This is the anti-Corbyn argument that does my head in the most, to be honest. What does "credible" mean in this context?
It seems, based on who is deemed as credible, that they are the sort of person whose lies you would believe. That is not what Labour or the country needs.
I read "credible" as, "Can they get enough mass support to win an election?"
I like Corbyn, but I can't see him winning an election. He's too principled and passionate about a certain side of the fence
Shame that having principles puts people off voting for you, but that's the world we live in I suppose
It's why the Democrats went with Hilary over Bernie Sanders
A "credible" leader would be someone like Andy Burnham. Clearly to the left of the spectrum but without moving so far from the centre ground as to worry the general populous
It's why more focused right wingers like Howard and IDS didn't win where Cameron did. Cameron was just middle ground and slick enough to win. He was all catchphrases and photo ops
That's what people want today
You also have to remember that a lot of older voters still remember the Cold War and aren't exactly thrilled when they hear the word socialism bandied around. It makes them think of communism, and that isn't popular
It's something Labour have struggled with since the 70's, which is why Blair and his ilk were so keen to distance themselves from it and hang on to the centre ground for dear life
And, as much as I like Corbyn, I don't see him orchastrating a key philiosophical change to the way the general electorate votes and feels
Someone like Burnham would be less up front about it (essentially "socialism via stealth") and would have a better chance of getting into power
British people, as a majority, just aren't prepared to accept socialism en masse. They want the best deal for them and will vote accordingly. They believe that left wing parties aren't capable of handling the economy and, when push comes to shove, your average swing voter will ALWAYS vote with their wallet
