Corbyn wins! Now what?

Written By: - Date published: 7:55 am, September 25th, 2016 - 294 comments
Categories: International, uk politics - Tags:

Corbyn

As anticipated Jeremy Corbyn has easily won the contest for the leadership of the UK Labour Party with increased support over last time.

From the Guardian:

Jeremy Corbyn has won a decisive victory in his second leadership contest, beating Owen Smith by a bigger margin than he had when he saw off three opponents in 2015 and thereby strengthening his grip on the party. Unlike a year ago, he won easily amongst party members (as well as among registered supporters and affiliated supporters), confirming that the nature of the party membership has shifted quite considerably since the 2015 general election. In a speech which conveyed notably more confidence and authority than the one he delivered after his victory last year, he appealed for unity, saying it was time to wipe the slate clean. He also used a phrase, “more in common”, coined by Jo Cox, the Labour MP killed in the summer who had been one of his critics. He said:

“Elections are passionate and partisan affairs things are often said in the heat of the debate on all sides that we later regret.

But always remember in our party, we have much more in common than that which divides us.

As far as I’m concerned the slate is wiped clean from today.

We are proud as a party that we’re not afraid to discuss openly, to debate and disagree that is essential for a party that wants to change people’s lives for the better that isn’t prepared to accept things as they are.”

It will be interesting to see how the rest of the Labour caucus now respond.  Some of them are already facing threats of deselection and things are not helped by the predicted disappearance of 35 Labour seats because of the Electoral Boundary Review currently underway.

And the party now has 515,000 members, well above the 150,000 the Conservatives have.   Can Labour make this difference count?

294 comments on “Corbyn wins! Now what? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ski 1
    25 September 2016 at 8:02 am

    What happens now is that Labour continues to tear itself apart and the Conservatives stay in power for the next 3-4 election cycles, well done Mr Corbyn and friends, you have served your country well.

    • Nick 1.1
      25 September 2016 at 8:06 am

      @ski….. But you really have no idea…..

      • Ski 1.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 8:10 am

        got your rose tinted glasses on have you?

        • Wensleydale 1.1.1.1
          25 September 2016 at 8:13 am

          He’s right though. Unless you’re Nostradamus, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Not that you’ll let that stop you.

        • Sanctuary 1.1.1.2
          25 September 2016 at 11:23 am

          Because the British Labour PLP, which can’t even with an election for it’s own leader, is much more likely to beat the Tories? The Blairite PLP can’t beat an egg, let alone the Tories.

    • save nz 1.2
      25 September 2016 at 8:25 am

      Cos Blair did not rip the country apart. sarc.

      Now the Blairites are trying to rip Labour apart so they can add it to ripping Britain apart.

      What part of democracy do they not understand?

      • Red 1.2.1
        25 September 2016 at 11:18 am

        Vested activist group taking over party based on its constitutional rules, all good however as a general popular party in regard to a general election, rooted, hence the democratic process in the Labour Party is at odds with it winning
        the greater democratic process to govern which you sort of think is the real point of a political party

        • Paul 1.2.1.1
          25 September 2016 at 11:34 am

          Funny how all these National and ACT types have so much to say about this.

          • Chris 1.2.1.1.1
            25 September 2016 at 12:32 pm

            “Intellectual yet idiot.”

          • Red 1.2.1.1.2
            25 September 2016 at 2:32 pm

            Why ? You seem to have a lot to say yourself Paul, albeit the same thing every day like a broken record, even to the point of cut and pasting the same thing on different threads

        • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.2
          25 September 2016 at 11:51 am

          the greater democratic process to govern which you sort of think is the real point of a political party

          Actually, the whole point of the political party is to represent it’s members and then, once in government, to listen to everyone and pass policy that’s in alignment with the platform that they were elected upon.

          Please note that I’m not all that fond of representative democracy.

          • Scott 1.2.1.2.1
            25 September 2016 at 2:03 pm

            If that is the goal, and your members don’t reflect a sufficiently wide section of the general population, then get used to being a minor party.

            There is nothing wrong with that. It works for the Greens and NZ First.

            But the mistake is the bit about “once in government”. Every four terms or so you might get a one term go, in conjunction with so many other smaller parties that you never really get to achieve your policy aims anyway. That is it reality of what Labour is becoming.

            If they want more than that, then the membership need to reconsider what “the whole point” is.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.2.1.1
              25 September 2016 at 6:17 pm

              But the mistake is the bit about “once in government”. Every four terms or so you might get a one term go, in conjunction with so many other smaller parties that you never really get to achieve your policy aims anyway. That is it reality of what Labour is becoming.

              Nope because once in government you can show that the policies that the party advocated for are the correct ones with better conditions for everyone. This then causes people who didn’t vote for you in the first place to start voting for you.

              The real problem is the RWNJs will continue their Dirty Politics and lying to bring down a Left-wing government and to prop up their own corrupt organisation and, as history shows, that works.

              • Scott …
                26 September 2016 at 9:06 am

                Well, I suppose it is a plan. But I have to wonder how these amazing polices (presumably those yet to be announced) will be implemented when you have to get the okay from both the Greens and NZFirst to do so.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  26 September 2016 at 9:53 am

                  Why do you think that political parties working together is a bad thing?

                  What evidence do you have that they have to get permission from each other first?

                  And why haven’t you read these political parties web site so that you can become familiar with their policies?

                  Why, basically, are you merely repeating the lie that they have no policies when there is actually large amounts of it?

                  • Scott …
                    26 September 2016 at 10:04 am

                    I don’t, but the more that need to the greater the inertia to making any real change to the status quo.

                    I’m sure they all have polices, but haven’t seen the ones you mention – those that “are the correct ones with better conditions for everyone”.

                    If Labour are to be among the winners in 2017, they’ll need to get low to mid 30s, have the Green get low teens, and still need NZ First with their 10 or so percent.

                    Why would that be a mandate for the Labour polices without the okay of both the Greens and NZ First? Can you imagine Winston saying – fine guys, just do what you like then? I can’t.

                    Labour should instead aim to get back into the 40s. They are not going to do that without bringing the middle voters with them – or more accurately just being with the middle voters a bit more. They should listen to Helen Clark’s advice.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      26 September 2016 at 11:04 pm

                      Why would that be a mandate for the Labour polices without the okay of both the Greens and NZ First?

                      It’s called a coalition agreement. It’s where political parties that take over governance of the country decide what they will and will not support while a member of that government coalition.

                      Can you imagine Winston saying – fine guys, just do what you like then?

                      What makes you think that Winston can’t work with either Labour or the Greens?

                      Labour should instead aim to get back into the 40s.

                      Why should they do that when they’ve got so many coalition parties?
                      In fact, IMO, it was Labour trying to rule alone last time that resulted in National getting back in. If they’d supported Hone and Internet/Mana then we would now have a Left government rather than the bunch of psychopaths that we do have.

            • Incognito 1.2.1.2.1.2
              25 September 2016 at 9:00 pm

              I think that how democracy is implemented and practised is unfortunate, to say the least, and not conducive to a fair & equal society. Neo-liberal thinking has invaded and infected political discourse and public views & opinion; the framing of issues influences our thinking and vice versa. Consequently, we see increased polarisation, more (false) dichotomies, more self-interest & competition, more exclusivity, etc.

              In a real democracy there is no place for racism and discrimination yet we have too much ‘silent’ discrimination that frequently goes hand-in-hand with latent racism. The poor, the homeless, the unemployed, even the under-employed get stigmatised, marginalised, ridiculed and overlooked and ignored almost to the point of exclusion; they become the ‘pariahs’ of our society and communities.

              Any party’s policy platform should be inclusive; this is what democracy is all about or ought to be. Campaigning on policies of negativity is off-putting and although it can be effective, for short-term (political) gain, it also carries huge risks.

              A smaller party may represent a smaller fraction of the electorate and perhaps advocate policies that are less-appealing to the majority of voters but it does not necessarily follow that these are or have to be (mutually) exclusive as often claimed by spin doctors and MSM.

              Personally, I’d like to see more smaller parties in Parliament. This is the most effective way to make sure that most or all people are truly represented, to give them a voice, literally, which may be heard and counted, literally, and which may influence Government policy. Of course, this relies on a spirit of cooperation, of inclusion, of mutual trust and respect.

              The larger parties tend to cater for the so-called “centre” because this is where most of the ‘profit’ is to be made. However, this leads to bland and boring politics that leaves many disenfranchised. Rather than cannibalising smaller parties, or silencing internal party factions to the sake of the perception of ‘unity’, these need to be allowed to exist in their own right – as long as they collect sufficient votes to justify their existence – and work together with the larger parties to achieve better outcomes for all. In our current MMP environment parties mostly only seem to work together when they have to rather than because to want to. Quite possibly this is because they dislike ‘profit-sharing’ and we all know how much parties and politicians love to take the credit and similarly cast the blame; it’s all about winning, at all cost! To me it does not make sense that a pluralistic society is represented and governed (!) by just a few political parties; in practice it is antithetical to a well-functioning real (representative) democracy.

              • Scott …
                26 September 2016 at 9:11 am

                Too many small parties causes an inertia to change – the need to get 3 or more quite different groups to agree on a change to get it passed. That may be fine if you like the status quo, but I don’t see why is should be Labour’s goal.

                • Incognito …
                  26 September 2016 at 11:08 pm

                  Inertia is resistance to change and status quo is exactly what the establishment and vested interests want. Why would progressive parties, large and small, that truly want to cooperate to improve outcomes for all and not just the middle class ‘median voter’ resist change and cause political gridlock? It is rather the opposite, isn’t it? Your political imagination and creativity need to be tickled or jolted into action, it seems; think like a free thinker, act like a rebel.

                  • Scott …
                    27 September 2016 at 9:24 am

                    Herd of cats?

                    The Greens and Labour may be on the same page reasonably often, but not so much NZFirst.

                    It would be far form a coalition of the like minded, it would be a collation of convenience. That will be fine as long as it remains convenient and people are willing to compromise. I’d say six months. After that real change of any sort will be difficult.

        • Scott 1.2.1.3
          25 September 2016 at 1:55 pm

          You’re on the mark Red and it echos Labour’s woes here.

          The democratic election of the party leader is fine, provided that those voting understand what is needed. It seems Labour people in the UK and those in NZ don’t, or maybe they are not capable of it.

          The small but strident people that are involved in Labour in NZ (like those in the UK) want leadership that “represents” them and their views on the world. Fine, but they need to remember that they are not themselves representative of the people who will decide the general election. If they want someone who sings the party songs, and shouts the slogans the members love to hear, then keep appointing cheerleaders. But don’t expect the general voter to join in.

          If I were appointing a NZ Labour leader I don’t know who I’d pick at the moment (or rather post the 2017 election). The post-Clark years have seen scab hunts that have rooted out, or prevented the entry of, the people with the most potential. Just look at that they have done to Leggett and Nash, two people who ought to be the rising stars.

          • framu 1.2.1.3.1
            26 September 2016 at 7:47 am

            load of nonsense scott

            the issue is, just like in NZ, that the MPs dont want to do what their employers tell them to.

            everything else is moot while theres a party faction waging internal wars in public.

            If the party chooses the wrong person, then thats what happens and they will pay accordingly at the ballot. But on which planet do people expect MPs to be able to wave some magical wand about who the party chooses as their boss?

            and nash? dont get me started. Hes the guy who asked for unity on this very issue then proceeded to insult, in public, every single person who pointed out what the problem was

          • Matthew Whitehead 1.2.1.3.2
            27 September 2016 at 10:33 pm

            LOL.

            No, members ought to get the final say in who the leader is. If the caucus can’t work with the leader, they need to convince the leader to resign and put forward their own better options, or simply shut up and get along and accept that they don’t own the political party, their supporters do.

            That is the way it’s supposed to work in a democracy, and only lack of transparency lets left-wing parties get away with it. Every single developed country is going the direction of more member-led parties.

      • whateva next? 1.2.2
        25 September 2016 at 4:53 pm

        Alistair Campbell has alot to answer for…how does he sleep at night?

    • Lanthanide 1.3
      25 September 2016 at 10:04 am

      +1

    • Draco T Bastard 1.4
      25 September 2016 at 11:40 am

      Nope. Labour continues to build it’s support in the British population as more and more join the party. I believe we may be seeing the rise of the mass party here which we haven’t seen since the Labour parties around the world abandoned their base and their principles and sold out to RWNJ delusional economics.

      Hopefully, the Left in NZ follow the same path and start getting the people who most need to be listened to (the poor and disenfranchised) active in politics again. Unfortunately, we’re not seeing it yet.

    • Robert Glennie 1.5
      25 September 2016 at 12:41 pm

      Enjoy your dream time. It sounds like your imagination is in fine fettle.

      Theresa May is right wing nutcase who wants to repeal the U.K. Human Rights Act, thereby crapping on everything the wartime generation fought and died for.

    • Anno1701 1.6
      26 September 2016 at 12:06 pm

      good god ANOTHER gold star for first in

      do you guys/girls/bots NEVER sleep….

  2. Ad 2
    25 September 2016 at 8:04 am

    I sincerely wish him well and hope he uses this impressive mandate to unify his caucus and his path together, and prepare to throw the Conservatives out.

    • Colonial Viper 2.1
      25 September 2016 at 10:04 am

      you unify that caucus by deselecting half of them.

      • Bill 2.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 10:50 am

        As far as I can tell, there is no mechanism within UK Labour that would allow for one person to set off a tranche of de-selections. Ordinary members get to choose who represents them. If they choose the incumbents, so be it. If they choose new people to represent them, so be it.

    • Matthew Whitehead 2.2
      27 September 2016 at 10:36 pm

      Well at this point whether the caucus unifies isn’t on him, he’s got an undebatable mandate to lead, so it’s caucus’ job to work with him now. Those who can’t at least swallow their distate deserve to be deselected.

  3. save nz 3
    25 September 2016 at 8:27 am

    Well done to Corbyn and well done to UK Labour voters who saw off the Labour Tory’s.

  4. Stunned mullet 4
    25 September 2016 at 8:33 am

    Do those who voted in the labour leadership contest reflect the uk population ?

    • BM 4.1
      25 September 2016 at 9:05 am

      Absolutely not, but he does represent the people who pay to be party members.

      Personally I see nothing wrong with that, a party should represent who it’s members are, down side in Labours case it that what the members want and what the voter want are two different things.

      Same sort of scenario in NZ, Labour party rapidly becoming irrelevant to the majority of voters.

      • Richard Rawshark 4.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 9:13 am

        Bang on BM. A party out of touch and Corbin in the UK, is an example of a man gaining party support amongst the voters. In politics that’s obviously the first thing # 1 that you need.

        The country would be much better off if Labour in NZ, actually decided to listen to the voters and not, the unions or others who just think they know what the public wants.

        As I have said since I started posting here, Labour needs to forget everything and go back to it’s founding principles, looking after employee’s, union membership and the common citizens.

        The days of the reds under every bed has long gone, and that and the bloody strikes they caused started all this. It got out of hand, but I don’t see any commie card carriers these days. So now it might actually work as it was intended before politics(communists) crept into it’s membership.

        • North 4.1.1.1
          25 September 2016 at 10:03 am

          You have no eye for the risible contradictions in your comment RRS ? Unions “nay” then unions “yay”, going (then not going) all McCarthyist…….banging BM. Wow ! Here’s some wriggle room RRS……..you intended satire perhaps ?

          • Richard Rawshark 4.1.1.1.1
            25 September 2016 at 11:27 am

            Your lack of being able to comprehend my comment is your issue not mine.

            A troll?, you do know i’m a labour party member?

            Just a party member who’s not been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, went to university selecting the party he would join using career values instead of beliefs.

            A member who has seen many things.., including the communists influence in the unions, and mate, I do not like fkn commies either. Personal family thing.

            I am just a person who believes money isn’t everything, Moderation in all things is far better than extremes and focusing on one sector of society as the only contributors to it. That the contribution you make to society is how much money you can make and how many people you can employ.

            • Richard Rawshark 4.1.1.1.1.1
              25 September 2016 at 11:38 am

              That the contribution you make to society is NOT how much money you can make and how many people you can employ.

              edit timed out.

              • alwyn …
                25 September 2016 at 1:16 pm

                One part of your comment seems to describe a very large part of the New Zealand Labour Party caucus.
                “went to university selecting the party he would join using career values instead of beliefs.”
                That seems very tidily to describe people like Mallard, Robertson and Hipkins.
                They decided that politics would give them a very well paid occupation and they chose the party they thought would give them the best chance of picking up such a cosy little sinecure.
                They went with the value of making a career. They didn’t have any serious beliefs.
                Actually it is only part of the Labour Caucus. With the departure of Hague it seems to be the whole of the Green one.

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  27 September 2016 at 10:42 pm

                  LOL have you met the Green caucus? None of them are there for careers, in fact if you ask most of them they will tell you they never saw themselves in Parliament.

                  Seriously, talk with Hughes or Genter and try to make that comment again with a straight face.

                  • alwyn …
                    28 September 2016 at 1:22 pm

                    I have never met Genter so I am not really in a position to comment.
                    I have met Hughes though and he struck me as a complete idiot.
                    Being an MP of course gives him transport, and probably accommodation when he goes off and plays at being a Trekkie. He could even charge the cost of his signs at the convention to the taxpayer.
                    I am pleased that you didn’t mention Turei though.
                    She started with the McGillicuddy Serious Party, didn’t she? Then she had a try as a member of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party.
                    Finally she decided to change her complexion and become a Green. Now we don’t appear to be able to get rid of her.

          • Muttonbird 4.1.1.1.2
            25 September 2016 at 6:06 pm

            Richard’s comment doesn’t make much sense to me either. He doesn’t want Labour to listen to unions yet he want Labour to support union membership.

      • Paul 4.1.2
        25 September 2016 at 9:22 am

        A troll speaking to a troll.

      • Matthew Whitehead 4.1.3
        25 September 2016 at 11:56 am

        I find it highly amusing that you draw an equivalence between the UK and NZ Labour parties, given that precisely the opposite thing happened in each party when they had a genuinely progressive leader- in New Zealand the leader stepped down in reaction to a revolt of caucus against the will of the members. In the UK, the leader held steadfast and now has a renewed mandate.

        If anything I expect it is the disunity in both parties that lead to the disastrous electoral result. A large percentage of the population regards unity within a party as more important than competence or vision.

        • Craig H 4.1.3.1
          25 September 2016 at 10:42 pm

          I think it’s more that they perceive unity as competence, but either way, a disunited party will not get those votes.

    • North 4.2
      25 September 2016 at 9:34 am

      Right now, more reflective I venture than loathsome Tory toffs whose entitled raison d’etre is to rig society to their massively escalating advantage at the expense of those already suffering badly. Those whose rapaciousness Corbyn should simply not see according to ‘Trickle Down’ Mullet.

      • Colonial Viper 4.2.1
        25 September 2016 at 10:37 am

        same as born to rule Labour MPs undermining the wishes of their own membership at every turn

    • whateva next? 4.3
      25 September 2016 at 4:58 pm

      absolutely represent those who have had enough and woken up to the corruption ad consequences of neo liberalism

  5. Paul 5
    25 September 2016 at 8:39 am

    Re-selection of MPs

  6. keepcalmcarryon 6
    25 September 2016 at 8:58 am

    Purge

    • Bill 6.1
      25 September 2016 at 10:46 am

      The ‘Blairites’ have been purging – all those members who were or have been suspended.

      A branch choosing their representative isn’t in any way, shape or form like a purge – making that choice is giving expression to notions of representative democracy.

      • keepcalmcarryon 6.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 12:08 pm

        Remove all taint of the Blairites from the party. If people want neo libs they can vote conservative. The problem for UK labour and our own labour party has been the lack of strong leadership, the party descends in to waffly crap trying to break itself down in to its smallest minority bits to be representative.
        Corbyn remains a chance to stamp his mark.

        The party needs to make itself an electable option for the public not pander to the factional interests of self interested minorities.

        Good policy represents everyone anyway.

        So purge away, Support the leader or buggar off.

          • Bill 6.1.1.1.1
            25 September 2016 at 1:06 pm

            You want ‘big man’ strong leadership, then you’re looking at the wrong party leader.

            Don’t know why you want to regurgitate right wing memes about purges coming from the left of the party – it’s the right of the party that’s been purging.

            The left of the party has nothing to gain by trying that kind of shit itself. Members get to choose who their representatives are.

        • save nz 6.1.1.2
          25 September 2016 at 2:15 pm

          @ keepcalmcarryon. I think rather than UK and NZ Labour not having a strong leader, it’s more a case of those in the party wanting to destroy the leader and the party along the way, to get their own way.

          The leadership is less relevant if all the other members are strong and unified. Look at Auckland Mayor, the councillors are all very important for votes not just the leader.

          Too much worry about the Labour leader and not enough on ways to get rid of the bad eggs in the labour party that are stopping Labour uniting and getting new blood and ideas (even if these are old ideas that got put away during Rogernomics/Blairite).

  7. Olwyn 7
    25 September 2016 at 9:03 am

    Jeremy Corbyn has won an increased majority, despite a hostile media and colleagues who were willing to go to court to prevent his supporters from voting. Hopefully these colleagues are starting to understand that the Labour Party is not a deceased estate that they are free to make over in their own image. I do not think that Corbyn should purge his enemies, but I do think he needs to exert strong discipline. It is much harder to stand up to the establishment than it is to use the Labour Party as a trajectory into it, and many of Corbyn’s colleagues seem much more at ease with the latter strategy.

    • Richard Rawshark 7.1
      25 September 2016 at 9:18 am

      No, I think, and this is just a gutsy feely Paula Bennet thingy, that the public of England have found a way to get their party back.

      The people had a representative in parliament, Labour, it was broken and stolen by the wealthy and we’re so dumb we didn’t even click on.

      Now to get the wealthy dumb arses out of the party it’s a mission. At what point was Tony Blair “ever”, a working mans representative?

    • RedLogix 7.2
      25 September 2016 at 12:26 pm

      It is much harder to stand up to the establishment than it is to use the Labour Party as a trajectory into it, and many of Corbyn’s colleagues seem much more at ease with the latter strategy.

      Absolutely. I think it’s got sod all to do with policy or ‘leadership; it’s Jeremy’s old clunker of a bicycle they cannot abide.

      • Anne 7.2.1
        25 September 2016 at 7:37 pm

        … it’s got sod all to do with policy or ‘leadership; it’s Jeremy’s old clunker of a bicycle they cannot abide.

        Of course it is. He lives in a working class house, in a working class part of London, wears working class clothes, has a working class accent and rides a working class bike. And what’s more, he actually cares about working class people.

        Then we have the PLP ex-Blairites and their acolytes who have spent a lifetime reinventing themselves as genteel middle class folk, and along comes Jerry Corbyn and wipes out the mirage in a millisecond. Their fury will know no bounds.

    • save nz 7.3
      25 September 2016 at 3:01 pm

      @Olwyn – great analogy -“the Labour Party is not a deceased estate that they are free to make over in their own image”.

  8. ianmac 8
    25 September 2016 at 9:23 am

    Maybe Jeremy has found a place for the blocked and diminishing Middle Class. Here we are either very rich or poor. My hope is that Labour/Green will be an active home for us. Optimist am I.

    • Manuka AOR 8.1
      25 September 2016 at 9:34 am

      “My hope is that Labour/Green will be an active home for us. Optimist am I.”

      Yes. I believe it will. We can take heart from the UK Labour result – Gain new energy and optimism for the future.

  9. marty mars 9
    25 September 2016 at 9:37 am

    Good stuff – the more in common line is effective I think. Just got to get people saying it till mouths get tired and ears want to fall off.

  10. Tory 10
    25 September 2016 at 9:40 am

    Perhaps Corbyn is “all talk”, after all it was only a couple of years ago that the Left were celebrating the election of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and how he and his party of communists were “going to stick it” to the European Bankers and Financiers. The U.K. Labour Party will purge, split and follow the Unions, a sure recipe to stay in opposition. Unless of course Jeremy meets with Alexis and learns the art of capitulation.

    https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/greeces-abject-capitulation/

  11. Bill 11
    25 September 2016 at 9:57 am

    The “threats of deselection” line is just that – a line.

    Labour Party members have a right to choose who represents them – it’s called democracy. No representative has a right to demand they be left in place – that wouldn’t be democratic in the slightest.

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      25 September 2016 at 10:07 am

      just remember all these back stabbing right wing Blairites were selected in the furst place, often parachuted into their safe Labour seats by head office, and voted in by compliant Labour constituency officers

      • Bill 11.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 10:42 am

        Your point?

        The party has had a huge influx of members. Compliant or moribund branches are a thing of the past. I wouldn’t know about ‘constituency officers’ – what they are or how they operate – but if any such officer was in a position to mis-cast a branch vote, then I’d suggest it would be one of the last acts they’d make in that position these days.

        • Stephanie Rodgers 11.1.1.1
          25 September 2016 at 11:17 am

          There can be a difficulty in that party rules and processes aren’t always easy to get your head around as a newbie. There may be a few LECs (or whatever the UK equivalent is) where the old hands are still calling all the shots for the time being.

          • Bill 11.1.1.1.1
            25 September 2016 at 1:44 pm

            Guessing that the situation in the UK is a long way away from many disparate people just blindly walking into a labyrinth of process and custom effectively micro-managed by long established personal fiefdoms. Guessing that ‘momentum’ are fairly on to it as far as explaining rules, processes and possible expectations/challenges to the status quo.

            I could be wrong. Just guessing.

  12. alwyn 12
    25 September 2016 at 10:05 am

    There is nothing in the Guardian article about how the MPs voted.
    Are they only counted as being a party member or do they not get a vote at all?
    Alternatively perhaps the number of MP votes he got was so derisory the Guardian wasn’t game to publish it.

    • dukeofurl 12.1
      25 September 2016 at 10:11 am

      This was the party vote,the only one that counts. Its not like NZ where they grouped into different categories ( but they used that system up till 2014)
      Off the top of my head the Mps had a no confidence vote a while back, which he lost which is why the party wide vote now using the STV system

      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 10:22 am

        Usual story, a well paid Labour caucus who think they know better than their own membership and constituency organisations.

  13. Colonial Viper 13
    25 September 2016 at 10:16 am

    UK Labour need to consistently lift themselves above 29%/30% in the polls or they are all over. No where near competitive with the Tories in an FPP system.

    • BM 13.1
      25 September 2016 at 10:28 am

      Never happen with Corbyn as leader.

      It’s the price you pay for letting the lunatics run the asylum.

      • Richard Rawshark 13.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 11:35 am

        Nah.., BM if he’s a lunatic then your saying all the people(public) who back him and listened to what he said over there, support him because they are stupid, lunatics, or just not as intelligent as the born to rule tories as an analogy?.

      • Paul 13.1.2
        25 September 2016 at 11:41 am

        Let’s stop the name calling for just a second.

        Getting rid of trident is popular.
        Renationalising railways is very popular.
        Sorting the housing crisis is popular.

        Let’s see how ‘lunatic’ these popular policies are.
        I accept multinational corporations see the policies as insane, but you aren’t on their side, are you?

        • McGrath 13.1.2.1
          25 September 2016 at 12:15 pm

          I agree with you on the nukes but they won’t get rid of them as there seems to be an ego thing with having the bomb.

          • Paul 13.1.2.1.1
            25 September 2016 at 12:18 pm

            Corbyn will – as will the SNP.
            Whether the UK military complex will allow that is another thing.

            • Bill 13.1.2.1.1.1
              25 September 2016 at 1:51 pm

              My understanding is that a fair chunk of the military ‘top brass’ would like to see spending go towards toys they can use rather than Trident. The navy, army and airforce contesting one another for a piece of the defence spending pie probably helps determine the adopted positions of some.

          • Colonial Viper 13.1.2.1.2
            25 September 2016 at 12:50 pm

            Not an ego thing, more a remnant of old imperial aspirations.

            Personally I can see a use for the UK to maintain a long range nuclear tipped cruise missile capability. A deterrent consisting of 20-30 warheads which could be fitted to long range bombers would be quite satisfactory, along with a handful of silo based MIRV ICBMs.

            And it would cost about 3% the price of a stupid new Trident submarine system.

        • swordfish 13.1.2.2
          25 September 2016 at 3:06 pm

          “Getting rid of trident is popular.
          Renationalising railways is very popular.
          Sorting the housing crisis is popular.”

          Re-nationalizing Railways and the Utilities and Postal Services = all supported by large-to-overwhelming majorities of British voters.

          Ditto: sorting the housing crisis.

          Getting rid of Trident ? … Not so much.

          When UK Pollsters reduce the options to just 2 – Total Renewal of Trident or Scrap it – large majorities always choose the former.

          If, on the other hand, they offer 3 options – Complete Renewal or Partial Renewal/Downsizing or Scrap Trident altogether – the middle option always receives the most support (albeit still a plurality) with the other 2 options favoured in roughly equal measure.

          So, it seems downsizing is the maximum Labour can hope for in terms of voter acceptance.

          Overall, the British Public strongly favour a number of Corbyn’s key policies, while at the same time holding far more ‘conservative’ views on Social Welfare, Trident and, above all, Immigration.

          And then there’s the all-important Valence issues like Economic Competence, Leadership Image, Party Unity …

        • Groundhog 13.1.2.3
          25 September 2016 at 7:09 pm

          Other popular policies in the UK:

          1. Stopping benefits for people refusing an offer of employment.
          2. Putting a total ban on immigration in Britain for the next 2 years.
          3. Stopping all government spending on overseas aid.

          https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/06/support-radical-left-and-right/

          I’m not sure popularity is the measure of good policy.

          I like Corbyn (although I don’t support his politics) because he is prepared to honour his principles, even when those may make him unpopular.

      • Stuart Munro 13.1.3
        25 September 2016 at 2:10 pm

        No, the price for letting lunatics run the asylum is million dollar average houses in Auckland and EQC spending twice on travel what it has on compensation.

        • srylands 13.1.3.1
          28 September 2016 at 11:11 am

          “EQC spending twice on travel what it has on compensation.”

          EQC does not pay compensation. But assuming you are using that term very loosely, can you provide a link to support this statement?

    • Paul 13.2
      25 September 2016 at 10:28 am

      Voting is quite regional in the UK.

    • Bill 13.3
      25 September 2016 at 10:37 am

      Maybe you’re forgetting that the UK has a fixed term parliament? If one vote of confidence in Labour from the SNP, Greens, Plaid, out-numbers any vote of confidence for a Tory led government, then Labour are in.

      I’m not about to work out the numbers, but given that over 50 seats fall to the SNP with 5% of the UK wide vote…

      Also. Maybe you also missed that Labour also just won a bye election seat from the SNP? And then, with Corbyn, the disaffected who have been voting for UKIP or not voting at all may well find they have a reason to vote for Labour again.

      But sure, maybe Labour need to poll at whatever number. But to throw a number out there in the kind of dismissive way you just have misses a large pencil bag of points.

  14. Takere 14
    25 September 2016 at 10:27 am

    Does the theory hold, what happens in the UK Politically migrates to NZ? The last 15/20 years there seems to be some similarity?

    • Paul 14.1
      25 September 2016 at 10:29 am

      I think we now mimic the US

      • Takere 14.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 10:52 am

        Explain Paul? I don’t see a resemblance? Economically maybe as our debt level is 175% of our GDP, the US is about 225% of GDP … They don’t have a Westminster Parliamentary system do they in the US?

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 14.2
      25 September 2016 at 3:05 pm

      If he is successful, Corbyn will demonstrate that it is possible to turn away from neoliberal TINA in a Western democracy – and that idea would be a fantastic example for New Zealand. He might also show that neoliberal mainstream parties can renew from within, and in doing so attract the disenfranchised to vote. Sanders almost did this too.

      In NZ we enthusiastically followed Thatcher and her evil ideas – maybe we can follow Corbyn too! Personally I would find his success a huge encouragement.

  15. RedLogix 15
    25 September 2016 at 10:56 am

    What a remarkable win after so much vilification and personal denigration heaped upon him! Most lessor men would have given way in the face of the relentless undermining; I doubt I would have had the courage. That Corbyn has stood strong is proof of remarkable personal integrity and strength of character.

    And congratulations too those allies and friends like John McDonnell and Diane Abbott who have stood firm with him, his old friends like Ken Livingston and the thousands of grass roots activists who made this possible.

    And amazingly, despite the craven treachery and spineless self-interest from so many in the PLP, Corbyn still offers them an olive branch, another chance at redemption. I know that if I was in his shoes the ‘mandatory deselection’ option would feel very attractive right now … but strategically it is of far more value for Corbyn to use this as an opportunity to impose discipline on the PLP, and build respect one firm step at a time. Mass sackings would come with it’s own risks.

    But he does need to very quickly put in place some bottom lines. Public undermining, leaks or damaging disunity MUST be dealt with promptly and ruthlessly. From my reading of Corbyn’s nature and instincts he will find this difficult, but right now it is what both 500,000 party members and the wider public will respond to.

  16. rsbandit 16
    25 September 2016 at 11:07 am

    The path for Labour in NZ is now obvious.

    Corbyn is showing the way. There is no room for compromise. Labour must form an actual opposition, meaning an opposing choice for voters. It’s time to get tough on the middle-way politicians – by getting rid of them. They can go to their natural home, being National.

    Together with the Greens, our time is now.

  17. North 17
    25 September 2016 at 11:10 am

    Yeah……Democracy’s a bastard when it gets in the way of born-to-rule power freaks and the spin doctors they employ. Anyone who doesn’t get that and is moved rather by principles is just a duffer.

    • Garibaldi 17.1
      25 September 2016 at 3:42 pm

      Dead right North. The born to rule power freaks seem to have unlimited funds for election campaigns; their army of spin doctors set the narrative and the gutless media swing in behind. It is going to take a monumental effort ( and a bit of luck ) to unseat the Natz. At the moment the opposition is still not united, and it’s obvious who would win an election if one was held now. The elephant in the room is still NZF.

      • Colonial Viper 17.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 4:04 pm

        Don’t get too excited, as far as I can see, large portions of the Left are not democrats at heart and very easily and quickly fall into deriding the decisions of voters (and even going so far as deriding the voters themselves).

        • North 17.1.1.1
          25 September 2016 at 11:06 pm

          RRS you do plainly contradict yourself. Maybe it’s the ill buzz you have about “commies” (a ‘problem’ you say no longer exists). Comfort food is “commies”. That’s pretty gruesome for “commies” (who no longer exist btw).

          Anyway, enough. I too don’t know about the vehicle to displace the relative normalisation of NZ as a global commodity and NZers as sub-commmodities. The price is the death of children now and into the future. Do we owe that?

          Any illusions about where I’m at ask my debtors.

  18. Stephanie Rodgers 18
    25 September 2016 at 11:25 am

    The only thing I’m afraid of is getting my eyes stuck in a perpetual eyeroll at all the people parrotting the “Corbyn is unelectable!!” line. It’s completely baseless. He has held his seat since 1983; his electorate had one of the highest votes to Remain; he’s inspired hundreds of thousands to join the Labour Party; he’s packing out city squares and got people literally climbing windows to hear him speak.

    If that’s what “unelectable” looks like, I may have fallen into a parallel universe by accident.

    The next UK election is a long way off and it’s vital that Corbyn and his team have a solid strategy and keep building on the support they’ve received. And there’s already moves happening like Momentum’s creation of Momentum Kids, empowering young people and enabling parents to get more involved in campaigning.

    But no. Keep on repeating “Corbyn is unelectable, everyone says he’s unelectable” like good little rightwing robots.

    • Paul 18.1
      25 September 2016 at 11:27 am

      Like Brexit wasn’t going to happen, Trump hasn’t got a chance…the liberal establishment has lost contact with reality.

      • Stephanie Rodgers 18.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 2:26 pm

        Nice derail. The actual *point* is that while many on the right of UK Labour use the Leave vote as “proof” that Corbyn can’t win elections, he did a far better job than any of them did convincing their constituencies to vote Remain.

        • Chris 18.1.1.1
          26 September 2016 at 12:02 am

          Paul was just agreeing with you. No attempt to ‘derail’.

        • Cemetery Jones 18.1.1.2
          26 September 2016 at 11:14 am

          I didn’t read that as a derail, I think we are in fact living in a year with several of those proverbial weeks where decades happen. Corbyn’s election and Brexit are both coins in the same pocket full of change.

    • rsbandit 18.2
      25 September 2016 at 11:31 am

      + 100 Stephanie

    • RedLogix 18.3
      25 September 2016 at 11:34 am

      + Several Internets Stephanie.

      But also we have to keep in mind that the dominance of the SDP has permanently changed the electoral landscape in the UK. This is the unpalatable fact that will keep Labour out of power no matter how ‘electable’ Corbyn proves to be.

      • Stephanie Rodgers 18.3.1
        25 September 2016 at 2:27 pm

        Surely SNP? All that means is the UK need to figure out proper coalition governments.

        • Colonial Viper 18.3.1.1
          25 September 2016 at 2:36 pm

          And a Labour Party hierarchy willing to partner with other parties, as opposed to constantly positioning to drive them out of Parliament at Labour’s earliest convenience

        • Bill 18.3.1.2
          25 September 2016 at 2:47 pm

          Don’t need coalitions in the UK. The parliamentary environment (fixed term) has made them obsolete. I notice that many media still haven’t acknowledged that and talk of some grand left (SNP, Plaid, Green, Labour) coalition and then use Corbyn”s dismissal of the idea as a stick to beat him with.

          All that’s required is one initial vote of confidence. I’m sure Labour would secure the vote of the SNP, Green and Plaid. They (Labour) then form the government and the others support or oppose on a case by case basis.

          Even if Labour tables a budget that doesn’t pass, they stay in government and merely have to tweak their budget proposals until they secure 50% + of the parliamentary vote.

        • RedLogix 18.3.1.3
          25 September 2016 at 2:51 pm

          Yep SNP … sorry got my acronyms jumbled there.

          And yes the whole coalition thing is new to the UK, especially given their FPP environment. And considering how well it worked for the LibDems, it would be understandable if the SNP wasn’t exactly chomping at the bit.

          Coalitions involve some tough compromises. On the one hand it’s hard to build trust with another party that’s also competing with you electorally. Equally if say UKLP were to pull out of Scotland and give the SNP a free pass, it essentially winds up UKLP’s local political machines and leaves them completely dependent.

          Bill would likely have a better sense of what all this means on the ground in Scotland than me, but this brutal calculus does mean that Coalition govts are fundamentally more vulnerable.

          It’s the same problem the left has in NZ and I’ve yet to see a way forward here either.

          • Bill 18.3.1.3.1
            25 September 2016 at 3:01 pm

            Repeat. Coalitions are redundant in the UK context. No need to fret over whether one would hold or not – they are not required; no-one needs to contemplate them; they won’t be formed.

            NZ’s a bit different. NZ needs a fixed term parliament act so that all the media bullshit ends (eg – the fearmongering around Greens getting finance or whatever).

            • RedLogix 18.3.1.3.1.1
              25 September 2016 at 3:14 pm

              Yes I missed your comment above before I posted mine. Fixed term parliaments are definitely unfamiliar to us in NZ and your point is well taken.

    • Richard Rawshark 18.4
      25 September 2016 at 11:41 am

      Don’t Panic Stephanie, there’s a few here who like to talk like they know what’s happening in the UK, but I know they don’t. At all. Just roll your eyes chuckle and correct anything that really itches your mind.

    • mosa 18.5
      25 September 2016 at 12:12 pm

      Perfect analysis Stephanie your spot on about Corbyns appeal.
      He has stood strong against massive opposition from his enemies and has been re elected by a wide margin and attracted huge numbers to join the party If thats not a huge vote of confidence in him then like you are we missing something here ?

      The others have had their time with New Labour and failed.
      Its now time for Corbyn and the struggling British people for something better ,lasting and meaningful.

      He has won the first of many battles going ahead and its going to be tough but he can do it and will do it.

      I wish it was happening here.

    • Psycho Milt 18.6
      25 September 2016 at 12:19 pm

      To be fair, it is possible that he’s unelectable to form a government if a large part of his caucus consists of backstabbers who’d rather be in opposition than in a government with him as leader, and are working flat out to undermine him at every opportunity. We’ve seen how disastrous that is for a Labour Party’s electoral appeal in this country.

      • Paul 18.6.1
        25 September 2016 at 12:20 pm

        The Blairite careerists are the problem.

        • Chris 18.6.1.1
          25 September 2016 at 5:52 pm

          And perhaps without a leader who can inspire the best we can hope for in 2017 is that by miracle just some of our Blairite careerists just might see a modicum of merit in Corbyn’s formula, and that that’s enough for Labour to limp over the line and cobble together a coalition that ousts Key. That’s pushing it. The state of Labour at the moment says anything better’s impossible.

      • Stephanie Rodgers 18.6.2
        25 September 2016 at 2:28 pm

        You raise a very valid point.

      • mosa 18.6.3
        25 September 2016 at 2:45 pm

        He has got time to attract like minded people to stand for the party ahead of the next general election in 2020 and i think this is the start of the party unlike here having an honest debate and offering something better Milt.

    • Red 18.7
      25 September 2016 at 2:46 pm

      He is unelectable just ask the bookies, they have no vested interest, idealodical blinkers, hope, simply profit or loss

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 18.8
      25 September 2016 at 3:46 pm

      Agree – Corbyn is something new and different. He is attracting people who have been disenfranchised from politics, in a genuine grassroots movement. Who knows what he can achieve?

      Corbyn is operating outside the restrictions of how “middle” politics is supposed to work. We might see actual social and political change instead of another short-term electoral win using the same spin and nonsense.

    • Lanthanide 18.9
      25 September 2016 at 3:49 pm

      Cunliffe was very popular with the Labour party membership too.

      Not so much with the general voting public.

      • Ch-ch Chiquita 18.9.1
        26 September 2016 at 12:43 am

        True, but did people join as members because of Cunliffe? I think not, and that is the difference. Corbyn has managed to get the missing voters to join and take part.

        • Lanthanide 18.9.1.1
          26 September 2016 at 2:38 pm

          Actually quite a lot of people joined so they could vote for Cunliffe:
          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9355621/Cunliffe-announces-new-Labour-insurance-policy
          “Mr Cunliffe also referred to an “explosion” in Labour membership this year of 75 per cent.”

          This is from after he won the leadership. I believe they were reports saying membership was increasing before the leadership battle, and there were posts on The Standard at the time alerting people to join so they could vote. I believe the time to sign up to allow voting was very short though, only like 2-3 days after the leadership battle was announced, so it’s a little different from UK Labour.

    • swordfish 18.10
      25 September 2016 at 4:27 pm

      Well, it’s great to see the deeply-entitled Blairites, Brownites and fellow careerists in the UK Labour Establishment given a bloody nose (figuratively speaking, you understand). And it’s great to see Labour’s core values renewal under Corbyn and McDonnell defended and consolidated. The best thing to happen in British Politics for a long time.

      But, bear in mind – Corbyn’s leadership ratings remain pretty dire. Unless you believe the Poll numbers are wildly askew, then there’s no doubt he’s unpopular with the general public (on some measures, uniquely so for a new-ish Opposition Leader) and the Party continue to poll very poorly.

      Don’t get me wrong, he’s certainly managed to massively enthuse and mobilise a significant chunk of the committed anti-Austerity Left (and beyond just the activist core) – but that’s not the same as British voters as a whole.

      Thanks to an on-going campaign of sabotage from sections of the PLP over the last 12 months, together with relentless vilification and ridicule from the MSM (aided by the Corbyn team’s own deficiencies) … you could make a reasonable case that he is now permanently damaged goods with the British Electorate and UK Labour are unlikely to win the next General Election under his leadership.

      On the other hand, polls also suggest Labour’s unlikely to win the next Election under any other putative Leader (including Owen Smith) … something the PLP plotters and their army of cheerleaders in the media tend to keep to themselves.

      The reality is:

      (1) Imminent Boundary changes are going to make it unusually tough for Labour to win in any case (they’ll need an almost unprecedented swing)

      (2) voters (quite rightly) see UK Labour as massively dis-unified (PLP sabotage, contempt and open rebellion against the leadership effectively turns their predictions of poor poll ratings under Corbyn into a self-fulfilling prophecy),

      (3) voters (quite wrongly) see Labour as economically incompetent.

      The latter remains a real problem for UK Labour regardless of Leader or ideological direction …

      … As the British Election Study suggested:

      Some events realign parties with crucial issues. The economic crash in 2007/08 appears to have done for Labour what the exchange rate mechanism crisis did for the Conservatives more than 20 years earlier: it fundamentally altered the public perception of which party could be trusted on the economy. Given how long it took the Conservatives to recover a lead …

      • Colonial Viper 18.10.1
        25 September 2016 at 4:32 pm

        Any sign of a Lib Dem come back in the polls?

        • swordfish 18.10.1.1
          25 September 2016 at 4:47 pm

          I’ll tell you tomorrow, CV.

          It’s 4:42 in the fucking morning here in the UK – been watching the UK Labour Party Conference all afternoon (after we had a nice morning drive through the deeply affluent, deeply Tory towns and villages in the leafy Chiltern Hills north-west of London – as blue as a new tattoo) and here I am at (now) 4:46 in the fucking morning reading The Standard on the Corbyn victory because I’m a tragic political obssessive.

          I’m off to bed.

          • Colonial Viper 18.10.1.1.1
            25 September 2016 at 6:18 pm

            😯

            Well, you’re not the only one

            Sleep well

            By the way looks to me like UK LAB got 30% and 29% in the 2015 and 2010 elections respectively.

            So their current opinion polling with Corbyn as Leader seems pretty ballpark; it says to me that Corbyn is not acting as some kind of special drag on UK Labour – UK Labour is enough of a drag all on its own.

        • mosa 18.10.1.2
          26 September 2016 at 11:11 am

          Yeah good question CV i was thinking the same thing and how that will effect the landscape going ahead.

      • RedLogix 18.10.2
        25 September 2016 at 4:52 pm

        Thanks for this swordfish. For all my glee over Corbyn’s victory here, it has to be tempered with some very hard truths.

        For me it’s like Bernie Sanders, in my gut I want Corby to win, but my head tells me it’s not likely without some major realignment of the stars.

        • Colonial Viper 18.10.2.1
          25 September 2016 at 6:21 pm

          My pick is the world will be turning upside down over the next 5 to 10 years so it’s coming. 2 deg C average warming with 10-15 deg C in the Arctic will be just the start.

      • mosa 18.10.3
        26 September 2016 at 11:17 am

        Good to have your input Swordfish and look forward to your continued analysis on the political climate up there.

      • pete 18.10.4
        27 September 2016 at 2:54 pm

        David Graeber, a political activist and professor at the London School of Economics, offered his reason for the smears against Corbyn supporters in the editorial-free section of The Guardian:

        “If the opposition to Jeremy Corbyn for the past nine months has been so fierce, and so bitter, it is because his existence as head of a major political party is an assault on the very notion that politics should be primarily about the personal qualities of politicians. It’s an attempt to change the rules of the game, and those who object most violently to the Labour leadership are precisely those who would lose the most personal power were it to be successful: sitting politicians and political commentators.”

        The UK Labour party is transforming itself from being centrist (aka Tory light) to being socialist. This will worry the pants off of the 1%. The 3 points you mentioned are totally irrelevant. Equally irrelevant is whether or not Corbyn is electable. The only relevant thing is that the party ditches its corporate donors in favour of widespread grassroots support and reconnects with its roots. Once it achieves that, it will be a powerful and real alternative to the current RWNJ.

        • swordfish 18.10.4.1
          27 September 2016 at 4:04 pm

          Entirely agree with your 2nd paragraph, the Establishment Courtiers will fight anyone who even remotely threatens their privileged positions within the Status Quo – and their own future prospects of power – tooth and nail … but I would have to largely disagree with your 3rd paragraph. A little too simplistic, a little too much wishful thinking.

  19. Takere 19
    25 September 2016 at 11:31 am

    Haha! Couldn’t agree with you more! Funny thing is, is the irony. He just got elected! Bluster & BS only get you so far. Numbers count at the end of the day/Poll.

  20. mosa 20
    25 September 2016 at 11:51 am

    Fantastic result for UKLP and Corbyn who stuck to his principles and discovered that what he is articulating the people have responded to in record numbers with money and support and finally there is a real hope that Labour can be the real alternative to the neo lib stranglehold of New Labour and the Conservatives.

    Brexit showed that the britons suffering the most are prepared to mobilise and vote if they have something worth voting for and they can effect change and Corbyn has identified with this and those who have campaigned against him mainly right wing Labour mps have had their time and its got to be a different approach to what are serious economic problems and disparities in every western country not just the UK.

    I hope this is the start of the fightback we have all been waiting for and Corbyn can mobilise as Bernie Sanders did in the US Primaries and become a force for change and get a mandate at the next general election.

  21. Adrian 21
    25 September 2016 at 12:21 pm

    Jeremy Corbyn has saved the UK Labour from it’s self destructive path to centrist oblivion, has shown what can be achieved by simply being a principled and honest politician, unlike some of our Labour MP’s who actually stand up proudly saying their principles are for sale for the chance of power…
    Stuart Nash…
    “Let’s be clear about one thing: politics is about winning. There is no such thing as a ‘glorious defeat’, leaders who lose are not, as some may believe, ‘martyrs to the cause’, and ‘coming second but maintaining our principles’ is a ludicrous proposition.”
    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/10/31/tdb-guest-blog-project-stuart-nash-the-most-pressing-issue-in-nz-right-now/

    This now sounds like the sad final distant roar of a dinosaur just before it becomes extinct, which thankfully, Nash’s brand of redundant centrist ideology is about to become.

    Turn Left NZ.

  22. Robert Glennie 22
    25 September 2016 at 12:26 pm

    Great result for Corbyn and the UK Labour Party on the whole. The vanquished need to accept defeat and rally behind Corbyn or get out of the party.

    • Paul 22.1
      25 September 2016 at 12:29 pm

      They won’t

      George Galloway on twitter.

      “I predict 60 Labour MPs will break away the rest stay labour. Second and third tier coupers will be finished. Cooper Chukka et al return.”

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 22.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 3:55 pm

        I predict if there is a Blairite breakaway – it will die at the ballot box with a fizzle. People have only voted for them in memory of Labour, and because they aren’t Tories – not because they actually liked or agreed with them.

        • Colonial Viper 22.1.1.1
          25 September 2016 at 7:16 pm

          quite right, the Blairites will continue clinging on to electoral life raft of the Labour brand name even as they slowly devalue and destroy it.

          Sound familiar?

  23. Karen 23
    25 September 2016 at 1:47 pm

    I like this version of “Another One Bites the Dust” that Red Labour are using:

  24. Guerilla Surgeon 24
    25 September 2016 at 1:50 pm

    Verso books has a free e-book on Corbyn and the Labour Party in case anyone is interested.

  25. alwyn 25
    25 September 2016 at 1:51 pm

    I do like the picture you used to illustrate this piece.
    It reminds me of a scene from one of those late 50s Hollywood biblical epics.
    Corbyn pointing out the way to the promised land.
    He’s not quite in the class of Charlton Heston but he does seem to fit the role.

    Unfortunately he hasn’t told his followers in the Labour Party that if they follow him they are going to have to wander in the desert wilderness for forty years.

    • RedLogix 25.1
      25 September 2016 at 1:53 pm

      Well better the wilderness than abject slavery under the Pharoah in my book.

      • alwyn 25.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 2:43 pm

        In Moses’ situation I would have to agree with you.
        I’m not really sure it is quite that bad in today’s Britain though.

  26. RedBaronCV 26
    25 September 2016 at 2:07 pm

    You have to wonder about the bulk of the Labour MP’s.
    They can’t get any activists out to join the party and shore up their share of the vote in the contest. Many of them are at loggerheads with their own constituency organization.
    Then they turn around and demand the right to elect the shadow cabinet – do they think that the party members are going to stand for them installing a few dozen Judas Iscariot’s at the supper table?

    Given that these are samples of their good judgement I’d hate to see their bad calls.

    Time for them to swallow a few dead rats isn’t it? If they can’t get people to join the party then it’s over for them surely?

  27. Bill 27
    25 September 2016 at 2:07 pm

    Thought I’d share this laugh out loud piece of reporting on the esteemed leader of Scottish Labour.

    His mandate enhanced by a convincing 62-38 win over Owen Smith, Corbyn told Labour members in Liverpool: “I have no doubt that this party can win the next general election.”

    But almost immediately Dugdale contradicted him in an interview with BBC News.

    Asked about a recent newspaper article in which she wrote, “I don’t think Jeremy can unite our party and lead us into government”, the Scottish Labour leader replied: “I’m not changing that view. It’s very clear. It’s written down.”

    Facing a backlash from Corbyn supporters, Dugdale later scrambled to reverse her position, telling BBC Scotland that “of course” a party Labour led by Corbyn can win an election.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14763247.Dugdale_faces_revolt_after_chaotic_flip_flop_on_Corbyn/

    edit – maybe I should have placed this under the “Bites the Dust” vid? Oh well…

  28. adam 28
    25 September 2016 at 2:16 pm

    If you ever needed a reason to throw your lot in with a more left program, then the reaction of the hard right on this post should convince you.

    Fear, fear that a message which embraces, and then actions on traditional left values is a winner. Because it is. It’s been 30 years of this economic failed experiment.

    Anyone else noticed that the centrist compromise – which in reality is just more of this Tory crap, keeps labour at 29%?

    • RedLogix 28.1
      25 September 2016 at 2:24 pm

      Well yes … that’s what CV and a few others around here have been saying since … forever.

      It’s this passionless centrism which leaves so many people cold. It’s largely why a million people couldn’t be arsed voting in the last election. There wasn’t just anything in it they cared about, either for or against.

      • Stephanie Rodgers 28.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 2:29 pm

        See also the plague of “independents” running for local government and the even-worse turnout there.

        • Lanthanide 28.1.1.1
          25 September 2016 at 5:03 pm

          Oh please, turnout in local elections is poor because people largely don’t know what the councils are in charge of, and see whoever wins as being interchangeable with any other candidate.

          It’s only once you elect someone in who proves to be incompetent or damaging that there is any enthusiasm to vote them out. Apart from that, generally people don’t care who is in charge of their council or local board / whatever.

          • Stephanie Rodgers 28.1.1.1.1
            25 September 2016 at 5:43 pm

            And why, precisely, do you think voters “see whoever wins as being interchangeable”? Could it be *gasp* something to do with the fact they all present themselves as “independents” and offer mealy-mouthed identical-sounding rhetoric?

            It’s almost like that’s exactly what I just said.

            • Lanthanide 28.1.1.1.1.1
              25 September 2016 at 5:45 pm

              If they labelled themselves as left or right, it would make no difference, is my point.

              • Matthew Whitehead …
                27 September 2016 at 11:16 pm

                I highly doubt you’re correct.

                See Coughlin and Legett steadfastly clinging to the independent label despite one essentially being a National candidate and the other being little better.

              • KJT …
                29 September 2016 at 6:00 pm

                If it didn’t make any difference we wouldn’t see the well funded right wing affiliated groups, pretending to be independent of National and ACT.

                They usually give themselves away by promising no rate rises.

            • rsbandit 28.1.1.1.1.2
              25 September 2016 at 6:09 pm

              Spot on as usual, Stephanie +100

              They’re all the same.

              • Colonial Viper …
                25 September 2016 at 6:33 pm

                That’s largely a result of the political environment at the local government level. And almost every local council is battling funding shortfalls and large debt loads.

                You could always find a semi-radical political firebrand to stand for a local council. But who is going to fund their campaign? Which ratepayers are going to vote for them?

                And even if this candidate gets on, they are still going to be out voted ten to one by the other councillors.

                What do you see as being the solution to these structural issues?

      • fisiani 28.1.2
        25 September 2016 at 4:00 pm

        The only way to get 1,000,000 lazy people to vote is to make it worth their while. Offer them lots of free stuff and tell them that the rich will pay for it. Get them to hate John Key. Surely that’s easy. Get some decent (female) candidates to replace the deadwood. Promise them a brighter future.

        • Gabby 28.1.2.1
          25 September 2016 at 4:33 pm

          Say we’re on the cuspa somfin speshl like?

        • Colonial Viper 28.1.2.2
          25 September 2016 at 4:45 pm

          It’s clearly “worth it” for the rich to vote to keep their taxes down, eh fizzy

        • Stuart Munro 28.1.2.3
          25 September 2016 at 7:55 pm

          Or – you could promise to stop the scumbags stealing their stuff.

          Audit CERA and Brownlee’s rorting that appalled even Treasury. Claw the money back and throw the crooks in prison.

        • Anno1701 28.1.2.4
          26 September 2016 at 1:18 pm

          “The only way to get 1,000,000 lazy people to vote is to make it worth their while. Offer them lots of free stuff and tell them that the rich will pay for it. Get them to hate John Key. Surely that’s easy. Get some decent (female) candidates to replace the deadwood. Promise them a brighter future.”

          “Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.”

          ― Lucy Parsons, Lucy Parsons: Freedom, Equality & Solidarity – Writings & Speeches, 1878-1937

        • Macro 28.1.2.5
          26 September 2016 at 9:23 pm

          “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

          John F. Kennedy, in a speech at the White House, 1962.

          Killed November 1963.

        • KJT 28.1.2.6
          29 September 2016 at 6:10 pm

          Well. You could promise to stop the rich from stealing more than they have earned, and then refusing to pay for the “commons” they use.

          “Promise them a Brighter future” Like John Key did?

          Maybe we could stop lazy people from getting “money for nothing”.

          Like:

          Real estate agents in Auckland.
          Immigrants who speculate on existing houses and businesses.
          Pacific Island Hoteliers.
          Party politicians in establishment “safe seats”.
          Trucking firms who don’t pay their roading costs.
          Dairy farmers with free irrigation schemes.
          Media commentators who are confident in their staggering ignorance.
          Paid right wing trolls on the Standard.
          Ex politicians with directorships in companies they know nothing about.
          Banks and loan sharks.
          Truck shops.
          Businesses who depend on WFF because their business is to bad to pay a living wage.
          CEO’s who get huge amounts of money despite their firms going downhill.

          To name but a few.

      • whateva next? 28.1.3
        25 September 2016 at 5:06 pm

        the people just lurve the status quo, except it’s crap.

  29. rsbandit 29
    25 September 2016 at 5:33 pm

    Labour in NZ needs a similar coherent vision.

    1. A state house for everyone who needs one. Rent free or low to reflect earnings.
    2. Increase taxes on the greedy wealthy
    3. Increase taxes on business
    4. Increase benefits to living wage level
    5. Flatten incomes so that no-one earns over 50% more than the lowest earners
    6. Honour the treaty
    7. Equal pay for women
    8. Union members paid more than non-union members
    9. Reduce the dairy herd by 50% and tax all polluters
    10. Put a high tax on tourists
    11. Eliminate all trade agreements except where we cannot make the items here, ourselves

    Lets put an end to neo-lib greed and selfishness.

    • fisiani 29.1
      25 September 2016 at 5:40 pm

      Please let those 11 points be the Labour manifesto. That’s the bold move that will win in 2017.

      Why put a high tax on tourists? Tourism earns more than dairy. Can you explain your reasoning?

      • rsbandit 29.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 5:47 pm

        Planes cause global warming. We should discourage tourism.

        • Draco T Bastard 29.1.1.1
          25 September 2016 at 6:29 pm

          And our infrastructure can’t support them as it is. High taxes on tourists could be used to build up that infrastructure.

          • fisiani 29.1.1.1.1
            25 September 2016 at 7:31 pm

            Any evidence for “Our infrastructure can’t support them as it is” Are you saying they do not sleep under a roof and cannot get around New Zealand?

            • Draco T Bastard 29.1.1.1.1.1
              25 September 2016 at 10:56 pm

              The road well-travelled: The rise and rise of New Zealand tourism

              INFRASTRUCTURE SHORTAGE IS LOOMING

              Hammond is the former chief executive of Ruapehu and Coromandel district councils, two tourist-heavy regions. In the latter role, he watched as three communities – Pauanui, Whangamata and Whitianga – were nearly bankrupted paying for new the wastewater facilities they needed to cope with the tourist high season. There was no clear alternative funding source in the community, he said. Many private tourism operators were already paying rates on commercial-zoned land and were reluctant to give more, even through targeted costs. Hammond had first-hand experience pitching economic development plans to the commercial sector for a contribution.

              “It’s an extremely testy conversation. Really people are interested in their own bottom line . . . unless it’s a specific capital project that’s going to benefit them.

              “Ruapehu Alpine Lifts [partnering with the government] for the upgrade of the mountain road on Mt Ruapehu is probably a good example of that.”

              All the players in the sector – central government, local government, private operators, industry groups – agree an infrastructure shortage is looming. In some cases they agree on exactly what is needed and where, such as more toilets on the Tongariro Alpine Crossing.

              In 2014 the Tourism Industry Association (TIA) released Tourism 2025, a 10-year growth plan culminating in the $41b spend target. The document was a winner, Hammond said, identifying all the right issues, including infrastructure required, with one crucial failing.

              “None of those parties have signed up to [commit] their resources and their responsibilities to address the infrastructure gap.

              This has been in the news quite a bit lately. I’d say that I’m amazed that you missed it but you just proved your normal ignorance of reality.

              • Macro …
                26 September 2016 at 9:44 pm

                Yep! As a rate payer in the Coromandel I know only too well the increased burden on our infrastructure that the tourism industry brings. There are around 30,000 permanent residents in the whole of the Coromandel, but over summer the number increases to over 100,000. So around 10,000 rate payers must fund the infrastructure for 10 times the number. Our civil engineering here leaves a lot to be desired. I suffered a shattered left shoulder 6 years ago as a result of falling into a monsoon drain where there would normally be a gutter. But that is another story. Rates here are amongst the highest in the country, and we cannot keep up.
                All this so called wonder economy and wonderful tourism is all well and good, but it comes at a cost. A cost to the ordinary citizens of the country, increased rates to pay for increased water supplies, and increased capacity for sewage disposal, at a time of summer and drought, increased congestion on roads (the one way bridges at Tairua are infamous!), and increased demand for emergency services (fire services are voluntary). And who benefits? Tourist operators. Certainly not the ordinary citizens of the region.

        • Colonial Viper 29.1.1.2
          25 September 2016 at 6:34 pm

          Just slash the number of plane flights in and out of NZ by 90%. Reduce it to say a single 747 equivalent leaving and arriving per day.

          That’ll “discourage tourism.”

        • fisiani 29.1.1.3
          25 September 2016 at 7:29 pm

          Cows cause global warming. Should we cull cows?

          Are you actually claiming that you like tourists and their money but not how they get here?

          • rsbandit 29.1.1.3.1
            26 September 2016 at 10:59 am

            Yes.

            Global warming is the number one issue facing us. Neo-lib business as usual is no longer acceptable.

        • Gosman 29.1.1.4
          25 September 2016 at 7:40 pm

          Why don’t you just stop NZers from travelling via planes? This way you still make money from foreigners and reduce air travel at the same time.

      • KJT 29.1.2
        29 September 2016 at 5:39 pm

        Tahiti puts a stupendously high tax on tourists. Actually it seems to encourage them. Maybe not the desired result.

        Tourism operators should be paying towards the burden they put on small communities.
        Or do you believe we should subsidise their businesses more than we do already, with free access to the conservation and public facilities, WFF and low wages.

    • burt 29.2
      25 September 2016 at 5:42 pm

      You forgot;

      12. Make it illegal for rich people to leave the country.
      13. Decide on best locations for bread and toilet paper queues.

      • rsbandit 29.2.1
        25 September 2016 at 5:49 pm

        Neo-libs are free to leave. We will attract people who favour our commitment to social justice and an equal society.

        • Colonial Viper 29.2.1.1
          25 September 2016 at 6:37 pm

          Sure, let’s restrict immigration to those who love our people and who love our values.

          Sounds familiar to me.

      • Draco T Bastard 29.2.2
        25 September 2016 at 6:22 pm

        12. Hell no
        13. No, that would be capitalist method as proven at the supermarkets every week. If we truly wanted efficiency those supermarkets would have online shopping and free delivery as it would be more economic and have no queues wasting peoples time.

        • Gosman 29.2.2.1
          25 September 2016 at 7:44 pm

          And you would nationalize them and force them to do that would you Draco?

          • Draco T Bastard 29.2.2.1.1
            25 September 2016 at 10:48 pm

            Leaving them to it seems to entrenching the uneconomic model that we have now. But probably don’t need to nationalise them – simply put in law that they’re required to do so.

            Of course, nationalising them does have the advantage of removing the dead-weight loss of profit.

            • ropata 29.2.2.1.1.1
              25 September 2016 at 11:31 pm

              Not to mention the big 2 are screwing their suppliers and workers at every opportunity. NZ is too small for gossies market equilibrium fantasy to work properly.

          • KJT 29.2.2.1.2
            29 September 2016 at 5:41 pm

            No. Just make them pay for the public infrastructure they use.

            I suspect local markets, producers and shops would then become more competitive.

        • Gosman 29.2.2.2
          25 September 2016 at 7:47 pm

          If Labour under Corbyn fails to do well who will the hard left blame then?

          • Stuart Munro 29.2.2.2.1
            25 September 2016 at 7:57 pm

            Labour under Corbyn is doing well already.

            • Alan 29.2.2.2.1.1
              25 September 2016 at 8:45 pm

              yes, yes, 61% of his membership love him, we know that Stuart, but what about the rest of the voting population in Britain, what do the polls say about their feelings towards comrade JC?

              • Stuart Munro …
                25 September 2016 at 9:22 pm

                First of all the title ‘comrade’ is not appropriate for a very modest Fabian.

                The people of the UK have a plethora of parties available to them. There is UKIP – dying of the desertion of it’s leader – the Lim Dems, dying of broken promises after getting into bed with Cameron. And there are the Tories, fresh from the public’s embarrassing embrace of a Brexit policy designed as a distraction and saddled with the frankly stupid Boris. Corbyn is only responsible for the many who prefer a competent and moderate left.

                The polls at present reflect the confusion caused by the party’s internal wrangling. They will improve as the PLP are obliged to live within the democratic constraints they tried to usurp. Or leave.

                Corbyn has a movement – Theresa May only has excuses.

                • Alan …
                  26 September 2016 at 11:25 am

                  i would suggest that once the internal wrangling is over and the moderates leave/are turfed out, the poll for Labour under Corbyn will deteriorate, not improve – new poll out in the last 24 hours, Labour UK on 26%, lets see what happens from here

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    26 September 2016 at 11:36 am

                    Nope – the moderates have no problem with Corbyn – he’s by no means an extremist.

                    There will be poll confusion for months – and fake polls as we’ve had here trying to discredit him.

                    Labour supporters won’t mind – there will be Parthian shots, but neo-liberalism has discredited itself by failing to produce the prosperity it promised.

                    The UK educated left is pretty sick of war too – recent ones were nothing to be proud of.

                    The PLP weren’t moderates, they were sell-outs like the Rogergnomes.

                    • Alan …
                      26 September 2016 at 1:32 pm

                      I disagree about Corbyn not being an extremist, but putting that aside, he still has the problem that many of his backers are unreservedly extremist and thus he is tainted by association.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      26 September 2016 at 2:08 pm

                      Not more than the Tories are tainted by their association with privatisation deals that went wrong like rail, or ones to come that no sane person wants like the selloff of the NHS. Spare us your fearmongering hysteria and wait and see what happens.

                  • KJT …
                    29 September 2016 at 5:52 pm

                    Mistaking Neo-Liberals for moderates shows the reality disconnect we have to deal with.

                    30 years of propaganda is hard to counter.

              • locus …
                26 September 2016 at 3:27 am

                20 September 2016 –

                The two most recent polls, from YouGov and Ipsos MORI, both showed the Tory lead falling a bit – YouGov had a lead of 7 points (down from 11), MORI a lead of 6 points (down from 11). (They had the Tory lead at 7 and 8 points in August too) and the MORI poll is probably at least partially a reversion to the mean after an anomalously high 45% score for the Tories in their previous poll. Nevertheless, it may be a sign of Theresa May’s honeymoon continuing to fade.

                http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/voting-intention

          • KJT 29.2.2.2.2
            29 September 2016 at 5:43 pm

            “Hard Left”.

            Corbyn is about as “hard left” as Holyoak.

            Our pet RWNJ’s are truly on “planet Key”

      • mac1 29.2.3
        25 September 2016 at 6:41 pm

        I don’t believe it is necessary to increase taxes or to prevent the rich from leaving the country- all they should do, in terms of Christian, Muslim, or general ethical belief, is pay the taxation payable by them, rather than evade it. This sum is in the order of NZ$1.5-7 billion depending upon who is your authority.

        $1.5 billion per annum pays a lot of social bills. $7 billion, funnily enough, pays even more.

        Somewhere, by allowing the richer to get even richer, especially when dodging tax and being bludgers from their social responsibilities, we have allowed to eventuate an Aotearoa/New Zealand to develop of which the socially conscious amongst us are not proud.

        I would dearly love to see, before my generation passes on, New Zealand return to older values so that people generally see that they have neighbours to care for, who might even live in the next town, that taxation is part of our debt and our obligation to society, that indeed the answer to the question “Who is our Neighbour” is “All of Us.”

      • Anno1701 29.2.4
        26 September 2016 at 1:20 pm

        “You forgot;

        12. Make it illegal for rich people to leave the country.
        13. Decide on best locations for bread and toilet paper queues.”

        “but but but venezula”

        your pathetic….

      • Macro 29.2.5
        26 September 2016 at 9:49 pm

        burt why would we stop the rich from leaving the country – we can’t afford to keep them as it is!

    • Draco T Bastard 29.3
      25 September 2016 at 6:28 pm

      1. A state house for every one who wants one on a needs basis. Rent set at 25% of household income
      2. Maximum income of $100k. Everything over that taxed at 100%
      3. Yep. Need to stop using private citizens to subsidize business
      4. UBI set at least the same rate as the present pension
      5. See 2.
      6. Yep and probably renegotiate for the 21st century
      7. Critical
      8. this already happens and they get better pay rises more often
      9. Reduce the dairy herd to provide enough for the country only
      10. Yep
      11. Eliminating trade agreements doesn’t actually have to stop trade

      Lets put an end to neo-lib greed and selfishness.

      QFT

      • rsbandit 29.3.1
        25 September 2016 at 6:49 pm

        Excellent post, Draco

      • Colonial Viper 29.3.2
        25 September 2016 at 7:12 pm

        ” 2. Maximum income of $100k. Everything over that taxed at 100%”

        So you’re going to slash the income of doctors, university lecturers, mid level lawyers and mining machine operators? That’ll strike a blow against capitalism.

        • Draco T Bastard 29.3.2.1
          25 September 2016 at 10:58 pm

          They’ll adjust and so will the market.

          • Matthew Whitehead 29.3.2.1.1
            27 September 2016 at 11:23 pm

            Honestly we could tax them at 90% and not have that kick in until an even higher income and it’d still be sufficient.

            You could even peg it to some multiplier of last year’s median wage so that there’s an incentive to pay working people more. 😉

      • Gosman 29.3.3
        25 September 2016 at 7:48 pm

        You obviously have no idea about the purposes of trade.

      • KJT 29.3.4
        29 September 2016 at 5:48 pm

        Draco. If they got less than $100k nobody would do my job.

        Let alone take the years necessary to gain a surgeons qualifications. They would end up earning less in their lifetime than a school dropout.

        A return to 60% top tax rate would allow New Zealand to function. In fact income taxes could be reduced if we had wealth taxes, so that the tax was shared more evenly.

        Most people on the rich list have a taxable income of less than 70K.

      • KJT 29.3.5
        29 September 2016 at 5:48 pm

        Draco. If they got less than $100k nobody would do my job.

        Let alone take the years necessary to gain a surgeons qualifications. They would end up earning less in their lifetime than a school dropout.

        A return to 60% top tax rate would allow New Zealand to function. In fact income taxes could be reduced if we had wealth taxes, so that the tax was shared more evenly.

        I.E. The same tax rates as Australia. Which do not seem to have hurt them.

        Most people on the rich list have a taxable income of less than 70K.

        At present they could not afford to own a house in Auckland, either.

    • Richard Rawshark 29.4
      25 September 2016 at 7:21 pm

      #9 Restrictions to farming, in certain area’s to certain types of farming depending on the land, ecology and water availability and nationally monitor stock numbers and irrigation with a view to properly allocating these resources.

      Seems we cannot trust the farmers to govern/police themselves and not over tax the environment. Who would have thought eh.

      #7 Not dissing woman but I work hard most of the time more than the other lazy sods, Shouldn’t what ones paid reflect what one contributes.

      When we say pay shouldn’t be sexist, should it be decided at all on ones gender?

      2/3&5 Bit harsh on the old business owner, increasing their taxes and upping the bottom wage is to much at once. IMHO

    • Groundhog 29.5
      25 September 2016 at 10:52 pm

      Sounds like a recipe for economic ruin.

      • KJT 29.5.1
        29 September 2016 at 6:37 pm

        That recipe made us one of the countries with the highest standard of livings in the world.

        Our direction for the last 30 years has dropped us down against everyone, including Australia.

        Even the OECD have said that our, almost unique, Neo-liberal puritanism has dropped more than 20% of the growth we could have had since then.

        Only Argentina, under a brutal Dictatorship went further and faster. It took them decades to recover. I suspect we may not recover at all.

        • Groundhog 29.5.1.1
          3 October 2016 at 10:15 pm

          “That recipe made us one of the countries with the highest standard of livings in the world.”

          No it didn’t. That would be having a captive market for everything we make. Good old mother England and her Empire. What we have had since the 1980’s is much needed reform. What we have now is a strong, vibrant economy. And certainly not anything approaching neo-liberalism.

  30. Bill 30
    25 September 2016 at 5:43 pm

    According to the link given below…

    Given that registered supporters had to pay £25 to register, we can safely assume that all of those would have voted given the chance. Not absolutely every member would necessarily have voted if they could, but in such a contentious contest, the percentage would have been very high.

    But let’s be cautious and say only 80% would have and couldn’t, because of suspensions or because they simply didn’t receive their ballot (a situation we already knew was high).

    That means over 172,000 would-be voters were unable to participate in the election – of which the vast majority would incontestably have voted for Corbyn – almost as many as Smith was able to win in total (193 219) and far more than his share if the 128,000 12/1/16 voters had not been excluded.

    https://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2016/09/24/the-numbers-labour-did-not-want-you-to-see-on-tv-this-morning-and-why/

  31. fisiani 31
    25 September 2016 at 8:45 pm

    The scale of authoritarian state control over how people choose to live their lives demonstrated on this thread is breathtaking. Why do the Left always want to impose on people what the Left think ( actually know) is good for them? This Talibanic thinking of state control is so reminiscent of Venezuela and North Korea. No wonder there will probably never be another Labour government ever again in New Zealand. People want freedom.

    • RedLogix 31.1
      25 September 2016 at 9:03 pm

      You should stick with the sycophancy mate.

    • Chris 31.2
      25 September 2016 at 9:06 pm

      How can a blog demonstrate authoritarian state control over anyone?

      Seriously though, does that mean you believe that the Right aren’t into authoritarian state control over people?

      How many hungry and cold and homeless people, not just individuals but whole families, do you think there are in NZ who’re just yearning for a right-wing government that provides the freedom not to be hungry and cold and homeless?

      Not everyone is the same.

      Explain what you mean by freedom. Freedom to do what?

      • fisiani 31.2.1
        25 September 2016 at 9:33 pm

        We do not have the Right in New Zealand. We have the Centre-Right and fairly obviously is it far more Centre than Right.
        Homes, as you well know, are being built for the 1400 homeless people as quickly as humanly possible.
        https://national.org.nz/about
        https://national.org.nz/plan

        The NZ Left constantly want to restrict freedom. It is absolute arrogance and no wonder the working class do not want a bar of it and that’s why they are flocking to National. I pick 49-50%.

    • Ad 31.3
      25 September 2016 at 9:13 pm

      Conservative governments love states at least as big as the old lefties.
      It’s just the conservatives like big military states and big intelligence states.
      Just depends what kind of Taleban you want.

      As for freedom, well, Mama Cass got your version right when she said
      ‘Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose’

    • Macro 31.4
      25 September 2016 at 9:13 pm

      “People want freedom.”
      And they have it! Only the freedoms you offer are so very unequal. There can be a great deal of difference between appearance and reality.

    • ropata 31.5
      25 September 2016 at 11:37 pm

      fisiani thinks blog comments are Labour policy?

      didn’t know we we so powerful/relevant

      and most of us aren’t even members of the LP! 🤔

    • Anno1701 31.6
      26 September 2016 at 1:23 pm

      “People want freedom.”

      Muh freedom !!!

      freedom to do what exactly ?

      • Groundhog 31.6.1
        29 September 2016 at 2:50 pm

        Great question!

        Freedom to express ourselves about issues without ‘trigger warnings’ put up for weak minded fools.

        Freedom to think our own thoughts and promote our own views without indoctrination by left wing bigots who have infiltrated our universities, hell bent on suppressing free thought.

        Freedom to compete for jobs, places at universities and any other limited resources without reference to our place of birth or the colour of our skin.

        Freedom to earn a living without being robbed by socialist governments who want to give our money to those who are satisfied doing nothing.

        How’s that for starters?

        • KJT 31.6.1.1
          29 September 2016 at 6:46 pm

          “Freedom to earn a living without being robbed by socialist governments who want to give our money to those who are satisfied doing nothing”.

          I take it you will never:
          Call the police.
          Send your children to a school subsidised by taxes. In New Zealand this includes all “Private Schools”.
          Need the army to help you in a natural disaster.
          Use public roads.
          Swim at a beach patrolled by surf lifesavers.
          Use a public library, footpath or public park.
          Use a sports ground.
          Go to hospital.
          Go to court to enforce a contract.

          Etc, Etc.

          All paid for by taxes.

          Funny how the ACTIODS want to use all the things provided by the “Socialists” but never want to pay for them. Bludgers!

          • Groundhog 31.6.1.1.1
            2 October 2016 at 4:20 pm

            Where did I say that any of those people do nothing? Funny how you jumped to conclusions.

        • Anno1701 31.6.1.2
          6 October 2016 at 3:00 pm

          “How’s that for starters?”

          50 years Gulag for you

          Hows THAT for starters ?

          “robbed by socialist governments” you mean basically the ENTIRE CIVILIZED world you realize ?

          looks like we are gonna need to build that gulag on the moon !

          • Groundhog 31.6.1.2.1
            6 October 2016 at 6:23 pm

            “50 years Gulag for you”

            Oh a delightfully socialist answer!!

            • Morrissey 31.6.1.2.1.1
              6 October 2016 at 6:27 pm

              Groundhog, I notice a bunch of humorless attempts at humor from you in the last few minutes. That’s not a good idea, since you seem to lack the smarts for it. Why don’t you haul yourself off to some place you’ll be appreciated, like Cameron Slater’s cesspit?

            • Anno1701 31.6.1.2.1.2
              7 October 2016 at 11:02 am

              “Oh a delightfully socialist answer!!”

              thats 100 years gulag now

              anything else to say ?

    • KJT 31.7
      29 September 2016 at 6:16 pm

      Not the left who want increased State surveillance, increased police powers and other manifestations of an authoritarian State.
      In NZ that comes from the right wing, including the right wing of the Labour party.

    • Macro 32.1
      25 September 2016 at 10:36 pm

      what’s that got to do with the price of chicken?

      • Chris 32.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 11:51 pm

        I think it’s a good sign. Little ain’t the most inspiring leader, but if he’s fronting up and saying Labour’s not going to compete with Key et al for command of “the middle ground” then thank fucking god.

        A different story if that’s rubbish and it’s more of the same, which wouldn’t be surprising, but at least finally Labour’s saying something.

        Don’t hold your breath, of course, but it’s better than the silence those pricks have been hiding behind for decades now. Perhaps the UK situation is having an influence?

        • Wayne 32.1.1.1
          26 September 2016 at 6:53 am

          Yes it would be terrible to compete on the middle ground even though that is where the voters who change their votes are. Much better to go hard left for the 20% of voters who are committed true believers.
          Only one minor problem – Winston gets to dictate the terms of the coalition/surrender.

          • Paul 32.1.1.1.1
            26 September 2016 at 7:14 am

            I am sure Labour should be taking its ideas from Tories.

          • Chris 32.1.1.1.2
            26 September 2016 at 11:28 am

            But 20% is about all that competing for the middle ground has got them. That 20% will always be there. It comes from the destructively unquestioning robotic Labour diehards. Has been time to change the strategy for a long time.

            • BM 32.1.1.1.2.1
              26 September 2016 at 11:35 am

              Labour hasn’t been centrist since Helen Clark departed the scene.

              This 20% is because the voter sees Labour as being very left.

              • Chris …
                26 September 2016 at 12:28 pm

                But 1999 to 2008 wasn’t because Labour were centrist. It was despite being centrist Helen Clark was seen as the best on offer at the time. Those flukes of history are all that will ever get Labour into government if it continues with its current position.

                The 20% is because Labour hasn’t had a leader seen as inspirational since 2008, lacks unity and has no message because it keeps competing with the right. That 20% will remain for as long as Labour stays centrist. It will grow if they move to the left.

                Labour’s recipe keeps failing, and they haven’t got the guts to even try returning to more traditional Labour values.

                It’s interesting that the main threat to UK Labour at the moment are the right wing bloc within the party. That says a heck of a lot.

                • BM …
                  26 September 2016 at 1:39 pm

                  It’s interesting that the main threat to UK Labour at the moment are the centrist bloc within the party. That says a heck of a lot.

                  fify

                  • Matthew Whitehead …
                    27 September 2016 at 11:27 pm

                    1) You can in fact have a right wing of a left wing party that are objectively right wing. Arguably the US Democrats even have “centrists” relative to their party that are objectively right wing. Labour is generally a liberal party in New Zealand, but it still had room for Shane Jones, who was a conservative.

                    2) If you think that New Labour in the UK aren’t right wing you don’t know what the term even means.

                • Groundhog …
                  29 September 2016 at 2:52 pm

                  Chris I believe Labour are confused about what those ‘more traditional values’ actually are.

          • Olwyn 32.1.1.1.3
            26 September 2016 at 12:04 pm

            …Little said his focus was…on forming “a coalition of constituencies”, such as low- and middle-income Kiwis concerned about issues like housing and those in the business sector unsatisfied with the Government’s efforts to grow the economy. What this suggests is that Little rejects the kit-set conceptualisation of the centre that is so popular with right wingers and their PR/media flunkies, and not the concerns of 80% of the population.

            Rather than deriding Little, you should perhaps reflect on the fact that the wealthiest 20% includes only 20% of the population, and that there’s limit to how long you can go on persuading a larger chunk of the general population that they are part of it.

            • Wayne 32.1.1.1.3.1
              26 September 2016 at 2:22 pm

              As David Farrar says what would Helen Clark know about winning elections.

              I well recall her pitch in 1999. It was about reassuring centre voters (literally the middle 20 to 30%) that she was a safe bet. Obviously she was more left than National, with the Employment Contract Acts being the obvious target for change.

              But no-one talked about the neo-liberal experiment as such in 1999. It was accepted that new Zealand was in a post Douglas era, and that policy had to reflect that.

              What has happened to NZ since 1999 when Helen won her first victory?Mostly the GFC and its after affects. But post the GFC Labour has been consistently under 30%, so there has been no post GFC benefit to Labour.

              Instead National has tacked toward the centre (not that Standardnistas would agree with that) and has hoovered up the majority of the centre vote. So long as the majority of this group vote National, then National will remain in power.

              The obvious solution for Labour is to detach these votes from National. It would usually be done with sensible policies that address their concerns, but does not radically change things.

              This approach worked for National in 2008 and it has won three elections. However, this approach is apparently seen as a craven sell out by Labour activists and apparently also by Andrew Little.

              • Chris …
                26 September 2016 at 2:42 pm

                “It would usually be done with sensible policies that address their concerns, but does not radically change things.”

                What would those “sensible” policies be?

                I think you’re wrong about the reasons Labour’s become irrelevant so it’d be interesting to see what you believe the policies are that will take votes from Key.

                • srylands …
                  28 September 2016 at 12:09 pm

                  I see Wayne did not answer. So I will have a go. There are so many that could easily put Labour in Government:

                  1. Properly price greenhouse emissions and congestion – petrol should be at least $3 per litre to encourage public transport use. invest in efficient buses (no NOT bloody trains)

                  2. Introduce a capital gains tax on ALL assets

                  3. Implement all NZPC recommendations on urban planning and housing. Set mandated targets for each council of income/house price ratios.

                  4. Reduce the coverage of local government and reform its financing to include a poll tax.

                  5. Increase unemployment benefits for those unemployed for less than 12 months to 80% of salary up to 2 x average weekly earnings.

                  6. Progressively increase national super eligibility to 70 over 30 years.

                  7 Introduce compulsory workplace savings scheme.

                  I could go on and on. These are some obvious policies that would increase fairness and prosperity.

                  It is time for Labour to get some guts. It would be so easy to formulate good policy. But they can’t, it seems.

                  • KJT …
                    29 September 2016 at 5:31 pm

                    1. Hit poor people hard in the pocket. Yeah right.
                    Only going to work with the Greens tax emissions and return a dividend.
                    2. Actually is sensible. However a CGT on family homes would make any Government proposing it unelectable in Auckland.
                    3. Unfortunately fixing the supply side in housing will never work unless speculative demand is reduced. Immigration for one.
                    4. The poll tax that lost the Tories in UK and election. Rtaes are really the only “wealth tax” we have, however imperfect. Wealth taxes should be increased, not dropped to capture in the tax system all those millionaires who are taxed at less than 70k income.
                    5. Actually a good idea, from Countries such as Sweden. Extending ACC to sickness and unemployment, on the same basis, is an excellent proposition.
                    6. One of the stupidest ideas ever to come from the right wing, including lefties who should know better. Comes from parasitic drones who can work until 80 because they have done nothing useful all their lives. Would put the final gravestone on our regional towns and any young people left, who have jobs looking after pensioners.
                    The pension has been so successful in removing poverty in the elderly it should be extended to everyone.
                    7. How about giving workers back some power. So they actually have enough to save. Right wingers seem to be unaware of the “paradox of thrift”. The ;last thing NZ needs is even more money going into the bottomless pit of the money markets to disappear in OBR or the next GFC.

                  • KJT …
                    29 September 2016 at 6:29 pm

                    Srylands. If Petrol was $3 a litre, trains, and ships, will replace trucks and buses.

                    That’s if the idiots in National do not take away the already electrified part of the main trunk line.

              • Stuart Munro …
                26 September 2016 at 2:53 pm

                National didn’t tack toward the centre – it faked it.

                Fake benefit increases.
                Fake economic growth.
                Fake unemployment stats.
                No foreign buyer data at all because the truth is so shameful.

                Thing is, you can’t fake it forever. People need houses and jobs and the Gnats never did the work that would create them.

                They took their salaries under false pretences and betrayed their country.

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  27 September 2016 at 11:30 pm

                  Um, actual benefit increases, just not enough of them.

                  This is really one area where Labour doesn’t have room to criticise National, and needs to shut up and just let the Greens provide credibility. Benefits need to raise further and be less punitive for a healthy society. But there’s no way Labour is ever going to champion such a policy.

                • srylands …
                  28 September 2016 at 12:11 pm

                  “Fake unemployment stats.”

                  The Government does not produce such statistics. You are lying. Again. As usual.

                  Statistics New Zealand is solely responsible for such statistics.

                  • KJT …
                    29 September 2016 at 5:33 pm

                    Who told stats NZ to say 1 hour a week is a job?

                    If you think it was not the Government, I have a Pacific Island hotel to sell you.

              • Anne …
                26 September 2016 at 3:59 pm

                … what would Helen Clark know about winning elections.

                Apologies if I’m misreading… but what is that supposed to mean? That David Farrar thinks she knows nothing about winning elections?

                I well recall her pitch in 1999. It was about reassuring centre voters (literally the middle 20 to 30%) that she was a safe bet.

                Not quite right from my recollection. She was responding to attempts by National to create fear among the populace about what she would do if elected. She assured voters they were – and I paraphrase – safe from harm.

                … post the GFC Labour has been consistently under 30%, so there has been no post GFC benefit to Labour.

                I think that had more to do with the fact the NActs finally succeeded in hoodwinking the voters they were on top of the consequences despite all the evidence to the contrary. And btw, Labour has been above 30% on numerous occasions since 2008. It’s just the MSM are more inclined to play down the ‘ups’ and play up the ‘downs’.

                National has tacked toward the centre…

                You have to be joking. As Stuart Munro points out @2:53pm… they faked the so-called move to the centre and he gives good examples.

                It would usually be done with sensible policies that address their concerns, but does not radically change things.

                Which is precisely what Labour has flagged will be happening – see education, health, housing and other social macro-policy planks already announced. NO, they will not release the minutia until closer to the election and you are well aware of the reason why. Labour has had too many experiences over the decades of National stealing their policies.

                Labour and the Greens (you happily leave the Greens out of the equation and I wonder why – sarc) will win the next election with sound, sensible ‘alternative’ policies that are attractive across the political spectrum.

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  27 September 2016 at 11:32 pm

                  Farrar is trying to rubbish people saying Labour should go left by saying that Helen Clark knew what she was doing by tilting right to get into Government.

                  Farrar is of course, as usual, completely wrong in a relatively reasonably worded way.

                • KJT …
                  29 September 2016 at 6:20 pm

                  National has adopted just enough “left wing” Labour/Green policies to make a majority of voters consider them sensible.

                  Underneath, the lying and thieving, continues as usual.

              • KJT …
                29 September 2016 at 6:25 pm

                Wayne.

                National has lied, cheated, fudged statistics and funnily enough, adopted some very obvious left wing policies from Labour. The minimum required, to stay in power. (Seems to suggest that the electorate actually prefer left wing policies).

                I hope you are proud of being associated with a bunch of thieves, frauds and lairs.?

          • KJT 32.1.1.1.4
            29 September 2016 at 6:18 pm

            Wayne is worried that a vaguely left Government will get rid of whatever highly paid sinecure he secured after he left politics.

          • KJT 32.1.1.1.5
            29 September 2016 at 7:05 pm

            The middle ground that like right wing policies so much, that National has to lie to them about unemployment and housing, to get their votes.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 32.2
      26 September 2016 at 1:44 pm

      Everyone hold the bus. After all, Fisiani isn’t exactly a credible anything.

      It’s an interesting choice of headline. Not exactly supported by the body of the article. Neither is Fisiani’s effluent.

  33. rhinocrates 33
    26 September 2016 at 10:31 am

    Jonathan Pie on media groupthink and “electability”: