Corbyn and Livingstone were much more gracious about a man with whom they profoundly disagreed on many issues and the loss he suffered than many people were about Corbyn and his election losses. Given that Corbyn didn't exactly have the easy ride Kinnock had either, it throws an even clearer light on the subject.
And added to all this is that Corbyn was much more gracious back then about Kinnock than people have been about him. It would have made a very welcome change to have a decent person in charge of the country for once.
Watching their interviews from the past few years, I get that they disagree with Corbyn's policies, think that he was a bad leader/made it harder for Labour to win, etc., which is fine, but it's hard not to notice that from the time he won the leadership, Kinnock, Blair, et al. talked about Corbyn in much the same way that David Owen and Roy Jenkins talked about Foot and Kinnock. Of course, they were in a breakaway party that aimed to bring down and replace Labour as the alternative party...
It has done nothing of the sort. Kinnock was decent left, Corbyn was (as Kinnock himself would have it) illegitimate left. Corbyn was vermin; you cannot be decent left if you do not want Corbyn flushed down a drain.
@@CA-ee1et Oh dear. You really are deluded if you believe that. Kinnock starts the rot of Labour turning it's back on the Trade Unions. Doff your cap C A.
hard to think of George Galloway in Labour saying anything, and the idea of brown standing in 1992, let alone Ken Livingstone and Jeremy corbyn with colour in their hair
+crimsonbubbles Truly this is a discussion based on facial hair- Ken has a good thing with his trimmed mustache, but Jeremy has the edge with his beard.
@@trewens There are Jewish people being kicked out of the party for antisemitism these days so you have to be careful where you go with this argument. As Corbyn said, it does ( sadly ) exist within the party as indeed it does in all walks of life but it has been weaponised by certain elements of the party, not only to the detriment of the likes of Corbyn to but to that of the party and Jewish members too. As for the integrity and decency comment, he was talking about the interview in the video. Both Corbyn and Livingstone were a lot more gracious about Kinnock ( a man with whom they profoundly disagreed/disagree ) and his loss than many current PLP members ( and former members ) were about Corbyn's loss, despite many of those same PLP members sabotaging the election campaigns of 2017 and 2019. They take issue with the arguments and the politics and not the people because they are socialists and this is pretty much what socialism proscribes. Of course, you can let Murdoch and his cronies tell you otherwise but that is up to you.
I know this is one snippet of the past, but based on this, it appears the Left are far gentler about the failure of the Right/Moderates in the late 1980s and early 1990s. At this moment, some of those on the Right of Labour are suggesting Jeremy Corbyn should resign if Labour perform poorly* at the local elections in May. *Poorly being subjective, determined by the Right wing i expect.
Absolutely correct. It would have been so easy and perhaps tempting for Livingstone and Corbyn to call for Kinnock to resign immediately. But they didn't because they showed restraint and an understanding that defeat could not be blamed solely on Kinnock , if at all. The voters had a choice and opted to vote against their own economic self interest. If this was 2017 ( and the issues are often the same or worse) those who have conspired against Corbyn would be calling for him to go. When the history of the Labour Party is written ( and it may soon be its obituary), they will be the guilty ones who the verdict will record as responsible for the demise of the party they claim to represent. The Blairites cannot even reconcile themselves to moderate, social democratic policies espoused by Corbyn and little different to the half baked manifesto Miliband fought the 2015 election with.
@@eightiesmusic1984 If you think Corbyn's policies were "moderate, social democratic", then I would suggest you don't know what those terms mean or don't understand Corbyn's policies. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Funny also how Blair moved the party even farther to the right and with those policies won three elections.
@@gentlemanjim480 Compared with many continental European countries and British politics 1945-1979, yes, moderate, social democratic. I do understand precisely what the term means. No need to patronise. Most voters switching to Labour in 1997 expressed views more in line with Conservative policy according to surveys at the time. Blair made it possible for them to vote Labour because he moved it so far to the right. This is why he won three elections as well as the loss of economic credibility for the Conservatives in September 1992 when Britain left the ERM, which damaged their reputation severely. Scotland and Wales have rejected neo liberalism in favour of social democracy in the 2017 and 2019 elections.
This was because the one thing all sides of labour agreed on at this point in time is that the agressive squabbling both sides engaged in at this time contributed to their downfall in support. Likewise in 1983 the right of Labour mps were conciliatory after the fact. But while the left think both sides are electable the right also thought a crucial reason for their failure in 1983 was the unpopularity of their policies. Hence why they were immediately quite aggressive over Corbyn. They felt they were heading for wasted years of opposition much like they were after Callaghan’s tenure.
@@PeterFlanagan0987 'The right of labour MP's were conciliatory after the fact'..They never made a pretence of fighting the election to win it and undermined it throughout the campaign, the manifesto was a mess heavily in part because at the Clause V meeting to discuss the manifesto the Labour right (John Golding boasted of this) decided to put the programme lock and stock barrel into an incoherent bloc with no discussion of it..the reason?...they wanted to lose the election as badly as they could so Benn could never come back..and it worked though it consigned Labour to the wilderness..
Yes, I tend to find the kind of person who goes round blowing people up on a whim very moderate. He didn't get in on a moderate agenda, he got in on a right wing agenda. Many of us voted Labour believing that the party was bigger than him as an individual but sadly he proved us wrong on that. What it comes down to is whether you just want to choose between two sets of people with roughly the same approach, which is no choice at all, or a choice between alternatives. If you just want to do politics as a football match, go with the former and you can win like Blair did. If you actually want to make meaningful change and try to make the world a better place, you need to stick with the principles of the party and the PLP and the party officials need to get behind it rather than actively sabotaging it.
That is a view in keeping with those who identify with Tory policies. Focus groups after the election established that most voters who switched to Labour identified with Tory policies. It was easy enough for them to do given how far to the right Labour had moved in abandoning socialism. Thanks to Blair.
I don't think it helps when Blair was spending a lot of time murdocks wife.... There's nothing wrong with old labour. There's something wrong with new Tory...... It's a shame that the unions chose the wrong brother.
There are plenty of Old Labour MPs that don't call terrorists "friends". And why do we need to come out of nato? Corbyn is loony left and if he doesn't stop immigration Labour will haemorage and UKIP will gain in strength.
from what I've read and seen it would seem so. Also Labour lost the 80s elections on unilateral disarmament. Corbyn is a bull in a china shop. All other parties will gain from his election. If the Labour party has any sense they will elect Burnham come Saturday.
There is no evidence that Labour lost in 2010 because they had gone too far to the right. The truth is more complex. Actually they had perhaps gone too 'progressive' on mass immigration which alienated the working class vote which has now gone to UKIP. Labour is done.
a lot of labor voters who simply chose to stay home and not vote miss old labour that is why party's like ukip have taken lots of our vote in dence labor strong hold areas .if it happens in a general election the torys will win labour seats in the north and we will take formally safe tory seats .ukip do seem to heart the cons a bit more you could see that in the local elections .
Neil Kinnock's performance in the 1992 General Election was better than Corbyn in 2017. Corbyn gained 30 seats whereas Kinnock gained 42. In fact the 1992 election saw Labour's biggest number of seats as the losing party since 1970. The only time Labour has had more MP's since 1974 was in the three elections under Blair.
Jeremy’s result at the 2017 election was some achievement, better than what Kinnock achieved. Six weeks before the election, Jeremy was underestimated and written off by his own party and was 25 points behind in the polls. Look at what happened six weeks later, once labour brought out their manifesto, labour won a lot of support because of what he was offering to do to country. We gained 30 seats, Labour’s increase in the vote was their biggest since 1945 and nearly 13,000,000 voted for him and the Tories lost their majority. Bring on the next election.
Pollster Bob Worcester rang Kinnock to commiserate with him about the 1992 loss on the day he resigned as leader. He told him that Labour lost by about 1, 500 votes cast for the Conservatives in their bottom eleven target seats. That's how close it was and this would have been known by the modernisers who used the defeat to engineer a move to the right further than the distance Kinnock had travelled since 1983. The Labour advertising campaign conceded defeat to the Conservative campaign three months before polling day on April 9th, acknowledging that the Conservative attack on Labour over tax had worked. The rest is history.
@@kevinlongman007 Yes, the party did a real number on him. Starmer was the architect of their wonderful Brexit policy which made the party have no chance. He either did it deliberately or else he is the stupidest idiot going. I think Brexit is a daft idea but anyone with an ounce of sense knew that the chances of getting another referendum and staying in the EU was a ship which had sailed a long time ago. The fact that Starmer abandoned the policy so soon into his leadership showed just how important it was to him. Corbyn had a much more difficult set of circumstances and hadn't had the time and the lead up Kinnock had to both of his elections nor the support ( or, at least, lock of self sabotaging opposition ) of his PLP and party officials. He did have a much bigger membership, a membership who were sh*t on by the PLP and party officials with their superior attitude.
Even then his main priority seems to be cutting the military and getting rid of our nuclear defence. The only things I agree with Corbyn on are the re nationalisation of our railways and our local bus services and our utilities companies, the making sure that big business pays it's taxes, but he is so anti british it makes me sick.
@@u.a5351 He wanted to get British homeless off the streets, get British unemployed back into work and reduce the risk of British people being killed in a nuclear war. He is clearly extremely anti-British. What sort of maniac is he?
Who else is watching all Jeremy Corbyn videos of his younger years?
can't find many others... would you care to share?
How did he go down in hostory as a total failure?
@@TheDdm1234 all thanks to the deceitful media and a very gullible electorate.
@@naveed210 Nick Griffin endorsing Corbyn in 2017 tells you everything you need to know about the man.
MI5? CIA?
I wonder if Jeremy Corbyn back then ever imagined where he would be today
+skintrade I don't think he did 6 months ago let alone back then.
Where's that?
And where would that be? A losing waste of space...?? Probably not... LOL!!!!!!
Could he imagine being Labour's worst post war leader ? Probably not
On his allotment?
Corbyn and Livingstone were much more gracious about a man with whom they profoundly disagreed on many issues and the loss he suffered than many people were about Corbyn and his election losses. Given that Corbyn didn't exactly have the easy ride Kinnock had either, it throws an even clearer light on the subject.
But hey, let's just have more red tories/blue labour, whatever. It worked sooooo well last time.
And added to all this is that Corbyn was much more gracious back then about Kinnock than people have been about him. It would have made a very welcome change to have a decent person in charge of the country for once.
Watching their interviews from the past few years, I get that they disagree with Corbyn's policies, think that he was a bad leader/made it harder for Labour to win, etc., which is fine, but it's hard not to notice that from the time he won the leadership, Kinnock, Blair, et al. talked about Corbyn in much the same way that David Owen and Roy Jenkins talked about Foot and Kinnock. Of course, they were in a breakaway party that aimed to bring down and replace Labour as the alternative party...
It has done nothing of the sort. Kinnock was decent left, Corbyn was (as Kinnock himself would have it) illegitimate left. Corbyn was vermin; you cannot be decent left if you do not want Corbyn flushed down a drain.
@@CA-ee1et Oh dear. You really are deluded if you believe that. Kinnock starts the rot of Labour turning it's back on the Trade Unions. Doff your cap C A.
hard to think of George Galloway in Labour saying anything, and the idea of brown standing in 1992, let alone Ken Livingstone and Jeremy corbyn with colour in their hair
Other than the clothes this could actually be an interview based on this leadership election. Some of the same issues are being discussed.
I like the pens in Jezza's top pocket.
get a look at that glorious beard
+crimsonbubbles Truly this is a discussion based on facial hair- Ken has a good thing with his trimmed mustache, but Jeremy has the edge with his beard.
Jeremy would have needed his beard trimmed. Very hairy looking.
I was actually watching this to see Ken Livingstone in his younger years.
5 years latter labour would romp in with the biggest commons landslide in history .
I remember I use to mistake Ken Livingstone for Manuel from Faulty Towers.
It was a glorious tache. I say he should grow it back.
Interesting she has the same surname as Jeremy but with an 'i' instead of 'y'.
Hah. Funnily enough, I watched that imterview with Dennis Skinner comming up in the last frame just today.
Jeremy looks and sounds like obi wan kenobi.
Corbyn seems pretty good here
Jeremy Corbyn, the greatest PM Britain never had.
😂
That is real integrity and decency, right there.
Agreed Tom.
@@donbiswas7250 Livingstone quit the Labour party before he was kicked out for anti-Semitism. How does that demonstrate integrity?
Ooooh look! A hornets' nest...
@@trewens There are Jewish people being kicked out of the party for antisemitism these days so you have to be careful where you go with this argument. As Corbyn said, it does ( sadly ) exist within the party as indeed it does in all walks of life but it has been weaponised by certain elements of the party, not only to the detriment of the likes of Corbyn to but to that of the party and Jewish members too.
As for the integrity and decency comment, he was talking about the interview in the video. Both Corbyn and Livingstone were a lot more gracious about Kinnock ( a man with whom they profoundly disagreed/disagree ) and his loss than many current PLP members ( and former members ) were about Corbyn's loss, despite many of those same PLP members sabotaging the election campaigns of 2017 and 2019. They take issue with the arguments and the politics and not the people because they are socialists and this is pretty much what socialism proscribes. Of course, you can let Murdoch and his cronies tell you otherwise but that is up to you.
That year I emigrated to the U.S.
They lost because people didn’t trust them.
To do what?
@@politicalphilosophy-thegre3894 To put the bins out. The quality of some of the comments on here is laughably poor. Solidarity.
I know this is one snippet of the past, but based on this, it appears the Left are far gentler about the failure of the Right/Moderates in the late 1980s and early 1990s. At this moment, some of those on the Right of Labour are suggesting Jeremy Corbyn should resign if Labour perform poorly* at the local elections in May.
*Poorly being subjective, determined by the Right wing i expect.
Absolutely correct. It would have been so easy and perhaps tempting for Livingstone and Corbyn to call for Kinnock to resign immediately. But they didn't because they showed restraint and an understanding that defeat could not be blamed solely on Kinnock , if at all. The voters had a choice and opted to vote against their own economic self interest. If this was 2017 ( and the issues are often the same or worse) those who have conspired against Corbyn would be calling for him to go. When the history of the Labour Party is written ( and it may soon be its obituary), they will be the guilty ones who the verdict will record as responsible for the demise of the party they claim to represent. The Blairites cannot even reconcile themselves to moderate, social democratic policies espoused by Corbyn and little different to the half baked manifesto Miliband fought the 2015 election with.
@@eightiesmusic1984 If you think Corbyn's policies were "moderate, social democratic", then I would suggest you don't know what those terms mean or don't understand Corbyn's policies. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Funny also how Blair moved the party even farther to the right and with those policies won three elections.
@@gentlemanjim480 Compared with many continental European countries and British politics 1945-1979, yes, moderate, social democratic. I do understand precisely what the term means.
No need to patronise.
Most voters switching to Labour in 1997 expressed views more in line with Conservative policy according to surveys at the time. Blair made it possible for them to vote Labour because he moved it so far to the right. This is why he won three elections as well as the loss of economic credibility for the Conservatives in September 1992 when Britain left the ERM, which damaged their reputation severely. Scotland and Wales have rejected neo liberalism in favour of social democracy in the 2017 and 2019 elections.
This was because the one thing all sides of labour agreed on at this point in time is that the agressive squabbling both sides engaged in at this time contributed to their downfall in support. Likewise in 1983 the right of Labour mps were conciliatory after the fact. But while the left think both sides are electable the right also thought a crucial reason for their failure in 1983 was the unpopularity of their policies. Hence why they were immediately quite aggressive over Corbyn. They felt they were heading for wasted years of opposition much like they were after Callaghan’s tenure.
@@PeterFlanagan0987 'The right of labour MP's were conciliatory after the fact'..They never made a pretence of fighting the election to win it and undermined it throughout the campaign, the manifesto was a mess heavily in part because at the Clause V meeting to discuss the manifesto the Labour right (John Golding boasted of this) decided to put the programme lock and stock barrel into an incoherent bloc with no discussion of it..the reason?...they wanted to lose the election as badly as they could so Benn could never come back..and it worked though it consigned Labour to the wilderness..
The reason Blair won in 1997 was that he took a even more moderate direction.
Yes, I tend to find the kind of person who goes round blowing people up on a whim very moderate. He didn't get in on a moderate agenda, he got in on a right wing agenda. Many of us voted Labour believing that the party was bigger than him as an individual but sadly he proved us wrong on that.
What it comes down to is whether you just want to choose between two sets of people with roughly the same approach, which is no choice at all, or a choice between alternatives. If you just want to do politics as a football match, go with the former and you can win like Blair did. If you actually want to make meaningful change and try to make the world a better place, you need to stick with the principles of the party and the PLP and the party officials need to get behind it rather than actively sabotaging it.
That is a view in keeping with those who identify with Tory policies. Focus groups after the election established that most voters who switched to Labour identified with Tory policies. It was easy enough for them to do given how far to the right Labour had moved in abandoning socialism. Thanks to Blair.
People switched to Boris to get Brexit done, but then got conned as Boris issued Visas like confetti @@eightiesmusic1984
@@annandune And exactly how much "make meaningful change" do you accomplish by never winning an election?
The irony of Ken Livingstone sitting next to Jeremy Corbyn and explaining how Labour loses elections when it makes unfunded spending promises
Was Corbyn still smoking at this stage, I know he gave up before the 97 election?
No sound
Jeremy looks depressed at the end of the video.
I don't think it helps when Blair was spending a lot of time murdocks wife.... There's nothing wrong with old labour. There's something wrong with new Tory...... It's a shame that the unions chose the wrong brother.
Richard Brook What do you mean there's nothing wrong with old Labour?? Old Labour couldn't win an election in a million years!
+dlk1dlk1 the fear now is that the Tories will rule in perpetuity.
edmund184 So you mean the unions should have chosen David Miliband? He's not old Labour!
There are plenty of Old Labour MPs that don't call terrorists "friends". And why do we need to come out of nato? Corbyn is loony left and if he doesn't stop immigration Labour will haemorage and UKIP will gain in strength.
from what I've read and seen it would seem so. Also Labour lost the 80s elections on unilateral disarmament. Corbyn is a bull in a china shop. All other parties will gain from his election. If the Labour party has any sense they will elect Burnham come Saturday.
Jeremy Corbyn was wrong here to say that Kinnock had gone too far to the right. This kind of worries me now that he's leader.
He wasn't.That is why Labour lost in 2010! Labour did go too far to the right!
Kinnock supports the EEC now EU membership which was a Tory Liberal Economic policy Friedmanism/Adam Smith and the Socialism didn't agree with it
There is no evidence that Labour lost in 2010 because they had gone too far to the right. The truth is more complex. Actually they had perhaps gone too 'progressive' on mass immigration which alienated the working class vote which has now gone to UKIP. Labour is done.
That's what worries you about Corbyn? What about the rest?! :0
a lot of labor voters who simply chose to stay home and not vote miss old labour that is why party's like ukip have taken lots of our vote in dence labor strong hold areas .if it happens in a general election the torys will win labour seats in the north and we will take formally safe tory seats .ukip do seem to heart the cons a bit more you could see that in the local elections .
L IS FOR LABOUR, L IS FOR LICE
Mr Corbyn sounds different in this video for some reason.
Steven Wilcox this is 25+ years ago. Voices change over time, they usually go deeper.
fascinating stuff !
Two good men.
The one kicked out for anti semitism or the one endorsed by Nick Griffin in 2017?
Jeremy the hipster 😜
Jane corbyn???
It’s Jane Corbin, her surname is spelt differently. She’s not related to Jeremy Corbyn. She was married to an ex Tory MP.
She was a Tory through and through as can be seen from her facial expressions throughout this interview.
Socialism doesn’t get out of bed for midday
Kinnock pathed the way for Blair to wreck the Party..........and I would rather vote for Thatcher than his son.........
Paved not pathed.
Yeah I do that lol ❤
Superstar
Same old, same old.
Neil Kinnock's performance in the 1992 General Election was better than Corbyn in 2017. Corbyn gained 30 seats whereas Kinnock gained 42. In fact the 1992 election saw Labour's biggest number of seats as the losing party since 1970. The only time Labour has had more MP's since 1974 was in the three elections under Blair.
But Corbyn's performance was better in 2017 than Kinnock's in 1987 and that with a large part of the PLP being hostile to the leadership.
Jeremy’s result at the 2017 election was some achievement, better than what Kinnock achieved. Six weeks before the election, Jeremy was underestimated and written off by his own party and was 25 points behind in the polls. Look at what happened six weeks later, once labour brought out their manifesto, labour won a lot of support because of what he was offering to do to country. We gained 30 seats, Labour’s increase in the vote was their biggest since 1945 and nearly 13,000,000 voted for him and the Tories lost their majority. Bring on the next election.
Pollster Bob Worcester rang Kinnock to commiserate with him about the 1992 loss on the day he resigned as leader. He told him that Labour lost by about 1, 500 votes cast for the Conservatives in their bottom eleven target seats. That's how close it was and this would have been known by the modernisers who used the defeat to engineer a move to the right further than the distance Kinnock had travelled since 1983.
The Labour advertising campaign conceded defeat to the Conservative campaign three months before polling day on April 9th, acknowledging that the Conservative attack on Labour over tax had worked. The rest is history.
@@harrymonk770 Bring on the next election you said...well look what happened there!
@@kevinlongman007 Yes, the party did a real number on him. Starmer was the architect of their wonderful Brexit policy which made the party have no chance. He either did it deliberately or else he is the stupidest idiot going. I think Brexit is a daft idea but anyone with an ounce of sense knew that the chances of getting another referendum and staying in the EU was a ship which had sailed a long time ago. The fact that Starmer abandoned the policy so soon into his leadership showed just how important it was to him.
Corbyn had a much more difficult set of circumstances and hadn't had the time and the lead up Kinnock had to both of his elections nor the support ( or, at least, lock of self sabotaging opposition ) of his PLP and party officials. He did have a much bigger membership, a membership who were sh*t on by the PLP and party officials with their superior attitude.
Even then his main priority seems to be cutting the military and getting rid of our nuclear defence. The only things I agree with Corbyn on are the re nationalisation of our railways and our local bus services and our utilities companies, the making sure that big business pays it's taxes, but he is so anti british it makes me sick.
Hows he anti British
de godfather Good question.
@@u.a5351 He wanted to get British homeless off the streets, get British unemployed back into work and reduce the risk of British people being killed in a nuclear war. He is clearly extremely anti-British. What sort of maniac is he?
@@u.a5351 He isn't. It is just the person making the comment parroting what they have heard on television and in the newspapers.
All together now children...AAAAAWWWRAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGHHT!