The trouble with Corbyn electorally is not that he is a hard socialist. There’s a decent enough chunk of the electorate that presently find this attractive, who are too young to have seen hard socialism in action, who do not pay much tax and who have been left behind by asset price inflation.
The problem for Corbyn is that his vote share is capped (and almost certainly peaked in 2017) because he has been defined by people who should know, as a clear threat to national security. For example, an ex MI6 head has been explicit that had Corbyn been nominated for a Cabinet role by any previous government, it would have been vetoed on national security grounds.
Interesting. That would be considered unethical interference in elections by the security services in the US. Unless they're willing to state *why* they think he would be a threat to national security specifically, it's considered a political act by the security services, which they aren't supposed to do.
In the US, there is a *very* large proportion of the public who sees "national security" claims as inherently bogus -- after all, they were used to promote the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, to defend the indefensible Iran-Contra affair, for the current indefensible border wall nonsense, for the illegal NSA program which is unconstitutionally spying on all Americans, etc. etc. etc.
Perhaps Britain has more respect for MI6 than the US has for the CIA. (Nobody has any respect for the CIA, which failed to notice the fall of the USSR, effectively created the current government of Iran through running an illegal coup in the 1950s, and who had Russian moles running most of its spying operations for decades.)
This chimes with the general public, who have taken note of his responses to acts of terrorism and Russian aggression, as well as a wholly unsatisfactory anti semetic mood that has flourished in the party under his leadership.
I'm not sure you can blame Corbyn for the anti-semitism of some of the random people in the Labour Party. It's mostly Netenyahu's fault, really. I'm not sure what you're referring to regarding "responses to acts of terrorism and Russian aggression", since IIRC he condemned those in no uncertain terms.
Add to this the very real fears under Corbyn of capital controls, “nationalisation” of private pension pots and expropriation of publicly listed companies, and it’s clear that Corbyn and his gang are absolutely the electoral problem for Labour.
Really? Given that, as you said up above, the youth are pretty much in favor of hard socialism? So you're saying that Labour needs a *different* hard socialist leader, one with a better personal record? I guess I could sort of see that.
My personal view is that he only did so well in 2017 because the voting public were told by polls that he was heading for a record defeat. May was so obviously ill equipped for the job and many voters were sore over: Brexit for Conservatives and the Coaltion years for Lib Dems. Corbyn was thus seen as a low risk choice for protest voters, as well as tribal moderate Labour voters. He also did the near impossible by convincing Northern Brexit voters he wanted Brexit, and London Remainers that he did not. Of Labours most vulnerable seats, 16/20 voted Brexit and if top target seats, something like 35/40 did the same. So very hard to see his path to government, UNLESS the Tory party splits in two, which is very unlikely at this point.
Looks like the Tories are already splitting, doesn't it?
