26 Comments

• Ed Moss 29th Sep '15 - 2:34pm

  Bloomin’ ‘eck. If he thanks any more people and does any more back-slapping, it’ll be time for EastEnders .

• Eddie Sammon 29th Sep '15 - 2:52pm

  We all need to put pressure on Twitter journalists to be realistic about Corbyn. I think I managed to toughen Andrew Sparrow up slightly after complaining he was mixing opinion with reporting to the point where it was affecting the accuracy.

  I also wrote a very polite complaint about an Isabel Hardman article in the Spectator. There’s no way that Corbyn had a “very good” interview on Sunday.

  Journalists on social media are either a bit too out of touch or overly concerned with personal relationships. They need to be more willing to say when what someone is saying is going to be problematic for many watching at home.

  They do a good job, but we need a bit more of the BBC’s professionalism, especially in reporting.

• Ruth Bright 29th Sep '15 - 2:59pm

  He begins by thanking everyone he’s ever met. Tim’s speech began by taking us on a short tour of life in the eighties. Both eccentric but quite endearing starts.

• A Social Liberal 29th Sep '15 - 3:18pm

  Well, he put the Labour cyber bullies on the naughty step by telling them to stop misbehaving – but how many on our right will applaud him for that.

  To be frank I find the hysteria of our right wing highly amusing – just note Joe’s other thread (McDonnells speech) https://www.libdemvoice.org/susan-kramer-responds-to-john-mcdonnell-speech-47706.html

  [off topic content removed]

• Matt (Bristol) 29th Sep '15 - 3:20pm

  On another point, I note the Grauniad is reporting Alistair Carmichael’s case is to be admitted to the election court for a formal hearing… ooohhh…

• Phyllis 29th Sep '15 - 3:29pm

  Eddie Sammon, do you mean the Andrew Marr interview? I thought it was good.

• Stephen Howse 29th Sep '15 - 3:48pm

  A Social Liberal writes: “To be frank I find the hysteria of our right wing highly amusing.”

  “Hey kettle, you’re black. Love, the pot.”

  As for the speech itself, it was dull, and it had little to offer to those not in the conference hall.

• Joe Otten 29th Sep '15 - 4:00pm

  Social, this comment does suggest extreme tribalism.

  “Well, he put the Labour cyber bullies on the naughty step by telling them to stop misbehaving – but how many on our right will applaud him for that.”

  I don’t know whether you consider me to be “on our right”, but clearly I have quoted/paraphrased a number of things approvingly, and this is one of them.

  But what makes you think this is a left-right issue?

  Corbyn was ticking off his own supporters for abusing Blairites. The other big recent cyberbullying problem recently comes from the cybernats, who – at least by self-description – are centre-left. So if it were a left-right thing, you would expect the left to be worse than the right.

  But of course it isn’t. You get bullies everywhere in politics.

• Eddie Sammon 29th Sep '15 - 4:03pm

  Phyllis, yes the Andrew Marr one. He was given two soft-ball questions at the start “are you bringing a load of communist revolutionaries into the party (paraphrased)?” and he failed to say he wasn’t. He got better as it went on, but I thought the start was worse than anything Ed Miliband would have said.

  Guardian is quite critical of Corbyn’s speech. I must say, I can’t believe how long it went on. Will try to read it properly later.

• Joe Otten 29th Sep '15 - 4:27pm

  Snap verdict from the Guardian here http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/sep/29/labour-conference-jeremy-corbyns-speech-politics-live#block-560a9f15e4b00e76364a2296

  It was about an hour, which all Labour leaders’ speeches have been since Brown. It just seemed longer because it meandered.

• Glenn 29th Sep '15 - 4:33pm

  Eddie.
  “I thought” is not actually objective. It’s your opinion and why should anyone believe your opinion is more objective than Phyllis’. The big problem with the notion of objectivity in reporting is that there isn’t any because too much news coverage is actually opinion and comment pretending to be more than that. How some one did or didn’t do in an interview is always a subjective value judgement not a fact The only factual element of the Corbyn interview is that he was interviewed and answered some questions. Honestly. I sometimes think news should be delivered by robots and should consist of reportage saying This happened and that happened. All the comment stuff should be issued with brief warning stating the content maybe biased etc.

• malc 29th Sep '15 - 5:16pm

  He seems a man that wants to help those in need and that’s a refreshing change from many recent political leaders. However, his support of the IRA at the height of the troubles means he has absolutely no chance of winning a GE. When Gerry Adams was saying that the IRA were right to target the wives and children of British servicemen – after the baby daughter of a serviceman had just been murdered by the IRA – Corbyn was inviting Adams round for a cup of tea. He will never be forgiven by many voters in the Labour strongholds in the north and certainly shouldn’t be. Unfortunately UKIP and the Tories are likely to be the big gainers here. Come the GE the Tory press will destroy him.

• John Marriott 29th Sep '15 - 5:23pm

  The beige man was performing to his conference. Whether his message resonated further afield is debatable. If you are in a reasonable job with prospects (like my two married sons and many of their friends) or retired on an end of salary pension (like me and my wife) life is pretty good. It reminds me of the Tories’ 1959 General Election slogan “Life is better under the Conservatives. Don’t let Labour ruin it!”
  However, if the world’s economy hits the buffers again (look at China and what’s happened this week in Redcar for the danger signs) all bets are off. If this happens it is quite conceivable that people will turn to parties offering very different solutions as happened in Greece and look how much good that did. What did Roger Daltrey sing? “Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss”.

• Glenn Andrews 29th Sep '15 - 5:39pm

  Very… Farron Lite I thought.

• Dave Orbison 29th Sep '15 - 6:28pm

  My take on Corbyn’s speech: Strongly committed, to human rights, refugees, house building, green issues, to protect the vulnerable especially from welfare cuts, passionate support of peace processes and an emphatic condemnation of all forms of violence, support for the importance of the UN mandate, critical of the Iraq war, against anti-trade union legislation, a believer in bottom-up not top- down politics and a firm commitment to opening up policy decisions to the party members and not some political elite. Any of this sound familiar? It should do as Farron seemed to be on the same wavelength at least on many of these issues.
  One interesting difference between Corbyn’s and Farron’s speeches though, Corbyn made not one joke or quip about the LibDems. In fact he spoke in support of Paddy Ashdown. So how disappointing that this article selects quotes that adopts a more than ‘mocking and patronising’ tone towards Corbyn. Even suggesting that Corbyn has somehow ‘stolen’ ideas or concerns from the LibDems. Such causes are not owned by a political party they are issues that are owned (or ignored) by all the citizens in the UK. Even if he was guilty as charged, would you rather he dismiss, stay silent, or denounce such vitally important issues? If I have seen one word over and over again on LDV it is ‘tribalism’. It’s not something I was used to thinking about. But I came to understand what it meant and why LibDems felt Tories and Labour were indeed tribal. But increasingly I have been struck by the irony that when these criticisms are made on LDV by some contributors re other parties that they do so with a terrible sense of self-righteousness but with a profound lack of self-awareness.
  How about a little less put downs and jokes and little more serious politics? What was it that Clegg once promised about PMQ’s in 2010 – a more grown-up style of politics? Surely the time has come.

• Stephen Hesketh 29th Sep '15 - 7:06pm

  I agree with Caron Lyndsay’s tweet as above.

  Much of what is being reported on the today’s evening news represents widely held, common British value, non-Tory politics.

  I have absolutely no doubt concerning the illiberal aims and values of certain types of JC supporter but much of what he himself says has its roots along the philosophical boundary between Democratic Libertarian* Socialism and Social Liberal Democracy.

  [*In its pre-rightwing theft guise.]

  We must be very vigilant regarding those on the far right of our party who endlessly seek to move the Liberal Democrats away from our aims for a kinder, freer, fairer, more equal, democratic and sustainable society.

• Neil Sandison 29th Sep '15 - 7:24pm

  Watched the Labour conference on the parliament channel .it didn’t do much for the word conference in which you would to expect some conferring .Almost devoid of debate just an endless stream of union bosses and party spoke persons sabre rattling against the Tories but with little of substance .Corbyn oddly enough he reminded me of that other softely spoken leader of yester year Ian Duncan Smith .Wasn’t he successful !

• Eddie Sammon 29th Sep '15 - 9:30pm

  Hi Glenn, I don’t think my opinion is more objective, I’m just saying many Lib Dems won’t be a fan of Corbyn and if they agree that sometimes the press is too soft on him then they should complain and it can get results.

  I know the press being “too soft” is the opposite of what Corbyn has been claiming, but amongst the more serious papers and magazines some of them have been quite soft (in my opinion).

• Gareth Epps 29th Sep '15 - 9:53pm

  Too much glib tribalism here from the usual suspects. As my blog was delinked from the Lib Dem Blogs page, here’s some comment from before the speech,,when I knew as much about the content as I do now….
  http://www.garethepps.org.uk/?p=1434

• Joe Otten 30th Sep '15 - 10:54am

  Peter Kellner in the New Statesman has a long but very worthwhile article

  http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/09/opponents-jeremy-corbyn-are-running-out-road

  contrasting Labour’s lopsided debate on economic policy and their fudge of a new clause 4, with the German SPD equivalent from 1959: (excerpt)

  Totalitarian control of the economy destroys freedom. The Social Democratic Party therefore favours a free market wherever free competition really exists. Where a market is dominated by individuals or groups, however, all manner of steps must be taken to protect freedom in the economic sphere. As much competition as possible – as much planning as necessary.

  this is echoed in our party constitution preamble

  We want to see democracy, participation and the co-operative principle in industry and commerce within a competitive environment in which the state allows the market to operate freely where possible but intervenes where necessary.

  It is clear to Kellner that Corbyn is a pre-clause 4, pre-1959-SPD and clearly pre-gang-of-four-SDP-LibDem unrepentant socialist, and that Labour’s problem has been that those who understand the advantages of capitalism over socialism have been unwilling to articulate them.

  Clearly we would normally have, with Labour and with the Conservatives, and amongst ourselves, arguments over what interventions are necessary. That is grown up politics.

  The Corbyn wing of the Labour party is not interested in that argument. It believes, wrongly, that better economic outcomes are to be had through direct control by government. This is a different and more dangerous beast than Labour was under Milliband, Brown, Blair, Smith and Kinnock. Nostalgia for the Paddy & Blair project is utterly misplaced right now.

  Kellner rightly identifies the SPD’s advantage that it was much more interested in ideology, and so it fixed its ideology. Labour (owing more to Methodism than Marxism) is used arguing that it’s position is simply more ethical than anybody else’s – and seems unable to have a debate over what ideology is most ethical.

  There are lessons here for us. This is not the time to fudge our clause 4.

• Stephen Hesketh 30th Sep '15 - 1:25pm

  Joe Otten30th Sep ’15 – 10:54am

  I am sorry Joe but those wishing to fudge things are those who continuously subject us to the drip drip notion that the post Thatcherite economic agenda is the only path. That there is no alternative.

  I am, without reservation, happy with a mixed economy creating jobs, wealth, good services, opportunity etc but those who primarily think of themselves as economic Liberals do our party and philosophy a huge disservice in that they usually come across as a coalition of equidistance Centrists, right wing Liberals and liberal Conservatives.

  Ordinary people can see all to clearly what has gone wrong with unfettered free market capitalism. We are paying the price for its failures.

  If we are not very careful JC’s rhetoric could begin to resonate with those who simply hold common-ground British values and a desire for a kinder, freer, fairer, more equal, democratic and sustainable society. These are the very people who should be our natural voters.

  I want to see a Liberal Democrat path followed towards this vision because, if nothing else, the Socialist path has far too many cul de sacs ever to reach it. But one thing I am certain of is that an analysis forever placing the interests of big business, their status quo pushing think tank and media friends above the genuine interests of ordinary people is an even worse path to follow.

  The clause 4 moment we need is that we are not only on the side of the governed not the governing but also on the side of ordinary people as citizens, workers and consumers. The free market is not free if it seeks only short term gain and maximum profit for a wealthy minority and ignores wider society, the earth and future generations.

• Alistair 30th Sep '15 - 1:27pm

  First time I can remember when one of the top 4-5 parties has had a leader with a voice I dont recognise on the Radio

• Joe Otten 30th Sep '15 - 2:18pm

  Stephen, I am amazed that you can describe the 1959 German SPD (Social Democratic Party) position as part of a drip drip of Thatcherism.

  You reflect the deep confusion within Labour that while there is a large majority in favour of “common sense British values”, a similarly large majority rejected Miliband’s agenda of shrillness and wishful thinking at the ballot box. Clearly Labour was not shrill or wishful thinking enough.

  Kellner warns of the dangers of avoiding the ideological debate by simply asserting that your side is the one that wants fairness, democracy, human rights, motherhood and apple pie, and that therefore you reflect “common sense British values” and therefore your opponents don’t.

  “But one thing I am certain of is that an analysis forever placing the interests of big business, their status quo pushing think tank and media friends above the genuine interests of ordinary people is an even worse path to follow.”

  Indeed. Crony capitalism is the actual alternative to free markets, what with socialism being dead.

• Dave Orbison 30th Sep '15 - 5:13pm

  Joe Orton – “Corbyn is an unrepentant socialist”, Miliband “a similarly large majority rejected Miliband’s agenda of shrillness and wishful thinking at the ballot box.”

  What extraordinary statements coming from a LibDem? Aren’t people in other parties entitled to have alternate views to yours? “Repent, repent” Wouldn’t that be battle cry of those that support a one-party state when confronting dissidents? To suggest that Corbyn wants state ownership of all business is just nonsense. He supports a mixed economy and happens to believe, as some LibDems do, that all is not well with the free market. Also, that the free market tends to work on a short time frame – typically rates of return of investment are expected to be within a 3-5yr time frame. It is simply unrealistic to run some sectors such as energy and transport infrastructure in this way. It seems much more sensible to accept a ‘best of both’ worlds rather than your one-size-fits-all approach.

  Finally, if you interpret Labour’s election result as a rejection of Labour’s approach on the economy (which excluded selected state ownership) how do you interpret the LibDem’s being reduced to 8 MP’s? Is this a ringing endorsement of your dogmatic love affair with the free market?

• Stephen Hesketh 30th Sep '15 - 5:14pm

  Joe, no, I am not confused. I am a dyed in the wool, left of centre, Preamble Lib Dem hence my issue with so-called Economic Liberalism as a philosophy and as a small group wishing to ‘divert’ the party of Social Liberal Democracy. To be honest, I like what Corbyn says when it sounds as though it might deliver liberal common ground outcomes but clearly don’t believe that Socialism offers the best route to the kinder, freer, fairer, more equal, democratic and sustainable society envisaged in the Preamble.

  Clearly Conservativism leads in the opposite direction so doesn’t even need to be considered as a path towards any sort of progressive and outward looking Liberal society.

  And this brings me neatly to the so-called economic liberal/four cornered liberalism analysis.

  Mainstream Liberal Democracy believes in sensible fair, sustainable economics based on a mixed market economy; private and public enterprises, cooperatives, state and local authority-owned businesses, single person and small and medium size enterprises. Balance, diversity and appropriate organisation.

  Yet economic liberalism does something that mainstream Liberal Democracy never does – it elevates private wealth creation to the status of a core value – and that’s when it looks something very like Tory economics with a centrist liberal face.

  Capitalism is almost certainly the best means we have of creating wealth and of course sound economics and a thriving economy are essential to any country but the economics I believe in has a distinctly Liberal and Democratic face.

  It does not look anything like the ‘there is no alternative to full blooded free market capitalism’ of the vocal Corbyn-phobic economic liberals.

• BrianD 30th Sep '15 - 6:29pm

  Thanks Gareth