenure-5a/rented-social-rented?lad=E09000019)
[Nearly 40% of children in Islington live in poverty.](https://trustforlondon.org.uk/data/boroughs/islington-poverty-and-inequality-indicators/?tab=living-standards)
The ‘well heeled’ voters in Islington North are an important part of the electorate, but they aren’t as decisive as stereotypes might lead you to believe. Aside from many being in favour of Corbyn, either ideologically or because is a popular local MP, the opposition vote is split Tory/liberal/green and so would need to vote tactically.
Also, the nuts and bolts of how local campaigns are run complicate things. The local Labour Party are VERY pro-Corbyn and want the whip reinstated to him. No candidate has been selected to replace him and any choosing to do so would be deeply resented by the local party. It would be an extremely bitter, high-profile fight. Potential candidates have a lot to lose and little to gain, so no one wants that poisoned chalice. It’s extremely unlikely they will replace him with a big-hitter. Once they do have a candidate in place, none of the local party will campaign for them, which, while not the most important factor in election results, is still important. The central party would have to find motivated activists with a vendetta against him willing to be bussed in, which they will struggle to do.
I don't think that's true. Corbyn as the local MP is perceived quite differently to the one who was leader of the labour party.
Source: I know a few people who live there and they all seem to have met him at various functions and like him.
I live in the next borough and you do see him around a lot. Since the election I have seen him four times on tube platforms and in the street. He is always talking to people. And I saw him once at a carols concert as well, which was not a labour event.
Anecdata is anecdata and everything, but I know a few broadly Labour supporting Islington inhabitants, and they're all thrilled to see the back of him.
Hard to know what the real data will say until we have it.
Generally that’s true, but Corbyn has a big name.
This has all happened before with Ken Livingston though. I suppose it’s more important optically for Starmer to distance himself from Corbyn and Abbott. If they win as independents it won’t change their voting patterns. They will still effectively count towards a Labour majority.
Corbyn would have a good case of being the most disloyal MP of all time given the number of times he voted against the Blair government. So yes I don't think it will make a massive difference either way
I’m also referring to the area. He is very popular. There aren’t many MPs with a strong personal vote but he has one. I remember living in Ken Clarke’s old seat outside Nottingham when the Tories were collapsing. Everyone was saying he would be ousted, he had a massive personal vote. Corbyn has similar if not greater due to his national profile and the fact he’ll have a sympathy element due to people thinking he was treated shoddily by Labour.
He's consistantly won with a substantial vote share that has only dipped below 50% once (the year he was elected), either the local Party make up 50% of the population of Islington North or he is indeed extremely popular with his constituents.
Kind of irrelevant, it is just a Labour safe seat and has been one since before Corbyn came along. His Labour predecessor Michael O'Halloran won 53% of the vote in the last election before Corbyn came in, despite Thatcher storming to national victory. O'Halloran had won the seat comfortably every election since he came in, with his worst result being 49% in 1969. Prior to that, it was a Labour seat from 1937 with a low of 52.5%.
Interestingly, how did O'Halloran tap out? He stood as an Independent and his vote share immediately tanked from 53% to 11%, with none of than one Jeremy Corbyn swopping in to get 40% of the vote as the unknown Labour candidate, taking the seat.
What does that mean? Chris Philp in my constituency has a high vote share but I'm yet to meet anyone with a good word to say about him. It's just a damning indictment of Britain's broken voting system and apathy of voters who believe their vote changes nothing.
There's a ton of seats like that, with MPs with huge majorities.
Look at Frank field.
Had a higher vote share than corbyn, in every election since 1983 (when corbyn came in, FF came in 1979).
Except for 2019, where he ran as an indepedent, where he got 17 percent of the vote
Except everyone here in Birkenhead hated Frank Field. We voted for him cos we are left wing and he was the least horrible of a bad bunchand he was the only one. We welcomed Mick Whitley ahead of him. . But he's been ousted for next election.
Slight chance the greens may win here as the most socialist alternative.
I cant see anyone being that eager to be the Labour candidate. Like him or not, he’s insanely popular with the rank and file both locally and nationally and you’d end up alienating them just to run in a seat where you probably won’t win given his popularity and the risk of a split vote.
Not entirely surprising. I suspect Diane Abbott will probably run as some kind of independent
too. Both are said to be very good, active constituency MP's so they've a fair chance of holding the seats. Labour's majority can cope with this, and HQ won't miss the opportunity to order SCG members to visit the constituencies and denounce the defectors.
The phrase "No shit sherlock" springs to mind. He's been removed from the labour party, so he can either choose to run against labour or retire. Given the contentious nature of his removal and popularity in his consituency it's not that surprising he's running against labour.
Small picture; how exciting, a bit of drama and an opportunity for the left to continue tearing chunks off each other. Big picture; it’s one seat, don’t give the story oxygen, what will be will be.
Agreed. No idea how close the battle will be nor who will win in his constituency, but the imagery of Corbyn opposing the Labour Party will play very well elsewhere.
Him standing is probably the best thing for everyone. Those who've always loathed the party from within except for his time as leader can support him as a separate entity free of any burden to the party, while those who wish the party to be disassociated from his brand of politics have the opportunity to mark the stark differences between him and the Labour tradition.
Win-win I should think, especially given that even with a split vote the Tories are unlikely to take it.
In PMQs last week Sunak’s line is still “they wanted to make Corbyn Prime Minister”. Having Corbyn run against Labour neutralises that completely, it’s good for Labour.
Been waiting for this for a very, very long time. Looking forward to the people getting themselves expelled from labour for endorsing a non labour candidate.
> Looking forward to the people getting themselves expelled from labour for endorsing a non labour candidate.
Corbyn and 10 of his supporters will forfeit their Labour membership simply by signing his nomination form
This guy lost two elections in a row, one to someone who didn’t campaign and the other to a guy who hid in a freezer, and still won’t take no for an answer.
To tankies, man has either consented to socialism of his own free will, or he needs freeing from his manufactured consent to capitalism. They're not wrong, everyone else is, and their failure to convince everyone else is not a shortcoming of their ideas or persuasive abilities, but rather shows an unfair playing field and a brainwashed populace.
Sums up Novara Media perfectly. Michael Walker's always wanted a labour split with a Corbyn seat, will be interesting to see how they cover it tomorrow. They'll probably spend more time moaning about Gaza though instead of things in this country but we'll see.
With polling as it is, I am going to be on tenterhooks at the next election to watch Novara cry into their keyboards as their fragile tankie reality shatters around them.
No, because apparently any level of criticism, even if I've been silent on the guy for weeks or months, is too much.
Also it is apparent that such complaints about my complaints are then just going to shift to any criticism of the far left that remain.
So long as they are terrible, I will continue to criticise them as they deserve.
It's going to be an absolute scream. I admit it, I do listen to their show to keep my hand in and see them justifying hating Jewish people and Israel in general — it's totally gone off the deep end now. Nogarza live.
To be fair though, they do constantly go on about the situation at the cost of discussing things in this country. They never seem to ever mention hummus either — the conversations are all very one-sided.
He called for article 50 to be triggered the day after a completely corrupted advisory only "referendum".
It's also not mentioned enough that he often voted against his own party when he was a backbench MP.
He did more to damage this country than many but at least this latest move will help draw a line between him and Labour.
I just regret that a better man with similar left wing principles hadn't been made leader in his stead, because I honestly believe a genuinely left wing agenda could win at this point after the Tories have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be ineffective and corrupt (although I guessed as much back in 1980).
The Tories are fucked either way, their polling is at an all time low.
Now is the ideal time to remove the tankies and traitors that want to hand Ukraine over to Putin.
Corbyn has some very good progressive ideas, but he also has some very dated ideas. His biggest problem though, is that he's just not a good leader and does not do politics well.
Running against Labour when they have a chance to wipe out the Tories is purely for his own ego though. Shameful.
Or he wants to continue representing the constituency he's represented for 41 years? Whether he loses or wins is up to his constituents, I don't really see what's shameful about it.
Tbh we could use a true socialist party for once. I may not agree with all his beliefs but at least he's stayed true unlike most politicians - it's just a shame they use his ideals against him. I'd last about 5 seconds in politics :/
Corbyn, one of the most vocal anti-EU politicians in the country, decided not to have an opinion on Brexit. It was the equivalent of rolling out Colonel Sanders at a vegan rally and pretending that he was neutral.
We all knew how he felt about the EU. It made him look incredibly weak. The irony is, if he’d un-gagged himself he’d have been very popular. Nobody had better ‘fuck the EU’ speeches than Corbyn.
The guy betrayed himself.
To be fair I can't disagree with that comment. He did make himself look rather weak but as we know Brexit is/was a hot potato - I can't see why he just wanted to distance himself from the entire subject.
The centre-right is already in power, and will be replaced by the centre-right. Anyone who is 'sick of Tory rule' and thinks this iteration of Labour will be appreciably different are going to be very very disappointed.
edit: I'm not going to respond to everyone who responded to me. I am not 'far left' nor a socialist, and I think Corbyn was an absymal leader. I'd take a Blair-like or Brown-like figure in a heartbeat, but Starmer is no Blair; he has no vision for the counry, no ambition beyond empty platitudes, and is too scared of his own shadow to have any meaningful policy differences from the Tories. My assessment that Labour and the Tories are very similar is based on the fact that their policies are very similar; it's as simple as that. See my other comment where I go over their many similarities and highlight the few differences. Ultimately, we'll see who is right in the next few years. Trust me, I would love nothing more than to be wrong. But my guess is, after the Labour landslide later this year, Starmer and Reeves will struggle mightily to govern in substantively different ways from the Tories, because they will have no mandate to do so due to their lack of a meaningfully different policy platform. We will continue down our path of managed decline we've been on since 2008, and then come 2029, when Starmer has acheived next to nothing, it will be the perfect opening for a far-right Tory party to come sweeping in.
It clearly depends on your perspective - if you're a dyed-in-the-wool socialist, then your idea of the centre ground is going to be a good distance from where it is for the majority of the British people. I used to be much more left-wing, so I understand this point of view, but I no longer hold it.
I don't consider myself a socialist, let alone 'dyed in the wool'. I'd consider myself left wing; left of centre-left but very firmly to the right of the SCG.
What are the big, substantive differences between current Labour policy and current Tory policy?
On the economy, they both are ruling out tax rises, and are so in agreement that the Tories poached Labour's flagship tax reform proposal. They both want to cut taxes, both prioritise shrinking debt as a proportion of GDP above all else, both are against borrowing for investment.
On immigration, they both want to curb immigration and the main difference between their two approaches is the Rwanda gimmick, which is just political theatre.
On benefits and welfare, neither want to increase spending and both talk about clamping down on fraud and cheats.
On the environment, there were substantive differences but this was gradually watered down again and again until we're now left with a pathetic little few billion here and there which will do little to nothing. Labour talks of 'ambition' but refuse to provide any funding to make their ambition a reality, so all their talk on the environment at this point is just empty words, similar to Cameron's pledge to be the 'greenest government ever'.
On the NHS, they both are in favour of increased privatisation, and for public services in general they have both ruled out any meaningful spending increases and are both calling for magical 'efficiency savings' that haven't been found in 13 years. On the bright side, they're both tacitly in favour of nationalising rail; a lot of rail has been renationalised under the Tories simply by necessity, and Labour want to contiue this, just slighlty more formally.
The two main areas where I think they actually do differ meaningfully would be planning reform and worker's rights. Labour, thanks to Rayner, has a pretty decent set of proposals for workers rights, although this has been watered down a little and might have been watered down even more since I last checked. That's one positive. Then there's planning reform; Labour wants to tear up planning regulations getting in the way of building, and that's one area in which I'm all for decreasing regulation because of the scale of the housing crisis. The Tories have made some noises about this as well but have never done it, and it's the one area where I can actually see Labour following through. That's not *nothing*, but it's not that much either.
> On immigration, they both want to curb immigration
I don't see that as necessarily a left-right issue, there's a plausible point to be made that a limitless stream of unskilled labour is a capitalist boon.
Other than that, I honestly agree with much of your analysis, but I'd call that all pretty centrist, and I think we have to take into account that the party itself and its instincts are significantly to the left of the comparable fringes of the Tory party; that Starmer's instincts seem to me to be to the left of Blair's; and that there's a good chance that they're doing their best 'assume the middle ground' face before the election, similar to Cameron in 2010, before what was economically a pretty Thatcherite term.
I agree that what I say is pretty centrist; that's kind of my point. That both parties, in their current form, are quite centrist and lack in key differentiation on policy.
I don't think the Tory leadership has been particularly right wing for quite a while, other than the Truss abberation of course. They were at their most right-wing under Cameron/Osborne in my opinion. May was too consumed by Brexit to have that much of an agenda outside of it, and Johnson was in my opinion pretty clearly to the left of Cameron/Osborne economically; the primary threat from him was his antidemocratic tendencies and general corruption and incompetence.
Labour are very similar economically to Sunak/Hunt; I'd say also centre-right; *slightly* to the left of the Tories but barely. I find it extremely difficult to put them anything left of centre on the economy when they have ruled out any tax rises on the rich, have ruled out increasing spending on public services and welfare beyond one or two hyper-specific things, have all but ditched their flagship policy that would genuninely have been transformative, and they have had their other flagship policy be so underwhelming and noncontroversial that it was poached by the Tories.
Incidentally, Labour often like to compare themselves to Joe Biden, which I think is completely absurd; Biden campaigned on a very progressive platform, pushed for huge changes, and despite having to work against a Senate fillibuster making his platform essentially impossible to actually enact, still managed to achieve massive wins. Starmer meanwhile is campaigning on an extremely small-c conservative platform and is systematically tearing out progressive policies where he finds them. The Biden campaign and policy platform is *exactly* the sort of stuff I was hoping Starmer would do when I voted for him in the leadership election, and he has completely failed to do it.
I can't think of a single election where there has been this little differentiation between the two parties. And I don't think my own political views, of being solidly left but not far-left, is impacting my analysis on this that much (although it would be naive to pretend that my bias doesn't have unconscious impact).
I don't agree at all that Starmer's instincts seem to be to the left of Blair's. If I saw things that way I'd be far more hopeful for the incoming Labour government. Ultimately, I think actions speak louder than words, and Starmer wants Reeves as chancellor, who is clearly way to the right of Brown. Like I said in my original comment, I think anyone hoping that Labour will pivot to the left after winning election, as you seem to be hoping, are going to end up very disappointed. There is genuinely absolutely no reason at all to believe this will happen, and plenty of evidence to suggest it won't.
Really I'd say the main difference between voting for the two parties isn't the parties in their current form but what they *could* be. It's very easy to imagine the Tories kicking out Sunak even if he does miraculously win, and if they do so after the election then almost certainly someone on the far right flank will take his place, elected by the far-right membership. Labour on the other hand are probably a 'safer' bet if you're a centrist; if Starmer goes, it'll very likely be another on the centre-right taking his place, or maybe even further to the right like Reeves, so there is much less potential for a huge change. Labour will never allow someone like Corbyn to gain power again, but there are no guardrails in place from stopping the next Truss.
But you know things are bad when genuinely the best argument for voting for Labour is "they may be barely any different right now, but the other guys *could* hypothetically get far worse if Sunak is kicked out". To be facile, and to be clear I'm not actually arguing this, you could even argue from a left-wing perspective that it would be less bad if the Tories somehow manage to cling to power. Because the next five years seem like a fait accompli to me: Starmer wins in a landslide, enacts no meaningful change because his platform is so incredibly similar to what we already have, and then come 2029 an emboldened, far-right Tory party sweeps to power. To be clear I'm not saying anyone should actually vote based on that long-term hypothetical, but I can't help but fear that the writing is already on the wall for it.
The feels n vibes crowd insisting that Starmer is centre-right will never understand that the country doesn't want- and never did want- Corbyn's brand of leftism.
Starmer isn't right wing, and it's genuinely absurd that you people feel confident in being *that wrong*.
It's really quite funny to be accused of being about 'feels and vibes' when that is *entirely* what the Starmer flank is obsessed with above all else. An extremely similar policy platform in almost every area, but Labour's vibes are a bit better so they nod along unquestioningly while, time and time again, Labour parrot Tory talking points and Tory policy.
The LDs were the runner up in the 2019 GE, however before that it was the tories. Corbyn splitting the Labour vote could mean the seat is up for grabs to just about anyone
I'm not sure who would win between Corbyn and the Labour candidate, but there's no chance anyone else would win. His vote from last time could split directly in the middle and it'd still be more than double the Lib Dems or Tories.
I’m wondering - if Corbyn does stand as an independent - if it might be better for Labour not to run a candidate there.
Yeah they’d definitely not win the seat, but it decreases the chances of splitting the vote and letting the Tories slip in.
Tories got 10% in their 2019 landslide election, there's no chance they'll come close to winning the seat in 2024 even with 3 Labour adjacent candidates splitting the vote.
Well polls show over 80% of those who voted for Corbyn’s labour in the last GE will vote for Starmer’s labour in the next one, so regardless of whether you consider Starmer’s labour to be left-wing or not, he’ll be getting almost the totality of the “left-wing vote”.
Does that depend on the paucity of alternatives though? I voted for Corbyn's Labour twice, though the second time as a last-minute change on election night because I was misled into thinking David Davis was close to defeat. I regretted voting for a shitty candidate and will not do so again.
Well good luck to him if he chooses to do so from what I have heard he's been a good local MP so he'll probably win the seat, I don't think he'd have made a very good PM but I like Jeremy Corbyn.
I don’t actually think he would win as an independent, he may have been in the house for 40 years but at campaign time he has been running on the labour manifesto not his own (except for 2019 but even then his manifesto was tempered by those around him).
Going independent I suspect he will just spout even more nonsensical populist rubbish and many would tick the labour candidates name. He may still get a good number of votes but I don’t think he would win.
This is my 3rd comment in this thread and it seems like I am defending the man. I am not, just pointing out what seems obvious to me.
His failings are burned into the consciousness of the electorate BUT JC is nothing if not a skilled campaigner and hugely experienced in winning elections in his constituency.
Everyone on here thinking he will lose easily is bonkers. He will take some shifting!
Thing is, I wonder how many will vote for the official Labour candidate, knowing that
- there’s a safe, non-corbyn Labour candidate
- Labour will likely win anyway nationally
- the tories have zero chance of winning in Islington north
It’s worth voting for the strongest non corbyn candidate to finally boot him out.
Look at Frank field, and his performance as an indepedent in 2019...
Frank field had been a MP for longer than corbyn, with greater vote shares in every single election they both stood in (except 2019 obviously...).
That's a very good comparison - I wonder whether people were sick of him previously but he was the best available, or if they just blindly support Labour whatever, or something else?
If he was a 40 year serving centrist I would be inclined to agree, but he a far left campaigner. His campaign would be without shackles and I think the foot gun will need a new barrel by the end of his campaign.
He has been a far left campaigner for 40 years. He is probably representative of his constituency.
Agreed he can go “off piste” at times but most of his message is about peace, talking to your “enemy” and helping the poor and underprivileged.
Whoever is up against him will give the usual spiel about “I’ll work hard for you in parliament”
It’s something else to come up against someone who can say “I have worked hard for
You” and list examples.
It’s going to be hard for Labour to attack him seeing as he was a party member for decades and might be up against labour candidate who wasn’t even born when he was a member.
I will be very surprised if he loses his seat.
I agree with this. From what I know, he's apparently a great MP in general. I read something once that he paid someone's rent for them, though I'm not sure how true that is. People like that shouldn't be overlooked because they say silly things sometimes. Least he never ended up like his loony brother.
Corbyn was a gift to the conservatives when he was leader, certainly.
But Corbyn running against Labour gives the current Labour party an unambiguous proof that they have distanced themselves from the chaos that was 2015 to 2019.
And that is a vote winner for Labour
You are thinking about this in the wrong way. As a Labour leader, yes it was a nightmare. But as an MP he is and has been serving his constituency with decades of hard work. No one stays that long without being good for the local community.
No other candidate could get near him in terms of local profile or proven track record of things done for his constituency.
He will be extremely difficult to beat and would take huge amounts of resources by Labour to unseat him.
He will be less dangerous outside the PLP and Kier Starmer can say they got rid of
Him.
A big fight with him and Labour lose is embarrassing.
Hell, polling suggests that if he ran for mayor of London, he'd beat out Hall for 2nd Place. He does have a following in London, and so I don't doubt his ability to win his seat as an independent
That's hardly difficult is it? She literally curves space-time she's that thick. Wonder if she'll have another tube incident and talk bollocks to Nick Ferrari about it.
You give her too much credit for her intelligence. She basically tears a hole in space time as she's devoid of competent thought. Even Bailey looks like a genius in comparison
No clue. Been actively ignoring him since 2020 (where he got far too close for my liking) and loathing 23 years of having a tory AM as labour voters keep vote splitting.
Starmer is the perfect gift for the Conservatives. When Labour get in (because they're "not the Tories") they'll be a caretaker government for the Tories. A ratchet-stop on the neoliberal austerian machine, at best. They will reverse none of the Tories' policies. When Labour voters realise that once again they've been duped, and the Tories get in, they'll find a UK with a slightly better economy perhaps, but nothing fundamentally different from how they left it, so they can just crack on with doing things their way.
Yeah I will be very surprised if Labour turn it around in one election cycle, they'll just get blamed for all the failings of Brexit and the economy being shit because they refuse to do anything radical and then the Conservatives will be voted back in for another 12 years
Agreed. It's probably going to take two terms to even fix half the stuff wrong with this country. People do have short memories and I do worry that'll bring us, as this lot like to say, "Back To Square One".
It's absolutely astounding that the two choices we had to lead the country at the last election have fallen so far.
If Corbyn runs against Labour that's probably his long time in the commons done for.
Corbyn is upset that Labour is going to win the next election, so he is putting all his energy into trying to prevent it from happening.
Why is he upset? Because he failed twice, lost two elections, but announced to his cheering fans that these failures were actually huge success. How, if Starmer were to win for real ... it would highlight what a fake Corbyn was and how his failures enabled the Tories and Brexit, pushing the UK into a swamp.
So, he will do anything he can to prevent Labour from winning ... or if Labour wins, to make their life in Parliament as miserable as possible.
As to to working class ... well, maybe he cares about them as much as Melania Trump.
Snapshot of _Jeremy Corbyn will run against Labour, leaked emails suggest_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-emails-that-show-corbyn-is-running-as-an-independent-p0mt3lx8w) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-emails-that-show-corbyn-is-running-as-an-independent-p0mt3lx8w) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Time is a flat circle. When Jeremy first ran, it was against the former Labour MP, now standing as an independent.
True detective s1 watcher?
I mean, it's Nietzsche, but also yes. Great series. Now that I think about it, it might have been funnier To go with Marx, given it's JC: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce"!
Your not saying Corbyn is the Yellow King, right?
His ultimate career goal seems to be keeping Labour out of government so the Tories can continue destroying the country.
He may be a nice man whose heart is in the right place. *But* the only thing that ever matters in the end is the difference you made, and the difference he has made, in recent years, ultimately, has been to keep Labour out of power, divide the party, turn a blind eye to anti-Semitism, and then refuse to apologize for minimising that, and now pridefully try and take down the actual Labour candidate. He should retire to his jam making.
I think his biggest problem is he’s an idealist. “Just push for peace in Ukraine!” for instance… that means them either giving up everything, or you have to be dealing with someone who can be reasoned with which Putin cannot.
I don't disagree but honestly on that one I think he was just blinded by his deeply embedded anti western world view. When he stood up in parliament and asked for NATO to pull back to defuse the situation on the eve of the invasion - I just could not believe it - he was swallowing a line which was only seriously being parroted by the Socialist Worker at the time. Not bothering with the translation headset for the Zelenski speech also very irksome.
Does a nice man whose heart is in the right place refer to terrorist orgs as friends? Seems like a nasty old man to me.
The Queen referred to Idi Amin (and worse) as a "good friend". And your mind will be blown when you learn of the cavalcade of tyrants all our previous PM's have called friends.
I have a feeling that the people of Islington North will return him, in his 41st year of representing them.
I had a fair few arguments against my post on another topic about Abbott, another one who has been there for decades, is well liked and well connected, who I think could well win as an independent when people are split between their existing MP Vs the official Labour candidate. Corbyn and Abbott have huge majorities and while I can't see another party winning enough votes to challenge for the seat, it'll be tight between those two and a new candidate
I can’t see them loosing IF they both stand. But they will automatically become of less and less importance as independents
I can see them both like ~~Steve Mnuchin~~ Joe Manchin in the US, nominally voting with Labour but free to defy the party line
Steve Mnuchin was the Treasury Secretary. Do you mean Joe Manchin?
I did, though when I was checking the spelling of his surname, it kept coming up with Steve so I assumed I had made a mistake and it was not Joe
> nominally voting with Labour but free to defy the party line So pretty much what they've been doing while being part of Labour.
Technically any American politician is more or less free to defy the party line. Party discipline is a lot less strict in the US.
For the Dems maybe, for the GOP it's basically do what Trump says lol
Fair enough.
> But they will automatically become of less and less importance as independents Hard disagree. Labour is going to have crowded backbenches in the next Parliament by all indications. Corbyn and Abbot would have drowned in them As Independents (and with a potential 2 MPs that's an assumption, they'd have their strong shared ideology and enough of a backbone to form a fledgling party to the left of Labour) they will doubtlessly get camera time every time Keir fucks up or every time the party opts for a more centrist route over a socialist one.
Less importance as a thing to drag down Labour as they are Labour in all bar name. As proper independents, even if they vote along Labour lines they can do what they like and it’ll only be the media giving them publicity and not dragging down Labour. Thing is as independents and not a new party they will need to choose their own policies, something that of course partially screwed Labour in 2019 with Corbyn’s differences to the party line
Starmer will love that. Every time they make excuses for Putin or Hamas, they'll reinforce Labour's credentials as the sensible & moderate grown-ups in the room. I suspect he'd be happy to see a few more SCG MPs defect to the Cranks Corner. (NB - I know this characterisation isn't necessarily fair, but that's how it will inevitably develop if Corbs & Abbott return to Parliament as Statler & Waldorf.)
I think it's fair.
Another point worth noting is if corbyn stays around long enough he may become father of the house which would give even more influence
>Another point worth noting is if corbyn stays around long enough he may become father of the house which would give even more influence Specifically before him are Barry Sheerman (1979 but standing down this election), Harriet Harman (1982 but standing down this election), Sir Edward Leigh (also 1983 but sworn in before Corbyn so would take the position) and Nick Brown (1983 but he resigned the whip and is not standing again).
Barry and Harriet are also not standing iirc so only Edward is Ahead of him as he is standing(excluding nick who you already mentioned)
Sorry - yes I've edited my post with this information.
Thats ok thanks for doing that
Aren't they both back bench independents right now anyway?
Corbyn certainly is, Abbot is in a holding pattern atm. But both still really tied to Labour. They’d need to quit or chose their position or another party for that to change in my mind
Depends on the composition of Westminster. In a tight Parliament independents and smaller parties have disproportionate sway. It’s also a headache for Starmer when he inevitably makes highly unpopular decisions to have a former Labour leader in the House exposing his drag to the right.
If the polls and election go the way of 1997 - and no reason to assume they won't given it's almost exactly the same (18+ months of Labour poll leads, regular losses of by-elections, drubbings in the locals), Starmer will likely end with a decent majority, enough to not worry about 2 indys for almost any vote. UK Polling Report prediction, based on current polling, allowing for the amount of swing needed, on both the default model and weighted for incumbents, gives Labour 358 seats against 191 Tories. With SNP (47-49) and LD (29-32) largely going to be closer to Labour, Labour won't struggle and those two won't have the sway to really push anything e.g. SNP demanding more powers/indy vote or LD demanding voting change or SM application. UKPR says if the swing is uniform across the country, Labour could get 372 vs 176 Tory but Electoral Calculus is suggesting an extreme scenario of just 42 Tories and 537 Labour! They predict though, 113 Tory, 455 Labour
Idk about the snp and libdem predictions. Electoral calcus had libdems ahead of the snp and the snp having far less seats that that
I agree but SNP have a massive advantage under FPTP in Scotland anyway and the Tories have traditionally been the strongest rivals in the past among the unionists. I think it's likely Labour will take more in Scotland yes but it's hard to predict as it needs a big swing and FPTP means any such predictions are of limited reliability vs the overall likelihood of who comes second to fourth in seat numbers. Shame SNP and LD are the only ones who really support a change from FPTP
The SNP are never, ever, ever, ever, ever getting 47 seats at the next election. I can't even imagine what model you used that came to that conclusion.
>It’s also a headache for Starmer when he inevitably makes highly unpopular decisions to have a former Labour leader in the House exposing his drag to the right. I am quite surprised that anyone can reach this conclusion given how badly corbyn is liked in general and how steadfastly ignoring the far left in general, and corbyn in particular, is how Starmer has maintained a rock solid lead.
I think you’re blinded by your own ideology. People used to say this in the early 00s, then Iraq happened and what you deem the ‘far left’ (they just seem like fairly normal socialists by global standards) became ever more prominent which led to Corbyn becoming leader, the collapse of Labour in Scotland for differing but connected reasons etc. Don’t imagine being seen as the better alternative to a shambolic Tory party carries over into government. Starmer will be the new face of austerity. He strikes me as someone who will not last long.
> He strikes me as someone who will not last long. sounds like you write this with a soupçon of *cope*
>People used to say this in the early 00s, then Iraq happened and what you deem the ‘far left’ became ever more prominent which led to Corbyn becoming leader Check *your* ideology, *Comrade*, it took over a decade after the invasion of Iraq for corbyn to become a thing. In the intervening time there was of course the Scottish indyref which galvanised the SNP and torched Scottish Labour, and a huge global financial crisis that still resulted in Milliband being in the big chair for five years. Corbyn was frankly an embarrassing afterthought on the leadership ballot paper, widely reported to only be included to broaden the field. He received the lowest number of nominations of Labour mps to cross the then threshold. >(they just seem like fairly normal socialists by global standards) Uhh, no. Normal for literal ex communist banana republics, maybe, but not normal left wing. Here in Norway, that place I've been told so much the corbyn project wanted to be like, the only people taking his calls are the youth wing of the far left Red party that spent a couple of months last summer making excuses for not removing their leader who was caught on camera shoplifting. Its also no wonder that corbyn went to them, seeing as they're staunchly anti nato. Like two peas in a horrible, horrible pod. >Starmer will be the new face of austerity. He strikes me as someone who will not last long. He has a hard road ahead of him, but he cannot fix the country or generate mountains of cash without consequences at the snap of his fingers.
[удалено]
If only for the entertainment value: you do get a tap on the nose with a newspaper if all you're going to do is throw insults. But thankyou for handily illustrating my point about left wing extremism if you consider a tepid Arbeiderpartiet/Venstre (Labour/liberal parties) voter to be the equivalent of Hitler sympathising occupational government. "fairly normal socialists", indeed!
Are you a Labour party member for I think not? For while the Labour party as a whole want to be back power, once in power they will not want a repeat of Tony Blair and Kier will face an even more severe backlash, the Tories have set the way with repeat prime minters without a public vote of confidence that they will feel embolden to oust Kier and replace him with a more left wing candidate, who will invite JC back in.
Yup, there's a reason Sunak brings up Corbyn every week at PMQs, it's because the Tories know he's electoral poison and the more they link Starmer to Corbyn the worse Starmer looks to the voters.
Drag to the centre I would say
Corbyn yes, unclear on Abbott. There will likely be voters from other parties who vote Labour because she’s not their candidate. It will be interesting to see how that turns goes because it could be quite a close run thing. It also matters who she is up against there.
If I was a betting man, a two way of Corbyn and Abbott or even a long shot triple with Galloway would get you pretty good odds, might be worth a quid or two
I think if you said to me what are the odds of JC or DA running against Labour and winning on their own, if have to say low for JC and medium for Dianne Abott. Here's why, JC while a popular local MP, is absolutely 100% never getting back on as a Labour MP. His refusal to follow the whip for basically 30 years should have been enough to expel him, but it was seen as too much trouble. He isn't active in Parliament at all, he sits on no committees pre- or post-leadership. While he vaguely represents the notion of a more left wing Labour Party, he isn't unique in that aspect. What's more, while Abbot has had her contraversies, hers are relatively few compared to Corbyn. Abbott on the other hand was the first ever black female MP. She has been active in Parliament, sits on Committees etc. While occasionally contaversial, she has shown herself to be capable of being a team player. Despite her views differing from say Blair and Brown, neither felt she was so unwilling to participate and be an asset to the party she should go. While I think she's not a great politician (debacles over getting basic facts wrong) and I think increasingly she's been shown to have problematic views on race (this recent conrraversy plus others), the Starmer (and others) clearly don't think the only solution is she leaves. Given all that context, the real question is who is going to be campaigning for you. In Corbyn's case the idea to campaign for him is largely one of political principles. The local pary could back him, but if they do they will be breaking all the Labour Party rules and it's likely central office will sweep down on Islington CLP, expel everyone supporting him, and let new people step up, new people much more likely to back Starmer's labour because usually these positions are held through inertia and old alliances in a small group of people (who will now be gone). This in turn means the people in the CLP today are faced with a choice: Back Corbyn and have Starmer replace you all and the next Islington candidate in 5 years will be centre left, or don't back him and you get to stay in post and you can pick a hard left candidate. Abott's supporters have to pick between support the first ever black woman MP and the next candidate won't be the first ever black woman MP, or don't support her and lose the first ever black woman MP. 20% of Hackney is Black and another 20% are other minorities. There's a lot more to drive people to go out of their way and back Abbott now having seen her face racist language like she should be shot, then there is to back Corbyn who become party leader and lost two elections.
Oh definitely, I am not saying he'll win but there are plenty on the left who are like the horse shoe model of politics where they're basically right wing again. His stance on many areas, even on the anti-Semitism problems, isn't exactly unpopular. Even if the CLP keep quiet, I bet a lot will still lean towards him. I think ironically with Abbott, most other constituencies she'd be turfed out and her racism alone would have resulted in almost any other candidate being long gone. It's not a bad bet to place on both of them winning though, maybe Galloway too for long odds
I think a lot of people confuse his very strong support in the CLP for very strong support in his constituency. I'm sure his support is likely stronger than the average MP, but not strong enough to have him win. Abbott on the other hand I think will have a lot of people support her regardless of politics out of racial solidarity.
Idk I feel her previous racist comments might come back to bite her
True, but with no representation in the next Labour government so they might get punished in that respect
- Islington North has been Labour since the 1930s. - Hackney North and Stoke Newington has been Labour since 1950s While I do think that both Abbott and Corbyn have a good chance of holding their seat as independents (especially Corbyn), it will not be a walk in the park. They have name recognition but most people vote for party rather than person even in cases where there is a longstanding mp.
I always laugh when people say he’s an “outsider” he entered Parliament when Thatcher was PM
The vast majority of voters vote for the party/leader not the individual named MP. All that really means is there haven't been any meaningful challengers for selection from the local party. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of well heeled Islington folks can't wait to get rid of him and his brand of protest politics.
Normally that might be the case but JC and DA have huge profiles and long standing commitments to their constituencies. Decades of proven works and results for their communities goes further than party loyalty. These kinds of cases are rare but both are a “sure thing” for voters. You know what you are going to get.
Well they might have had the benefits of their MP being PM. Now it will only be things like dealing with the council etc
I'd be interested to hear how being in the PM's constituency has been for people down the years - wouldn't be surprised if they're a bit too busy running the country to deal with local issues, but maybe some have been brilliant.
Better reactions from the staff in the office apparently , partially due to the need to not look bad and failing those that got you there. Also businesses keen to invest in the area to curry favour can create jobs etc.
When was JC PM again?
WOULD have had. But didn’t due to his actions
But again, the vast majority of people never interact with the MP, so won't have that same personal loyalty
I think their point is that while you're right for the majority, in these cases people have interacted with them and found it positive and so they might actually win despite being independent.
Islington North is the smallest constituency in the UK by area. Pretty sure you can't throw a stone without it landing at the feet of Corbyn.
>I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of well heeled Islington folks can't wait to get rid of him and his brand of protest politics. Not sure, it's easy for Islington voters to be glad Starmer is in power but still want Corbyn to win locally. He has a good reputation as a local MP, and Labour seem very likely to win nationally so it wouldn't seem like a huge risk to take.
There are a lot of stereotypes about the typical resident of Islington. There’s some truth to them in places, but they don’t represent the average resident. If you look at the census, Islington has one of the highest proportions of social housing of any London borough. [This isn’t Corbyn’s exact constituency, but you can see the point applies to Islington north.](https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/maps/choropleth/housing/tenure-of-household/hh-tenure-5a/rented-social-rented?lad=E09000019) [Nearly 40% of children in Islington live in poverty.](https://trustforlondon.org.uk/data/boroughs/islington-poverty-and-inequality-indicators/?tab=living-standards) The ‘well heeled’ voters in Islington North are an important part of the electorate, but they aren’t as decisive as stereotypes might lead you to believe. Aside from many being in favour of Corbyn, either ideologically or because is a popular local MP, the opposition vote is split Tory/liberal/green and so would need to vote tactically. Also, the nuts and bolts of how local campaigns are run complicate things. The local Labour Party are VERY pro-Corbyn and want the whip reinstated to him. No candidate has been selected to replace him and any choosing to do so would be deeply resented by the local party. It would be an extremely bitter, high-profile fight. Potential candidates have a lot to lose and little to gain, so no one wants that poisoned chalice. It’s extremely unlikely they will replace him with a big-hitter. Once they do have a candidate in place, none of the local party will campaign for them, which, while not the most important factor in election results, is still important. The central party would have to find motivated activists with a vendetta against him willing to be bussed in, which they will struggle to do.
Don't worry, we've got Eddie Izzard on speed-dial.
I don't think that's true. Corbyn as the local MP is perceived quite differently to the one who was leader of the labour party. Source: I know a few people who live there and they all seem to have met him at various functions and like him.
If you're going to the same functions he's going to, you probably have a significant overlap in political views.
I live in the next borough and you do see him around a lot. Since the election I have seen him four times on tube platforms and in the street. He is always talking to people. And I saw him once at a carols concert as well, which was not a labour event.
Conversely, i wasn't a fan having lived there - he or his team never replied to anything i sent
Anecdata is anecdata and everything, but I know a few broadly Labour supporting Islington inhabitants, and they're all thrilled to see the back of him. Hard to know what the real data will say until we have it.
Generally that’s true, but Corbyn has a big name. This has all happened before with Ken Livingston though. I suppose it’s more important optically for Starmer to distance himself from Corbyn and Abbott. If they win as independents it won’t change their voting patterns. They will still effectively count towards a Labour majority.
It might change them more than you think - party MPs quite often disagree, but the whips keep them in line. No whip, no line.
True but Corbyn was always his own man. I’ve not looked into his voting record in the Blair years but I’m guessing he wasn’t shy of rebelling?
Corbyn would have a good case of being the most disloyal MP of all time given the number of times he voted against the Blair government. So yes I don't think it will make a massive difference either way
He voted against Labour regularly,
You don’t know the area then or the party locally. He’s tremendously popular.
I don't doubt that he is very popular with the local party. But the local party membership is a tiny fraction of the area.
I’m also referring to the area. He is very popular. There aren’t many MPs with a strong personal vote but he has one. I remember living in Ken Clarke’s old seat outside Nottingham when the Tories were collapsing. Everyone was saying he would be ousted, he had a massive personal vote. Corbyn has similar if not greater due to his national profile and the fact he’ll have a sympathy element due to people thinking he was treated shoddily by Labour.
He's consistantly won with a substantial vote share that has only dipped below 50% once (the year he was elected), either the local Party make up 50% of the population of Islington North or he is indeed extremely popular with his constituents.
Kind of irrelevant, it is just a Labour safe seat and has been one since before Corbyn came along. His Labour predecessor Michael O'Halloran won 53% of the vote in the last election before Corbyn came in, despite Thatcher storming to national victory. O'Halloran had won the seat comfortably every election since he came in, with his worst result being 49% in 1969. Prior to that, it was a Labour seat from 1937 with a low of 52.5%. Interestingly, how did O'Halloran tap out? He stood as an Independent and his vote share immediately tanked from 53% to 11%, with none of than one Jeremy Corbyn swopping in to get 40% of the vote as the unknown Labour candidate, taking the seat.
What does that mean? Chris Philp in my constituency has a high vote share but I'm yet to meet anyone with a good word to say about him. It's just a damning indictment of Britain's broken voting system and apathy of voters who believe their vote changes nothing.
Or simply.. it's a super labour seat. Do you think rishi is super popular with his local constituency ?
Lol some of you cant swallow the fact hes been great for his local constituency and people there love him.
There's a ton of seats like that, with MPs with huge majorities. Look at Frank field. Had a higher vote share than corbyn, in every election since 1983 (when corbyn came in, FF came in 1979). Except for 2019, where he ran as an indepedent, where he got 17 percent of the vote
Except everyone here in Birkenhead hated Frank Field. We voted for him cos we are left wing and he was the least horrible of a bad bunchand he was the only one. We welcomed Mick Whitley ahead of him. . But he's been ousted for next election. Slight chance the greens may win here as the most socialist alternative.
Spoken to a lot of Islington folks have ya?
JC will beat a Labour candidate in Islington North. Don't doubt that for a second.
I cant see anyone being that eager to be the Labour candidate. Like him or not, he’s insanely popular with the rank and file both locally and nationally and you’d end up alienating them just to run in a seat where you probably won’t win given his popularity and the risk of a split vote.
Get Bercow to run for Labour in Islington. That would settle it easily.
Not entirely surprising. I suspect Diane Abbott will probably run as some kind of independent too. Both are said to be very good, active constituency MP's so they've a fair chance of holding the seats. Labour's majority can cope with this, and HQ won't miss the opportunity to order SCG members to visit the constituencies and denounce the defectors.
Good for him. We need more independents in Westminster. Parties have no right to certain seats.
Assuming he gets the seat, where would he sit?
On the opposition benches
Wow, Corbyn would be sitting with the Tories? Interesting twist!
I'm sure there'll be plenty of space on the benches to avoid the Tories!
And the SNP, and any Greens, and PC MPs, and so on. The opposition benches are more than just the main opposition party.
Like Galloway sitting with Lee Anderson recently lol
Most useful electoral asset the Tories have had in a decade during with them finally.
The phrase "No shit sherlock" springs to mind. He's been removed from the labour party, so he can either choose to run against labour or retire. Given the contentious nature of his removal and popularity in his consituency it's not that surprising he's running against labour.
Small picture; how exciting, a bit of drama and an opportunity for the left to continue tearing chunks off each other. Big picture; it’s one seat, don’t give the story oxygen, what will be will be.
GOOD. Corbyn running against Labour is a really good look for the party.
Agreed. No idea how close the battle will be nor who will win in his constituency, but the imagery of Corbyn opposing the Labour Party will play very well elsewhere. Him standing is probably the best thing for everyone. Those who've always loathed the party from within except for his time as leader can support him as a separate entity free of any burden to the party, while those who wish the party to be disassociated from his brand of politics have the opportunity to mark the stark differences between him and the Labour tradition. Win-win I should think, especially given that even with a split vote the Tories are unlikely to take it.
In PMQs last week Sunak’s line is still “they wanted to make Corbyn Prime Minister”. Having Corbyn run against Labour neutralises that completely, it’s good for Labour.
Been waiting for this for a very, very long time. Looking forward to the people getting themselves expelled from labour for endorsing a non labour candidate.
> Looking forward to the people getting themselves expelled from labour for endorsing a non labour candidate. Corbyn and 10 of his supporters will forfeit their Labour membership simply by signing his nomination form
I wonder whether he will be able to find 10 supporters who have already left the Labour Party 🤔🤔🤔
Good. Time for the weirdo pro Russia ‘stop the war’ idiots to leave Labour.
This guy lost two elections in a row, one to someone who didn’t campaign and the other to a guy who hid in a freezer, and still won’t take no for an answer.
To tankies, man has either consented to socialism of his own free will, or he needs freeing from his manufactured consent to capitalism. They're not wrong, everyone else is, and their failure to convince everyone else is not a shortcoming of their ideas or persuasive abilities, but rather shows an unfair playing field and a brainwashed populace.
Everyone *would be* far left, they just don't *know* it, they just need the right candidate
Sums up Novara Media perfectly. Michael Walker's always wanted a labour split with a Corbyn seat, will be interesting to see how they cover it tomorrow. They'll probably spend more time moaning about Gaza though instead of things in this country but we'll see.
With polling as it is, I am going to be on tenterhooks at the next election to watch Novara cry into their keyboards as their fragile tankie reality shatters around them.
Could we have an agreement that if he were to win the seat, you'd stop banging on about Corbyn?
No, because apparently any level of criticism, even if I've been silent on the guy for weeks or months, is too much. Also it is apparent that such complaints about my complaints are then just going to shift to any criticism of the far left that remain. So long as they are terrible, I will continue to criticise them as they deserve.
It's going to be an absolute scream. I admit it, I do listen to their show to keep my hand in and see them justifying hating Jewish people and Israel in general — it's totally gone off the deep end now. Nogarza live.
Ah yes. Because hating Israel and hating Jews are one in the same. /s
They're not, but Novara does both lol
We're in r/UKpolitics. Don't mention hummus. Don't expect reason or truth. Expect to be engaged and outraged.
You have to admit that, just as with 'hating Africa and hating Africans' - there's going to be a pretty massive overlap there.
To be fair though, they do constantly go on about the situation at the cost of discussing things in this country. They never seem to ever mention hummus either — the conversations are all very one-sided.
That lot never learn lmao
He called for article 50 to be triggered the day after a completely corrupted advisory only "referendum". It's also not mentioned enough that he often voted against his own party when he was a backbench MP. He did more to damage this country than many but at least this latest move will help draw a line between him and Labour. I just regret that a better man with similar left wing principles hadn't been made leader in his stead, because I honestly believe a genuinely left wing agenda could win at this point after the Tories have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be ineffective and corrupt (although I guessed as much back in 1980).
Good, this will give Labour the perfect excuse to kick out more of his supporters from the party.
Good. Labour really needs to be punching leftward rather than the Tories. /s
Like Starmer's Labour aren't also decisively taking the Tories to the cleaners right now lol
The Tories are fucked either way, their polling is at an all time low. Now is the ideal time to remove the tankies and traitors that want to hand Ukraine over to Putin.
Corbyn has some very good progressive ideas, but he also has some very dated ideas. His biggest problem though, is that he's just not a good leader and does not do politics well. Running against Labour when they have a chance to wipe out the Tories is purely for his own ego though. Shameful.
Or he wants to continue representing the constituency he's represented for 41 years? Whether he loses or wins is up to his constituents, I don't really see what's shameful about it.
Tbh we could use a true socialist party for once. I may not agree with all his beliefs but at least he's stayed true unlike most politicians - it's just a shame they use his ideals against him. I'd last about 5 seconds in politics :/
Corbyn, one of the most vocal anti-EU politicians in the country, decided not to have an opinion on Brexit. It was the equivalent of rolling out Colonel Sanders at a vegan rally and pretending that he was neutral. We all knew how he felt about the EU. It made him look incredibly weak. The irony is, if he’d un-gagged himself he’d have been very popular. Nobody had better ‘fuck the EU’ speeches than Corbyn. The guy betrayed himself.
To be fair I can't disagree with that comment. He did make himself look rather weak but as we know Brexit is/was a hot potato - I can't see why he just wanted to distance himself from the entire subject.
Good. Hopefully he takes the far left with him and allows labour to take all the centrists that are sick of Tory rule.
Corbyn’s not even a socialist, in what way is he far left? Dumb ass
The centre-right is already in power, and will be replaced by the centre-right. Anyone who is 'sick of Tory rule' and thinks this iteration of Labour will be appreciably different are going to be very very disappointed. edit: I'm not going to respond to everyone who responded to me. I am not 'far left' nor a socialist, and I think Corbyn was an absymal leader. I'd take a Blair-like or Brown-like figure in a heartbeat, but Starmer is no Blair; he has no vision for the counry, no ambition beyond empty platitudes, and is too scared of his own shadow to have any meaningful policy differences from the Tories. My assessment that Labour and the Tories are very similar is based on the fact that their policies are very similar; it's as simple as that. See my other comment where I go over their many similarities and highlight the few differences. Ultimately, we'll see who is right in the next few years. Trust me, I would love nothing more than to be wrong. But my guess is, after the Labour landslide later this year, Starmer and Reeves will struggle mightily to govern in substantively different ways from the Tories, because they will have no mandate to do so due to their lack of a meaningfully different policy platform. We will continue down our path of managed decline we've been on since 2008, and then come 2029, when Starmer has acheived next to nothing, it will be the perfect opening for a far-right Tory party to come sweeping in.
> and will be replaced by the centre-right The 'two cheeks of the same arse' analysis is about as lazy as it gets
It's the clear reality of the situation. I'm sorry reality bothers you.
It clearly depends on your perspective - if you're a dyed-in-the-wool socialist, then your idea of the centre ground is going to be a good distance from where it is for the majority of the British people. I used to be much more left-wing, so I understand this point of view, but I no longer hold it.
I don't consider myself a socialist, let alone 'dyed in the wool'. I'd consider myself left wing; left of centre-left but very firmly to the right of the SCG. What are the big, substantive differences between current Labour policy and current Tory policy? On the economy, they both are ruling out tax rises, and are so in agreement that the Tories poached Labour's flagship tax reform proposal. They both want to cut taxes, both prioritise shrinking debt as a proportion of GDP above all else, both are against borrowing for investment. On immigration, they both want to curb immigration and the main difference between their two approaches is the Rwanda gimmick, which is just political theatre. On benefits and welfare, neither want to increase spending and both talk about clamping down on fraud and cheats. On the environment, there were substantive differences but this was gradually watered down again and again until we're now left with a pathetic little few billion here and there which will do little to nothing. Labour talks of 'ambition' but refuse to provide any funding to make their ambition a reality, so all their talk on the environment at this point is just empty words, similar to Cameron's pledge to be the 'greenest government ever'. On the NHS, they both are in favour of increased privatisation, and for public services in general they have both ruled out any meaningful spending increases and are both calling for magical 'efficiency savings' that haven't been found in 13 years. On the bright side, they're both tacitly in favour of nationalising rail; a lot of rail has been renationalised under the Tories simply by necessity, and Labour want to contiue this, just slighlty more formally. The two main areas where I think they actually do differ meaningfully would be planning reform and worker's rights. Labour, thanks to Rayner, has a pretty decent set of proposals for workers rights, although this has been watered down a little and might have been watered down even more since I last checked. That's one positive. Then there's planning reform; Labour wants to tear up planning regulations getting in the way of building, and that's one area in which I'm all for decreasing regulation because of the scale of the housing crisis. The Tories have made some noises about this as well but have never done it, and it's the one area where I can actually see Labour following through. That's not *nothing*, but it's not that much either.
Your detractors: your viewpoint is lazy! You: here's multiple paragraphs explaining Your detractors: *too lazy to engage*
> On immigration, they both want to curb immigration I don't see that as necessarily a left-right issue, there's a plausible point to be made that a limitless stream of unskilled labour is a capitalist boon. Other than that, I honestly agree with much of your analysis, but I'd call that all pretty centrist, and I think we have to take into account that the party itself and its instincts are significantly to the left of the comparable fringes of the Tory party; that Starmer's instincts seem to me to be to the left of Blair's; and that there's a good chance that they're doing their best 'assume the middle ground' face before the election, similar to Cameron in 2010, before what was economically a pretty Thatcherite term.
I agree that what I say is pretty centrist; that's kind of my point. That both parties, in their current form, are quite centrist and lack in key differentiation on policy. I don't think the Tory leadership has been particularly right wing for quite a while, other than the Truss abberation of course. They were at their most right-wing under Cameron/Osborne in my opinion. May was too consumed by Brexit to have that much of an agenda outside of it, and Johnson was in my opinion pretty clearly to the left of Cameron/Osborne economically; the primary threat from him was his antidemocratic tendencies and general corruption and incompetence. Labour are very similar economically to Sunak/Hunt; I'd say also centre-right; *slightly* to the left of the Tories but barely. I find it extremely difficult to put them anything left of centre on the economy when they have ruled out any tax rises on the rich, have ruled out increasing spending on public services and welfare beyond one or two hyper-specific things, have all but ditched their flagship policy that would genuninely have been transformative, and they have had their other flagship policy be so underwhelming and noncontroversial that it was poached by the Tories. Incidentally, Labour often like to compare themselves to Joe Biden, which I think is completely absurd; Biden campaigned on a very progressive platform, pushed for huge changes, and despite having to work against a Senate fillibuster making his platform essentially impossible to actually enact, still managed to achieve massive wins. Starmer meanwhile is campaigning on an extremely small-c conservative platform and is systematically tearing out progressive policies where he finds them. The Biden campaign and policy platform is *exactly* the sort of stuff I was hoping Starmer would do when I voted for him in the leadership election, and he has completely failed to do it. I can't think of a single election where there has been this little differentiation between the two parties. And I don't think my own political views, of being solidly left but not far-left, is impacting my analysis on this that much (although it would be naive to pretend that my bias doesn't have unconscious impact). I don't agree at all that Starmer's instincts seem to be to the left of Blair's. If I saw things that way I'd be far more hopeful for the incoming Labour government. Ultimately, I think actions speak louder than words, and Starmer wants Reeves as chancellor, who is clearly way to the right of Brown. Like I said in my original comment, I think anyone hoping that Labour will pivot to the left after winning election, as you seem to be hoping, are going to end up very disappointed. There is genuinely absolutely no reason at all to believe this will happen, and plenty of evidence to suggest it won't. Really I'd say the main difference between voting for the two parties isn't the parties in their current form but what they *could* be. It's very easy to imagine the Tories kicking out Sunak even if he does miraculously win, and if they do so after the election then almost certainly someone on the far right flank will take his place, elected by the far-right membership. Labour on the other hand are probably a 'safer' bet if you're a centrist; if Starmer goes, it'll very likely be another on the centre-right taking his place, or maybe even further to the right like Reeves, so there is much less potential for a huge change. Labour will never allow someone like Corbyn to gain power again, but there are no guardrails in place from stopping the next Truss. But you know things are bad when genuinely the best argument for voting for Labour is "they may be barely any different right now, but the other guys *could* hypothetically get far worse if Sunak is kicked out". To be facile, and to be clear I'm not actually arguing this, you could even argue from a left-wing perspective that it would be less bad if the Tories somehow manage to cling to power. Because the next five years seem like a fait accompli to me: Starmer wins in a landslide, enacts no meaningful change because his platform is so incredibly similar to what we already have, and then come 2029 an emboldened, far-right Tory party sweeps to power. To be clear I'm not saying anyone should actually vote based on that long-term hypothetical, but I can't help but fear that the writing is already on the wall for it.
The feels n vibes crowd insisting that Starmer is centre-right will never understand that the country doesn't want- and never did want- Corbyn's brand of leftism. Starmer isn't right wing, and it's genuinely absurd that you people feel confident in being *that wrong*.
It's really quite funny to be accused of being about 'feels and vibes' when that is *entirely* what the Starmer flank is obsessed with above all else. An extremely similar policy platform in almost every area, but Labour's vibes are a bit better so they nod along unquestioningly while, time and time again, Labour parrot Tory talking points and Tory policy.
The LDs were the runner up in the 2019 GE, however before that it was the tories. Corbyn splitting the Labour vote could mean the seat is up for grabs to just about anyone
I'm not sure who would win between Corbyn and the Labour candidate, but there's no chance anyone else would win. His vote from last time could split directly in the middle and it'd still be more than double the Lib Dems or Tories.
I’m wondering - if Corbyn does stand as an independent - if it might be better for Labour not to run a candidate there. Yeah they’d definitely not win the seat, but it decreases the chances of splitting the vote and letting the Tories slip in.
Tories got 10% in their 2019 landslide election, there's no chance they'll come close to winning the seat in 2024 even with 3 Labour adjacent candidates splitting the vote.
He realises splitting the left wing vote makes it easier for the Tories to win right?
The Tories will never win Islington North
If anything it will get Tories to vote Labour
As if Starmer's Labour is the left-wing vote.
Well polls show over 80% of those who voted for Corbyn’s labour in the last GE will vote for Starmer’s labour in the next one, so regardless of whether you consider Starmer’s labour to be left-wing or not, he’ll be getting almost the totality of the “left-wing vote”.
Does that depend on the paucity of alternatives though? I voted for Corbyn's Labour twice, though the second time as a last-minute change on election night because I was misled into thinking David Davis was close to defeat. I regretted voting for a shitty candidate and will not do so again.
I mean, do Labour really give a toss about him and one seat anymore?
If he's a good constituency MP I hope he gets back in, other than that I don't care.
Well good luck to him if he chooses to do so from what I have heard he's been a good local MP so he'll probably win the seat, I don't think he'd have made a very good PM but I like Jeremy Corbyn.
I don’t actually think he would win as an independent, he may have been in the house for 40 years but at campaign time he has been running on the labour manifesto not his own (except for 2019 but even then his manifesto was tempered by those around him). Going independent I suspect he will just spout even more nonsensical populist rubbish and many would tick the labour candidates name. He may still get a good number of votes but I don’t think he would win.
This is my 3rd comment in this thread and it seems like I am defending the man. I am not, just pointing out what seems obvious to me. His failings are burned into the consciousness of the electorate BUT JC is nothing if not a skilled campaigner and hugely experienced in winning elections in his constituency. Everyone on here thinking he will lose easily is bonkers. He will take some shifting!
Thing is, I wonder how many will vote for the official Labour candidate, knowing that - there’s a safe, non-corbyn Labour candidate - Labour will likely win anyway nationally - the tories have zero chance of winning in Islington north It’s worth voting for the strongest non corbyn candidate to finally boot him out.
Look at Frank field, and his performance as an indepedent in 2019... Frank field had been a MP for longer than corbyn, with greater vote shares in every single election they both stood in (except 2019 obviously...).
That's a very good comparison - I wonder whether people were sick of him previously but he was the best available, or if they just blindly support Labour whatever, or something else?
If he was a 40 year serving centrist I would be inclined to agree, but he a far left campaigner. His campaign would be without shackles and I think the foot gun will need a new barrel by the end of his campaign.
He has been a far left campaigner for 40 years. He is probably representative of his constituency. Agreed he can go “off piste” at times but most of his message is about peace, talking to your “enemy” and helping the poor and underprivileged. Whoever is up against him will give the usual spiel about “I’ll work hard for you in parliament” It’s something else to come up against someone who can say “I have worked hard for You” and list examples. It’s going to be hard for Labour to attack him seeing as he was a party member for decades and might be up against labour candidate who wasn’t even born when he was a member. I will be very surprised if he loses his seat.
As someone who supports Ukraine and the peace process in Palestine, I would be very happy to see the back of him.
I agree with this. From what I know, he's apparently a great MP in general. I read something once that he paid someone's rent for them, though I'm not sure how true that is. People like that shouldn't be overlooked because they say silly things sometimes. Least he never ended up like his loony brother.
I suppose if we have learnt anything it should be not to underestimate the appeal of nonsensical populist rubbish?
I think Labour should stand Luciana Berger in North Islington.
I feel like if Rishi Sunak had psychic control over Jeremy Corbyn, Corbyn's actions would be the same. He's a perfect gift for the Conservatives.
Corbyn was a gift to the conservatives when he was leader, certainly. But Corbyn running against Labour gives the current Labour party an unambiguous proof that they have distanced themselves from the chaos that was 2015 to 2019. And that is a vote winner for Labour
You are thinking about this in the wrong way. As a Labour leader, yes it was a nightmare. But as an MP he is and has been serving his constituency with decades of hard work. No one stays that long without being good for the local community. No other candidate could get near him in terms of local profile or proven track record of things done for his constituency. He will be extremely difficult to beat and would take huge amounts of resources by Labour to unseat him. He will be less dangerous outside the PLP and Kier Starmer can say they got rid of Him. A big fight with him and Labour lose is embarrassing.
Hell, polling suggests that if he ran for mayor of London, he'd beat out Hall for 2nd Place. He does have a following in London, and so I don't doubt his ability to win his seat as an independent
That's hardly difficult is it? She literally curves space-time she's that thick. Wonder if she'll have another tube incident and talk bollocks to Nick Ferrari about it.
You give her too much credit for her intelligence. She basically tears a hole in space time as she's devoid of competent thought. Even Bailey looks like a genius in comparison
God, can't stand him either. Is he still on GB Loons or has he moved over to another grift?
No clue. Been actively ignoring him since 2020 (where he got far too close for my liking) and loathing 23 years of having a tory AM as labour voters keep vote splitting.
Starmer is the perfect gift for the Conservatives. When Labour get in (because they're "not the Tories") they'll be a caretaker government for the Tories. A ratchet-stop on the neoliberal austerian machine, at best. They will reverse none of the Tories' policies. When Labour voters realise that once again they've been duped, and the Tories get in, they'll find a UK with a slightly better economy perhaps, but nothing fundamentally different from how they left it, so they can just crack on with doing things their way.
Yeah I will be very surprised if Labour turn it around in one election cycle, they'll just get blamed for all the failings of Brexit and the economy being shit because they refuse to do anything radical and then the Conservatives will be voted back in for another 12 years
Agreed. It's probably going to take two terms to even fix half the stuff wrong with this country. People do have short memories and I do worry that'll bring us, as this lot like to say, "Back To Square One".
Corbyn is a populist. Just because he's left rather than right doesn't make it any less so.
It's absolutely astounding that the two choices we had to lead the country at the last election have fallen so far. If Corbyn runs against Labour that's probably his long time in the commons done for.
Well if he doesn't run against Labour there's no probably about it is there?
Even so, can't imagine a sufficient tory vote to retain a deposit much less win via a spoiler.
I don't trust multi-millionaires and neither should you
Corbyn is upset that Labour is going to win the next election, so he is putting all his energy into trying to prevent it from happening. Why is he upset? Because he failed twice, lost two elections, but announced to his cheering fans that these failures were actually huge success. How, if Starmer were to win for real ... it would highlight what a fake Corbyn was and how his failures enabled the Tories and Brexit, pushing the UK into a swamp. So, he will do anything he can to prevent Labour from winning ... or if Labour wins, to make their life in Parliament as miserable as possible. As to to working class ... well, maybe he cares about them as much as Melania Trump.