IS Jeremy Corbyn the most popular Labour leader ever?

He gets thousands attending his speeches, he get standing ovations wherever he goes and he has been voted in twice as labour leader with the biggest victory of any labour leader.

Whatever the result tomorrow, among labour supporters is he the most popular labour leader ever?

Maybe Attlee and people actually voted for him which is almost as (read: much more) important.

There was some guy in the 90's and 00's who won three general elections but getting a crowd in Sunderland matters more than that.

Is he the most handsomest as well?

I'll be honest I don't really get the point of this thread.

JC seems to be the most popular labour leader ever for labour supporters. Will he stay after this election if he loses?

If this is going to serve as an actual discussion thread rather than an opportunity to fluff Corbyn, I'm of the belief that any leader of the major parties that lose a GE should resign. Labour are supposed to be aspiring to government, not a protest party

Musclular-mouse wrote:JC seems to be the most popular labour leader ever for labour supporters. Will he stay after this election if he loses?

Where does this rank?

I genuinely don't think any other Labour leader would lose this election, there's a very vocal minority that support him but overall support simply isn't there otherwise it would be a foregone conclusion that he'd be prime minister tomorrow.

GSC wrote:If this is going to serve as an actual discussion thread rather than an opportunity to fluff Corbyn, I'm of the belief that any leader of the major parties that lose a GE should resign. Labour are supposed to be aspiring to government, not a protest party

Labour are in a precarious position right now. They've got a lot of vocal and highly motivated support because of their shift left with the election of Corbyn and the Blairites being pushed away. However they are clearly not making an impact on swing voters or those who are voting Conservative in this election. Rejecting those that have supported them in this election may leave them in a poorer position, but it's hard to see them changing the minds of the voters they need to push them over the line. They also need SNP to lose a lot of support in Scotland for them to have a chance of gaining the necessary seats there to push the Conservatives. 

I was a lot less firmly in Labour's camp under Gordon Brown (before I could vote) and then Ed Milliband then I am now. I hated their wishy washy principles, which seemed to amount to nothing more than "whatever gets us elected" as well as weak leadership. I was disappointed with how Corbyn has handled himself in opposition, as he's not come down hard enough on the Conservatives but I've been impressed with the way he has conducted this election campaign. 

I want Corbyn to stay on because this is the first election in my memory that there has been a clear choice in terms of who to vote for rather than just different shades of basically the same thing. He's a positive politician as well, which is refreshing. He'd have been helped if he'd had more support from the other MPs of his party, but they're obviously free to disagree with him. It's just a shame that they are so self-serving that they would rather spite Corbyn at the country's detriment rather than back Corbyn and then try to change things in power. 

Unfortunately I suspect it will be a long time before the Conservatives are no longer in government. Considering they're likely to win this election comfortably, I just don't see, bar a total economic collapse caused by their hand, how the Conservatives won't continue to get elected.

Labour just fail to do the basics. Give Corbyn a shave and buy him some new clothes and it would bump up his popularity a lot, so why would they not.

It's just a shame that they are so self-serving that they would rather spite Corbyn at the country's detriment rather than back Corbyn and then try to change things in power.

Twisting this around, is it not selfish of Corbyn to persist down a path with no realistic hope of ever getting into power rather than working with the MPs to secure a voice for the hard left at the top of Labour while presenting a package that can win marginal from the Tories?

It's more slightly hypocritical for Corbyn to demand the same loyalty from his MPs that he never showed to other Labour leader's.

Scottrf wrote:Labour just fail to do the basics. Give Corbyn a shave and buy him some new clothes and it would bump up his popularity a lot, so why would they not.

I don't really care about that to be honest, but it strikes at a larger problem, for Corbyn and his supporters, ideology is far more important than ever being in power to implement any of it. It's the same reason the Lib Dems still get flak for compromising on some points to get others they deemed higher importance

GSC wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Labour just fail to do the basics. Give Corbyn a shave and buy him some new clothes and it would bump up his popularity a lot, so why would they not.

I don't really care about that to be honest, but it strikes at a larger problem, for Corbyn and his supporters, ideology is far more important than ever being in power to implement any of it. It's the same reason the Lib Dems still get flak for compromising on some points to get others  they deemed higher importance

Surely it's the opposite reason...Lib Dems willing to let go of ideology in other to have an impact elsewhere.

GSC wrote:It's just a shame that they are so self-serving that they would rather spite Corbyn at the country's detriment rather than back Corbyn and then try to change things in power.

Twisting this around, is it not selfish of Corbyn to persist down a path with no realistic hope of ever getting into power rather than working with the MPs to secure a voice for the hard left at the top of Labour while presenting a package that can win marginal from the Tories?

It's more slightly hypocritical for Corbyn to demand the same loyalty from his MPs that he never showed to other Labour leader's.

To be fair, the manifesto has made compromises on Corbyn's own views. As Jeremy Paxman kept pointing out, there was plenty in the manifesto that Corbyn either disagreed with or was not fully supportive of. The problem with presenting a package that would convince those that would otherwise vote for Conservatives is essentially compromising to the point of the principles being meaningless. 

I also think there is a difference between not backing your party whilst in government and not backing your party when trying to get a government elected. As I said in that post, get elected then try and change things from within. I appreciate though, that those party members believe that Corbyn isn't electable and so that wasn't an option. It's ended up being self-serving though with one of the majorly held views of Corbyn being that his MPs don't support him, which in turn makes him less electable from the perspective of the electorate.

Scottrf wrote:Labour just fail to do the basics. Give Corbyn a shave and buy him some new clothes and it would bump up his popularity a lot, so why would they not.

Would it? Theresa May is an incredibly odd looking woman who seems to can't control her mouth to be put into shapes that she wants and she's about to get elected. She also has that weird Cristiano Ronaldo power stance. 

Beards are currently pretty popular, so I don't think necessarily being clean shaven would make a difference. 

Part of what has made Corbyn so popular amongst his supporters is the fact that he is principled, whether that is campaigning for the same things for the past 30 years or the fact that he dresses in a way that he feels comfortable. I don't think making Corbyn "cleaner" would help.

Which kind of sums up the problem at the moment. Corbyn is popular amongst his supporters for things that people on the edges dislike him for. Drop some things and he loses vocal support, but could gain support from marginals.

The MPs have largely played ball since he got 're elected. What's harmed him more is the MPs on his side, he's got a relative D team forming his shadow cabinet.

The MPs thing is probably way down the list to be honest.

GSC wrote:The MPs have largely played ball since he got 're elected. What's harmed him more is the MPs on his side, he's got a relative D team forming his shadow cabinet.

The MPs thing is probably way down the list to be honest.

Is May's cabinet that much better though? She's got Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary for Christ's sake. Phillip Hammond is her Chancellor but has been hidden away. Jeremy Hunt is probably one of the most hated people in the country. Liam Fox had to resign either because of at best stupidity and at worst out-right corruption. She's hardly got an A Team.

Crimey wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Labour just fail to do the basics. Give Corbyn a shave and buy him some new clothes and it would bump up his popularity a lot, so why would they not.

Would it? Theresa May is an incredibly odd looking woman who seems to can't control her mouth to be put into shapes that she wants and she's about to get elected. She also has that weird Cristiano Ronaldo power stance. 

Beards are currently pretty popular, so I don't think necessarily being clean shaven would make a difference. 

Part of what has made Corbyn so popular amongst his supporters is the fact that he is principled, whether that is campaigning for the same things for the past 30 years or the fact that he dresses in a way that he feels comfortable. I don't think making Corbyn "cleaner" would help.

Which kind of sums up the problem at the moment. Corbyn is popular amongst his supporters for things that people on the edges dislike him for. Drop some things and he loses vocal support, but could gain support from marginals.

Yeah it would. It affects perceptions and he looks like a tramp more than a leader. Shouldn't matter but it definitively does. Big companies have style consultants, American politicians do focus groups/polling on what to wear for debates.

Would be amazed if May is as popular as Cameron.

Personally I much prefer Corbyn's look than other recent politicians.

Crimey wrote:

GSC wrote:The MPs have largely played ball since he got 're elected. What's harmed him more is the MPs on his side, he's got a relative D team forming his shadow cabinet.

The MPs thing is probably way down the list to be honest.

Is May's cabinet that much better though? She's got Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary for Christ's sake. Phillip Hammond is her Chancellor but has been hidden away. Jeremy Hunt is probably one of the most hated people in the country. Liam Fox had to resign either because of at best stupidity and at worst out-right corruption. She's hardly got an A Team.

Doesn't really need to be though. Put Yvette Cooper up against Rudd and she has a fight on her hands. Against Diane Abbott she barely blinks. The Tories own MPs force more of a threat to Hammond than McDonnell and Corbyn.

Much depends on your leaning to reporting bias. Rudd got figures all over the shop, Johnson is a blithering racist. People have been sucked into this Abbott stuff and it's been appallingly dumb of them.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Much depends on your leaning to reporting bias. Rudd got figures all over the shop, Johnson is a blithering racist. People have been sucked into this Abbott stuff and it's been appallingly dumb of them.

Sounds a very leftie point of view and Diane Abbott has been rightfully trounced by the media for being an incompetent blithering idiot.

You mean the right wing media attacked a labour figure?!

I'm no fan, but it's all a bit below the belt now.

Abbott isn't even really a point of discussion, but the consistent digs have been sad. I don't like when it becomes attack politics towards people, especially when Theresa May is floundering and takes a dog off topic.

She did say that police would cost £7.50 per officer per year.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:You mean the right wing media attacked a labour figure?!

I'm no fan, but it's all a bit below the belt now.

Abbott isn't even really a point of discussion, but the consistent digs have been sad. I don't like when it becomes attack politics towards people, especially when Theresa May is floundering and takes a dog off topic.

Just like the left wing media have been attacking Theresa May but you haven't mentioned that once instead defending the right wing politician at any given opportunity. Someone that incompetent being Shadow home secretary is a point of discussion but that doesn't suit your narrative so you're against it but it suits mine so I'm all for it.

The interview where she pretended to have read a report 48 hours after a terrorist attack in London was one of the cringiest things I've seen.

Potential home secretary wanting to pay police officers 0.3p per hour is news.

GSC wrote:It's just a shame that they are so self-serving that they would rather spite Corbyn at the country's detriment rather than back Corbyn and then try to change things in power.

Twisting this around, is it not selfish of Corbyn to persist down a path with no realistic hope of ever getting into power rather than working with the MPs to secure a voice for the hard left at the top of Labour while presenting a package that can win marginal from the Tories?

It's more slightly hypocritical for Corbyn to demand the same loyalty from his MPs that he never showed to other Labour leader's.

God forbid a politician goes by principles rather than popularity.

God forbid politicians actually want the opportunity to act on those principles

You cant act on principles you sacrifice in order to get elected.

Better to sacrifice some to act on others than sitting on your imagined moral high ground and accomplish nothing.

Samo wrote:You cant act on principles you sacrifice in order to get elected.

Catch 22 isn't and ultimately a waste of time.

GSC wrote:Better to sacrifice some to act on others than sitting on your imagined moral high ground and accomplish nothing.

But he has done that? The Labour manifesto is full of ideas that Corbyn disagrees with, but there have been compromises. If people don't want to elect that, I think that's as far as those compromises can go without him just not bothering standing. 

It's weird that for as long as I can remember people have been calling for a real choice in an election and politicians with principles and then when one comes along, they're like "no thanks" I'll stick with the old crew.

Always been a bigger fan of competency to be honest, which is why I'm not voting for either (if I even do)

If you value competence then there's only one choice: Paul Nuttall.

The man was competent enough to oversee the end of apartheid in South Africa and the Manhattan Project.

Crimey wrote:

GSC wrote:Better to sacrifice some to act on others than sitting on your imagined moral high ground and accomplish nothing.

But he has done that? The Labour manifesto is full of ideas that Corbyn disagrees with, but there have been compromises. If people don't want to elect that, I think that's as far as those compromises can go without him just not bothering standing. 

It's weird that for as long as I can remember people have been calling for a real choice in an election and politicians with principles and then when one comes along, they're like "no thanks" I'll stick with the old crew.

To be fair, this wasn't an ordinary election *coughBrexitcough*

If you took the EU membership issue out of the equation, I think its quite realistic that Labour could have won an overall majority.

Also, politics has always been about compromise. All parties compromise to some extent, in order to try and win as much of the centre ground as possible, while also retaining their traditional core support.

In the end your choice has to come down to how many of their policies you agree with and whether or not you think they can / will actually deliver.