I hesitated in writing this post given it seems that there seems not to have been much reaction on the forum to his election.

My view at the moment is that the Labour Party may have their best opportunity for election almost by accident with JC at the Helm. One thing is for sure is that politics is going to get interesting in the next few months and I suspect a lot of people underestimated his appeal.
On the face of it he seems a very authentic guy who seems to be able to talk in a manner that is too the point and that is refreshing at least. A man of the people?
Let's wait and see

Well I voted for him....and Tom Watson, as it goes....

I think it's a very good thing.

If any of the other candidates had been elected leader we would have had exactly the same thing happening for the next 5 years. A Tory-lite party with an unenthusiastic general public not being able to differentiate between them at the next general election.

At least we now have a genuine opposition.

It's incredibly disappointing that the Tories have already resorted to smearing his name in an attempt to discredit him.



This was posted on their Facebook page 2 hours after he was elected leader yesterday.

Do they really think that the electorate is impressed with this?

"A genuine opposition"

Wouldn't it be nice if political parties could, you know, *help* each other govern the country by say, negotiation, instead of battering each other down on every opportunity on ideological grounds?

Personally - and I had no vote in this one - I think JC is a throwback to all that was bad in the ideologically driven politics of the seventies. His brand of 'eat the rich' socialism is all very well but always seems to miss out just how it's going to be paid for. I think his appointment was largely driven by mischief and I suspect a lot of people are regretting it - and I think the Labour party has shot itself in not one but both feet.

We need not posturing ideagogues but middle of the road politics.

Ok, I concede; "alternative" would have been a better term.

Yes, a potentially volatile topic, but agree with the above. The electorate in this one has delivered a clear kick in the teeth to the (IMO) shallow, soundbite-ridden face of a Labour party which wasn't so much moving with the times but more concerned with stealing middle-of-the-road Conservative voters.

I wouldn't have conceived of voting Labour but the demise of Balls, Cooper, Hunt, Jowell and other Blairites is the most healthy thing to befall the Labour party in years. Not that I'm happy with the Tory reaction, including the "dissing" propaganda photo posted above - one of the attractions of JC is that he refuses to demean himself apparently by descending into personal slander.

As far as his policies are concerned we'll have to suck it and see, and if they are that unworkable, well the electorate will vote him out again. Yes, Labour's old policies brought out of the cupborad and dusted off wouldn't be a good idea but you're not going to tell me they would seriously consider doing this without re-designing them into a 21st century ambience.

As often said this is the democratic process and if you push people far enough they'll swing back - we're in full swing.

Have to say I like many of us am sick and tired of the party bashing politics of old, time to deal with the issues not the personalities, Cameron may end up rather red faced in the PMQ's to come as I suspect JC may end up talking facts and issues rather than bul+€!it

As to how they deal propose to deal with UK Plc finances and funding of all the things they want to change is entirely another issue.

I have not really been following this but I think he has got in on personality alone!
He does good speeches, has the manner of a good leader and could see him as the PM ( based on mannerisms and personality)
What lets him down is the swing too far to the left and a lot of the proposals, that will never happen!

I wouldn't vote for any party that is to start messing with the nuclear deterrent before I even consider anything else!

The centre ground usually wins provided they have the right leader and a few sensible policies! It also helps if the party in power have really screwed everyone too!

This year right leaning parties have suggested Britain should be much more like Canada, Switzerland Norway, even Australia with their independence and successful economic policies. Most of these nations have NEVER had a nuclear deterrent and ALL of them currently don't. Can we really afford to continue to be part of a club that has so far served to be of no purpose or benefit to us and probably never would? Being a Nuclear power didn't stop Argentina from invading British interests nor terrorists from bringing deaths to our shores.

I used to fully support the idea of the deterrent but have changed my view. If those £billions were to be kept in the UK defence budget maybe we could have a better resourced traditional armed forces better equipped and staffed to deal with the challenges of today rather than big willy waggling contest that is the Nuclear arms race.

I agree with most of what you are saying regarding nuclear but you need to keep one eye on the Russians Chinese and North Korea not to mention a few that have desire to gain them in the Middle East

I know It's probably futile owning them, as there won't be much left if they are used, but I do believe it eased tensions during the Cold War (eventually) and with the way Putin is going at the moment who knows? we cannot rely on the USA!

I just feel we would be lowering our gaurd a bit too much without them!

I don't think I could disagree more given our current democratic options. The one thing worse than going too far to the right or too far to the left is all this wishy washy middle of road the rubbish delivered by parties who clearly have hidden agendas and are full of politicians with personal aspirational goals rather than ideals and integrity. I have been sick to death of Tory light and NEW Labour both trying to muscle in of the traditional centre ground that used to be the home of the Liberals.

Until this nation is able to deliver an element of true democracy to the electorate we need parties with opposing views and ideas. As much as I find Farage and all he stands for abhorrent, I find it even more their number of seats (1) compared to the percentage of the electorate that voted for them (12.6%). UKIP obtained as many votes as the SNP & Liberals combined

We need to get shot of a system that delivers safe seats which effectively wipe out hundreds of thousands of votes and results in many people not even bothering to vote. All that 2015 delivered was a government that is supported by less than 40% of those that did vote. Our current system is a farce and is the reason why we have two main parties desperate to take this middle ground.

We need to get rid of a party system, full stop, Bob.

When I elect a man to represent me, I elect him because of *his* views, not those of the party whose line he is forced to toe as soon as he gets a seat.

My call was not necessarily for middle of the road, but for concensus. An automatic nay-saying of *any* policy announced by one party is neither helpful nor effective; it merely hides the actual issues in aggressive and insulting soundbites. It's actually quite reasonable for a party to say 'yes, we agree with that policy' as opposed to 'those bastards stole our policy' which is what we usually hear.

(Also, I seem to have conflated 'idealogue' and 'demagogue'. Ooops. :D)

After the realisation of the horror inflicted on Japan, who seriously is going to launch a nuclear weapon?

1.The damage it causes so much devastation as to make the land and coastline nearby useless to any such aggressor and

2. the chances of retaliation from allied states would be pretty high = potential end of world/mankind as we know it.

Is it worth the risk...

Oop here north of the Tartan Curtain the interesting fallout of this election is how it might affect the SNP who apart from anything else were able to capitalise on the weakness and insincerity of New Labour.

I paid my £3 and voted for Corbyn, and Watson, and Sadiq Kahn. I"m not sure I would've done so had Harriet Harman not totally capitulated over the Welfare Bill.

Up until Corbyn's nomination the other three had been campaigning by Tory rules: who could appear the most aspirational, who could persuade and convert the soft right - totally forgetting the previously disenfranchised traditional Labour voters or, the under25 vote who weren't all politically apathetic, they just had nowhere to go.

Corbyn may not be the ideal choice, but if it were Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper choosing their new shadow cabinet today I doubt anyone would be listening.

...And for his first official appearance JC chose to stick to his original commitment and show up at none-too-glamorous, local mental health event - where my wife works - rather than gloss it up on the telly with Andew Marr and Michael Gove.

Spot on. To be honest, as he'll be travelling round London by bike, he isn't likely to last very long anyway

The fallacy is that the political elite represent and share the concerns and aspirations of the citizens they were 'elected' to 'represent', individualism is the key to their mantra and power not collectivism. So brought up on a diet the elite (political, media, banking, industrialists et al) in the UK peddle we (the citizens) believe there is no alternative.

If nothing else currently as has been noted; JC has a rather refreshing rhetoric, basically ashe doesn't fit the Eton or Oxbridge homogenised political mould. Hopefully PM's QT will be just that and that we will at least have a political opposition.

Some good points made here; two things strike me in particular:

Firstly, Corbyn has been elected as leader of an opposition party in disarray after a piss-poor showing in this year’s general election demonstrated that nobody wanted what Labour was selling. It is 4 and a half years until there is another opportunity for the public to express its apathy opinion, by which time, Jeremy Corbyn might be no more than a distant memory, if the people that actually matter in this (Labour Party members) decide that actually he isn’t the man for the job. So, really, why the fuss? Surely, now is the perfect time to try out something different, given that the status quo was so miserably shite.

Secondly, if I was in charge of the Conservative Party Press Office, I’d have been running a campaign welcoming Jeremy Corbyn and the opportunity it gives Cameron, Osborne, May, et al finally to debate and defend austerity and other current policies in comparison with some (hopefully) radically different ideas – to show the public that the Tories are truly on the right path. Putting out statements painting Corbyn as dangerous and the embodiment of socialist evil merely makes them look scared that people will realise that the Emperor has recently been clothes shopping and that there are alternatives that could work. Whilst Old New Labour backed the Tories in pretty much every detail in the vain hope of avoiding everyone thinking they were an ideological vacuum, New Old Labour might actually force the Government to justify its actions in the context of other options.

It’s a funny old world when the political hegemony in the UK is now such that a politician who doesn’t espouse the mantra of austerity – from any political party – is seen as a dangerous lunatic, intent on destroying every aspect of good old Blighty that we hold dear.

Incidentally, criticising Corbyn for being a proponent of out-dated ideas, formulated decades ago when the world was a very different place seems a little odd when simultaneously accusing him of jeopardising the nation’s security by proposing to scrap a policy based on an out-dated idea, formulated decades ago when the world was a very different place.

Oof, I can only aspire to such eloquence Jim

Ever considered politics......


If nothing else JC will have been the catalyst for a long-overdue spring-clean. Blair's been wrong before, to paraphrase Diane Abbott, and so was the disillusioned lady who remarked that it was back to male-dominated front bench politics - look at the cabinet postions now, more women than men.

At the beginning of Cameron's leadership he called for the end of Punch & Judy politics - it hasn't taken long to resurface

A prospective election candidate once told me (during Union-dominated times where one (I) was being gently threatened to join the T&G or my tyres might not be in such good condition at the end of my shift) that the best way to try and affect the issue of Union membership was to join it and work from the inside.

There's an aspect of stroppy kids about the sullen resignations from fron bench opposition. Having said that, I'm not sorry to see the back of some.

Latest soundbite (John Pienaar) = Corbynistas

Lovely quote on R4 earlier: The Labour Cafe has been offering egg and chips and no-one was buying. So now they've got a new chef and he's offering double egg and chips...

Hmmm, Jim clennell - JC...
Jim thinking something in politics that opposes the norm is positive and refreshing whilst typing eloquent verse!

Has anyone seen our JC and labours JC in the same room at the same time???


Good post Jim_c

And Jeremey Clarkson, Julian Clary and Jesus Christ.

Not seen them in the same room BM, but Labour's JC has 30 plus years on our JC whom I have met.

Has he really?

Jesus Christ!


They both speak Spanish.....

Sorry Joe, I exaggerated: 20 plus years. Corbyn looks at least 30 years older than Jim.

Its a facard Petep!!
A bit of make up and pow! Another 20 years!!
I'm calling conspiracy!

Thank you Pete! Alas and alack, I am but 16 years the Corbynator's junior, but I make up for it by remaining resolutely childish and petulant.

I should say that I am not a fan of many of the new Labour leader's policies; partly because they are - in the paradoxical way of socialism - unfair and partly because some of the better ones are unworkable from a practical point of view.
For some time I've been completely fed up with the whole left-wing, right-wing bollox. It's time someone came up with a new alternative that abandoned the exhaustingly puerile rhetoric of our modern career politicians.

Much of the above.

Only one thing less appropriate than party politics - and that's personal politics. Just step back from the work-face and blue-sky it. Leaders are being elected on the basis of (assumed) personality! For God's sake, what does this have to do with the real world!?

Secondly, whatever Corbyn is actually going to do, he comes across to the hooting rabblement as harking back to the horrendous, union-mangled, 1970s. I agree with Neil that this smacks of feet, guns, and their self-defeeting interaction. It is hard to see this as a vote-winning approach.

On the question of nuclear deterrents, again, this is just a warming-over of the 60s/70s debate. The idea is that if everyone who is anyone sets up their retaliatory arsenals, nuclear attacks will never occur.

Just think what is being said here. How many suicide bombers would it take for the retaliatory capacity of enemies to be rendered irrelevant? And then, in what way are certain leaders more stable than a suicide bomber?

We need the technical ability to neutralise attacks, not retaliate!

And having a picture of Dr Who on his wall, which gets older and older while Jim remains the same...

Whatever you think of Corbyn, politically or personally, he's landed himself in an impossible situation.

The Conservatives win elections not because they have better policies, but because they're better at the game of politics. Cameron can be confident of having all of his party singing from the same hymn sheet, Corbyn will be lucky if he can persuade all of his to go to the same church.

Corbyn needs the right-wing of the Labour party behind him, but he's never shown them any loyalty and they won't let go of the fact that Blairism brought them an unprecedented string of electoral victories. My guess is that there will already be 20 or so Labour MPs looking at jumping to another party and Cameron will be talking them into staying where they are until the point where their defection will do the most damage.

While Corbyn is fighting his own party the Conservatives have clearly got their message thought out - he's a security risk, an economic liability and he'll make you worse off - and they just have to keep banging that drum for the next 4.5 years. They keep their message the same, that they are the party of fiscal responsibility and social stability, and keep the Labour story that it's a party in disarray, unable even to govern itself.

The Labour party itself has to choose between carrying on with Corbyn, even though they know exactly how the next 4 years are going to run, or replace him with a more centre candidate and leave millions of their supporters complaining that Corbyn's politics could have won the election for them.

In the name of party unity Corbyn has to compromise with the right, ditch the more extreme of his policies and line the party up behind him. We've seen some of that so far, with a rapid downplaying of his anti-NATO rhetoric and some more right-wing appointments to his shadow cabinet, but only time will tell if that's going to be enough to stop perhaps dozens of MPs making a break for the Conservatives or Lib Dems and to stop Tom Watson dumping his body in the Thames at the first available opportunity.

My guess is that it won't be.

Personally I like Corbyn's politics, although I don't much care for the man himself and I'm of the opinion that if you live in a Tory safe-seat and want to make a left-wing protest vote then you should do what I did and join the Greens.